|
Why
We Support Seum’s Bill to End the VET
by
Donna Walker Mancini
We
Libertarians support Senator Seum’s Senate Bill 48, a bill to end
Vehicle Emissions Testing (VET), for several reasons.
First, the VET has never been proven to actually reduce air
pollution. Second, the burden
imposed by the tailpipe tests falls most heavily upon owners of older
vehicles, usually the working poor. Third,
the VET is an invasion of privacy and an abuse of private property.
Fourth, there are more effective ways to reduce air pollution.
Finally, the shrill cries from supporters of the VET that we will
lose federal road funding are unfounded.
The
fact that 94% of all cars tested pass the test should clue even the most
obtuse as to the uselessness of the VET program. Cars today are many times
cleaner than those manufactured twenty-five or so years ago.
Automobile manufacturers have made and continue to make great
strides in reducing air pollution. It
makes no sense to test cars that pass the test 94 out of 100 times; it is
a waste of time and money, requires people to drive approximately 400,000
extra hours annually, and burdens small business unnecessarily. In fact, it may well be that requiring 100% of the cars to
drive to the testing station and idle their engines while waiting in line
actually creates more pollution than is saved by tuning up the few cars
that fail the test.
The
claims of pollution reduction are based entirely on computer models and
not real world data. The
radio ads claim that automobiles are responsible for over 50% of NOx
pollution, a leading cause of smog. Meanwhile,
the EPA’s own figures show that autos and light trucks, subject to the
VET, contribute less than 25% of NOx pollution in the Louisville area,
with the largest portion, about 60%, being produced by stationary sources
such as factories and power plants. Look
at the data and graphs in the AAA publication Clearing the Air and
decide for yourself. (http://www.aaa.com/news12/Releases
/Auto/auto59c.html)
The amount of pollution generated by autos and light trucks has
actually decreased in spite of the fact the number miles driven has more
than doubled since the 1970s due to improvements in technology, not due to
the VET.
Those
few cars that do fail the VET are most likely to be older models owned by
less affluent, working class people.
Such people do not drive older less efficient autos because they
wish to pollute the air but rather do so out of necessity.
The VET weighs most heavily on the poorest citizens who need
transportation to travel to and from their places of employment.
The
invasive nature of the program sets a dangerous precedent of warrantless
inspections of private property, requiring us to prove our innocence
without any basis for presuming guilt. Perhaps the next thing down the
pike will be a home thermostat inspection to ensure that the temperature
is set to acceptable limits or perhaps annual urine samples will be
required of everyone to ensure that drug laws are being respected.
Forcing citizens to prove annually that they are innocent of
tampering with their factory installed anti pollution apparatus is an
outrage you would not expect in a free country.
There
are better ways to reduce pollution.
The most effective way to curb automobile emissions is to build
cars that are cleaner, and that is what the manufacturers have done.
We could put the millions of dollars spent on the VET into much
more productive use if it were not wasted on this outmoded dinosaur of a
program. Some people might
even be able to apply the $200 per year they now have to spend to prove
their car cannot comply toward purchasing a newer car that meets the
standards!
The
threat of losing federal road money if we eliminate the VET program is
simply a scare tactic. Florida
and Minnesota have ended their emissions testing programs without losing
federal road funds. The
tailpipe testing didn’t go quietly in either state; legislatures were
lobbied by special interests that profited handsomely from emissions
testing. Other major
metropolitan areas never had emissions testing in the first place --
including Columbus, Ohio, Detroit, Michigan and the smog capital of the
world, Los Angeles, California. None
of these states have been denied their road funds or have been subjected
to any other dire sanctions for failure to have a VET program.
To
people familiar with libertarianism and the Libertarian Party, our
opposition to the VET comes as no surprise.
The Libertarian Party is known as the party of principle for good
reason -- individual liberty and personal responsibility are core
principles of the party. The
VET program is an embodiment of an opposite set of ideals showing a lack
of respect for individuals, including coercion, government sponsored
monopolies, variable standards, and abuse of citizens and their rights.
Donna
Walker Mancini, Chair, Libertarian Party of Kentucky
|
