William Kovarik
Radford University
and
Matthew E. Hermes
Kennesaw State University

 

Fuels and Society C: 14. Impact of Catalytic Converters on Auto Manufacturers

Back to: Start


Economists and environmentalists have disagreed about the costs and benefits of air pollution regulations aimed at cutting ozone and smog by reducing hydrocarbons, CO and NOx.

While the overall costs of catalytic converters and other hardware is about $10 billion per year, few agreed on the benefits.

One economist put benefits at only $2 billion per year, relying on well-documented obvious health benefits extrapolated from air pollution related acute health emergencies. (Freeman, 1982)

On the other extreme, the American Lung Association estimated potential benefits of pollution control at as much as $93 billion per year. (Cannon, 1990) And the Natural Resource Defense Council saw benefits from pollution control of total car and light truck air pollution of from $120 to $220 billion per year (Miller, 1993).

Other studies have looked at more specific questions. For instance a 1988 OTA study looked at a 35% reduction in nationwide emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the nation’s 90 dirtiest cities. This modest reduction of VOCs by controlling vapor pressure would cost between $8.8 billion and $12 billion annually, yet the acute health improvements that could result from these changes were valued in a 1991 follow up study at only $250 million to $1 billion annually. (Krupnick, 1991).

Of course, the conclusions of all these studies depended a great deal on their assumptions about what counts as a benefit. If only a reduced incidence of asthma attacks and other acute health effects are measured, then the benefits will be seen as relatively low. On the other hand, if generalized health benefits, improvements in crop yields and reductions in acid rain and global warming are factored in, as is the case in the NRDC report, benefits of hundreds of billions are conceivable.

Clearly, not every risk can be eliminated and not every particle of pollution can be controlled. On the other hand, not every claim of economic damage from pollution control is credible. A common sense approach weighs the various estimates and methods along with broad policy goals.

 
When GM President Edward Cole endorsed the elimination of leaded gasoline and use of catalytic converters in 1970, he put the company squarely in the middle of a raging controversy.

Did the benefits of catalytic converters justify their costs? And just how much were Americans willing to pay for cleaner air? While public opinion polls showed tremendous support for environmental cleanup in general, the auto and oil industries were alarmed that the regulatory approach taken by Congress was to mandate the details of their pollution controls.

By 1972, GM and other automakers were asking for delays in the schedule for introducing cars with catalytic converters. The Commerce Department warned against rigid deadlines and an industry group, the Chamber of Commerce, worried that "entire industries might collapse" because of the economic effects of the new anti-pollution laws.

Around this time, GM estimated that catalytic converters and other pollution controls would raise the price of a car by two percent. Ford and Chrysler estimated that it would cost an additional five percent.

By 1980, the cost of air pollution equipment (catalytic converter, oxygen sensor and other items) turned out to be around $222 per car, or less than two percent. Other associated costs (such as mileage penalty, higher cost of unleaded gasoline) were estimated at an additional $684 over the life of the car. These costs nearly doubled when EPA standards for allowable carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides(NOx) were cut in half the next year. (Crandall, 1986)

As it turned out, the auto industry did not collapse under the weight of the regulations, and in fact, the health benefits of reducing lead alone were estimated in 1985 to be worth 10 to 13 times the cost, or at least $17 billion per year. (EPA, 1985). (See Lead Phase Out).

U.S. EPA. 1985. Costs and Benefits of Reducing Lead in Gasoline: Final Regulatory Impact Analysis. EPA-23005-85-006. Office of Policy Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

 

Freeman, A. Myrick, Air and Water Pollution Control: A Cost Benefit Analysis (New York: Wiley, 1982).

 

Krupnick, Alan J. and Paul R. Portney, "Controlling urban air pollution: a benefit-cost assessment," Science, April 26, 1991 v252 n5005 p522(7)

 

Miller, Peter and John Moffet, The Price of Mobility: Uncovering the Hidden Costs of Transportation (Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defense Council and Resource Futures International, October 1993),

http://solstice.crest.org/efficiency/nrdc/mobility/airpollu.html#RTFToC55

 

 

 

 

College of Science and Mathematics
Kennesaw State University
1000 Chastain Rd.
Kennesaw, GA 30114
770-423-6160
 
t_logo.gif (12525 bytes) ChemCases.com is a National Science Foundation supported curriculum development project.