More polluted California law

An article in the New York Times, “California Builders Fight Air Pollution Fee”, by Carolyn Marshall, is another example of polluted California law.

According to the article:

The fees are part of a new regulation by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District requiring builders of commercial and residential projects to use energy-saving technology and traffic-reduction features in their projects. The rule requires payment into a fund for pollution control. The idea is to make developers more accountable for the explosion in traffic and emissions that typically accompany building.

The ultimate cause of pollution and traffic is people, not builders. By charging builders, all those who do not live in new homes escape the fees, even though they are responsible for just as much, and often more, per capita pollution and traffic. Older homes also experience a one-time positive relative price change.

If people are the cause, isn’t it more sensible to charge people? On the other hand, existing people are not responsible for being born; their parents are. Shouldn’t parents be charged to have children (sorry, I couldn’t resist)? Alternatively, shouldn’t polluters be charged for the amount of pollution they produce?

Requiring specific energy-saving technology doesn’t make sense, either. If too much energy is being consumed, raising energy prices will reduce consumption by the same amount but in a way that leaves people better off, on average (marginal benefit equal to marginal cost).

Of course, who is to say what price should be charged for pollution or that too much energy is being consumed or that too many babies are being born? Certainly not the environmental activists. On the other hand, if it is me, fine.