14 ms·

Research finds Stockholm's congestion pricing may have reduced childhood asthma

80 points by oftenwrong 10y ago

EGreg 10y ago
Question to Libertarians... Is this statism? Or legitimate penalties for externalities? Kinda hard for all those parents of kids with asthma to sue all those drivers and manufacturers after the fact. Isn't this reported result a benefit that wouldn't have arisen in a purely anarcho capitalist society?
- mark_edward 10y ago
  I am certainly no libertarian but I think the framing is a bit uncharitable, anarcho-capitalism is a radical fringe, the vast majority of ideological libertarians (my estimate) are okay with the state internalizing externalities, although there would be objections to its ability to do this fairly and effectively
  - aoeuasdf1 10y ago
    In this case, it isn't fair - the externality is pollution, but the fee is unrelated to the emission levels of the vehicle. But even such an inefficient system is still superior to doing nothing and letting the public suffer the externalities.
    - lend000 10y ago
      It's astounding that these politicians and bureaucrats who ostensibly have the right idea almost exclusively come up with these complex schemes full of mis-incentives, instead of using simple, correct solutions, like raising gasoline taxes. An example: the Obama administration set forth a regulation that forces automakers to produce one 50 MPG vehicle in their line-up within the next five years. Of course, this is a stealth tax which has similar negative effects (and positive ones) to a higher gasoline tax, but the negative effects -- like higher car prices -- are less traceable to the mandate, which is good for politics. However, there are less obvious negative effects, like raising the barrier to entry for competition (it is no coincidence that the heavily regulated auto industry has very few startups -- Tesla being an anomaly.) A new company that only produces 30-45 MPG SUV models cannot compete, whereas it would be relatively competitive with a higher gasoline tax.
      - J-dawg 10y ago
        In Europe we have high taxes on fuels and CO2 emissions, but London and Paris still have worse air pollution than many US cities. Mostly because automakers focussed on Diesel engines to maximise MPG at the cost of everything else (NOx, particulates etc)
        jabl 10y ago
        Yes, and many European countries tax diesel less than gasoline. I think when these sorts of policies were enacted only heavy vehicles like trucks, buses and cars that were driven a lot (taxis, mostly) used diesel, and there was an extra yearly per-vehicle "diesel tax" that made buying a diesel car economically unfavorable unless you drove a lot. I think this sort-of ties into the political ideology where "luxury consumption" is bad. I.e. truckers transport Important Stuff(TM) and thus deserve a tax rebate on fuel, whereas a private person driving their own vehicle is bad, and should be discouraged. But, the world changed (or, lets say the balance between the different taxes, incomes etc.) and at some point it started to make economic sense for the average Joe to buy a diesel car instead of a gasoline one. But of course, changing the tax policy by getting rid of the diesel tax rebate runs into fierce opposition by the trucking/taxi/etc. lobby. So here we are.
      - Brakenshire 10y ago
        > It's astounding that these politicians and bureaucrats who ostensibly have the right idea almost exclusively come up with these complex schemes full of mis-incentives, instead of using simple, correct solutions, like raising gasoline taxes. It's because the issue they're directly trying to tackle is congestion, not pollution (which is only being tackled as a secondary issue). Also, in Britain there are already high petrol taxes, they make up about half the price of fuel. In general it's a good thing, and it does discourage a completely car dependent society - people to live closer to the centre, closer to work, use alternatives like walking, cycling, public transport etc - but it's not a particularly direct way to tackle air pollution, or at least it doesn't tackle the particular spikes in air pollution you get in the cities. In order to tackle air pollution in London using only fuel tax, you'd have to make driving in the countryside ruinously expensive. So you get layered policy - medium fuel tax nationwide, congestion charge for the centre (where it is the biggest issue), and an air pollution charge, or limit, covering the whole city. I do agree that often politicians are not that great at designing these things (the proposed air pollution charge in London is rather strangely designed for instance), and the complexity is partly incompetence, but it's also partly because the problem is complicated.
- lend000 10y ago
  > Is this statism? No, this is maximizing net freedom. Pollution infringes on the rights of others... a libertarian solution would have been more efficient and penalized the source on a consumption basis (gasoline tax), but the incentive would be similar. Here's a libertarian-ish analysis on the formerly proposed Washington state carbon tax: http://www.leolinsky.com/2016/11/06/carbon-tax-initiative-732/ http://www.leolinsky.com/2016/11/06/carbon-tax-initiative-73... I hope to erase a lot of extremist misunderstandings about freedom (as defined by the broadly interpretable nonaggression principle), because I think a lot of those on HN who currently identify with the Democratic Party would find they actually have more in common with independent, moderate libertarians (or even the LP) than they realize.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    Sweden already has a high petrol and diesel tax. 1L of petrol is $1.61, compared to about $0.56 in the USA. That tax doesn't take account of where the fuel is used. The pollution caused by a long journey through the countryside is less damaging than driving within a city. Additionally, reducing congestion improves journey times for other road users. How much should that be worth? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_...
    - lend000 10y ago
      I'm all for capturing externalities in the form of consumption-based incentives, but at some point you need to draw a line for added benefit/complexity. Yes, they do have relatively high gasoline taxes, but perhaps not high enough. Theoretically, perhaps the cost should be such that the government can use the revenue to "undo" the damage (via carbon capture + ventilation infrastructure in congested areas, for example). If there was truly a compelling case that city congestion, per liter, is so much worse: just levy an additional city petrol gasoline tax. Similar to city vs state sales taxes.
      - alkonaut 10y ago
        Sweden is a large and sparsely populated country. In the north, many have 1h, 60 mile commutes. In Stockholm a commute might be 1h and 10 miles. There is pretty stiff opposition to raised gasoline taxes because it is seen as an unfair on rural people. It's also regressive since income is much lower in rural areas. If "city pollution" and "congestion" are the externalities then congestion taxes actually make more sense - and are extremely popular compared to gasoline tax. City gasoline taxes would make sense, but they don't allow hour by hour control of congestion. I don't work in the city but I can drive in "for free" e.g late in the evening.
- facepalm 10y ago
  Not sure what would be libertarian, but it sounds like an obvious externality?
- 08-15 10y ago
  The fee goes to the state, not to the victims. Therefore, it's statism. Nobody knows what would have happened in a "purely anarcho capitalist society" for lack of experimental data. (That's assuming the study is even correct, and I don't claim to be a libertarian or speak for them.)
lutusp 10y ago
Apart from the political issues, I want to point out that air pollution can be objectively measured, but the connection with childhood asthma can only be conjecture for lack of rigorous scientific controls -- it's a correlation, not an established cause/effect relationship. I point this out because of the depressing regularity with which I see a raw correlation presented as though it represents a linked cause/effect relationship without the source meeting his scientific burden of evidence.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  There is essentially zero doubt about the causative link at this point. Some studies will never be run because they would be deeply unethical, so we satisfy significance through a preponderance of correlation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192198/
  - johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
    lutusp is referring to this study in particular. There are many variables that potentially should be corrected for that aren't mentioned in the article.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      I get that, but we're not going to run a double-blind randomized study on whether car exhaust gives kids asthma. So our next best option is to take all of the relevant research, aggregate it as best possible, and make recommendations based on those results. There will be shortcomings, we might never get to a 99.9% significance, but in the mean time -- Kids will stop getting asthma from car exhaust.
      - lutusp 10y ago
        > I get that, but we're not going to run a double-blind randomized study on whether car exhaust gives kids asthma. Yes, but the point I have been trying to make is that, when we don't do science, we need to say we haven't done the science. Too much public information is pseudoscience without anyone saying to. > ... but in the mean time -- Kids will stop getting asthma from car exhaust. I understand that you're not getting this, but any number of times people have gone down the wrong path, let astray by pseudoscience, and calling it science all the while. As it happens, asthma is as likely to be caused by an overly clean environment as a polluted one -- observations support either conclusion. "Is Cleanliness Among the Causes of Allergies?" : http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/cleaning-and-allergies.aspx http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/cleaning-and-allergi... Again, we cannot draw a conclusion without doing some science. My only point in bringing this to your attention is so you realize this issue is by no means settled, and no issue can be settled without science. Environmental pollution is a serious problem, one I happen to think should be aggressively addressed. But if we offer a bogus reason, opponents in industry will use that bogus reason to fight a needed change.
purplethinking 10y ago
Just yesterday it was decided to fund a new subway line by dramatically increasing the congestion pricing. Hopefully that will decrease traffic further. With the public transportation system in Stockholm most people really have no business driving through town.
jaclaz 10y ago
Just for the record, the Stockholm congestion tax is only one - actually one of the least advanced - ERP systems implemented around the world, probably the Singapore one being the most advanced (and soon to be replaced by a "second generation" system): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing
- salesguy222 10y ago
  It is very advanced at dealing with the negative externalities its own system creates ;) The gantries cause drivers to congest other roads, to stop in the middle of the road near the turn of the hour to try to lower the fee required... I'm sure there's billing errors. In Singapore, we call it "Every Road- Pay". Sure we have low income taxes, but this is a less than desirable way to make up for it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
salesguy222 10y ago
At the risk of being downvoted, I would like to raise a topic for deliberation- Why are some acts (driving and polluting) penalized, but other acts that also cause harm (especially to children) are not penalized? Driving and pollution are low hanging fruit, but what about polluting water supplies? Trash, sewage, dumping, antibiotics and pesticides in food sources.... Surely all of these things are dangerous to everyones health, especially children. Should we have facial recognition software for people walking around with bags near water sources at certain hours of the day?
- evgen 10y ago
  This is called "Whataboutism" and when you bounce to it you have already given up on your main argument. Some acts are penalized before others because the negative externality is easy to identify, some are penalized before other problems because the agent of negative externality is easy to identify and tax, and some are penalized before other problems because those pushing for the penalty have a better PR machine or more political muscle. None of these conditions means that there are not other negative externalities that need to be prevented or taxed/penalized, nor does it mean that some contrived dystopian solution is a likely consequence of our desire to prevent these other negative externalities.
  - salesguy222 10y ago
    That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) You say that "those pushing for the penalty have better PR/political muscle", and you imply that they have more muscle than groups pushing for other penalties, or maybe even against penalties. What I would like to point out is, we are assuming that the majority of citizens of Stockholm or Singapore or etc have clearly voted in favor of this execution of public policy, because if they didn't, they would just leave or rebel or something. But in reality, I dare say that all over the globe, small elite groups of people are paid exorbitant sums of money to come up with these laws and carry them out. They then use cherry-picked statistics to justify the existence of the program (and then attack any naysayers as wanting to live in polluted dystopian hell holes like some stereotypical example of a Chinese city). Would you agree then, that certain groups being able to penalize other people for the supposed "crime of driving" is not the most optimal and equitable way to balance negative externalities? Perhaps it should be the burden of other people to deal with the negative externalities of something reasonable to expect in city living, like air pollution?
Proven 10y ago
It also "may have" cost 5-10,000 people their jobs, but Moore thought to research that.

80 points by oftenwrong 10y ago

EGreg 10y ago

Question to Libertarians... Is this statism? Or legitimate penalties for externalities? Kinda hard for all those parents of kids with asthma to sue all those drivers and manufacturers after the fact. Isn't this reported result a benefit that wouldn't have arisen in a purely anarcho capitalist society?

mark_edward 10y ago
I am certainly no libertarian but I think the framing is a bit uncharitable, anarcho-capitalism is a radical fringe, the vast majority of ideological libertarians (my estimate) are okay with the state internalizing externalities, although there would be objections to its ability to do this fairly and effectively
- aoeuasdf1 10y ago
  In this case, it isn't fair - the externality is pollution, but the fee is unrelated to the emission levels of the vehicle. But even such an inefficient system is still superior to doing nothing and letting the public suffer the externalities.
  - lend000 10y ago
    It's astounding that these politicians and bureaucrats who ostensibly have the right idea almost exclusively come up with these complex schemes full of mis-incentives, instead of using simple, correct solutions, like raising gasoline taxes. An example: the Obama administration set forth a regulation that forces automakers to produce one 50 MPG vehicle in their line-up within the next five years. Of course, this is a stealth tax which has similar negative effects (and positive ones) to a higher gasoline tax, but the negative effects -- like higher car prices -- are less traceable to the mandate, which is good for politics. However, there are less obvious negative effects, like raising the barrier to entry for competition (it is no coincidence that the heavily regulated auto industry has very few startups -- Tesla being an anomaly.) A new company that only produces 30-45 MPG SUV models cannot compete, whereas it would be relatively competitive with a higher gasoline tax.
    - J-dawg 10y ago
      In Europe we have high taxes on fuels and CO2 emissions, but London and Paris still have worse air pollution than many US cities. Mostly because automakers focussed on Diesel engines to maximise MPG at the cost of everything else (NOx, particulates etc)
      - jabl 10y ago
        Yes, and many European countries tax diesel less than gasoline. I think when these sorts of policies were enacted only heavy vehicles like trucks, buses and cars that were driven a lot (taxis, mostly) used diesel, and there was an extra yearly per-vehicle "diesel tax" that made buying a diesel car economically unfavorable unless you drove a lot. I think this sort-of ties into the political ideology where "luxury consumption" is bad. I.e. truckers transport Important Stuff(TM) and thus deserve a tax rebate on fuel, whereas a private person driving their own vehicle is bad, and should be discouraged. But, the world changed (or, lets say the balance between the different taxes, incomes etc.) and at some point it started to make economic sense for the average Joe to buy a diesel car instead of a gasoline one. But of course, changing the tax policy by getting rid of the diesel tax rebate runs into fierce opposition by the trucking/taxi/etc. lobby. So here we are.
    - Brakenshire 10y ago
      > It's astounding that these politicians and bureaucrats who ostensibly have the right idea almost exclusively come up with these complex schemes full of mis-incentives, instead of using simple, correct solutions, like raising gasoline taxes. It's because the issue they're directly trying to tackle is congestion, not pollution (which is only being tackled as a secondary issue). Also, in Britain there are already high petrol taxes, they make up about half the price of fuel. In general it's a good thing, and it does discourage a completely car dependent society - people to live closer to the centre, closer to work, use alternatives like walking, cycling, public transport etc - but it's not a particularly direct way to tackle air pollution, or at least it doesn't tackle the particular spikes in air pollution you get in the cities. In order to tackle air pollution in London using only fuel tax, you'd have to make driving in the countryside ruinously expensive. So you get layered policy - medium fuel tax nationwide, congestion charge for the centre (where it is the biggest issue), and an air pollution charge, or limit, covering the whole city. I do agree that often politicians are not that great at designing these things (the proposed air pollution charge in London is rather strangely designed for instance), and the complexity is partly incompetence, but it's also partly because the problem is complicated.
lend000 10y ago
> Is this statism? No, this is maximizing net freedom. Pollution infringes on the rights of others... a libertarian solution would have been more efficient and penalized the source on a consumption basis (gasoline tax), but the incentive would be similar. Here's a libertarian-ish analysis on the formerly proposed Washington state carbon tax: http://www.leolinsky.com/2016/11/06/carbon-tax-initiative-732/ http://www.leolinsky.com/2016/11/06/carbon-tax-initiative-73... I hope to erase a lot of extremist misunderstandings about freedom (as defined by the broadly interpretable nonaggression principle), because I think a lot of those on HN who currently identify with the Democratic Party would find they actually have more in common with independent, moderate libertarians (or even the LP) than they realize.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Sweden already has a high petrol and diesel tax. 1L of petrol is $1.61, compared to about $0.56 in the USA. That tax doesn't take account of where the fuel is used. The pollution caused by a long journey through the countryside is less damaging than driving within a city. Additionally, reducing congestion improves journey times for other road users. How much should that be worth? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_...
  - lend000 10y ago
    I'm all for capturing externalities in the form of consumption-based incentives, but at some point you need to draw a line for added benefit/complexity. Yes, they do have relatively high gasoline taxes, but perhaps not high enough. Theoretically, perhaps the cost should be such that the government can use the revenue to "undo" the damage (via carbon capture + ventilation infrastructure in congested areas, for example). If there was truly a compelling case that city congestion, per liter, is so much worse: just levy an additional city petrol gasoline tax. Similar to city vs state sales taxes.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      Sweden is a large and sparsely populated country. In the north, many have 1h, 60 mile commutes. In Stockholm a commute might be 1h and 10 miles. There is pretty stiff opposition to raised gasoline taxes because it is seen as an unfair on rural people. It's also regressive since income is much lower in rural areas. If "city pollution" and "congestion" are the externalities then congestion taxes actually make more sense - and are extremely popular compared to gasoline tax. City gasoline taxes would make sense, but they don't allow hour by hour control of congestion. I don't work in the city but I can drive in "for free" e.g late in the evening.
facepalm 10y ago
Not sure what would be libertarian, but it sounds like an obvious externality?
08-15 10y ago
The fee goes to the state, not to the victims. Therefore, it's statism. Nobody knows what would have happened in a "purely anarcho capitalist society" for lack of experimental data. (That's assuming the study is even correct, and I don't claim to be a libertarian or speak for them.)

lutusp 10y ago

Apart from the political issues, I want to point out that air pollution can be objectively measured, but the connection with childhood asthma can only be conjecture for lack of rigorous scientific controls -- it's a correlation, not an established cause/effect relationship. I point this out because of the depressing regularity with which I see a raw correlation presented as though it represents a linked cause/effect relationship without the source meeting his scientific burden of evidence.

mikeyouse 10y ago
There is essentially zero doubt about the causative link at this point. Some studies will never be run because they would be deeply unethical, so we satisfy significance through a preponderance of correlation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192198/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192198/
- johnnyhillbilly 10y ago
  lutusp is referring to this study in particular. There are many variables that potentially should be corrected for that aren't mentioned in the article.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    I get that, but we're not going to run a double-blind randomized study on whether car exhaust gives kids asthma. So our next best option is to take all of the relevant research, aggregate it as best possible, and make recommendations based on those results. There will be shortcomings, we might never get to a 99.9% significance, but in the mean time -- Kids will stop getting asthma from car exhaust.
    - lutusp 10y ago
      > I get that, but we're not going to run a double-blind randomized study on whether car exhaust gives kids asthma. Yes, but the point I have been trying to make is that, when we don't do science, we need to say we haven't done the science. Too much public information is pseudoscience without anyone saying to. > ... but in the mean time -- Kids will stop getting asthma from car exhaust. I understand that you're not getting this, but any number of times people have gone down the wrong path, let astray by pseudoscience, and calling it science all the while. As it happens, asthma is as likely to be caused by an overly clean environment as a polluted one -- observations support either conclusion. "Is Cleanliness Among the Causes of Allergies?" : http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/cleaning-and-allergies.aspx http://www.everydayhealth.com/allergies/cleaning-and-allergi... Again, we cannot draw a conclusion without doing some science. My only point in bringing this to your attention is so you realize this issue is by no means settled, and no issue can be settled without science. Environmental pollution is a serious problem, one I happen to think should be aggressively addressed. But if we offer a bogus reason, opponents in industry will use that bogus reason to fight a needed change.

purplethinking 10y ago

Just yesterday it was decided to fund a new subway line by dramatically increasing the congestion pricing. Hopefully that will decrease traffic further. With the public transportation system in Stockholm most people really have no business driving through town.

jaclaz 10y ago

Just for the record, the Stockholm congestion tax is only one - actually one of the least advanced - ERP systems implemented around the world, probably the Singapore one being the most advanced (and soon to be replaced by a "second generation" system): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing

salesguy222 10y ago
It is very advanced at dealing with the negative externalities its own system creates ;) The gantries cause drivers to congest other roads, to stop in the middle of the road near the turn of the hour to try to lower the fee required... I'm sure there's billing errors. In Singapore, we call it "Every Road- Pay". Sure we have low income taxes, but this is a less than desirable way to make up for it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

salesguy222 10y ago

At the risk of being downvoted, I would like to raise a topic for deliberation- Why are some acts (driving and polluting) penalized, but other acts that also cause harm (especially to children) are not penalized? Driving and pollution are low hanging fruit, but what about polluting water supplies? Trash, sewage, dumping, antibiotics and pesticides in food sources.... Surely all of these things are dangerous to everyones health, especially children. Should we have facial recognition software for people walking around with bags near water sources at certain hours of the day?

evgen 10y ago
This is called "Whataboutism" and when you bounce to it you have already given up on your main argument. Some acts are penalized before others because the negative externality is easy to identify, some are penalized before other problems because the agent of negative externality is easy to identify and tax, and some are penalized before other problems because those pushing for the penalty have a better PR machine or more political muscle. None of these conditions means that there are not other negative externalities that need to be prevented or taxed/penalized, nor does it mean that some contrived dystopian solution is a likely consequence of our desire to prevent these other negative externalities.
- salesguy222 10y ago
  That's fine, I agree with your assessment, even though you are implying that by raising a question, I have somehow lost an argument :) You say that "those pushing for the penalty have better PR/political muscle", and you imply that they have more muscle than groups pushing for other penalties, or maybe even against penalties. What I would like to point out is, we are assuming that the majority of citizens of Stockholm or Singapore or etc have clearly voted in favor of this execution of public policy, because if they didn't, they would just leave or rebel or something. But in reality, I dare say that all over the globe, small elite groups of people are paid exorbitant sums of money to come up with these laws and carry them out. They then use cherry-picked statistics to justify the existence of the program (and then attack any naysayers as wanting to live in polluted dystopian hell holes like some stereotypical example of a Chinese city). Would you agree then, that certain groups being able to penalize other people for the supposed "crime of driving" is not the most optimal and equitable way to balance negative externalities? Perhaps it should be the burden of other people to deal with the negative externalities of something reasonable to expect in city living, like air pollution?

Proven 10y ago

It also "may have" cost 5-10,000 people their jobs, but Moore thought to research that.