Letters to the Editor

Reader fuming over AirCare article

Dear Editor:
I disagree with your October 1998 article “The Failure of Vehicle Emission Testing Programs.”

The Fraser Institute report relied on questionable assumptions to calculate total program costs. The report included the cost of repairs as a negative while ignoring the resultant positive repair effects. Money spent to correct defects in vehicles that cause their emissions to exceed acceptable levels can hardly be viewed as a burden on society.

The AirCare program is designed to complement the emissions reductions mandated by federal vehicle emission regulations by identifying in-use vehicles with abnormally high emissions caused by lack of proper maintenance. The Fraser Institute criticized AirCare for targeting carbon monoxide (CO) emissions which they state are not an environmental concern. This is wrong. The program does not target any one type of emission. The type of pollutants reduced and the magnitude of those reductions are entirely dependent on the nature of the vehicle defects detected and the effectiveness of the repairs performed by the automotive repair industry. Given that vehicles produce almost an order of magnitude more CO than hydro-carbons (HC) or NOx, it is not surprising that CO tends to overwhelm the other two pollutants when total motor vehicle emissions are inventoried.

Newer vehicles are designed to be cleaner and should not fail a tailpipe inspection, but some do. Statistics concerning lower percentage failure rates for newer vehicles, quoted in The Fraser Institute report, need to be read in context. For example, in the 1997 inspection year, a three percent AirCare failure rate for 1993 model year vehicles represented more vehicles than the 40 percent failure rate for the 1976 model year.

In addition to AirCare’s environmental benefits, the economic activity generated by the program is reinvested directly into the BC economy. The program is structured so that the testing services are delivered by a private-sector contractor employing 225 British Columbians, and vehicle repairs are performed by the automotive repair industry involving approximately 2,000 well-trained and equipped technicians and service personnel.

The AirCare program has been a success. This is backed up by scientific and environmental studies performed by qualified individuals. The Greater Vancouver Regional District’s air quality report, issued earlier this year, confirms that air quality in the Lower Mainland has dramatically improved since 1992. This is due in large part to the AirCare program as well as new vehicle technology and improved gasoline. A technical review of AirCare’s first 5 years of operation concludes that the program was responsible for 60 percent of the total reduction of vehicle-related air pollution in the region—a remarkable reduction that has resulted in British Columbia being regarded as a world leader in this field.

The Lower Fraser Valley has acceptable air quality today; it also continues to have over one million light duty vehicles pumping exhaust into the air we breathe. AirCare ensures these vehicles continue to operate as cleanly as the manufactures designed them to do, thereby preventing air quality from becoming a serious problem.

David Gourley, P. Eng.,
Manager, Emissions Testing and Standards, AirCare

Paul Coninx responds

Mr. Gourley disagrees with the October article that discusses some of the issues raised in my 44-page Fraser Institute Critical Issues Bulletin on vehicle emissions testing.

My research shows that AirCare provides less than one cent of environmental and health benefit for every dollar spent without using any “questionable assumptions.”

The number and cost of AirCare inspections as well as the number and average cost of AirCare certified repairs are published by AirCare. The cost of motorists’ time is the same estimate used by the US EPA, based on an average total time of 45 minutes to prepare the vehicle, travel to a test centre, wait in line, take the test, and return.

The economic value of the tonnes of emission reductions claimed (but not proven) by AirCare was calculated using the values found in a draft study done in 1995 for AirCare’s own “partner agencies,” the GVRD, BC Ministry of Environment Lands and Parks, and Environment Canada.

The cost-benefit figures used in the Fraser Institute Critical Issues Bulletin are in line with those of AirCare’s own consultant, Sierra Research, which found AirCare’s cost-effectiveness to be about $7,600 per tonne of combined VOC, NOx, and CO. Applying the above pollution reduction values to Sierra’s estimate also yields less than a penny of benefit for each dollar spent on AirCare.

Repair costs must be included in the total cost of the program, as Sierra Research does in its report. Either AirCare causes people to spend money on vehicle repairs, or not. If yes, then AirCare can claim environmental benefits; if not, then AirCare can claim nothing and therefore is a complete waste of time and money.

Whether or not AirCare is “targeting” carbon monoxide is irrelevant. The important point is that carbon monoxide is almost the only thing AirCare is reducing. AirCare deserves criticism for boasting that in its first three years it removed 165,000 tonnes of pollution, when 92.8 percent of that pollution is carbon monoxide worth less than one dollar a tonne.

Mr. Gourley writes that repair costs should not be considered, yet his own consultant says they should. He writes, “It is not surprising that CO tends to overwhelm the other two pollutants.” I agree—in fact, that is one of the problems with AirCare. Mr. Gourley claims that there are “scientific and environmental studies performed by qualified individuals” that back up AirCare’s claims, but he doesn’t name them.

Air quality in Vancouver has improved over the years, but it started to improve well before AirCare began, and would have continued to improve without AirCare, as it has in regions all across North America that do not have vehicle emission inspection programs.

Paul Coninx is the author of The Fraser Institute report, and three other reports on vehicle emissions testing programs for the Automobile Protection Association which were funded by Industry Canada.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.