Policy Sci(2007)40:1–34
DOI10.1007/s11077-006-9022-7
O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E
钱学森的主要贡献
The allure of technology:How France and California promoted electric and hybrid vehicles to reduce urban air pollution
David Calef·Robert Goble
角端Received:15May2005/Accepted:19July2006/Published online:1March2007
C Springer Science+Business Media B.V.2007
实施乡村振兴战略Abstract All advanced industrialized societies face the problem of air pollution produced by motor vehicles.In spite of striking improvements in internal combustion engine technol-ogy,air pollution in most urban areas is still measured at levels determined to be harmful to human health.Throughout the1990s and beyond,California and France both cho to improve air quality by means of technological innovation,adopting legislation that promoted clean vehicles,prominently among them,
electric vehicles(EVs).In California,policymakers cho a technology-forcing approach,tting ambitious ,zero emission vehicles), establishing strict deadlines and issuing penalties for non-compliance.The policy process in California called for substantial participation from the public,the media,the academic com-munity and the interest groups affected by the regulation.The automobile and oil industries bitterly contested the regulation,in public and in the courts.In contrast,in France the pol-icy process was non-adversarial,with minimal public participation and negligible debate in academic circles.We argue that California’s stringent regulation spurred the development of innovative hybrid and fuel cell vehicles more effectively than the French approach.However, in spite of the differences,both California and France have been unable to put a substantial number of EVs on the road.Our comparison offers some broad lessons about how policy developments within a culture influence both the development of technology and the impact of humans on the environment.
Keywords Environmental policy.Technology policy.Policy styles.Air pollution. Sustainable transport.Electric and hybrid vehicles
D.Calef( )
Visiting Fellow,Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei,Corso Magenta,6320123Milan,Italy
e-mail:
Current address
D.Calef
Via Carlo Alberto,24,00185Rome,Italy之的五笔怎么打字
R.Goble
Rearch Professor,Environmental Science and Policy Department,Clark University,950Main Street, Worcester,MA01610
Springer
Introduction
In an effort to reduce air pollution in Los Angeles and other metropolitan areas in the state of California,the California Air Resources Board(CARB)1adopted in September1990a plan to encourage the development and u of zero emission vehicles(ZEVs).At the time only battery-powered electric vehicles(EVs)qualified as ZEVs while other potential ZEV technologies,such as fuel cells andflywheels,were far from being commercially viable.The ZEV mandate was just one component of a multi-pronged attack on pollution,but it was the one that attracted the most attention throughout the following decade.2
多一个人陪伴The regulation created in California is an example of technology-forcing;it required the regulated industry to produce and ll efficient EVs,within a t period of time,even though the technology was not fully developed when the regulations were created.As in the ca of the1970Clean Air Act Amendments(CAAA)that compelled the auto industry to introduce catalytic converters,the major automakers,the oil industry as well as veral policy analysts bitterly contested the ZEV regulation.Indeed the mandated development of EVs triggered a controversy about the merits of the new technology that engaged substantial public par-ticipation in California and in the rest of the country.This is not surprising.To a far greater degree than people in other industrialized countries,Americans often vigorously debate tech-nological issues,whether concerning electric cars,i
大门风水nformation technologies,antidepressant drugs(Prozac),public health measures(fluoridation)or national defen systems(Strategic Defen Initiative).And the controversies that typically accompany public discour on any of the technologies have usually intensified each time the new technology was regulated by the federal government or,as in the ca of the ZEV mandate,by a state agency.3 Over the same time period,starting in1992,and throughout the1990s,the French gov-ernment designed policies and pasd legislation to encourage the deployment of EVs as a means to improve air quality.But in France the process of creating regulations designed to promote EVs was devoid of conflict between government and industry and the role of interest groups was much more restrained than was the ca in the United States.Indeed one would have been hard presd tofind any debate at all about EVs in France.
Our study contrasts the EV policies adopted in California and France,the relationships between industry and government,societal attitudes toward technology and the role of in-terest groups.We explore the distinctive features of US regulation of air pollution in the transportation ctor and describe how and why Americans have paid heightened attention to electric cars,show how polarized the debate about EVs was in the United States,and contrast that debate with the collegial atmosphere that characterized the emergence of EVs in France. We compare what has happened to
date in the two ttings with respect to EV technology and the effects on urban air pollution.Our objective is to extract from the comparison some broad lessons about how policy developments within a culture influence both technology development and human impacts on the environment.
1Established in1967to promote and protect public health,the CARB has focud on three main objectives: (1)attain and maintain air quality throughout the state;(2)conduct rearch into the caus of and solutions to air pollution;and(3)attack rious environmental problems caud by motor vehicles.
2In the United States,between1992and2000,academic and technical literature as well as the national print media devoted a great deal of attention to the ZEV mandate.Throughout tho years,think tanks,university rearch teams,newspapers,large-circulation magazines and business organizations produced essays,reports, editorials,cover stories and ads that focud on the zero emission component of a broader pollution-reduction strategy.
3For an analysis of the conflicts surrounding new technologies in the US e Mazur,1981and Nelkin,1992.
Springer
Policy styles:An overview
There is a tradition of cross-national studies which over the last25years has tried to make n of the variety of environmental,risk and consumer regulations adopted in various industrialized nations(Ashford et al.,1982;Brickman et al.,1985;Badaracco,1985;Kelman, 1980;Lundqvist,1980;V ogel,1986,2003;Wilson,1985).The specific subject of the comparative studies ranges from air and water quality control to chemicals regulation and occupational health hazards.Although in the majority of the cas the aim of the regulatory actions in France,Germany,Sweden,the United Kingdom and the United States was similar, the design and the implementation of the policies differed greatly.In particular,all the analys emphasized how sharply the American policymaking environment differed from its European counterparts.
Starting in the early1980’s,analysts who tried to explain why environmental and risk regulations varie
d so much among industrialized nations ud the concept of“policy style”introduced by(Richardson,1982).In his work,Richardson argued that nation states develop “standard operating procedures”for making and implementing policies and tho different styles of policy are influenced by deep values rooted in societies.Furthermore,he formulated a basic typology of policy styles bad on two main features of policymaking:(1)the govern-ment’s approach to problem-solving,which ranges from anticipatory(or active)to reactive, and(2)the government’s relationship with other actors involved in the policy process.This definition translated into a matrix compod of four hybrid styles:anticipatory-connsual, anticipatory-impositional,reactive-connsual and reactive-impositional.In the years since Richardson and his collaborators propod the matrix,veral analysts have enriched the pol-icy style canvas with additional typologies(van Waarden,1995.)Analysts often found that even when outcomes were similar,policy patterns of different nations were quite diver.The concept of“national styles of regulation,”introduced by V ogel in1986,became an important framework for analyzing policy issues(V ogel,1986).More recently,the question of“policy convergence,”that is,the trend of policy alignments brought by forces such as economic inte-gration treaties,international legal constraints and the ongoing transfer of technological and scientific experti,has emerged.Since the last twenty years have witnesd a sharp reduction of the barriers to economic,political and cultural exchange,it ems timely to ask wh
ether this trend has eroded governments’capacity to design distinctive national policies.In our study we examine in one detailed ca whether the recent globalization trends were able to offt countervailing forces such as distinctive national cultures,legacies of past policies and specific domestic circumstances.We address the following questions:Regarding clean air policies affecting pasnger cars,is it still possible to identify clearly national policy styles in California and France and,if so,to what extent do the affect policies and policy outcomes? Air pollution in California and in France
Over the past33years,California has distinguished itlf for passing the most innovative and advanced legislation to control and reduce air pollution produced in the transportation ctor,mainly becau the Los Angeles basin and other metropolitan areas in the state have suffered the worst air quality in the country.4
4Los Angeles and its suburbs lie in a basin surrounded by a ring of mountains to the east and onshore winds from the west,both of which rve to trap the pollution.Strong sunlight activity produces the photochemical reactions that lead to smog formation.
Springer
Table 1The ri in population,registered vehicles,and VMT in California:1960–2004
Year
Population (Million)Registered vehicles (Million)Vehicle miles travelled (Billion)1960
168711980
24171552000
33.423.4306.3200336.425.2330.7
Sources:Caltrans,2001,2004;U.S.Census Bureau,2005;and U.S.Federal Highway Administration (FHW A),
2003
Ozone Air Quality Trends: 1976-2000
1976198019841988199219962000Y ear
# o f d a y s e x c e e d i n g h e a l t h s t a n d a r d l e v e l s
Fig.1Ozone air quality violations in Los Angeles and Paris between 1976and 2000.Sources:Airparif,2003;and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),2003
Nowadays,in most metropolitan areas,cars and trucks are the major source of air pollution.This holds true in California,where on-road mobile sources are responsible for 51%of nitrogen oxides (NO x )and 33%of reactive organic gas (ROG)both ozone precursors (CARB,2005).5Over the last five decades,automobile u has incread steadily in California as well as in the rest of the United State
s (California Department of Transportation (Caltrans),2004)and in every other industrialized country (European Commission,2005;Schipper,1995).Table 1shows the progressive growth in population in California,paralleled by the ri in the number of registered vehicles and number of vehicle miles travelled (VMT).
The trends show no sign of abating soon:as measured by VMT,automobile u is forecasted to increa for the foreeable future (CARB,2005).Despite the steady ri of population and VMT in the Los Angeles area,air quality has improved substantially,as shown by the trend in Figure 1.(ozone trends in the Basin Area and the Ile-de-France).Nonetheless,there are still numerous days when ozone levels remain higher than the standard judged safe by the state.
Thus progress in air quality achieved by means of strict air pollution control regulation and ever-improving emission control technology has been insufficient.The air of the Los Angeles Basin remains extremely unhealthy and the state of California dominates the U.S.smog “top ten,”boasting five areas with the highest ground level ozone levels and eight areas 5In 1990,when the ZEV mandate was
propod,on-road mobile sources accounted for 55%of NO x emissions and 47%of ROG emissions (CARB,2005).
Springer
Table2Data on road transportation for France,the USA and California in2002∗
柳州市政府Population#of vehicles Public transport Private transport
(million)(million)ps-km(billion)ps-km(billion)#of EVs France61.529.241720(2001)7,744
男生生日祝福语U.S.288.2228.977.6(2001)7136(2001)5,200(2000) California3529.1N.A.841.93,900a
∗Except where noted.Pasnger-km(ps-km):One pasnger traveling the distance of one km.Total pasnger-km traveled gives the total distance traveled by all people.Sources:(1)Population:Census Bureau,2005 (US and CA);Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques(Ine),2004(France);(2) Motor vehicle registrations:FHW A,2003(US and CA);Comit´e des Constructeurs Fran¸c ais d’Automobiles (CCFA),2003(France);(3)Pasnger Activities:FHW A,2003(US and CA);CCFA,2003;(France);(4) Motor Vehicles:FHW A,2003US;CARB,2002(CA);CCF
A,2003(France);(5)EVs:Joyce,2001,(US); Cackette,2003(CA);Groupe Interminist´e riel V´e hicules Electriques(GIVE),2003(France)
a The highest number of EVs in California and in the US was recorded in2000.Since then,the number has been declining due to the recall by Ford,Honda and GM of their EV models(Fagan,1999;Maynard,2002; Glover,2000;GM,2002).
with the most frequent violations of the federal standard.6Moreover,the CARB maintained that projected increas in VMT(384billion in2010and475billion in2020)would slow and,possibly,rever the decline in ozone levels(Caltrans,2001).Along with the ri in miles driven,the main reason for the inadequacy of emission reduction improvements is the stagnation in automobile fuel economy over the last eighteen years.In1987,the combined (cars and trucks)fleet fuel economy was25.9miles per gallon(mpg)and in2004it was24.4 mpg(EPA,2005a).The decline in fuel economy is largely due to the growth(27%in1987to 48%in2004)of the market share of sport utility vehicles(SUV)and light trucks,which are about a third less fuel-efficient than pasnger cars(EPA,2005a).The increasing popularity of SUVs and light trucks,subject to lax government fuel efficiency standards,as well as the ri in VMT has largely offt the air quality gains brought by pollution reduction technologies (catalytic converters,fuel injection,variable valve control).Furthermore,throughout the period under ex
amination,the worning urban traffic congestion produced by growth in car-bad mobility precipitated adver social idlock,rising volumes of polluting exhaust and monetary loss(Shrank and Lomax,2002).7
In France,the transportation system has provided French residents with a high level of personal mobility,although less than that enjoyed by Americans.8See Table2for a comparison of transportation data in France,the United States and California).
But,as in the United States,the growth in automobile mobility has worned air quality.In 1993,two years before a major French EV legislative act was enacted,cars,trucks and bus produced about half of the ozone-forming hydrocarbons,60%of all the carbon monoxide pollution and68%of the oxides of nitrogen(NO x),90%of lead and41%of the particulates (Centre Interprofessionel Technique d’Etudes de la Pollution Atmosph´e rique(CITEPA), 1998).And if between1980and1993,as Table3shows,from industrial,rvice and transportation ctors)emissions of NO x have declined considerably,the contribution
6In1987,California t a state standard for ozone equal to0.09ppm(180μg/m3)for a1-hour averaging time. There are many areas in the state where the state standard for ozone is exceeded more than a hundred times per year(SCAQMD,2003).
7According to the Texas Transportation Institute(TTI),in2001,three California cities(Los Angeles,San Francisco-Oakland and San Jo)ranked in the Institute’s top ten list of the most congested cities in the US. 8With520cars per1,000inhabitants,France reached in1995the level of motorizations attained in the early 1970s in the United States(CCFA,2003).
Springer
