(2024) A Level H2 Econs Essay Q2b Suggested Answer by Mr Eugene Toh (A Level Economics Tutor)
(2024) A Level H2 Econs Paper 2 Essay Q2b
Disclaimer: The answers provided on our website is a 'first draft outline’ version of the answers provided for your convenience. Diagrams are also not provided for the first draft outline version.
For the full, finalised answers, please click here to purchase a hard copy of the Comprehensive TYS Answers authored by Mr Eugene Toh and published by SAP. (The page might take awhile to load)
Search for “COMPREHENSIVE ANSWERS TO A LEVEL H2 ECONOMICS YEARLY EDITION” or “9789813428676” to purchase.
Introduction
The environmental damage caused by car use represents a significant negative externality. Vehicle emissions, particularly from petrol and diesel-powered cars, contribute to air pollution, smog, and climate change. These effects impose external costs on society, such as higher healthcare expenses due to respiratory issues and the long-term costs of mitigating climate-related disasters like flooding caused by rising global temperatures.
Consideration of whether road pricing is the most appropriate policy choice to reduce the environmental damage caused by car use
Road pricing functions as a form of tax on road use, directly increasing the private cost of driving. By raising the marginal private cost (MPC) of car use, road pricing aligns the MPC with the marginal social cost (MSC), ideally achieving an output level Qs where MSC equals the marginal social benefit (MSB). This internalisation of external costs can reduce car use and, consequently, the emissions that cause environmental damage.
(diagram will be available in the TYS answers published with SAP)
However, the effectiveness of road pricing as a policy to reduce environmental damage may be limited by the type of vehicles on the road. Electric cars (EVs), for instance, produce fewer or no tailpipe emissions, meaning they contribute less (or none) to air pollution compared to petrol or diesel cars. If road pricing is uniformly applied to all vehicles, it could discourage EV adoption, undermining its environmental benefits. A more nuanced approach, such as taxing electricity generated from pollutive sources like coal, would be more appropriate for EVs, as their environmental impact depends on the source of electricity.
Additionally, road pricing is often more effective in addressing the negative externalities of congestion rather than environmental damage. Singapore’s ERP 2.0 system, which uses GPS-based technology to charge for road use dynamically, could resolve some practical limitations, such as the inability to charge for every road. Nevertheless, road pricing alone may not sufficiently address the environmental externalities associated with car use, particularly emissions.
Alternative policy: Subsidise electric cars
An alternative policy to reduce environmental damage is the subsidisation of electric cars. EVs have no tailpipe emissions and, if powered by clean energy sources such as solar or wind, contribute minimally to environmental damage. Subsidising EVs can encourage consumers to switch from petrol or diesel-powered vehicles to cleaner alternatives, directly reducing emissions and mitigating climate change.
Subsidising electric cars also aligns with long-term environmental goals, promoting the transition to a sustainable transport system. For example, governments could offer tax rebates or grants for EV purchases, making them more affordable and accelerating their adoption. Such measures have been successfully implemented in countries like Norway, where EVs now make up the majority of new car sales due to substantial subsidies and incentives.
However, subsidising EVs has drawbacks. It may impose a significant fiscal burden on the government, diverting funds from other priorities. To address this, governments could simultaneously tax the sale of petrol and diesel cars, creating a revenue-neutral framework. Moreover, subsidies for EVs might inadvertently encourage more driving, increasing road congestion, which is another form of negative externality. Policymakers must balance the benefits of reduced emissions against the potential rise in congestion.
Evaluative conclusion
While road pricing is an effective tool for addressing congestion and reducing overall car use, it is not the most appropriate standalone policy for mitigating the environmental damage caused by car use. The variability in environmental impact between petrol/diesel cars and EVs makes a blanket application of road pricing inefficient.
Found our TYS answers useful?
Maximise your A-Level H2 Economics preparation with the ETG A-Level H2 Economics TYS Crashcourse! Perfect for students looking to enhance their skills in both essay and case study analysis, this comprehensive 3-day crashcourse will cover over 60 essay questions and 20 case studies from the A-Level Economics Ten-Year Series. Whether you're attending onsite or via Zoom, our experienced tutors will guide you through the intricate demands of H2 Economics, offering expert feedback and graded answers. For the best economics tuition in Singapore, sign up now to secure one of the limited onsite seats!