a) If the total benefits to society of achieving some specific level of pollution control are significantly greater than the total costs to society of doing so, will it necessarily be economically efficient (socially optimal) to do so? Explain your answer with words and a graph. b) In March 2011, the US EPA issued a report that looked at the results of the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020 (see: http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/prospective2.html). This review found that in the central estimate of the CAA’s impact, benefits exceeded costs by a ratio of 30 to 1. This leads some environmental policy commentators to conclude that the EPA had not gone far enough in reducing air pollution. Under what conditions would a benefit cost ratio of 30:1 imply that it would be economically efficient to further reduce air pollution under the CAA? Assuming the EPA’s benefit-cost estimate is correct, is it possible that it could actually be economically efficient to loosen, rather than strengthen, air pollution regulations? Explain your answer with words and a graph.

ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
14th Edition
ISBN:9780190931919
Author:NEWNAN
Publisher:NEWNAN
Chapter1: Making Economics Decisions
Section: Chapter Questions
Problem 1QTC
icon
Related questions
Question

a) If the total benefits to society of achieving some specific level of pollution control are
significantly greater than the total costs to society of doing so, will it necessarily be
economically efficient (socially optimal) to do so? Explain your answer with words and a
graph.
b) In March 2011, the US EPA issued a report that looked at the results of the Clean Air Act
from 1990 to 2020 (see: http://www.epa.gov/air/sect812/prospective2.html). This review
found that in the central estimate of the CAA’s impact, benefits exceeded costs by a ratio of
30 to 1. This leads some environmental policy commentators to conclude that the EPA had
not gone far enough in reducing air pollution. Under what conditions would a benefit cost
ratio of 30:1 imply that it would be economically efficient to further reduce air pollution
under the CAA? Assuming the EPA’s benefit-cost estimate is correct, is it possible that it
could actually be economically efficient to loosen, rather than strengthen, air pollution
regulations? Explain your answer with words and a graph.

Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 3 steps

Blurred answer
Knowledge Booster
Methods For Reducing Risk And Uncertainty
Learn more about
Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, economics and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.
Similar questions
  • SEE MORE QUESTIONS
Recommended textbooks for you
ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
ENGR.ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Economics
ISBN:
9780190931919
Author:
NEWNAN
Publisher:
Oxford University Press
Principles of Economics (12th Edition)
Principles of Economics (12th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:
9780134078779
Author:
Karl E. Case, Ray C. Fair, Sharon E. Oster
Publisher:
PEARSON
Engineering Economy (17th Edition)
Engineering Economy (17th Edition)
Economics
ISBN:
9780134870069
Author:
William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick Koelling
Publisher:
PEARSON
Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)
Principles of Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:
9781305585126
Author:
N. Gregory Mankiw
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach
Managerial Economics: A Problem Solving Approach
Economics
ISBN:
9781337106665
Author:
Luke M. Froeb, Brian T. McCann, Michael R. Ward, Mike Shor
Publisher:
Cengage Learning
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-…
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy (Mcgraw-…
Economics
ISBN:
9781259290619
Author:
Michael Baye, Jeff Prince
Publisher:
McGraw-Hill Education