Economics (MindTap Course List)
13th Edition
ISBN: 9781337617383
Author: Roger A. Arnold
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Videos
Textbook Question
Chapter 30, Problem 13QP
Economists sometimes shock noneconomists by stating that they do not favor the complete elimination of pollution. Explain the rationale for this position.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
A developing country implements pollution laws for the first time. Initially,
there are some relatively cheap ways to reduce pollution and results are easily
evident. After twenty years, they've found that the more one reduces
pollution,
the higher the marginal benefit.
the lower the marginal benefit.
the lower the marginal cost.
When studying pollution and the environment, economists
A) emphasize costs and benefits.
B) attempt to reduce pollution at all costs.
C) think pollution is good if it occurs when production takes place.
D) have no role to play.
E) concentrate on the physical aspects of the environment.
Explain why zero pollution should not be the goal for a society.
Chapter 30 Solutions
Economics (MindTap Course List)
Ch. 30.1 - Prob. 1STCh. 30.1 - Prob. 2STCh. 30.2 - Prob. 1STCh. 30.2 - Prob. 2STCh. 30.2 - Prob. 3STCh. 30.2 - Prob. 4STCh. 30.3 - Prob. 1STCh. 30.3 - Prob. 2STCh. 30.3 - Prob. 3STCh. 30.4 - Prob. 1ST
Ch. 30.4 - Prob. 2STCh. 30.4 - Prob. 3STCh. 30.5 - Prob. 1STCh. 30.5 - Prob. 2STCh. 30.5 - Prob. 3STCh. 30 - Prob. 1QPCh. 30 - Prob. 2QPCh. 30 - Prob. 3QPCh. 30 - Prob. 4QPCh. 30 - Prob. 5QPCh. 30 - Prob. 6QPCh. 30 - Prob. 7QPCh. 30 - Prob. 8QPCh. 30 - Prob. 9QPCh. 30 - Prob. 10QPCh. 30 - Prob. 11QPCh. 30 - Prob. 12QPCh. 30 - Economists sometimes shock noneconomists by...Ch. 30 - Prob. 14QPCh. 30 - Prob. 15QPCh. 30 - Prob. 1WNGCh. 30 - Prob. 2WNGCh. 30 - Prob. 3WNG
Knowledge Booster
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
- What are pollution havens? How are they created or why do they exist? Why do economists think they may change over time and develop policies to reduce pollution?arrow_forwardWhich of the following best explains why economists believe that there is an optimal amount of pollution reduction? The marginal cost of reducing pollution is decreasing, while the marginal benefit of reducing pollution is increasing. Economists only think about profits The marginal cost of reducing pollution is increasing, while the marginal benefit of reducing pollution is decreasing. Economists focus on the benefits of reducing pollution and ignore the cost.arrow_forwardHow do economists determine the optimal amount of pollution control?arrow_forward
- Define pollution charge and will our economy be able to control pollution? Share your thoughts in a paragraph.arrow_forwardThe primary source of air pollution in the small town of Smokey, Nevada is a nearby steel mill. The local environmental agency has decided that the mill needs to reduce its emissions because the town's population is located directly downwind from it. Currently the agency is considering three different approaches to reducing pollution from the mill: a technology standard, an emission standard and an emission tax. Why might the owner of the mill prefer an emission standard to a technology standard that would produce the same level of emissions? a Because with emission standards the polluter is more flexible in selecting the technology that will minimize her abatement cost Ob. Because polluters usually try to stick to their existing technology O C. Because it has been proven to be easier to implement O d. Because polluters, as all producers are suspicious about new technologiesarrow_forwardA country is currently creating40 million tons of toxic waste per year. The table below shows the marginal costs and benefits of reducing the amount of toxic waste to various amounts. What level of toxic waste should the country reduce to?arrow_forward
- It’s common to think that reducing pollution is necessarily costly because to reduce pollution we need to tax firms who will then produce less. But can you think of one example in which pollution might not only be unpleasant but might actually reduce production?arrow_forwardWhich of the following describes the effect of an optimal tax on pollution?Select one:a. a benevolent social planner is able to maximize productionb. producers choose not to produce any pollutionc. the value to consumers at market equilibrium exceeds the cost of production (including tax)d. producers internalize the cost of the pollutionarrow_forwardImagine the government of California has proposed a new tax on vehicles based on the amount of emissions they produce in a year. In 2019, there will be 20 tons of emissions produced. The governor’s office has run the calculations and found that the socially optimal level is 14 tons and the marginal damage from each unit of pollution is $150. Imagine there are two types of drivers in California: commuters and non-commuters. Imagine that the marginal cost of reducing pollution for commuters is MCA_C=150Q and the marginal cost of reducing pollution for non-commuters is MCA_N=30Q. Each type initially created ten tons of pollution each. Their total cost of reductions is equal to TCA_C=75Q^2 and TCA_N=15Q^2. How much would each type choose to reduce under the tax? Imagine the governor instead suggested forcing all drivers to reduce their emissions by 30% from their 2019 levels. How would the costs of reduction here compare to the taxation case (please provide actual numbers)? Do you…arrow_forward
- Why do economists care about positive externalities?arrow_forwardThe table below shows the demand for pollution permits to emit hydrocarbons in a particular industrial park. Each permit allows the owner to release one tonne of pollutants into the atmosphere. Price per Pollution Permit Quantity of Permits $4,500 100 4,000 200 3,500 300 3,000 400 2,500 500 2,000 600 1,500 700 were charged, how many tonnes of pollutants would be discharged into the atmosphere, assuming a straight-line a. If fee for a pollution perm demand curve? Quantity: tonnes b. Suppose government were to set a fee of $2,500 per pollution permit. How many tonnes of pollutants would now be dumped? What is the total revenue received by government? Quantity: tonnes Total revenue: $ c. Suppose that a new technology allows for a significant reduction in hydrocarbons at a relatively low cost so that the demand for pollution permits in the industrial park drops by 200 tonnes. Assuming that government holds the permit fee at $2,500, how many tonnes of pollutants would now be dumped? What…arrow_forwardIn what ways is pollution still a problem?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Economics (MindTap Course List)EconomicsISBN:9781337617383Author:Roger A. ArnoldPublisher:Cengage Learning
Microeconomics: Private and Public Choice (MindTa...EconomicsISBN:9781305506893Author:James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, Russell S. Sobel, David A. MacphersonPublisher:Cengage Learning
Economics (MindTap Course List)
Economics
ISBN:9781337617383
Author:Roger A. Arnold
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Microeconomics: Private and Public Choice (MindTa...
Economics
ISBN:9781305506893
Author:James D. Gwartney, Richard L. Stroup, Russell S. Sobel, David A. Macpherson
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Environmental Law: The Clean Air Act; Author: LawShelf;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-SH3kJpVA4;License: Standard Youtube License