Suppose the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to mandate that all methane emissions must be reduced to zero in order to alleviate global warming in the United States.

Which of the following describes why most economists would disagree with this policy?

a. Reducing methane emissions is desirable, but whatever levels of pollution firms decide to emit privately are already efficient.

b. Society would not benefit from lower air pollution.

c. The opportunity cost of zero pollution is much higher than its benefit.

d. The environment isn't worth protecting.

Question

Danna Wolfe

Business

2 September, 02:00

Suppose the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants to mandate that all methane emissions must be reduced to zero in order to alleviate global warming in the United States.

Which of the following describes why most economists would disagree with this policy?

a. Reducing methane emissions is desirable, but whatever levels of pollution firms decide to emit privately are already efficient.

b. Society would not benefit from lower air pollution.

c. The opportunity cost of zero pollution is much higher than its benefit.

d. The environment isn't worth protecting.

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Azaria Moses · Answer 1

C

Explanation:

The economists would disagree with this policy because the opportunity cost of zero pollution is much higher than its benefit. The industries involved may have to stop their industrial activities out-rightly or temporarily until they come up with other ways of production which may bring unemployment, reduction in tax paid to government among others.