Utility managers once claimed that it would cost $1000 per fish to control acid precipitation and it would be cheaper to buy fish for anglers than to put scrubbers on power plants . Does that justify continuing pollution? why or why not?
This does not justify continuing pollution because the managers are only considering the costs and benefits of the fish industry while making the pollution decisions. However, the effect of pollution is an externality that would affect the overall environment, and may harm others exposed to the fishing area. These externalities do not have a market, so the negative value is not included while doing cost benefit analysis, underestimating the cost of pollution. Had the social costs been considered, it would have been optimal to install scrubbers than to continue pollution.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.