6. Achieving lower pollution Suppose the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) w

Question

6. Achieving lower pollution 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? The opportunity cost of zero pollution is much higher than its benefit. O The environment isn't worth protecting O Society would not benefit from lower air pollution O Reducing methane emissions is desirable, but whatever levels of pollution firms decide to emit privately are already efficient. Grade It Now Save & Continue Continue without saving

Explanation / Answer

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

Opportunity cost is the value of next best alternative foregone. All industries which emit methane has to shut down its production because of this policy which reduces output of country by high amount. It will adversely affect the GDP of the U.S so opportunity cost will be higher than the benefit of this policy.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 6
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.