1
answer
0
watching
73
views

How would an economist likely respond to the statement There is no such thing as an acceptable level of pollution?

A. An economist would agree with this statement because western countries have sufficient monetary resources to invest in pollution-reducing equipment. Further, people can change their consumer choices to eliminate pollution.

B. An economist would disagree with this statement because although reducing pollution has benefits, doing so also has costs. The optimal level of pollution is where the marginal benefit of reducing pollution just equals the marginal cost.

C. An economist would disagree with this statement because the market is able to allocate sufficient resources to reducing pollution to an acceptable level. Externalities are taken into account by those making market choices.

D. An economist would agree with this statement because the word "acceptable" reflects individual preferences, which are not easily accounted for in a market with externalities such as pollution.

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Darryn D'Souza
Darryn D'SouzaLv10
28 Sep 2019

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in

Related textbook solutions

Related questions

Weekly leaderboard

Start filling in the gaps now
Log in