Economics - Eliminating All Pollution Is Worse Than Bad

As the world looks on, people start to realize that the problem of environmental pollution is a global

Pollution has always been an issue within our society. Derrick Jenson and Stephanie McMillan as well as Michael Pollan have all written articles about the issues in our environment and the effects of pollution. We are causing an increasing amount of pollution as time goes on. Virtually everything we do causes some form of damage to the environment and it seems that regardless of how much we want to fix this issue we are making no progress towards a solution. Based on their articles “As The World Burns” and Pollans article “Why Bother” these authors have similar views and yet contrast on many points.

By limiting the amount of pollution will diminish the risk of health problems caused by these toxins. Now many industries have gotten involved with a technique called carbon trading in which those with high pollution releases buy the rights to pollute from others with low amounts of releases. This is a controversial approach to reduce pollution because it allows unnecessary amounts of pollution to be released. If companies chose to sell their rights, what they sell would not have been used in the first place; now they will be used by companies who can afford to purchase them. It is extremely expensive to purchase these rights, however some major companies can do so.

Pollution is a major issue in many communities. It affects the local population and the number of people moving to the area, in addition to the potential workforce. If externalities result in an unsafe community, it will result in fewer residents and less economic growth. Government controls on pollution is very effective if patrolled. Many regulations are not monitored, thus companies often find ways to avoid the regulations. Government officials need to

The problem of pollution comes with the ever expanding human population. With this growing population our demand for products also increases. We live in a consumer society, especially in the United States, and making huge quantities of products generates a large amount of pollution and waste. American citizens love to buy, we represent only 5% of the global population but we use 25% of the world's resources. The unfortunate part is that all the resources we use to make products end up in some landfill somewhere because a huge amount of Americans don't understand the importance of recycling and reducing consumption of products. American citizens throw away 40% of the food they purchase. That number is ridiculous, especially since so many Americans

Pollution is a big problem in the United States because it causes all sorts and has a negative effect on the American population as it could lead to people getting sick at a higher rate it’ll affect climate in the United States including the risk of natural disasters happening at a higher rate in the United States. Changes in all this can change the way we live. If we don’t do something about it can affect future. Pollution has indeed been causing lots of damage to environment as we know it in many different ways. Environmental pollution we can prevent all this if we act now.

The market price of a good is determined by both the supply and demand for it. In the world today supply and demand is perhaps one of the most fundamental principles that exists for economics and the backbone of a market economy. Supply is represented by how much the market can offer. The quantity supplied refers to the amount of a certain good that producers are willing to supply for a certain demand price. What determines this interconnection is how much of a good or service is supplied to the market or otherwise known as the supply relationship or supply schedule which is graphically represented by the supply curve. In demand the schedule is depicted graphically as the demand curve which represents the

The EPA (2010) describes emissions tax as the emissions of a toxic substance, which are subject to an environmental charge grounded on the harms the emissions cause. To circumvent the emissions tax, contaminators find the inexpensive way to decrease pollution. This may involve a reduction in output, a modification in inputs to manufacture, the installation of contamination regulatory equipment, or a procedure alteration that avoids the conception of pollution. Polluters choose independently how much to regulate their emissions, based on the costs of control and the magnitude of the tax. The polluting firm decreases emissions to the point where the cost of reducing one more unit of emissions is just equal to the tax per unit of emissions. For any outstanding emissions, the polluter chooses to pay the tax rather than to decrease further. In addition, the government receives proceeds that it may use to decrease other pollution or lessen other taxes, or may reallocate to fund to other municipal

In the article on ABC-CLIO “Topic Center: Pollution” it states, “But pollution on the scale it is known today did not begin to appear until the Industrial Revolution, which began in the last half of the 18th century” This implies that pollution has been around since the 18th century. From this fact one can see that pollution has taken a very long time to accumulate, since it’s been around for so long, getting rid of pollution will also take a while. The improvements will not be seen right away, but if we keep going, together we can clean the world! Another quote from the article “Topic Center: Pollution” is “But industrialization is inevitably accompanied by increases in pollution, so the price of a better way of life may

They point out that penalties for excessive pollution or excessive workplace accidents would be imposed only after substantial damage had been done. They add that taxes on pollution or unsafe work environments could be passed along to consumers as higher prices, in which case they would not be much of a deterrent. Moreover, it would take a large bureaucracy to carefully monitor the level of pollution discharge and a complex calculation to determine the level tax necessary to encourage businesses not to

Using the words “optimal” and “pollution” in the same sentence may appear daunting to many, however when the notion of an “optimal level of pollution” is fully explained, it appears more logical and applicable to our current global pollution problem. In his book, “People or Penguins: The Case for Optimal Pollution”, William Baxter makes several astounding points which lead us to the conclusion that zero pollution is not feasible, therefore we must consider what an optimal level of pollution for the earth is instead. If we can understand the notion that there are optimal levels of pollution, can we then make the assumption that there are optimal levels of most other things, such as violence, disease, and litter?

Thesis: If polluters are harming the environment, the pollution is a moral danger to the ecosystem and should be resolved. If polluters can pay economic compensation for their disruption of the environment, this will not necessarily resolve the problems of the environment. Three authors in this essay offer different perspectives on the issue of making polluters pay, their explicit views of this subject are not observably mentioned in their work, just different positions for and against the idea. As the authors give different reasons for why or why not polluters should pay, they all mention a moral issue is attached to this discussion. I plan to analyze the authors’ readings and interpret their writings for purposes of this essay.

"Since the Industrial Revolution began in about 1750, carbon dioxide levels have increased nearly 38 percent as of 2009 and methane levels have increased 148 percent" (NASA). What NASA is describing in the above quote is how humans have impacted global temperatures. NASA estimates that in the last century, the global temperature has risen a little over 1 degree fahrenheit and they see no reason to doubt that this trend will continue as long as humans continue to carelessly produce these greenhouse gases. Companies that produce soda should be banned until they can be run off of solar power at least 60 percent of the time. Soda is a luxury item, as it is not necessary for survival. The companies that produce these products generate unnecessary pollution that contaminates the air and groundwater. The shortage of soda will make people who drink soda regularly think about what they put into their bodies as many of the ones who drink soda with caffeine go through withdrawals. Requiring companies to go solar would also help improve solar technology as the companies would be paying a lot of money on solar panels.

In today’s society, no one is aware of the cost of air pollution, however expert’s analysis concluded that the cost of air pollution may be far worse than previously estimated. Air pollution has been extremely detrimental for the growth of the economy and human health. If this trend continues, it will further compromise the economic growth of the country. The scale of air pollution impact is hard to measure due to the proportion and diversity of the issue. There are indications that since the early 2000’s, emissions from coal-fired power plants have significantly been decreasing, and because of this, researchers such as Muller and Jaramillo found that the annual cost of air pollution for the American economy had declined by about 25 percent from 2002 to 2011, (Frazie, 2016). The total price tag now comes to $130 billion a year, or around $400 for every person in the U.S., (Frazie, 2016).

The next solution to solving the pollution dilemma is limiting the smokestack pollution. Massive companies who build factories to build their products can create major problems for the environment. These companies often have large smokestacks at the top of their building where all of the smoke goes that powers the plant. Most companies burn fossil fuels and coal to supply the energy for their company. In fact “The United States relies on the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels for more than 85 percent of its energy needs” (America’s 11). The result of burning recourses like those creates a large amount of pollution. Making companies pay for the amount of pollution they give off would create a sense of responsibility for what they are doing and perhaps change their ways. The way to make the companies pay is by increasing the taxes the company has to pay. The Government would be in charge of checking and placing the companies into the taxing category. It would work for some companies to