Question

Imagine the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) wants to mandate that all methane emissions must be reduced to zero in order to alleviate global warming in Australia.

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

Society would not benefit from lower air pollution. 

The environment isn't worth protecting. 

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

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

Answer 1

The economists do not intend to reach zero pollution but optimal level of pollution where the marginal cost of pollution abatement equals marginal benefit from pollution abatement which indicates that welfare is being maximized without compromising with the environmental quality. From the given policy initiative, the economists would disagree with the policy as the cost of this reduction would exceed its benefits.

the correct option is (d)