Questions for discussion: read the material in Exhibit 3. 3 and answer the two questions presented at the end of the exhibit.

Data from Exhibit 3. 3

Transcribed Image Text:

Exhibit 3.3 What is the most desirable level of pollution? Recently the "Society for Zero Pollution" sponsored a panel discussion on the topic "Is zero pollution viable?" The panelists included a well-known environmental economist and a very famous ecologist. Probably to the dismay of their sponsor, both the economist and the ecologist agreed that zero pollution is neither viable nor desirable. On the other hand, both panelists were quite complimentary about the society's efforts to initiate a timely and well-con- ceived public debate on general issues concerning the environment, and the genuine concern the society had shown for the growing deterioration of our environment. In discussing his view against zero pollution, the ecologist stated that we must not forget that the environment has a limited ability to process waste. The concern for environmental pollution arises only when we emit wastes into the environment beyond its assimilative capacity. In his view, therefore, the socially desirable level of waste discharge (pollution) is that which is consistent with the assimilative capacity of the environment. In other words, waste emission should not exceed the renewable assim- ilative capacity of the environment. In her turn, the economist disputed the assertion made by the ecologist by stating that it is quite consistent and rational for society to discharge waste (pollute) above and beyond the assimilative capacity of the environment, in so far as society collectively values the benefit from the excess pollution (the extra value of the goods and services produced) at more than the cost of the damage to the environmental quality. Hence the optimal (socially desirable) level of pollution is attained when the marginal social cost (MSC) of waste reduction in terms of extra output and services sacrificed-is equal to the marginal social benefit (MSB) of waste reduction, in terms of the psychic and tangible benefit society may attain from improved environmental quality. 1. Do you agree that zero pollution is neither viable nor desirable? Why? Be specific. 2. How would you reconcile the views expressed by the ecologist and the economist? If you think they are irreconcilable, why so? Explain. 3. Recently, the United States' Environmental Protection Agency proposed banning the use of EDB (ethylene dibromide) to spray on domestically produced citrus fruits. Would this be consistent with either one of the above two views? Why, or why not?