4 ms·
“Banning” pollution is not realistic. Any economy of this scale is going to produce pollution. And while some technologies like fossil fuels are worse then othe
by celeritascelery 9y ago
“Banning” pollution is not realistic. Any economy of this scale is going to produce pollution. And while some technologies like fossil fuels are worse then others, there is no pollution solution. So the best the EPA can do it manange the pollution we do create to mitigate the harms.
- rayiner 9y agoThat's the point. In an idealized economic abstraction, banning pollution (more accurately, creating a cause of action for damages in connection with any level of pollution) would force the cost to be internalized. You can let phosphorous from your farm leach into the river, but any downstream property owners can sue you for reducing their property values by causing algal blooms. If the value created by your farm exceeds the externalized cost of pollution, you keep your farm, pay off the property owners, and pass the costs of that into people who buy your meat and vegetables. When the costs of pollution are priced into those products, the market will properly balance the benefits of farm products against the harms of farm pollution. But that's wildly impractical. Hence the existence of the EPA, which is tasked with managing pollution, and using central planning to balance the benefits of productive activity against the harms of pollution.