3 ms·
Air pollution control tends to be extremely cost effective. The benefits from reducing childhood asthma and friends tend to more than pay for remediation techno
by MichaelSalib 14y ago
Air pollution control tends to be extremely cost effective. The benefits from reducing childhood asthma and friends tend to more than pay for remediation technology.
Also, people are weird. In the last few decades, there was a huge push to reduce American coal burning plants SOx emissions because of acid rain. It was surprising how much people responded to lakes dying.
- chii 14y ago> Air pollution control tends to be extremely cost effective. The benefits from reducing childhood asthma and friends tend to more than pay for remediation technology. that is only true if it is taxpayers who foot the bill for the technology/equipment. If you were a plant operator, you wouldnt want to install expensive air scrubbers to reduce polution, but which won't actually net you any extra profit. The gov't has to create incentive schemes - otherwise, the rational actor will use the path of least resistance to profit, and i suspect that path won't include pollution reduction measures.
- corporalagumbo 14y agoThe cost-benefit ratio changes hugely depending upon the economic development of the country. In a country where individuals are highly-educated and produce a lot of economic value, sure, better health outcomes can be very prudent investments. In a country like China where educational levels are lower, economic value produced by individuals lower, then the numbers are completely different. Lives are unfortunately cheaper there.