To reduce air pollution, we could eliminate trucks, but shipping goods by horse-drawn wagon would result in higher freight costs and higher prices for most products-and different sorts of pollution.
We could reduce water pollution by shutting down all the paper mills, but reverting to parchment and slate boards would be unwieldy.
We can use the marginal principle to determine the optimal level of pollution abatement.
The marginal principle focuses our attention on the trade-offs from pollution-is costs and benefits.
The benefits are you would have better health, increased enjoyment of the natural environment, and lower production costs.
On the other hand, pollution abatement is costly because resources-labor, capital, and land are used in the abatement process.
To illustrate, the destination of the optimum level of pollution, consider a lake shared by a steel mill and a fishing firm.
We can apply the marginal principle to determine the socially efficient outcome.
The Coase bargaining solution, named after economist Ronald Coase, applies to a situation when there is a small number of affected parties, and the transaction costs of bargaining are relatively low.
Things would change if we assigned the property rights to the fishing firm rather than the steel mill.
In general, Coase bargaining requires a small number of affected parties and small transaction costs.
The use of automobiles generates external costs.
Ozone pollution, also known as smog, is one of our most persistent environmental problems.
The automobile is by far the biggest source of smog-cause it is a pollutant.
Burning gasoline also contributes to global warming.
A gasoline tax would be inferior to an elastic pollution tax because the driver’s gasoline tax bill would not depend directly on pollution, so there would be less incentive to drive cleaner cars.
Gas mileage varies across vehicles, and a person in a car with better gas mileage would pay less than the external cost of collisions.