Economics

The article argues that although every body in the world agree with the argument that pollution of the environment is undesirable, in some cases pollution is beneficial. Pollution of the environment provides an opportunity cost such as pollution abatement. The article argues that the social marginal cost of pollution abatement is equal to social marginal benefit, hence pollution is optimal. Moreover, the level of pollution should be reduced to a level that provides lower opportunity cost. It is difficult to measure the benefit accrued from an environment with minimum pollution. It is difficult to quantify the health implications of polluted air or water. The relationship between carbon dioxide emission and global warming is a scientific speculation and there is no substantial information to gauge the expected environmental damage as a result of environmental pollution. It is also not easy to quantify the aesthetic pleasure associated with a cleaner environment.

Global warming as a consequence of greenhouse gases emission especially carbon dioxide has generated a great debate all over the world. The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 imposed strict measures to reduce these emissions. However, the United States was the only developed nation that opposed the treaty. The introduction of EPA in the same year, which restricted the emission of particulate matter, has attracted some debate. However, there is no evidence that the measures which are very costly will in any way be beneficial to the public. A debate on whether some amount of arsenic levels in water can be allowed has been very controversial. Some critics argue that it is very costly to implement strict policies to reduce the levels of arsenic in water while the supporters argue on the basis of health benefits associated with low arsenic levels in water (Economic Resource Center, Para 4).

Article Critique
The article criticizes the basic principles which form the foundation of quest for a cleaner environment. The article is arguably wrong in arguing that the benefits associated with cleaner environment are not measurable. The benefit that can result from a cleaner environment can be measured in terms of the adverse effects of environmental pollution. The author fails to first understand the basic objectives of stronger environmental standards. The stricter regulations that are aimed at reducing environmental pollution are based on the highest marginal benefit and the lowest overall cost. By maintaining a cleaner environment, the world economy gains more as compared to when the economy in one way benefits from high industrial production which result into higher cost due to the adverse effect of environmental pollution.

The optimal policy is therefore a policy that seeks to reduce the level of population. The article is therefore wrong in speculating that environmental pollution creates opportunity costs that are associated with abatement. The high output can in no way be compared to the impact to the environment. The high inputs are the short term benefits accrued from environmental pollution but the consequences will affect many generation. For example, the increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the industrial revolution has resulted into increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reaching over 300ppm. As a consequence, the world is faced with global warming which has reduced food production, melting of the ice sheets, change in climate and desertification. Scientists estimates that the effects of the climate change will be up to 1.34 percent or higher by mid 21 century. On the other hand, they estimate that if the stricter measures to reduce environmental pollution are implemented the benefits accrued will surpass the cost in the long run. The worlds benefit as a result of reduced environmental pollution has been estimated to be equivalent to over two hundred and seventy dollars.

The article is also wrong in underestimating the adverse effects of environmental pollution on public health. It is indisputable that the health conditions of the public are greatly affected by the prevailing climatic conditions. Disturbance of the ecosystem associated with environmental pollution has a negative effect on human health. Although it is difficult to assess the impact of pollution on human health, it is not wise to rule it as a factor like the article does. The extreme weather conditions such as floods and global warming are associated with death and increased cases of diseases. Increased cases of malaria, yellow fever, cholera and other vector borne diseases have been as a result of climate change. Poor quality of air has resulted to increased cases of respiratory diseases which is directly as a result of increased emissions of gases to the atmosphere (EPA, Para 1b). The article is also wrong in underestimating the cost associated with high concentration of arsenic in drinking water. Although the semi metallic element occurs naturally and can easily get into drinking water, high concentration as a result of pollution may be detrimental to the public health. The cost associated with implementation of strict policies to reduce its concentration are lower compared to the cost of short term and long term effects on the public health. The long term effect of the element includes different cancers. The effect of arsenic in drinking water is therefore difficult to assess in the short term but the costs of high concentration of arsenic will surpass the benefits in the long run.

In general, the article is wrong in arguing against the marginal benefit as opposed to the cost of effectively implementing strict environmental protection laws. Proper and effective implementation of environmental protection policies will aid in economic growth as opposed to the authors misconception. Lisa Jackson, a US Environment Protection Agency (EPA) administrator argues that pollution of environment poisons the economy, makes the consumer base weak and creates unfavorable atmosphere for investment. He argued that strict environmental policies will in no way affect the economy negatively because the laws will create the need for appropriate technology. The laws will encourage innovations and invention and therefore result in minimal reduction in out put at the long run. Pollution in the last three decades has resulted into very obvious impacts that do not require scientific analysis. For example, acid rains and lead poisoning. Jackson argues that reducing the six most dangerous gas pollutant by fifty four percent over the last thirty years has not affected the gross domestic product which has grown with up to one hundred and twenty six percent during the same period. The article therefore does not put into account the economic benefits that results from innovation brought about by strict laws. The new innovation will lead to production of cheaper and environmental friendly sources of energy. Innovation has been referred to as a sweet spot by those who support stronger pollution measures, where environmental and economic interests of the world meet.