Are we at the optimum level of pollution?
The debate on whether global warming is really being caused by human activity is beginning to lean towards a resounding yes. As technology has gotten better scientists have been able to watch sources of global warming more closely, and as the technology gets better it gets more and more likely that human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.
Due to the fact that it is looking clear now that we are harming our environment and will most likely have to pay the consequences in the not so distant future it brings up the question: Are we really polluting at the optimum level? The optimum level of pollution should be the level at which the benefits outweigh the costs, but is that really the case? Are we only thinking in the short term, and not about what is to come in the future? Should we start making stricter restrictions on harmful emissions now, or deal with global warming when the oceans begin to rise?
Labels:
golbal warming
4 comments:
I find the point about being at the optimum level of pollution an interesting stand, but another way to look at it could be that the pollution that has already happened is a sunk cost. There is no way erase all of the pollution that we have created on our planet. Sure there are things we can do now to prevent more severe pollution, but regardless of these everyday approaches (such as using hand dryers instead of paper towels)we will still have pollution and the earth will most likely continue to be polluted.
We need to pass more laws restricting pollution. Global Warming is real and is happing all around us. The global warming issue is not caused by humans, somting many dont know is that global warming is a natual cycle for our planet. It wont be the fist time its happened either, what has changed though is that humans have sped up the process.
I agree that the positive externalities that happened in the past are all sunk costs. We cannot go back and change what has already happened, however we can change the future. The optimum level of pollution, suggested by Pigou, is where the social cost and the social benefit of producing that pollution are equivalent. However correct this equation may be, it seems like it is impossible to calculate to any preciseness what is the actual social cost and benefit...
The optimum level of pollution is a good platform from which we start to evaluate the social behavior of this problem, along with identifying the economic efficiency on this subject. Perhaps identifying (economically and morally both sides of the issue would give a better picture to the issues being balanced, and ultimately whether they are balanced at all.
There is an externality facing this issue, and perhaps it is not as long term oriented as we might hope.
Post a Comment