Two plants are emitting a uniformly mixed pollutant called gunk into the beautiful sky over tourist town. the city government decides it can tolerate total emissions of no more than 100 kg of gunk per day. plant g has marginal reduction costs of 100 - 4x and is currently polluting at a level of 25, while plant k has marginal reduction costs of 150 - y and currently pollutes at a level of 150 (x and y are the level of emissions at each plant).1. what is the cost-effective pollution level for each plant if total pollution must equal 100? suppose the city government knows marginal reduction costs at the two plants. in this case, could the city obtain cost-effective pollution reduction using a cac approach? if so, how? 2. in reality, why might the city have a hard time getting this information? what are the two "incentive-based" policies that could be used to get a cost effective reduction of pollution to 100 units, without knowing the mc of the two firms? be specific. discuss two advantages each method has over the other.3. suppose the authorities are considering either a tradeable emission permit system, in which they give half the permits to each firm, or a tax system. if both systems work perfectly, how much will the firms have to pay, in total, for pollution reduction under the two schemes? (assume permits are bought and sold by firms at a price equal to the tax.) could this explain why tourist town would be more likely to adopt a permit giveaway system? 4. several theoretical studies have shown that incentive-based policies might generate huge cost savings, and the ib approach could be as much as 22 times cheaper than the cac approach. discuss at least three reasons why tourist town might not get such substantial savings in moving from cac regulation to a marketable permit system.5. suppose the marginal benefits of pollution reduction in tourist town are constant and equal to $64. (each unit of pollution reduction brings in one more tourist, who spends $64.) is 100 units of pollution obtained cost-effectively, an efficient level? if not, will efficiency be achieved through more or less pollution? why?
Answers: 3
Business, 21.06.2019 21:00, marie1211
John novosel was employed by nationwide insurance company for fifteen years. novosel had been a model employee and, at the time of discharge, was a district claims manager and a candidate for the position of division claims manager. during novosel's fifteenth year of employment, nationwide circulated a memorandum requesting the participation of all employees in an effort to lobby the pennsylvania state legislature for the passage of a certain bill before the body. novosel, who had privately indicated his disagreement with nationwide's political views, refused to lend his support to the lobby, and his employment with nationwide was terminated. novosel brought two separate claims against nationwide, arguing, first, that his discharge for refusing to lobby the state legislature on behalf of nationwide constituted the tort of wrongful discharge in that it was arbitrary, malicious, and contrary to public policy. novosel also contended that nationwide breached an implied contract guaranteeing continued employment so long as his job performance was satisfactory. what decision as to each claim?
Answers: 3
Business, 23.06.2019 02:00, jackfrost5
How much more output does the $18 trillion u. s. economy produce when gdp increases by 3.0 percen?
Answers: 1
Two plants are emitting a uniformly mixed pollutant called gunk into the beautiful sky over tourist...
Geography, 23.08.2019 00:00
Mathematics, 23.08.2019 00:00
History, 23.08.2019 00:00
History, 23.08.2019 00:00
History, 23.08.2019 00:00