Final answer:
Environmentalists might support command-and-control policies for the certainty of pollution levels they enforce but also favor market-oriented tools for their cost efficiency and flexibility in achieving emissions reductions.
Step-by-step explanation:
Environmentalists may have mixed opinions about command-and-control policies for reducing pollution. On one hand, these policies could ensure that strict pollution limits are enforced by setting specific standards and regulations. However, many environmentalists prefer market-oriented tools because while the goal of reducing pollution is a priority, it's argued that these tools can potentially achieve pollution reduction more efficiently.
Market-oriented tools offer incentives and flexibility, which might lead to the same or greater levels of pollution reduction at a lower cost to society. Although command-and-control policies are straightforward with explicit limits, they can be rigid and filled with loopholes. They lack the economic efficiency and potential for innovation that market mechanisms, like pollution charges or marketable permits, often provide.
In summary, while some environmentalists might support command-and-control approaches due to their directness, others advocate for the use of market-oriented tools that can adjust to technological changes, promote innovation, and achieve emissions reductions in a more cost-effective manner.