Question

The best way to achieve an efficient abatement from a social point of view is to divide the amount to be abated by using the Equiproportionate Approach a. Yes b. No 4. (2 points) In order to find the Socially optimal (efficient) level of emission the Marginal Abatement Cost has to be higher from the Marginal Damage a. Yes b. No 5. (2 points) Abatement costs are the costs of reducing the quantity of the residuals being emitted into the environment, or cost of lowering ambient concentrations. a. Yes b. No

Answer 1

Efficient abatement is not achieved via Equiproportionate Approach but by equating MAC to MD, hence answer to first question is No. Socially optimal level of emission is reached when MAC equals MD, not when MAC is higher, hence answer to second question is No. Abatement costs are indeed expenses for reducing emissions, answer to third question is Yes.

Step-by-step explanation:

The best way to achieve an efficient abatement from a social point of view is not simply to divide the abatement using the Equiproportionate Approach, so the answer is b. No. An efficient abatement strategy means that marginal abatement cost (MAC) should be equated across all sources of pollution and it should not necessarily be distributed equally. In achieving the Socially optimal (efficient) level of emission, the Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) has to be equal to the Marginal Damage (MD), not higher, so the answer is b. No. This ensures that at the margin, the cost of reducing pollution is balanced by the benefits in terms of reduced damage, leading to an optimal allocation of resources for environmental protection.

Abatement costs are indeed the costs of reducing emissions into the environment, including measures to lower ambient concentrations, thus the answer is a. Yes. Abatement can be undertaken by firms voluntarily or due to regulatory requirements, and these costs can include both capital expenditures for pollution control as well as operating costs.