Final answer:
False statements about sources of production waste often overlook measures like source reduction highlighted by the P2 Act, which emphasizes preventing pollution before it occurs. The case of the four woodworking firms illustrates how marketable permits can lead to more cost-effective pollution reduction compared to mandated reductions for each firm.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question is asking which statements about sources of production waste are false. To accurately address this topic, we must consider various factors that contribute to production waste in different industries. It is important to note that production waste can be generated in many ways, including inefficient use of raw materials, lack of pollution prevention measures, and ineffective waste management practices.
For the woodworking firms Elm, Maple, Oak, and Cherry, production waste consists of glue, varnish, sandpaper, and wood scraps. The P2 Act mentioned emphasizes the importance of source reduction, advocating for proactive measures that businesses can take to minimize waste at the source, which can lead to significant cost savings and environmental benefits. By implementing such measures, businesses can prevent pollution before it occurs, reducing the need for treatment or disposal.
In the scenario where the government issues marketable permits for reducing pollution that allows firms to trade the right to pollute, firms that can reduce pollution more cheaply will sell their permits to firms where reduction is more expensive, leading to a more cost-effective overall reduction. This market-based approach provides financial incentives for companies to find efficient ways to reduce their waste and can be a more flexible and potentially more cost-effective alternative to traditional regulation.