Final answer:
Environmentalists generally favor command-and-control policies to ensure direct compliance with pollution reduction goals, but recognize the potential cost benefits of market-oriented tools, advocating for careful implementation of both approaches.
Step-by-step explanation:
Environmentalists would favor command-and-control policies as a way to reduce pollution, which is answer choice (c). The reason is that these policies enable precise regulation of pollution levels by setting strict legal limits and standards for emissions and discharges, thus ensuring that environmental aims are met directly and immediately. While critics may argue about the effectiveness of such policies, or suggest market-oriented tools as alternatives due to their flexibility and cost efficiency, command-and-control mechanisms provide a more straightforward approach to ensuring compliance with environmental protection goals.
Nevertheless, it is true that market-oriented environmental policy tools should not be dismissed outright. They offer advantages such as incentives and flexibility, which can lead to achieving any desired reduction in pollution with a potentially lower societal cost. What is crucial here is the implementation of these tools, such as setting appropriate levels for pollution charges or designing a robust system for tradable permits. In practice, a blend of both policy tools may be the most effective approach for environmentalists to support.