Answer:
No, the claim made by utility managers does not justify continuing pollution. There are several reasons why:
The cost of $1000 per fish to control acid precipitation may not be accurate. It is important to consider the long-term environmental and health impacts of pollution, which could be far more costly in the long run.
Buying fish for anglers does not address the root cause of the problem, which is pollution. The temporary solution of buying fish for anglers does not address the long-term environmental impacts of pollution on ecosystems, wildlife, and human health.
Pollution is a societal problem that affects everyone, and it is not ethical to shift the burden of its cost to future generations. We have a moral obligation to protect the environment for future generations, and continuing pollution is a violation of this responsibility.
Investing in clean energy and pollution control technologies can create new job opportunities and boost economic growth. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that we must choose between environmental protection and economic growth.
In summary, the claim made by utility managers does not justify continuing pollution. It is essential to take action to address the root causes of pollution, rather than shifting the burden of its cost to future generations.
Step-by-step explanation: