Question

From an economist's perspective, is it sound policy

to pursue a goal of zero pollution? Why or why not?

Short answer

Achieving zero pollution is the most equitable for the world, however, it isn't asensible aim.

Step-by-step solution

Step 1. Introduction

The term "zero pollution" refers to a low quantity ofpoisons and trash released by businesses, to the point where it has no negative impact on the environment around it.

Step 2. Explanation

In a society where firms engage in production and distribution, positive and negative externalities will also take place. By producing and consuming there are numerous byproducts and consequences from all levels of a product's life cycle. These environmental impacts can be hard to measure, which allows consumers to remain ignorant of the impacts of their consumption. However, information is imperfect at all levels, to know the full extent of the pollution created is impossible. While zero pollution would create an ideal world, getting to that comes with massive information, enforcement, and efficiency costs. Instead, what Economists call for is a term called a socially optimal level of pollution where social marginal benefits and social marginal costs are equal.