Warning: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, bool given in /var/www/html/web/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/template-parts/header/mobile-offcanvas.php on line 20

How can high-income countries benefit from

covering much of the cost of reducing pollution created

by low-income countries?

Short Answer

Expert verified

For future generations, high-income countries will benefit from increased biodiversity and a cleaner environment.

Step by step solution

01

Introduction

High income countries - The World Bank defines high-income nations as those with a GNP per capita of $9,266or more in 2000.

Low income countries - Low-income countries, according to the World Bank, are those with a per capita gross national income (GNI) of less than $1,026.

02

Explanation

Low-income countries must spend more on improving criteria such as health, education, industrial growth, and so on, therefore the pollution issue is overlooked because their primary focus is on economic development. High-income countries have already attained a minimal level of living, allowing them to develop while implementing pollution-control measures. Because global warming is an international issue that requires all nations to work together to address, if high-income countries financially assist low-income countries in implementing pollution control strategies, they will profit in terms of reduced pollution in the coming years.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Four firms called Elm, Maple, Oak, and Cherry, produce wooden chairs. However, they also produce a great deal of garbage (a mixture of glue, varnish, sandpaper, and wood scraps). The first row of Table 12.6shows the total amount of garbage (in tons) that each firm currently produces. The other rows of the table show the cost of reducing garbage produced by the first five tons, the second five tons, and so on. First, calculate the cost of requiring each firm to reduce the weight of its garbage by one-fourth. Now, imagine that the government issues marketable permits for the current level of garbage, but the permits will shrink the weight of allowable garbage for each firm by one-fourth.

What will be the result of this alternative approach to reducing pollution?


Elm
Maple
Oak
Cherry
Current production of garbage (in tons)
20406080
Cost of reducing garbage by first five tons
\(5,500
\)6,300
\(7,200
\)3,000
Cost of reducing garbage by second five tons
\(6,000
\)7,200
\(7,500
\)4,000
Cost of reducing garbage by third five tons
\(6,500
\)8,100
\(7,800
\)5,000
Cost of reducing garbage by third five tons
\(7,000
\)9,000
\(8,100
\)6,000
Cost of reducing garbage by fifth five tons
\(0
\)9,900
\(8,400
\)7,000

Is zero pollution possible under a marketable permits system? Why or why not?

What does a point inside the production possibility frontier represent?

Would environmentalists favor command-and-control policies as a way to reduce pollution? Why or why not?

Give an example of a positive externality and an example of a negative externality.

See all solutions

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free