Question

The efficient regulation of hazardous pollutants should take exposure into account – the more persons exposed to a given pollutant concentration, the larger is the damage caused by it and therefore the smaller is the efficient concentration level, all other things being equal. An alternative point of view would simply ensure that concentrations would be held below a uniform threshold regardless of the number of people exposed. For this point of view, the public policy goal is to expose any and all people to the same concentration level - exposure is not used to establish different concentrations for different settings/locations. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each approach? Which do you think represents the best approach? Why?

Answer 1

In the first scenario , if this approach is applied where exposure is taken into account , then the advantage is that lesser population is exposed to hazardous pollutants . To maintain the efficient concentration level exposure must be reduced . So the damages do not spread wide . But the biggest disadvantage is inequality of exposure . Some people have to bear high concentration , while others enjoy a cleaner atmosphere at the cost of those people . if hazardous pollution level is same but the number of persons exposed to the  given pollutant concentration is lowered then the few people have to tolerate high concentration .

In the second case , maintaining a threshold for concentration ensures that pollution is low . All the people are exposed to same level of low concentration . But the disadvantage would be higher costs incurred to keep pollution level low which can raise market price or lower production .

I think second one is the best approach , people should not be subjected to inequality rather pollution should be kept at a minimum , scientifically determined level