In: Economics
Showing results for two firms each have the option of polluting during production of cleaning up their production process such that they do not pollute. Of course, polluting is cheaper than not polluting. The payoffs for each of the choice combination are shown in the decision matrix in figure 9Q2. the government would like to stop pollution by making it illegal and charging a fine if a firm is found polluting. how large does not the fine need to be to keep a firm from polluting.
Pollution can be reduced by us by strict observation of following aspects:
1. Reducing the use of personal vehicles and using mass transportation facilities
2. Using battery operated vehicles and using sustainable energy
3. Harnessing solar energy and preventing use of coal and non renewable resources
4. Following water efficient theories and water harvesting philosophy
5. Reduce reuse substitute technology implementation
6. Constructing Green Buildings and following green architectural principles- passive building concepts
7. Application of energy conservation in all infrastructure projects
8.Using building automation and controls for reducing energy, water and wastewater generation
Environmental protection and pollution control, including waste management, should be considered a cost of providing a product or service. Consumers, taxpayers and ratepayers must expect to pay some of the cost
Doing something to harm the environment deliberately or by being careless can result in a pollution fine or penalty.
As well as financial cost, a prosecution under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) can damage your reputation.
Pollution penalties range from $300 to $600,000. Fines go up to $300,000 for an individual and $600,000 for a business. Continuing offences can be penalised at $10,000 per day, or up to two years in prison and company employees, contractors, managers and agents can be liable for fines.