12.6The Tradeoff between Economic Output and Environmental Protection

be able to reduce greenhouse gases. However, low-income countries, with some understandable exasperation, point out that high-income countries do not have much moral standing to lecture them on the necessities of putting environmental protection ahead of economic growth. After all, high-income countries have historically been the primary contributors to greenhouse warming by burning fossil fuels—and still are today. It is hard to tell people who are living in a low-income country, where adequate diet, health care, and education are lacking, that they should sacrifice an improved quality of life for a cleaner environment. Can rich and poor countries come together to address global environmental spillovers? At the initiative of the European Union and the most vulnerable developing nations, the Durban climate conference in December 2011 launched negotiations to develop a new international climate change agreement that covers all countries. The outcome of these negotiations was the Paris Climate Agreement, passed in 2015. The Paris Agreement committed participating countries to significant limits on CO2 emissions. To date, 196 entities have signed on, including the two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases—China and the United States. The U.S. contribution to the agreement was the Clean Power Plan, which planned to reduce power plant CO2 emissions across the U.S. by 17% to pre-2005 levels by 2020, and to further reduce emissions by a cumulative 32% by 2030. In early 2017, the Trump Administration announced plans to back out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Trump opposed the Clean Power plan, opting instead to shift focus to the use of natural gas. This represented a significant blow to the success of the Paris Agreement. However, on his first day in office, President Biden, on behalf of the United States, rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement. LINK IT UP Visit this website (https://openstax.org/l/EC) to learn more about the European Commission. If high-income countries want low-income countries to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases, then the high-income countries may need to pay some of the costs. Perhaps some of these payments will happen through private markets. For example, some tourists from rich countries will pay handsomely to vacation near the natural treasures of low-income countries. Perhaps some of the transfer of resources can happen through making modern pollution-control technology available to poorer countries. The practical details of what such an international system might look like and how it would operate across international borders are forbiddingly complex. However, it seems highly unlikely that some form of world government will impose a detailed system of environmental command-and-control regulation around the world. As a result, a decentralized and market-oriented approach may be the only practical way to address international issues such as global warming and biodiversity.

12.6 The Tradeoff between Economic Output and Environmental Protection

LEARNING OBJECTIVES By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Apply the production possibility frontier to evaluate the tradeoff between economic output and the environment
• Interpret a graphic representation of the tradeoff between economic output and environmental protection

We can analyze the tradeoff between economic output and the environment with a production possibility frontier (PPF) such as the one in Figure 12.5. At one extreme, at a choice like P, a country would be selecting a high level of economic output but very little environmental protection. At the other extreme, at a choice like T, a country would be selecting a high level of environmental protection but little economic output. According to the graph, an increase in environmental protection involves an opportunity cost of less economic output. No matter what their preferences, all societies should wish to avoid choices like M, which are productively inefficient. Efficiency requires that the choice should be on the production possibility frontier.

FIGURE 12.5The Tradeoff between Economic Output and Environmental Protection Each society will have to weigh its own values and decide whether it prefers a choice like P with more economic output and less environmental protection, or a choice like T with more environmental protection and less economic output. Economists do not have a great deal to say about the choice between P, Q, R, S and T in Figure 12.5, all of which lie along the production possibility frontier. Countries with low per capita gross domestic product (GDP), such as India, place a greater emphasis on economic output—which in turn helps to produce nutrition, shelter, health, education, and desirable consumer goods. Countries with higher income levels, where a greater share of people have access to the basic necessities of life, may be willing to place a relatively greater emphasis on environmental protection. However, economists are united in their belief that an inefficient choice such as M is undesirable. Rather than choosing M, a nation could achieve either greater economic output with the same environmental protection, as at point Q, or greater environmental protection with the same level of output, as at point S. The problem with command-and-control environmental laws is that they sometimes involve a choice like M. Market-oriented environmental tools offer a mechanism for providing either the same environmental protection at lower cost, or providing a greater degree of environmental protection for the same cost. BRING IT HOME Keystone XL How would an economist respond to claims of environmental damage caused by the Keystone XL project? Clearly, we can consider the environmental cost of oil spills a negative externality, but how large would these external costs be? Furthermore, are these costs “too high” when we measure them against any potential for economic benefit? As this chapter indicates, in deciding whether pipeline construction is a good idea, an economist would want to know not only about the marginal benefits resulting from the additional pipeline construction, but also the potential marginal costs—and especially the pipeline's marginal external costs. Typically these come in the form of environmental impact statements, which are usually required for such projects. For example, an impact statement, released in March 2013 by the Nebraska Department of State, considered the possibility of fewer pipeline miles going over the aquifer system and avoiding completely environmentally fragile areas. It indicated that pipeline construction would not harm "most resources". As noted at the outset of this chapter, the Obama Administration declined to approve construction of the Keystone XL project. However, the Trump administration announced its willingness to do so, but as noted earlier, the Biden administration effectively ended the project. While we may fairly easily quantify the economic benefits of additional oil in the United States, the social costs are more challenging to measure. Consequently, different observers may reach different conclusions about the balance between estimates of economic benefits and estimates of the social costs of the pipeline project.

Key Terms

additional external cost additional costs incurred by third parties outside the production process when a unit of output is produced biodiversity the full spectrum of animal and plant genetic material command-and-control regulation laws that specify allowable quantities of pollution and that also may detail which pollution-control technologies one must use externality a market exchange that affects a third party who is outside or “external” to the exchange; sometimes called a “spillover” international externalities externalities that cross national borders and that a single nation acting alone cannot resolve market failure When the market on its own does not allocate resources efficiently in a way that balances social costs and benefits; externalities are one example of a market failure marketable permit program a permit that allows a firm to emit a certain amount of pollution; firms with more permits than pollution can sell the remaining permits to other firms negative externality a situation where a third party, outside the transaction, suffers from a market transaction by others pollution charge a tax imposed on the quantity of pollution that a firm emits; also called a pollution tax positive externality a situation where a third party, outside the transaction, benefits from a market transaction by others property rights the legal rights of ownership on which others are not allowed to infringe without paying compensation social costs costs that include both the private costs incurred by firms and also additional costs incurred by third parties outside the production process, like costs of pollution spillover see externality

Key Concepts and Summary

12.1 The Economics of Pollution

Economic production can cause environmental damage. This tradeoff arises for all countries, whether high- income or low-income, and whether their economies are market-oriented or command-oriented. An externality occurs when an exchange between a buyer and seller has an impact on a third party who is not part of the exchange. An externality, which is sometimes also called a spillover, can have a negative or a positive impact on the third party. If those parties imposing a negative externality on others had to account for the broader social cost of their behavior, they would have an incentive to reduce the production of whatever is causing the negative externality. In the case of a positive externality, the third party obtains benefits from the exchange between a buyer and a seller, but they are not paying for these benefits. If this is the case, then markets would tend to under produce output because suppliers are not aware of the additional demand from others. If the parties generating benefits to others would somehow receive compensation for these external benefits, they would have an incentive to increase production of whatever is causing the positive externality. In either case, because resources are not being allocated efficiently, the externality leads to market failure.

12.2 Command-and-Control Regulation

Command-and-control regulation sets specific limits for pollution emissions and/or specific pollution-control technologies that firms must use. Although such regulations have helped to protect the environment, they have three shortcomings: they provide no incentive for going beyond the limits they set; they offer limited flexibility on where and how to reduce pollution; and they often have politically-motivated loopholes.

12.3 Market-Oriented Environmental Tools

Examples of market-oriented environmental policies, also called cap and trade programs, include pollution