Suppose we established a $10,000 fine for water pollution. Would some companies still find that polluting was economical?
Judging from these articles, the answer is probably "yes."
http://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#fp=54b78a9b0d3b5366&q=water+pollution+fines
Under what conditions?
Polluting is cheaper than properly disposing of the polluting materials.
To determine whether some companies would still find polluting to be economical despite a $10,000 fine for water pollution, we need to consider a few factors.
1. Cost of Compliance: Companies may compare the cost of implementing pollution control measures to the cost of paying the fine. If the cost of compliance with regulations, such as installing pollution control equipment or changing production processes, is higher than the fine amount, some companies may choose to continue polluting and pay the penalty.
2. Probability of Getting Caught: Companies may also consider the likelihood of being caught and penalized. If the chances of detection are low or if the enforcement of regulations is weak, companies may be more inclined to take the risk of polluting, even with the fine in place.
3. Long-Term Consequences: Companies may weigh the short-term benefits of polluting against the potential long-term consequences, such as damage to their reputation, legal actions, or higher fines in the future. The overall economic impact could be significant if these consequences outweigh the short-term cost savings of polluting.
It's important to note that each company's decision-making process may vary based on factors like profitability, ethical considerations, public pressure, and legal compliance.
To gauge the actual behavior of companies, policymakers and regulators would need to monitor and assess compliance rates, enforce penalties consistently, and continuously update the fine amount based on economic considerations and environmental outcomes.