2. Suppose there are two firms that emit pollution. The abatement cost of firm 1 is \frac{1}{2}(\theta_1 - x_1)^2 where $\theta_1$ is a constant and $x_1$ is firm 1's emissions of pollution. Likewise, the abatement cost of firm 2 is \frac{1}{2}(\theta_2 - x_2)^2. a) Determine the marginal abatement cost functions for firm 1 and firm 2 (give a mathematical description). b) Suppose we want the total emissions of pollution to be limited to $x$, and we are going to do this by placing a tax $t$ on emissions. What $t$ should we select? c) Now suppose we want $x = 0$ (we want zero pollution.) What $t$ should we select?
Added by Karen P.
Close
Step 1
Step 1: The marginal abatement cost function is the derivative of the abatement cost function with respect to emissions. Show more…
Show all steps
Your feedback will help us improve your experience
Akash M and 93 other Microeconomics educators are ready to help you.
Ask a new question
Labs
Want to see this concept in action?
Explore this concept interactively to see how it behaves as you change inputs.
Key Concepts
Recommended Videos
Suppose there are two firms. Firms can abate pollution by taking abatement actions. Let us denote each firm's abatement action by x1 and x2. Marginal abatement cost curves are given by MAC1 = x1 + 10 and MAC2 = x2. The marginal damages curve from pollution (MD) (or marginal benefit from abatement) is given by MD = 95 - X, where X = x1 + x2. A) Identify the socially efficient level of abatement for each firm. B) Calculate the pollution tax that induces the socially efficient level of abatement. C) Show that imposing the (non-tradable) abatement quota of X*/2 for each firm would be inefficient. D) Show that imposing the tradable abatement quota of X*/2 for each firm would be efficient.
Akash M.
(c) The aggregate marginal cost function for this two-firm industry is: MC = 3Q Suppose the marginal benefit of pollution control is given by: MB = 35 - 0.5Q What is the efficient level of abatement? (d) What is the relationship between cost-effectiveness and efficiency? (e) What pollution tax would yield the efficient level of abatement you found in part (c)? If the pollution charge is levied on all units of emissions, how much revenue would the government receive? (f) If instead the government wanted to use a cap-and-trade scheme to achieve the same goal, how many permits should the government issue? In equilibrium, what would be the price of a permit? If all of the permits were auctioned, how much revenue would be raised for the government? (g) Suppose now that there is considerable uncertainty surrounding the costs of pollution abatement. In terms of our model, take this to mean that the aggregate marginal cost function in part (c) represents expected marginal costs. Actual costs could be much higher or lower. Assume there is no uncertainty regarding marginal benefits. In this situation, would a pollution tax or a system of tradable permits be more efficient?
Crystal W.
5. (1 mark) Following are the marginal abatement costs of three firms, related to the quantity of emissions. Each firm is now emitting 10 tons/week, so total emissions are 30 tons/week. Suppose we wish to reduce total emissions by 50 percent, to 15 tons per week. Compare the total costs of doing this: a. If the amount of decrease in emissions for each firm is equal. b. If each firm has a decrease that meets the equimarginal principle.
Andrew D.
Recommended Textbooks
Principles of Economics
Principles of Microeconomics for AP® Courses
Economics
Transcript
18,000,000+
Students on Numerade
Trusted by students at 8,000+ universities
Watch the video solution with this free unlock.
EMAIL
PASSWORD