Concept of opportunity cost to the pollution of a lake an economist would conclude that all polution in the lake should be eliminated regardless of cost?

Answer 1

All cost/benefit is driven by the specifics of the situation. In this case terms like "all pollution" and "regardless of cost" would make the question unanswerable.

Like the control of toxins in workplace environments there is a "no impact level" for pollutants. Below this limit the natural assimilative capacity of the system can remove the material. Risk analysis is based on the fact that zero is risk is never attainable.

With regard to the cost factors - pollution control systems themselves have a calculable cost - the added worth of supporting a population through wages, infrastructure through taxes and health care through employee benefits which offset the acceptance of a level of pollution are more difficult to peg. These would come into play in calculating "regardless of cost". In the example of the use of fertilizers and pesticides in the agribusiness, the total elimination of these potential pollutants could cause massive food shortages and starvation - not a cost that people would be willing to pay.

Answer 2

An economist would consider the opportunity cost of pollution, which includes the value of lost clean water, fisheries, and recreational activities. The economist might recommend reducing pollution until the marginal cost equals the marginal benefit to society. If the cost of eliminating all pollution exceeds the benefits gained, it may not be economically efficient to eliminate all pollution in the lake.