Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Usually, permitted point sources of water pollution, such as wastewater treatment plants, have high discharge treatment costs, whereas nonpoint sources of water pollution, such as agriculture, have low costs of pollution reduction. Therefore, it is generally assumed that most trades would take place between point sources and nonpoint sources. [54]
This mechanism could also be used to improve the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of government programs. This mechanism provides better market-based information to allocate resources effectively with lower cost. The societal goal is to reduce pollution rather than to avoid paying for unsuccessful pollution control projects.
Several other, more modern high rise buildings had been built in Detroit. The Hammond Building was only netting $1.43 per square foot from rentals whereas the cost to operate the building was $1.20 per square foot. [16] The corporation which owned and managed the Hammond building, The Hammond Building Company was dissolved on 15 February 1956. [23]
In order to reduce costs of P2 techniques, many officials are turning to pollution elimination strategies, thereby eliminating any need for end-of-pipe solutions. A task force was created by the EPA in order to directly target reduction strategies. The P2 program task force has 5 main goals: create feasible P2 objectives and corresponding time ...
Operators must use the BAT to control pollution from their industrial activities to prevent, and where that is not practicable, to reduce to acceptable levels, pollution to air, land and water from industrial activities. The Best Available Techniques also aim to balance the cost to the operator against benefits to the environment.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
While the initial costs in cutting emissions levels were expected to be over $4.6 billion for utilities and a 40% rise in electricity costs, the impact ended up being only about $1 billion and a 2–4% rise in electricity costs. Part of the reason for the relatively low costs is the availability of low-sulfur coal.
This gives polluters an incentive to reduce pollution at a lower cost than the tax rate. There is no cap; the quantity of pollution reduced depends on the chosen tax rate. A tax approach is more flexible than permits, as the tax rate can be adjusted until it creates the most effective incentive. Taxes also have lower compliance costs than ...