English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Hi,
One who involved in polluting must try directly or indirectly to control it i.e pollution emission against effort in controlling emission is better. If a person using one liter of petrol or diesel or other pollution emission he should also take care in controlling pollution simultaneously when he emiting.

2007-03-07 00:28:02 · 1 answers · asked by Narayan akul 2 in Environment

1 answers

If you are concerned with the economic impact of burning one liter of petrol, you have to take more into account. For instance, using gasoline does create some pollution which is a negative effect but what positive economic effect does buring that liter create? Does it increase commerce? Does it improve the quality of life? Does it speed someone to the hospital? Does it help with law enforcment? Does it deliver goods and services? Does it get employees to their jobs? Does it help farmers work more efficiently? Does it permit businesses expand their markets? Does it allow recycling businesses to process other types of pollutants? Does it power the military? Does it deliver medicines where they are needed in an epidemic? Is it used to produce other needed products?
The usage of fossil fuels does not occurr in a vacuum. It is part of a dynamic system. There is a cause and effect in everything. For you to truly answer that question you need to know what the cost of not burning that litter of petrol would be and seeing the offset.
Fuels should be used as cleanly as possible. But if you expect the individual alone who is using it to pay for the pollution that isn't fair. What about all the people who benefit by that individual burning that fuel? Do they get a free ride?
We love to blame industries for pollution they create but we sure love to benefit from the products they provide, don't we?

2007-03-07 00:50:11 · answer #1 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers