The individuals in effect make up the society and hence have to decide what they want to do with their resources but the ultimate decision maker is the government who has to look after the environmental as well as economical side of each decision. The society's concern is to increase their welfare from the amount of resources that they have and the government has to take the decision with economic viability in mind, the case points out that the only way to strike a balance between the two is to have a free market economic system in place which will balance the amount of resources that need to be put in to reduce pollution and those that need to be employed else where. The major economic concepts in the case are of opportunity costs and cost benefit analysis, these concepts are the binding factors for the environmental and economic side of the argument.
The analysis can be divided into two portions: the scientific point of view and the ethical point of view, talking of the scientific point of view the first thing that is to be understood is that all things that are achievable in a laboratory are not achievable in the world outside it for example clean water only exists in laboratories and not outside them. But who is to decide what clean is What is clean for some one is not clean for some one else and hence there is no agreement. ...Show more