Use marginal cost/marginal benefit analysis to determine if the following statement is true or false: "The optimal amount of pollution abatement for some substances, say, dirty water from storm drains, is very low; the optimal amount of abatement for other substances, say, cyanide poison, is close to 100 percent.".

Marginal benefit:

Marginal benefit refers to the additional benefits to individuals from having additional pollution abatement.

Marginal cost:

Marginal cost refers to the additional cost to the individuals from having additional pollution abatement.

Pollution abatement:

Reduction in the water pollution caused by release of household wastes has lower social benefits. This causes the marginal benefit curve to be at lower level and also intersects with the marginal cost curve at lower level of pollution abatement. This shows the lower equilibrium amount of pollution abatement, where marginal benefit is equal to marginal cost.

On the other hand, cyanide causes higher damage to the society. If anyone drinks the water, then it will end up lives. Thus, reducing the cyanide pollution will result in higher benefits. This causes the marginal benefit curve higher and it intersects with the marginal cost curve at higher level that is nearly at 100 percent.

Hence, the statement is true.

This statement is true

Explanation:

Pollution abatement refers to any action taken to reduce the negative impacts of pollution in the environment, e.g. waste water treatment facilities, filters, etc.

Since dirty water from storm drains is not hazardous, the pollution abatement for treating storm drains should be low. On the other hand, poisons (and specially cyanide poisons) are extremely hazardous, therefore, the pollution abatement should be very extensive.

answer; break-even analysis;