2. What are the authors reasons for recommending that polluters should pay?

1. Coase Theorem: Coase argued that IF transaction costs were low, environmental outcomes would be the same whether polluters were made to pay for pollution or victims paid polluters not to pollute (although the latter would not be fair). However, in the real world transaction costs are often quite high. What are the real world obstacles (including transactions costs) of having individual victims of fishing depletion solve the problem on their own by paying those who deplete not to do so?

2. What are the authors reasons for recommending that polluters should pay? Have you ever reduced your polluting because you had to pay for something? (eg electricty, bags, garbage fees, etc)

3. On safe seafood link in course documents for this week can you identify any endangered fish you eat, that it would be easy for you to give up? Note that some are high in mercury. Did any surprise you?

4. What article did you read on the NEF website? What did you learn? How are happiness, economics, and consumption related?

https://seafood.edf.org/?tagID=1521

https://neweconomics.org/campaigns/wellbeing

Last Completed Projects