Q.Interpret the given picture and explain any one strategy to control it from becoming an ecological disaster. [Picture: an industrial landscape with numerous factory chimneys/smokestacks emitting smoke over a densely built-up area.] Note: The following question is for the Visually Impaired Candidates only, in lieu of Q. No. 29. State any two strategies to achieve the objective of sustainable development.
You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.
Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →The picture depicts industrial pollution from factory emissions threatening environmental quality. One key strategy to prevent ecological disaster is pollution taxation (Pigovian tax), which internalizes the external cost of emissions and incentivizes firms to adopt cleaner technologies.
Understanding the Economic Problem
GDP measures the market value of all final goods and services produced in an economy, but it is silent on the quality of that production. The industrial landscape in the picture—factories belching smoke over residential areas—represents a classic case of negative externalities: the social cost of production (health damage, environmental degradation, reduced quality of life) exceeds the private cost borne by firms. These costs never enter the GDP accounts, yet they erode welfare.
When firms pollute freely, they impose costs on society without paying for them. The market fails because the price mechanism does not reflect the true scarcity of clean air and water. Left unchecked, this leads to overproduction of polluting goods and underinvestment in environmental quality—an ecological disaster in the making.
Strategy: Pollution Taxation (Pigovian Tax)
One powerful corrective is to impose a tax equal to the marginal external cost of pollution. Named after economist Arthur Pigou, this tax forces the polluter to internalize the externality.
How it works:
The government levies a per-unit tax on emissions (say, ₹ per tonne of or particulate matter). Faced with this tax, firms now compare the cost of polluting (paying the tax) against the cost of abatement (installing scrubbers, switching to cleaner fuels, improving efficiency). Rational firms will reduce emissions up to the point where the marginal cost of abatement equals the tax rate. The tax revenue can be recycled into environmental restoration or subsidies for green technology.
Economic intuition:
By raising the private cost of pollution to match the social cost, the tax shifts the firm's supply curve leftward (upward). Output of the polluting good falls to the socially optimal level, and the price rises to reflect the true resource cost. Consumers face the correct signal, demand adjusts, and resources flow toward cleaner alternatives. The invisible hand, corrected by the visible hand of policy, now guides the economy toward efficiency and sustainability.
Pollution taxes are preferred over rigid quantity controls (like uniform emission limits) because they achieve any given reduction in pollution at the lowest total cost—firms with cheaper abatement options cut more, while high-cost firms cut less but pay the tax. This cost-effectiveness is crucial when resources are scarce.
A common pitfall: confusing GDP growth with welfare improvement. The factories in the picture add to GDP (more output, more income), but if the health and environmental costs exceed the value of output, net welfare falls. GDP does not subtract the depreciation of natural capital or the disutility of pollution.
Broader context: …
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.