Evaluate the potential trade-offs between environmental protection
and other macroeconomic objectives (25)
There are many tradeoffs between ke the second macro objective
environmental protection , such as is economic growth = a rise in
balanced government budget, high real GDP.
growth
economic There are
etc . AN-attempts to protect the
both negative and positive impacts environment-maybe & taxes
of aiming for environmental on petrol or diesel ears , and more
protection . of a more towards evs . This
discourages consumers from
↳>
-
The first macro- objective it consuming petrol , instead
more
conflicts with a balanced a sig proportion of consumers
gov - budget -
when tax rev may substitute petrol cars for
equates togou spending and public transport like buses or
borrowing even obers . In hind sight , it
AN -
government debt fuelled finance could be that and in transport
increases gou spending , so incurs Usage leads to greater external
an opportunity
cost on money costs such as air pollution from
that can be spent else where carbon emitts .
↳ E- depends on how and where ↳ affects consumers that
the gov. chooses to spend this may bike or walk as a form
money to improve environmental of commute
issues . LD ↓ health =
Strains NHS =
↓
AN- this leads to a rise in G , increasing productivity : output =
AD , as G is a the component Of AD. firms may see less profits
LRAS
=
may be forced to shut
i
-
resources are down =slow e growth.
exhausted E-
long run , this may not be the
Closer to YFE, case as implementation
laws might provide jobs and
LDE - Mort
perhaps mitigate health
environmental costs ,as real incomes may
"
7
Yu YFE degradation face a rise = health , as
might sig. affordability 4 =
NMDC
outweigh the finance used ,
generating more costs , exploit In addition ,gou can try income
ation of resources , I carbon tax , and hypothecate the revenue
emissions from transport generated to perhaps alm to
links . Overall , fuelling gor . meet their goal of net-zero
debt might be insignificant emissions by 2015 further -
depending magnitude of
on the creates jobs and helps mitigate
further cost that may occur the effects of climate change e.
from , perhaps investing in
greener tech for newly built Ap Green deal of net zero emissions
homes . associated wit degradationo
-
by 2025.
* future costs like healthcare 1st
can be mitigate a by environmental Ap > carbon
-
taxes/excise duties
policies. could generate revenue balance =
fiscal
, budget
conclusion >
-
there are many negative trade-offs with environmental
-
protection .
-
although environmental protection may impose short-term costs
on the economy , it may also provide long-run benefits such as
job creation in green industries , and cost savings from
further fiscal deficit , perhaps from climate-related injuries s
-
to improve environmental protection , policies must be
carefully chosen to mitigate the short-run costs , but
be able to generate long-term benefits .
and other macroeconomic objectives (25)
There are many tradeoffs between ke the second macro objective
environmental protection , such as is economic growth = a rise in
balanced government budget, high real GDP.
growth
economic There are
etc . AN-attempts to protect the
both negative and positive impacts environment-maybe & taxes
of aiming for environmental on petrol or diesel ears , and more
protection . of a more towards evs . This
discourages consumers from
↳>
-
The first macro- objective it consuming petrol , instead
more
conflicts with a balanced a sig proportion of consumers
gov - budget -
when tax rev may substitute petrol cars for
equates togou spending and public transport like buses or
borrowing even obers . In hind sight , it
AN -
government debt fuelled finance could be that and in transport
increases gou spending , so incurs Usage leads to greater external
an opportunity
cost on money costs such as air pollution from
that can be spent else where carbon emitts .
↳ E- depends on how and where ↳ affects consumers that
the gov. chooses to spend this may bike or walk as a form
money to improve environmental of commute
issues . LD ↓ health =
Strains NHS =
↓
AN- this leads to a rise in G , increasing productivity : output =
AD , as G is a the component Of AD. firms may see less profits
LRAS
=
may be forced to shut
i
-
resources are down =slow e growth.
exhausted E-
long run , this may not be the
Closer to YFE, case as implementation
laws might provide jobs and
LDE - Mort
perhaps mitigate health
environmental costs ,as real incomes may
"
7
Yu YFE degradation face a rise = health , as
might sig. affordability 4 =
NMDC
outweigh the finance used ,
generating more costs , exploit In addition ,gou can try income
ation of resources , I carbon tax , and hypothecate the revenue
emissions from transport generated to perhaps alm to
links . Overall , fuelling gor . meet their goal of net-zero
debt might be insignificant emissions by 2015 further -
depending magnitude of
on the creates jobs and helps mitigate
further cost that may occur the effects of climate change e.
from , perhaps investing in
greener tech for newly built Ap Green deal of net zero emissions
homes . associated wit degradationo
-
by 2025.
* future costs like healthcare 1st
can be mitigate a by environmental Ap > carbon
-
taxes/excise duties
policies. could generate revenue balance =
fiscal
, budget
conclusion >
-
there are many negative trade-offs with environmental
-
protection .
-
although environmental protection may impose short-term costs
on the economy , it may also provide long-run benefits such as
job creation in green industries , and cost savings from
further fiscal deficit , perhaps from climate-related injuries s
-
to improve environmental protection , policies must be
carefully chosen to mitigate the short-run costs , but
be able to generate long-term benefits .
