Two approaches have been used to control pollution? Government mandates and market incentives. Suggest how market incentives might be used to deal with a pollution problem in Las Vegas.
I find this topic to be very interesting, not only because it concerns all of us living in Las Vegas, but because we are also part of the problem. Pollution is not a laughing matter, and it has been strongly fought, without much success, in Southern Nevada in the past several years.
One thing that makes fight pollution harder, is the exponentially growth of the population. That increases the number of cars out on the street, which means more traffic, and also higher production of garbage, and that translates itself into pollution. A lot can be done to decrease the traffic, to clean the Las Vegas wash, or to purify the air, for an example. The problem is, programs take a lot of money and a lot of time. For a program to turn out with an effective result, first you need researchers, and you also need a lot time to research, and that takes capital. That is the main reason why so many programs go wrong.
Trying to fight the air pollution is hard. One of the ways that the local government tried to make the air pollution decrease was to build more roads. That is supposed to work because traffic would move at higher speeds, resulting in less congestion and eventually less pollution. But in the other hand, the constructions the highways put in the air high levels of dust, anther way of pollution. Cheaper ways of reducing pollution are available. But for those to become effective we need the community's and the government's help. Obviously we do need traffic improvements, but we need to provide greater incentives to employers to get them to stagger work hours, we need to provide greater incentives to get employers to allow people to work at home whenever possible, and we need more trails so people don't feel like they have to get into their ...
Page 1 of 2