swimming pools,either a pool for each homeowner or a public pool for all homeowners. Next,one needs to know the the abatement technology is well understood,this information shoul be readily obtainable.If the abatement technobgy is not understood,an estimate based on the firms'knowledge must be used. The choice of a policy tool will depend on the marginal benefits and costs of abatement.If firms are charged an equal-rate effluent fee,the firms will to the fee If this reducton higheou topermit wimm ng,the could be increased.Alternatively.revenue from the fees could be used to provide swimming facilities,reducing the need for effluent reduction. An equal standard per firm on the level ofeffluent that each can dump. Standards will be efficient only if the policy maker has complte information regarding the marginal costs and benefits of abatement,so that the efficient level of the standard can be determined.Moreover,the standard will not encourage firms to reduce effluents further when new filtering technologies become available. A transferable effluent permit system in which the aggregate level of effluent is fixed and all firms receive identical permits. A transferable effluent permit system requires the policy maker to determine the efficient effluent standard.Once the permits are distributed and a market develops,firms with a higher cost of abatement will purchas permit from firms with lower abatement costs However,unless permit are sol initially,rather than merely distributed,no revenue will be generated for the regional organization. 5.Medical research has shown the negative health effects of"secondhand"smoke Recent social trends point to growing intolerance of smoking in public areas.If you wish to ontinue smoking despite tougher anti smoking ibe the e effect of the lowing le ive proposals on your behavio As a result of these programs,do you,the individual smoker,benefit? Does society benefit as a whole? Since smoking in public areas is similar to polluting the air.the programs proposed here are similar to those examined for air pollution.A bill to lower tar and nicotine levels is similar to an emissions standard,and a tax on cigarettes is similartoan emissions fee g moking permitis similar to a system of emissions permits,assuming that the permits would not be transferable.The individual smoker in all of these programs is being forced to internalize the externality of"second-hand"smoke and will be worse off Society will be better off if the benefits of a particular the benefits of reducing second-hand smoke are uncertain,and assessing those benefits is costly.swimming pools, either a pool for each homeowner or a public pool for all homeowners. Next, one needs to know the marginal cost of abatement. If the abatement technology is well understood, this information should be readily obtainable. If the abatement technology is not understood, an estimate based on the firms’ knowledge must be used. The choice of a policy tool will depend on the marginal benefits and costs of abatement. If firms are charged an equal-rate effluent fee, the firms will reduce effluents to the point where the marginal cost of abatement is equal to the fee. If this reduction is not high enough to permit swimming, the fee could be increased. Alternatively, revenue from the fees could be used to provide swimming facilities, reducing the need for effluent reduction. b. An equal standard per firm on the level of effluent that each can dump. Standards will be efficient only if the policy maker has complete information regarding the marginal costs and benefits of abatement, so that the efficient level of the standard can be determined. Moreover, the standard will not encourage firms to reduce effluents further when new filtering technologies become available. c. A transferable effluent permit system in which the aggregate level of effluent is fixed and all firms receive identical permits. A transferable effluent permit system requires the policy maker to determine the efficient effluent standard. Once the permits are distributed and a market develops, firms with a higher cost of abatement will purchase permits from firms with lower abatement costs. However, unless permits are sold initially, rather than merely distributed, no revenue will be generated for the regional organization. 5. Medical research has shown the negative health effects of “secondhand” smoke. Recent social trends point to growing intolerance of smoking in public areas. If you are a smoker and you wish to continue smoking despite tougher anti smoking laws, describe the effect of the following legislative proposals on your behavior. As a result of these programs, do you, the individual smoker, benefit? Does society benefit as a whole? Since smoking in public areas is similar to polluting the air, the programs proposed here are similar to those examined for air pollution. A bill to lower tar and nicotine levels is similar to an emissions standard, and a tax on cigarettes is similar to an emissions fee. Requiring a smoking permit is similar to a system of emissions permits, assuming that the permits would not be transferable. The individual smoker in all of these programs is being forced to internalize the externality of “second-hand” smoke and will be worse off. Society will be better off if the benefits of a particular proposal outweigh the cost of implementing that proposal. Unfortunately, the benefits of reducing second-hand smoke are uncertain, and assessing those benefits is costly