Creating a formula for the cost of pollution through time

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on creating a formula to estimate the societal cost of pollution over time, specifically using the equation C(P) = aP/(a-P), where 'a' represents the pollution level leading to human extinction. The author acknowledges the challenges in determining extinction levels and measuring pollution as a single scalar value. Critiques of the approach highlight its limitations, such as the lack of consideration for various costs associated with pollution, including healthcare and infrastructure impacts, and the absence of a monetary scale for decision-making.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of mathematical modeling and equations
  • Familiarity with pollution metrics and environmental science
  • Knowledge of economic principles related to cost-benefit analysis
  • Basic grasp of exponential growth concepts in environmental contexts
NEXT STEPS
  • Research methods for quantifying pollution levels and their impacts on society
  • Explore economic models for environmental cost analysis
  • Learn about the Malthusian growth model and its applications in environmental studies
  • Investigate alternative formulas for estimating the cost of pollution, incorporating multiple variables
USEFUL FOR

Environmental scientists, economists, policy makers, and researchers focused on pollution impact assessment and sustainability strategies.

grafs50
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Apologies if this is in the wrong section. Wasn't sure where to put it. While this is technically homework, I don't think it fits in the homework section

In a paper I'm writing, I need to estimate the cost to society of future pollution. Reading relevant academic articles, it seems pretty clear that estimating this is basically impossible. I think I've come up with a method to base a reasonable approximation (at least reasonable enough for the paper) given two things: knowing the current level of pollution and the level of pollution at which humanity is likely to die out.

I set the cost of pollution, C(P), where humanity goes extent to infinite (i.e.: no polluting activity is worth extinction)

Then I tried to come up with a formula that would make C(P)=0 when P=0 and C(P)=(1/0) when pollution reached extinction levels. This is what I came up with:

aP/(a-P) where a is the level of pollution at which humanity goes extinct. I'm also assuming that the costs of pollution grow exponentially.

The intuition I'd like to assign to this equation is that, as the level of pollution grows its effects grow linearly (the numerator, and it also begins to effect more and more of the planet.

What's right and what's wrong about this approach?
Thanks in advance.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You still have the problem of determining what extinction levels are and a way of measuring pollution as a single scalar value that ranges up to that extinction value.

The approach only considers one cost of pollution, the closeness with which it approaches "extinction levels". It does not consider how much more we have to spend for clean drinking water, breathable air, decreased productivity due to shortened lifespans, development costs to replace submerged real estate, increased medical costs due to pollution-related effects or decreased medical costs due to pollution-related early demise. All of the things that could make the result meaningful to use and difficult to determine.

The approach also does not have a scale in dollars (or Euros or anything else). How can someone make a rational management decision about the wisdom of paying 1 billion dollars and 12 lives for a pollution cost reduction of .001?
 
If the cost of pollution grows exponentially you must have that ##\frac{d}{dP}C(P)=KC(P)## where ##K## is a constant ... (is the Maltus law)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
8K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K