/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 12 In recent years, companies have ... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

In recent years, companies have used fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, in drilling for oil and natural gas that previously could not be profitably recovered. According to an article in the New York Times, "horizontal drilling has enabled engineers to inject millions of gallons of high-pressure water directly into layers of shale to create the fractures that release the gas. Chemicals added to the water dissolve minerals, kill bacteria that might plug up the well, and insert sand to prop open the fractures." Experts are divided about whether fracking results in significant pollution, but some people worry that chemicals used in fracking might lead to pollution of underground supplies of water used by households and farms. a. First, assume that fracking causes no significant pollution. Use a demand and supply graph to show the effect of fracking on the market for natural gas. b. Now assume that fracking does result in pollution. On your graph from part (a), show the effect of fracking. Be sure to carefully label all curves and all equilibrium points. c. In your graph in part (b), what has happened to the efficient level of output and the efficient price in the market for natural gas compared with the situation before fracking? Can you be certain that the efficient level of output and the efficient price have risen or fallen as a result of fracking? Briefly explain.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Fracking, despite its pollution costs factored in, has likely resulted in an increased output and decreased price of natural gas. However, concrete declarations about the output and price cannot be confirmed without actual numerical values.

Step by step solution

01

Assume no significant pollution

Draw a supply and demand graph depicting the market for natural gas. Label the supply curve as \(S_1\) and the demand curve as \(D\). The intersection of \(S_1\) and \(D\) will give the first equilibrium, marked as \(E_1\), showing the price (\(P_1\)) and quantity (\(Q_1\)) without fracking. Fracking, by increasing supply, shifts the supply curve to right, say \(S_2\). The new equilibrium is \(E_2\) where \(S_2\) and \(D\) intersect, showing the price (\(P_2\)) and quantity (\(Q_2\)) with fracking but no significant pollution. \(P_2 < P_1\) and \(Q_2 > Q_1\).
02

Assume fracking causes pollution

Now, if fracking causes pollution, it is an external cost not included in the supply cost. To account for this external cost, we add it to the supply cost which shifts the supply curve from \(S_2\) to \(S_3\) (leftward shift). The new equilibrium, \(E_3\), is now at the intersection of \(S_3\) and \(D\) indicating new price (\(P_3\)) and quantity (\(Q_3\)). \(P_3\) is greater than \(P_2\) but less than \(P_1\) and \(Q_3\) is less than \(Q_2\) but more than \(Q_1\).
03

Compare pre and post-fracking conditions

Comparing the efficient level of output and price before fracking (\(Q_1, P_1\)) and after factoring the pollution cost (\(Q_3, P_3\)), we see that \(Q_3 > Q_1\) and \(P_3 < P_1\). This suggests that despite the pollution costs, fracking has increased the output and decreased the price of natural gas. However, whether the efficient level of output and price have increased or decreased isn't certain without concrete numerical values.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Why do most economists prefer tradable emission allowances to the command-and- control approach to pollution?

(Related to Solved Problem 5.3 on page 160 ) Solved Problem 5.3 contains the statement "Of course, the government actually collects the tax from sellers rather than from consumers, but we get the same result whether the government imposes a tax on the buyers of a good or on the sellers." Demonstrate that this statement is correct by solving the problem, assuming that the increase in the tax on gasoline shifts the supply curve rather than the demand curve.

What is the Coase theorem? Why do the parties involved in an externality have an incentive to reach an efficient solution?

(Related to the Apply the Concept on page 163) An economist for the Brookings Institution argued that "a price on carbon would minimize the cost of steering economic activity away from the greenhouse gas emissions that threaten the climate." a. In what sense does a carbon tax put a price on carbon? b. How would a carbon tax steer economic activity away from greenhouse gas emissions? c. Why might a carbon tax be less costly to the economy than a command-and- control approach to reducinggreenhouse gases? Why might a command-and-control approach to pollution control still be more politically popular than a carbon tax? Include in your answer a brief discussion of the difference between the normative analysis and positive analysis of this policy issue.

In the first years following the passage of the Clean Air Act in \(1970,\) air pollution declined sharply, and there were important health benefits, including a decline in infant mortality. According to an article in the Economist, however, recently some policymakers "worry that the EPA is constantly tightening restrictions on pollution, at ever higher cost to business but with diminishing returns in terms of public health." a. Why might additional reductions in air pollution come at "ever higher cost"? What does the article mean by arguing that these reductions will result in "diminishing returns in terms of public health"? b. How should the federal government decide whether further reductions in air pollution are needed?

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Economics Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.