Question Description
One-way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. A significant decrease is achieved only when all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing carbon tax. There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because of this "free rider" effect, cooperation on a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive. Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other countries would receive if they reduced emissions. As a consequence, other countries would have less incentive to reduce emissions and would probably emit more carbon dioxide than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken. The entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behaviour.Q. Which one of the following is most parallel to the "free rider” effect mentioned in passage?a)Because fares for public transportation are rising, a commuter decides to bicycle to work rather than to use public transportation in a city where auto emissions are a problem.b)An apartment dweller begins to recycle newspapers even though no one else in the building does so and recycling is not required by law.c)In an area where groundwater has become polluted, a homeowner continues to buy bottled water rather than contribute to a neighbourhood fund to combat pollution.d)In an area where overgrazing is a severe problem, a shepherd allows his sheep to continue grazing common field even though his neighbours have agreed to buy feed for their animals until regrowth occurs.e)If only statement (1) is sufficient to answer the question.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about One-way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. A significant decrease is achieved only when all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing carbon tax. There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because of this "free rider" effect, cooperation on a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive. Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other countries would receive if they reduced emissions. As a consequence, other countries would have less incentive to reduce emissions and would probably emit more carbon dioxide than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken. The entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behaviour.Q. Which one of the following is most parallel to the "free rider” effect mentioned in passage?a)Because fares for public transportation are rising, a commuter decides to bicycle to work rather than to use public transportation in a city where auto emissions are a problem.b)An apartment dweller begins to recycle newspapers even though no one else in the building does so and recycling is not required by law.c)In an area where groundwater has become polluted, a homeowner continues to buy bottled water rather than contribute to a neighbourhood fund to combat pollution.d)In an area where overgrazing is a severe problem, a shepherd allows his sheep to continue grazing common field even though his neighbours have agreed to buy feed for their animals until regrowth occurs.e)If only statement (1) is sufficient to answer the question.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for One-way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. A significant decrease is achieved only when all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing carbon tax. There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because of this "free rider" effect, cooperation on a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive. Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other countries would receive if they reduced emissions. As a consequence, other countries would have less incentive to reduce emissions and would probably emit more carbon dioxide than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken. The entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behaviour.Q. Which one of the following is most parallel to the "free rider” effect mentioned in passage?a)Because fares for public transportation are rising, a commuter decides to bicycle to work rather than to use public transportation in a city where auto emissions are a problem.b)An apartment dweller begins to recycle newspapers even though no one else in the building does so and recycling is not required by law.c)In an area where groundwater has become polluted, a homeowner continues to buy bottled water rather than contribute to a neighbourhood fund to combat pollution.d)In an area where overgrazing is a severe problem, a shepherd allows his sheep to continue grazing common field even though his neighbours have agreed to buy feed for their animals until regrowth occurs.e)If only statement (1) is sufficient to answer the question.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for One-way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. A significant decrease is achieved only when all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing carbon tax. There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because of this "free rider" effect, cooperation on a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive. Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other countries would receive if they reduced emissions. As a consequence, other countries would have less incentive to reduce emissions and would probably emit more carbon dioxide than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken. The entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behaviour.Q. Which one of the following is most parallel to the "free rider” effect mentioned in passage?a)Because fares for public transportation are rising, a commuter decides to bicycle to work rather than to use public transportation in a city where auto emissions are a problem.b)An apartment dweller begins to recycle newspapers even though no one else in the building does so and recycling is not required by law.c)In an area where groundwater has become polluted, a homeowner continues to buy bottled water rather than contribute to a neighbourhood fund to combat pollution.d)In an area where overgrazing is a severe problem, a shepherd allows his sheep to continue grazing common field even though his neighbours have agreed to buy feed for their animals until regrowth occurs.e)If only statement (1) is sufficient to answer the question.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of One-way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. A significant decrease is achieved only when all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing carbon tax. There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because of this "free rider" effect, cooperation on a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive. Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other countries would receive if they reduced emissions. As a consequence, other countries would have less incentive to reduce emissions and would probably emit more carbon dioxide than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken. The entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behaviour.Q. Which one of the following is most parallel to the "free rider” effect mentioned in passage?a)Because fares for public transportation are rising, a commuter decides to bicycle to work rather than to use public transportation in a city where auto emissions are a problem.b)An apartment dweller begins to recycle newspapers even though no one else in the building does so and recycling is not required by law.c)In an area where groundwater has become polluted, a homeowner continues to buy bottled water rather than contribute to a neighbourhood fund to combat pollution.d)In an area where overgrazing is a severe problem, a shepherd allows his sheep to continue grazing common field even though his neighbours have agreed to buy feed for their animals until regrowth occurs.e)If only statement (1) is sufficient to answer the question.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of One-way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. A significant decrease is achieved only when all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing carbon tax. There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because of this "free rider" effect, cooperation on a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive. Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other countries would receive if they reduced emissions. As a consequence, other countries would have less incentive to reduce emissions and would probably emit more carbon dioxide than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken. The entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behaviour.Q. Which one of the following is most parallel to the "free rider” effect mentioned in passage?a)Because fares for public transportation are rising, a commuter decides to bicycle to work rather than to use public transportation in a city where auto emissions are a problem.b)An apartment dweller begins to recycle newspapers even though no one else in the building does so and recycling is not required by law.c)In an area where groundwater has become polluted, a homeowner continues to buy bottled water rather than contribute to a neighbourhood fund to combat pollution.d)In an area where overgrazing is a severe problem, a shepherd allows his sheep to continue grazing common field even though his neighbours have agreed to buy feed for their animals until regrowth occurs.e)If only statement (1) is sufficient to answer the question.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for One-way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. A significant decrease is achieved only when all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing carbon tax. There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because of this "free rider" effect, cooperation on a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive. Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other countries would receive if they reduced emissions. As a consequence, other countries would have less incentive to reduce emissions and would probably emit more carbon dioxide than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken. The entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behaviour.Q. Which one of the following is most parallel to the "free rider” effect mentioned in passage?a)Because fares for public transportation are rising, a commuter decides to bicycle to work rather than to use public transportation in a city where auto emissions are a problem.b)An apartment dweller begins to recycle newspapers even though no one else in the building does so and recycling is not required by law.c)In an area where groundwater has become polluted, a homeowner continues to buy bottled water rather than contribute to a neighbourhood fund to combat pollution.d)In an area where overgrazing is a severe problem, a shepherd allows his sheep to continue grazing common field even though his neighbours have agreed to buy feed for their animals until regrowth occurs.e)If only statement (1) is sufficient to answer the question.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of One-way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. A significant decrease is achieved only when all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing carbon tax. There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because of this "free rider" effect, cooperation on a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive. Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other countries would receive if they reduced emissions. As a consequence, other countries would have less incentive to reduce emissions and would probably emit more carbon dioxide than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken. The entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behaviour.Q. Which one of the following is most parallel to the "free rider” effect mentioned in passage?a)Because fares for public transportation are rising, a commuter decides to bicycle to work rather than to use public transportation in a city where auto emissions are a problem.b)An apartment dweller begins to recycle newspapers even though no one else in the building does so and recycling is not required by law.c)In an area where groundwater has become polluted, a homeowner continues to buy bottled water rather than contribute to a neighbourhood fund to combat pollution.d)In an area where overgrazing is a severe problem, a shepherd allows his sheep to continue grazing common field even though his neighbours have agreed to buy feed for their animals until regrowth occurs.e)If only statement (1) is sufficient to answer the question.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice One-way governments can decrease air pollution is to impose a tax on industrial carbon dioxide emissions. A significant decrease is achieved only when all countries will behave cooperatively in imposing carbon tax. There are very strong reasons to believe that cooperation would be difficult to win. If most countries cooperated, then any country that chose not to cooperate would be advantaged: it would have no abatement costs, and the effect on the environment of its defection would be relatively small. Because of this "free rider" effect, cooperation on a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions might prove elusive. Should countries act unilaterally to curb emissions? If a country were to act unilaterally, the benefits would be spread across the globe, whereas the costs would fall solely on the country taking the action. The action would reduce emissions globally, and the effect of this would be to reduce the benefit other countries would receive if they reduced emissions. As a consequence, other countries would have less incentive to reduce emissions and would probably emit more carbon dioxide than they would have if the unilateral action had not been taken. The entire effect of the emission reduction may not be lost, but it would surely be diminished by this free-riding behaviour.Q. Which one of the following is most parallel to the "free rider” effect mentioned in passage?a)Because fares for public transportation are rising, a commuter decides to bicycle to work rather than to use public transportation in a city where auto emissions are a problem.b)An apartment dweller begins to recycle newspapers even though no one else in the building does so and recycling is not required by law.c)In an area where groundwater has become polluted, a homeowner continues to buy bottled water rather than contribute to a neighbourhood fund to combat pollution.d)In an area where overgrazing is a severe problem, a shepherd allows his sheep to continue grazing common field even though his neighbours have agreed to buy feed for their animals until regrowth occurs.e)If only statement (1) is sufficient to answer the question.Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.