Answered by AI, Verified by Human Experts
Final answer:All the options presented are indeed pollution costs, as they encompass expenditures related to avoiding, managing or remedying the effects of pollution. Therefore, the correct answer is that 'None of these are correct'.Explanation:To address the question of which option is NOT a pollution cost, we need to first establish what pollution costs entail. Pollution costs refer to the economic costs associated with preventing, managing, or remedying damage caused by pollutants. This includes a wide range of expenses from abatement costs, clean-up costs, healthcare costs due to increased incidence of pollution-related diseases, and costs associated with pollution damage to infrastructure, such as buildings and natural resources.Expenditure to avoid pollution damage once it has occurred is certainly a pollution cost, as it involves costs related to remedying or mitigating the effects of pollution. Increased health costs are also a direct consequence of pollution, as individuals and healthcare systems have to spend more on treating conditions caused or exacerbated by pollutants. Sewage treatment can be seen as both a preventive measure as well as a remedial action for existing pollution, hence it is a pollution cost too.Given the options provided, it is clear that all listed items are indeed associated with pollution costs. Therefore, the correct answer is None of these are correct....