An emissions tax on a quantity of emissions from a firm is not a command-and- control approach to reducing pollution. Why?

First, let's understand the two approaches to reducing pollution: 1. Command-and-control approach: In this approach, the government sets specific limits or standards on the levels of pollution that a firm can emit and imposes penalties for non-compliance. This can be achieved through direct regulation or licensing requirements. 2. Emissions tax: This is an economic or market-based approach, where the government imposes a tax on firms for their emissions or pollution released. This encourages firms to reduce emissions to minimize their tax burden.

Now that we understand the concepts, let's compare the command-and-control approach and emissions tax: 1. Flexibility: The command-and-control approach sets strict limits on pollution levels, whereas an emissions tax allows firms the flexibility to choose the level of emissions they produce and pay the corresponding tax. 2. Efficiency: Emissions tax is considered more efficient than the command-and-control approach because it promotes innovation and cost-effective solutions for reducing pollution. Firms have an incentive to find the most efficient methods to reduce emissions, as they can save on tax payments. 3. Allocation of resources: The command-and-control approach requires substantial resources to monitor and enforce compliance. In contrast, the emissions tax does not require as much monitoring and relies on market-based incentives to drive compliance.

Based on the comparison above, we can conclude that an emissions tax is not a command-and-control approach to reducing pollution because: 1. It does not impose specific limits or standards on pollution levels. 2. It offers greater flexibility for firms to choose their emissions level and corresponding tax payments. 3. It is more efficient, as it relies on market incentives rather than direct regulation. 4. It requires fewer resources for monitoring and enforcement. Therefore, an emissions tax represents a market-based solution to pollution reduction, whereas the command-and-control approach relies on direct regulation and enforcement.