Consider the following data on the social costs and benefits associated with a policy to reduce water pollution (% reduction) by regulatory means: % Reduction 0 (status quo) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Social Costs (in millions) 0 10 22 40 70 105 150 210 280 350 420 Social Benefits (in millions) 0 80 150 200 240 280 320 350 375 385 390 A. B. What level reduction (%) is most optimal based on the welfare (efficiency) criterion? Current budgetary constraints limit the amount available to spend on the water pollution reduction policy to $250 million. What is the argument against using that amount to buy the maximum amount of pollution reduction possible (around 70-80%) based on available cost estimates? If budgetary resources are available to fund maximum pollution reduction, why would such a policy still not be optimal according to the welfare (efficiency) criterion? C. Consider the following data on the social costs and benefits associated with a policy to reduce water pollution (% reduction) by regulatory means: % Reduction 0 (status quo) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Social Costs (in millions) 0 10 22 40 70 105 150 210 280 350 420 Social Benefits (in millions) 0 80 150 200 240 280 320 350 375 385 390 A. B. What level reduction (%) is most optimal based on the welfare (efficiency) criterion? Current budgetary constraints limit the amount available to spend on the water pollution reduction policy to $250 million. What is the argument against using that amount to buy the maximum amount of pollution reduction possible (around 70-80%) based on available cost estimates? If budgetary resources are available to fund maximum pollution reduction, why would such a policy still not be optimal according to the welfare (efficiency) criterion? C