why this is right?

The goal of subsidies is to encourage some sort of public good or alleviate a burden through accepting and promoting a specific behavior. When urban areas subsidize urban transit systems, there is significant economies of scale in operation. The average cost of such business decline over the range of production that fulfills the market demand giving a rise of natural monopoly. Splitting up the natural monopoly would raise the average cost of production and force consumers to pay more. Hence, the concept of subsidy makes sense. There are more examples of natural monopoly, such as public utilities (water and electrical services).

why this is right?

Not polluting will very certainly result in more negative consequences than positive consequences, thus no.

The result is that if businesses wish to attain zero pollution in today's environment, they will have to abandon all current technology.

This would put the entire economy in danger of collapse if this were to occur.

The pollution that is required for modern life, on the other hand, is of a modest scale and affordable.

Therefore, it's more of a darn if you do, darn if you don't.

According to, (DoSomething.org, n.d.), "Americans make up an estimated 5% of the world's population. However, the US uses 25% of the world's resources - burning up nearly 25% of the coal, 26% of the oil, and 27% of the world's natural gas."

We are a long way from using only electric or solar power, etc. as energy, but people are also a long way from the days of not caring about how we as people effect the climate.