English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Environmental control costs can be made to appear much larger in impact than they actually are by placing costs in misleading contexts or failing to provide perspective. It is essential for continued public support of environmental health programs that this practice be countered by more meaningful presentations of economic data. As an example, analytic methods appropriate to the case of a large coal-fired power plant in northwestern New Mexico are developed and disucssed. Pollution control expenditures at the Four Corners Power Plant in northwestern New Mexico were presented to the public as costing $82 annually. Although this figure may be the correct one, data were collected and analyzed to show that this cost represented an increase of only 5 to 60 cents on a $100 electricity bill for the consumer of electricity.

Putting environmental economics in perspective: case study of Four Corners Power Plant, New Mexico.