A couple of points, what is under threat should be self explanatory. If its a pure economics paper, try this on; 1; People. People are under threat. They are the scarce resource, economically-those people who will die prematurely, from working in factories to produce some crap odd's are nobody needs. 2; There is no opportunity cost, because corporate liability (any entities liability, gov or private) doesnt exist as a meaningful factor in the kind of countries where they do this shit. Including britain, and all first world countries. 3; Pure greed going unsated, because some other entity got their first. Hope that helped. That was the neutral economic version.
the rain in spain falls mainly in the plain. not sure if it is acid rain in spain falling on the plain.
1. air - water in lakes and rivers becomes poisoned, animals plants and maybe people. 2. The opportunity cost is the what would the world be like without the pollution. so this is a tough question. it might be the cost of cleanup. It might be the cost of the damage to the animals plants air and river. You also might consider what damage would be done if Britain generated the power in another matter. 3. the conflict is international regulation of pollution. The European continent generally pushes for measuring pollution at the site of the pollution generator - such as the smoke stack itself. so called effluent measurements. Countries with fast moving weather and rivers argue that pollution be measured in an ambient way. Britain says our rivers and air are fairly clean so we can keep polluting at these levels. Britain would say it maintains its sovereign right to measure and control its own pollution. so another issues is sovereignty vs. internationalism.