Should all pollution be banned? Why might some level of pollution be economically efficient?

Please provide the best answer for the statement.

The economist would argue that it is necessary to weigh the marginal cost of pollution abatement against the marginal benefit to society of pollution abatement to determine the optimal level of pollution for society. In most cases, the marginal cost of pollution abatement activity that is necessary to eliminate all pollution will be much greater than the marginal benefit to society. People will not be well-served by a no pollution policy because it will be very costly in terms of resources devoted to pollution control and other productive activity that must be curtailed to eliminate the pollution.