从伦理角度看温室气体拍卖-限额交易-投资项目的环境正义批评

R. McKinstry
{"title":"从伦理角度看温室气体拍卖-限额交易-投资项目的环境正义批评","authors":"R. McKinstry","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3772045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Existing North American regional programs for capping and reducing greenhouse gas emissions have come under criticism based on concerns regarding their perceived impact on environmental justice communities. When viewed through an ethical lens, programs that distribute emissions allowances by way of an auction with a sufficient reserve price comport better with principles of distributive justice than traditional permitting mechanisms, which award pollution allowances based on prior appropriation and do so without compensating society for consumption of a scarce resource. There is no evidence supporting claims that these programs increase levels having adverse health effects in disadvantaged communities. While levels of pollutants having adverse impacts on EJ communities were disproportionately increasing before the 2013 initiation of the California program, that trend reversed after the program’s initiation. By reinvesting auction revenues in programs to increase energy conservation, efficiency, and distributed generation in disadvantaged communities, the existing programs offset or eliminate adverse price impacts.","PeriodicalId":210701,"journal":{"name":"Decision-Making in Public Policy & the Social Good eJournal","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Viewing the Environmental Justice Critiques of Greenhouse Gas Auction-Cap-Trade-and-Invest Programs Through an Ethical Lens\",\"authors\":\"R. McKinstry\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3772045\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Existing North American regional programs for capping and reducing greenhouse gas emissions have come under criticism based on concerns regarding their perceived impact on environmental justice communities. When viewed through an ethical lens, programs that distribute emissions allowances by way of an auction with a sufficient reserve price comport better with principles of distributive justice than traditional permitting mechanisms, which award pollution allowances based on prior appropriation and do so without compensating society for consumption of a scarce resource. There is no evidence supporting claims that these programs increase levels having adverse health effects in disadvantaged communities. While levels of pollutants having adverse impacts on EJ communities were disproportionately increasing before the 2013 initiation of the California program, that trend reversed after the program’s initiation. By reinvesting auction revenues in programs to increase energy conservation, efficiency, and distributed generation in disadvantaged communities, the existing programs offset or eliminate adverse price impacts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":210701,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Decision-Making in Public Policy & the Social Good eJournal\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Decision-Making in Public Policy & the Social Good eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3772045\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision-Making in Public Policy & the Social Good eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3772045","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现有的北美地区限制和减少温室气体排放的计划受到了批评,因为人们担心这些计划会对环境正义团体产生影响。从道德的角度来看,通过有足够底价的拍卖方式分配排放配额的计划比传统的许可机制更符合分配正义的原则,传统的许可机制是根据事先的拨款发放污染配额,而不是补偿社会对稀缺资源的消耗。没有证据支持这样的说法,即这些项目增加了对弱势社区健康产生不利影响的水平。虽然在2013年加州项目启动之前,对EJ社区产生不利影响的污染物水平不成比例地增加,但该项目启动后,这一趋势发生了逆转。通过将拍卖收入再投资于提高弱势社区节能、能效和分布式发电的项目,现有项目抵消或消除了不利的价格影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Viewing the Environmental Justice Critiques of Greenhouse Gas Auction-Cap-Trade-and-Invest Programs Through an Ethical Lens
Existing North American regional programs for capping and reducing greenhouse gas emissions have come under criticism based on concerns regarding their perceived impact on environmental justice communities. When viewed through an ethical lens, programs that distribute emissions allowances by way of an auction with a sufficient reserve price comport better with principles of distributive justice than traditional permitting mechanisms, which award pollution allowances based on prior appropriation and do so without compensating society for consumption of a scarce resource. There is no evidence supporting claims that these programs increase levels having adverse health effects in disadvantaged communities. While levels of pollutants having adverse impacts on EJ communities were disproportionately increasing before the 2013 initiation of the California program, that trend reversed after the program’s initiation. By reinvesting auction revenues in programs to increase energy conservation, efficiency, and distributed generation in disadvantaged communities, the existing programs offset or eliminate adverse price impacts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信