碳定价并非不公正

IF 4.4 4区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Kian Mintz-Woo
{"title":"碳定价并非不公正","authors":"Kian Mintz-Woo","doi":"10.1002/gch2.202300089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The aim of this perspective is to argue that carbon pricing is not unjust. Two important dimensions of justice are distributive and procedural (sometimes called “participatory”) justice. In terms of distributive justice, it is argued that carbon pricing can be made distributionally just through revenue recycling and that it should be expected that even neutral reductions in emissions will generate progressive benefits, both internationally and regionally. In terms of procedural justice, it is argued that carbon pricing is in principle compatible with any procedure; however, there is also a particular morally justifiable procedure, the Citizens’ Assembly, which has been implemented in Ireland on this precise question and has generated broad agreement on carbon pricing. It is suggested that this morally matters because such groups are like “ideal advisors” that offer morally important advice. Finally, an independent objection is offered to some ambitious alternatives to carbon pricing like Green New Deal-type frameworks, frameworks that aim to simultaneously tackle multiple social challenges. The objection is that these will take too long to work in a climate context, both to develop and to iterate.</p>","PeriodicalId":12646,"journal":{"name":"Global Challenges","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gch2.202300089","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Carbon Pricing is not Unjust\",\"authors\":\"Kian Mintz-Woo\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/gch2.202300089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The aim of this perspective is to argue that carbon pricing is not unjust. Two important dimensions of justice are distributive and procedural (sometimes called “participatory”) justice. In terms of distributive justice, it is argued that carbon pricing can be made distributionally just through revenue recycling and that it should be expected that even neutral reductions in emissions will generate progressive benefits, both internationally and regionally. In terms of procedural justice, it is argued that carbon pricing is in principle compatible with any procedure; however, there is also a particular morally justifiable procedure, the Citizens’ Assembly, which has been implemented in Ireland on this precise question and has generated broad agreement on carbon pricing. It is suggested that this morally matters because such groups are like “ideal advisors” that offer morally important advice. Finally, an independent objection is offered to some ambitious alternatives to carbon pricing like Green New Deal-type frameworks, frameworks that aim to simultaneously tackle multiple social challenges. The objection is that these will take too long to work in a climate context, both to develop and to iterate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Challenges\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/gch2.202300089\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Challenges\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"103\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.202300089\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"综合性期刊\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Challenges","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gch2.202300089","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这一观点旨在论证碳定价并非不公正。正义的两个重要方面是分配正义和程序正义(有时称为 "参与 "正义)。在分配公正方面,该观点认为,碳定价可以通过收入再循环实现分配公正,而且即使是中性的减排也有望在国际和地区范围内产生累进效益。在程序公正方面,有观点认为,碳定价原则上与任何程序都是兼容的;然而,也有一种特殊的道德上合理的程序,即公民大会,该程序已在爱尔兰就这一确切问题实施,并就碳定价达成了广泛的一致意见。有人认为,这在道义上是重要的,因为这种团体就像 "理想的顾问",可以提供道义上重要的建议。最后,有人对碳定价的一些雄心勃勃的替代方案提出了独立的反对意见,如绿色新政类框架,这些框架旨在同时应对多重社会挑战。反对的理由是,在气候背景下,这些框架的制定和更新都需要很长时间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Carbon Pricing is not Unjust

Carbon Pricing is not Unjust

Carbon Pricing is not Unjust

The aim of this perspective is to argue that carbon pricing is not unjust. Two important dimensions of justice are distributive and procedural (sometimes called “participatory”) justice. In terms of distributive justice, it is argued that carbon pricing can be made distributionally just through revenue recycling and that it should be expected that even neutral reductions in emissions will generate progressive benefits, both internationally and regionally. In terms of procedural justice, it is argued that carbon pricing is in principle compatible with any procedure; however, there is also a particular morally justifiable procedure, the Citizens’ Assembly, which has been implemented in Ireland on this precise question and has generated broad agreement on carbon pricing. It is suggested that this morally matters because such groups are like “ideal advisors” that offer morally important advice. Finally, an independent objection is offered to some ambitious alternatives to carbon pricing like Green New Deal-type frameworks, frameworks that aim to simultaneously tackle multiple social challenges. The objection is that these will take too long to work in a climate context, both to develop and to iterate.

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
Global Challenges
Global Challenges MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
8.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
79
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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