在气候变化实验中,分散的自愿协议并不能减少排放

IF 6.6 2区 经济学 Q1 ECOLOGY
Alessandro Del Ponte , Aidas Masiliūnas , Noah Lim
{"title":"在气候变化实验中,分散的自愿协议并不能减少排放","authors":"Alessandro Del Ponte ,&nbsp;Aidas Masiliūnas ,&nbsp;Noah Lim","doi":"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Can climate accords based on decentralized and voluntary agreements successfully reduce carbon emissions? We designed an economic experiment to study the effectiveness of the best-known mechanisms to foster international cooperation on climate change mitigation: climate pledges, financial penalties, and peer evaluation. We test each mechanism both separately and together. In the climate pledge treatments, participants could pledge their desired emissions target, approved by majority vote. In the treatments with financial penalties, failure to meet pledges triggered monetary sanctions. In the peer evaluation treatments, participants could evaluate each other, which determined who would receive an additional nonmonetary environmental prize. We find that most participants joined climate agreements and met their pledges, but pledges were insufficiently ambitious. As a result, neither pledges, financial penalties, nor peer evaluation reduced emissions. These results question the effectiveness of decentralized and voluntary climate agreements, such as the Paris Agreement.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51021,"journal":{"name":"Ecological Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decentralized voluntary agreements do not reduce emissions in a climate change experiment\",\"authors\":\"Alessandro Del Ponte ,&nbsp;Aidas Masiliūnas ,&nbsp;Noah Lim\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Can climate accords based on decentralized and voluntary agreements successfully reduce carbon emissions? We designed an economic experiment to study the effectiveness of the best-known mechanisms to foster international cooperation on climate change mitigation: climate pledges, financial penalties, and peer evaluation. We test each mechanism both separately and together. In the climate pledge treatments, participants could pledge their desired emissions target, approved by majority vote. In the treatments with financial penalties, failure to meet pledges triggered monetary sanctions. In the peer evaluation treatments, participants could evaluate each other, which determined who would receive an additional nonmonetary environmental prize. We find that most participants joined climate agreements and met their pledges, but pledges were insufficiently ambitious. As a result, neither pledges, financial penalties, nor peer evaluation reduced emissions. These results question the effectiveness of decentralized and voluntary climate agreements, such as the Paris Agreement.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecological Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924003355\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecological Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800924003355","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

基于分散和自愿协议的气候协议能否成功减少碳排放?我们设计了一个经济实验来研究最著名的促进减缓气候变化国际合作机制的有效性:气候承诺、经济惩罚和同行评价。我们对每种机制进行了单独和共同测试。在气候承诺处理中,参与者可以承诺他们希望达到的排放目标,并由多数票通过。在有经济处罚的处理中,未履行承诺将受到经济处罚。在同伴评价处理中,参与者可以相互评价,从而决定谁将获得额外的非货币环境奖。我们发现,大多数参与者都加入了气候协议并履行了承诺,但承诺的目标不够远大。因此,无论是承诺、经济处罚还是同行评价都没有减少排放量。这些结果对《巴黎协定》等分散式自愿气候协议的有效性提出了质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Decentralized voluntary agreements do not reduce emissions in a climate change experiment
Can climate accords based on decentralized and voluntary agreements successfully reduce carbon emissions? We designed an economic experiment to study the effectiveness of the best-known mechanisms to foster international cooperation on climate change mitigation: climate pledges, financial penalties, and peer evaluation. We test each mechanism both separately and together. In the climate pledge treatments, participants could pledge their desired emissions target, approved by majority vote. In the treatments with financial penalties, failure to meet pledges triggered monetary sanctions. In the peer evaluation treatments, participants could evaluate each other, which determined who would receive an additional nonmonetary environmental prize. We find that most participants joined climate agreements and met their pledges, but pledges were insufficiently ambitious. As a result, neither pledges, financial penalties, nor peer evaluation reduced emissions. These results question the effectiveness of decentralized and voluntary climate agreements, such as the Paris Agreement.
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
Ecological Economics
Ecological Economics 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
5.70%
发文量
313
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Ecological Economics is concerned with extending and integrating the understanding of the interfaces and interplay between "nature''s household" (ecosystems) and "humanity''s household" (the economy). Ecological economics is an interdisciplinary field defined by a set of concrete problems or challenges related to governing economic activity in a way that promotes human well-being, sustainability, and justice. The journal thus emphasizes critical work that draws on and integrates elements of ecological science, economics, and the analysis of values, behaviors, cultural practices, institutional structures, and societal dynamics. The journal is transdisciplinary in spirit and methodologically open, drawing on the insights offered by a variety of intellectual traditions, and appealing to a diverse readership. Specific research areas covered include: valuation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture and development, ecologically integrated technology, integrated ecologic-economic modelling at scales from local to regional to global, implications of thermodynamics for economics and ecology, renewable resource management and conservation, critical assessments of the basic assumptions underlying current economic and ecological paradigms and the implications of alternative assumptions, economic and ecological consequences of genetically engineered organisms, and gene pool inventory and management, alternative principles for valuing natural wealth, integrating natural resources and environmental services into national income and wealth accounts, methods of implementing efficient environmental policies, case studies of economic-ecologic conflict or harmony, etc. New issues in this area are rapidly emerging and will find a ready forum in Ecological Economics.
×
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