不平等和温室气体排放

Stephan Klasen
{"title":"不平等和温室气体排放","authors":"Stephan Klasen","doi":"10.25071/1874-6322.40397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Global inequality has been falling in the last 20 or 30 years, mainly because of rising incomes in China, India, and, more recently, also in Africa. That has been good for global justice and poverty reduction, but not for greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the majority of growth in emissions since 1990 has taken place in emerging countries. As a result, if global inequality continues to fall, we have to confront the fact that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. There is no easy solution to this problem, since it is very difficult for emerging countries to drastically change their emission pathways. But there are some policies that might help, including, for example, the removal of energy subsidies and a greater focus on air pollution and energy security, both of which are co-benefits of moving away from fossil energy. The question also remains whether more unequal countries emit more or less greenhouse gases. Theoretical arguments in this regard are ambiguous. We find that in poorer countries, higher inequality actually reduces per capita emissions, mainly because it pushes poor people out of the carbon economy and forces them to lead carbon-neutral lives, relying entirely on biomass. However, in richer countries, inequality is associated with rising emissions. Therefore, if we reduce inequality in rich countries, we will also help reduce emissions. But how to think about climate policy? Economists have very much focused on the idea that there is a first best climate policy with a global carbon price, achieved either through an emission trading scheme or a carbon tax. But one should realize that climate policy in practice involves many different initiatives at many different levels. The driving forces of such policies are often the co-benefits such as cleaner air or greater energy security than emission reduction. If we recognize this, then our analysis should focus not on trying to design first best, but unrealistic policies, but rather on studying the interactions between existing policies and on trying to improve their functioning. This will be a much more promising way to tackle climate change than focusing on an unrealistic first best option.","PeriodicalId":142300,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Income Distribution®","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inequality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions\",\"authors\":\"Stephan Klasen\",\"doi\":\"10.25071/1874-6322.40397\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Global inequality has been falling in the last 20 or 30 years, mainly because of rising incomes in China, India, and, more recently, also in Africa. That has been good for global justice and poverty reduction, but not for greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the majority of growth in emissions since 1990 has taken place in emerging countries. As a result, if global inequality continues to fall, we have to confront the fact that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. There is no easy solution to this problem, since it is very difficult for emerging countries to drastically change their emission pathways. But there are some policies that might help, including, for example, the removal of energy subsidies and a greater focus on air pollution and energy security, both of which are co-benefits of moving away from fossil energy. The question also remains whether more unequal countries emit more or less greenhouse gases. Theoretical arguments in this regard are ambiguous. We find that in poorer countries, higher inequality actually reduces per capita emissions, mainly because it pushes poor people out of the carbon economy and forces them to lead carbon-neutral lives, relying entirely on biomass. However, in richer countries, inequality is associated with rising emissions. Therefore, if we reduce inequality in rich countries, we will also help reduce emissions. But how to think about climate policy? Economists have very much focused on the idea that there is a first best climate policy with a global carbon price, achieved either through an emission trading scheme or a carbon tax. But one should realize that climate policy in practice involves many different initiatives at many different levels. The driving forces of such policies are often the co-benefits such as cleaner air or greater energy security than emission reduction. If we recognize this, then our analysis should focus not on trying to design first best, but unrealistic policies, but rather on studying the interactions between existing policies and on trying to improve their functioning. This will be a much more promising way to tackle climate change than focusing on an unrealistic first best option.\",\"PeriodicalId\":142300,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Income Distribution®\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Income Distribution®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.40397\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Income Distribution®","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25071/1874-6322.40397","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在过去的二三十年里,全球不平等一直在下降,这主要是因为中国、印度以及最近非洲的收入不断增加。这有利于全球正义和减贫,但不利于温室气体排放。事实上,自1990年以来,排放量的增长主要发生在新兴国家。因此,如果全球不平等继续下降,我们就必须面对温室气体排放将继续上升的事实。这个问题没有简单的解决办法,因为新兴国家很难彻底改变它们的排放途径。但有一些政策可能会有所帮助,例如,包括取消能源补贴,更加关注空气污染和能源安全,这两者都是摆脱化石能源的共同好处。另一个问题是,更不平等的国家排放的温室气体是更多还是更少。这方面的理论论点是模棱两可的。我们发现,在较贫穷的国家,更严重的不平等实际上减少了人均排放量,主要是因为它将穷人赶出了碳经济,迫使他们过碳中和的生活,完全依赖生物质。然而,在富裕国家,不平等与排放增加有关。因此,如果我们减少富裕国家的不平等,我们也将有助于减少排放。但是如何看待气候政策呢?经济学家们非常关注这样一种观点,即通过碳排放交易计划或碳税来实现全球碳价格,存在一种最佳的气候政策。但我们应该意识到,气候政策在实践中涉及许多不同层面的许多不同举措。这类政策的驱动力往往是协同效益,如更清洁的空气或更大的能源安全,而不是减排。如果我们认识到这一点,那么我们的分析就不应该把重点放在试图设计出最好的、但不切实际的政策上,而应该放在研究现有政策之间的相互作用上,并努力改善它们的功能。这将是应对气候变化更有希望的方式,而不是专注于不切实际的第一最佳选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Inequality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Global inequality has been falling in the last 20 or 30 years, mainly because of rising incomes in China, India, and, more recently, also in Africa. That has been good for global justice and poverty reduction, but not for greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, the majority of growth in emissions since 1990 has taken place in emerging countries. As a result, if global inequality continues to fall, we have to confront the fact that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise. There is no easy solution to this problem, since it is very difficult for emerging countries to drastically change their emission pathways. But there are some policies that might help, including, for example, the removal of energy subsidies and a greater focus on air pollution and energy security, both of which are co-benefits of moving away from fossil energy. The question also remains whether more unequal countries emit more or less greenhouse gases. Theoretical arguments in this regard are ambiguous. We find that in poorer countries, higher inequality actually reduces per capita emissions, mainly because it pushes poor people out of the carbon economy and forces them to lead carbon-neutral lives, relying entirely on biomass. However, in richer countries, inequality is associated with rising emissions. Therefore, if we reduce inequality in rich countries, we will also help reduce emissions. But how to think about climate policy? Economists have very much focused on the idea that there is a first best climate policy with a global carbon price, achieved either through an emission trading scheme or a carbon tax. But one should realize that climate policy in practice involves many different initiatives at many different levels. The driving forces of such policies are often the co-benefits such as cleaner air or greater energy security than emission reduction. If we recognize this, then our analysis should focus not on trying to design first best, but unrealistic policies, but rather on studying the interactions between existing policies and on trying to improve their functioning. This will be a much more promising way to tackle climate change than focusing on an unrealistic first best option.
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
期刊最新文献
Axioms and Intuitions about Societal Inequality Does vulnerable employment narrow income inequality? Evidence from developing countries The Impact of Microfinance on Poverty and Income Inequality Return Migration and Earnings Mobility in the Middle East and North Africa The micro-macro gap for capital income in the Eurozone
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1