市场激励型排放机制一定优于命令型排放机制吗?

被引：4

作者：

王燕

机构：

[1] 广东外语外贸大学国际商务英语学院

来源：

中国地质大学学报(社会科学版) | 2014年 / 01期

关键词：

排放交易机制; 命令型减排机制; 市场激励型减排机制; 温室气体;

D O I：

10.16493/j.cnki.42-1627/c.2014.01.004

中图分类号：

X321 [区域环境规划与管理];

学科分类号：

083305 ; 1204 ;

摘要：

西方学者多认为排放交易机制作为市场激励型减排机制,相比传统的命令型减排机制在应对温室气体减排时更有效率。但在评价市场激励型排放机制与命令型排放机制的优劣时,西方学者过于强调前者在履约成本方面的优势,忽略其政策形成、执行和监控成本以及对排放实体环境道德意识的影响。基于对欧美排放交易市场的分析发现,在减排初期各市场均因过度分配排放额而导致排放额价格低下,降低了减排动力。基于此,欧美政府在实施排放交易机制的同时,亦借助命令型减排机制对其缺陷进行矫正。中国当前应探索一种将市场排放交易机制与命令型减排机制结合起来的环境政策搭配,以发挥温室气体减排的最大实效。

引用

页码：22 / 29+139 +139

页数：9

共 10 条

[1] 感性与理性之间的选择——评《气候变化正义》和减排规制手段 [J].

陈若英 .

政法论坛, 2013, 31 (02) :121-130

[2] Climate Regulation and the Limits of Cost-Benefit Analysis [J].

Masur, Jonathan S. ;

Posner, Eric A. .

CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW, 2011, 99 (06) :1557-1599

[3]

Colombia's discharge fee program: Incentives for polluters or regulators?[J] . Allen Blackman.Journal of Environmental Management . 2007 (1)

[4]

BEYOND PLAYING "BANKER": THE ROLE OF THE REGULATORY AGENCY IN EMISSIONS TRADING[J] . Lesley K. McAllister.Administrative Law Review . 2007 (2)

[5]

Environmental participation in the U.S. sulfur allowance auctions[J] . Debra Israel.Environmental and Resource Economics . 2007 (3)

[6]

Controlling water pollution in developing and transition countries—lessons from three successful cases[J] . Vinish Kathuria.Journal of Environmental Management . 2005 (4)

[7]

Sulfur Allowance Trading and the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market: A Comparative Design Analysis of two Major Cap-and-Trade Permit Programs?[J] . Reimund Schwarze,Peter Zapfel.Environmental and Resource Economics . 2000 (3)

[8] Morality and rationality in environmental policy [J].

Frey B.S. .

Journal of Consumer Policy, 1999, 22 (4) :395-417

[9]

Social Motivation[J] . T S Pittman,J F Heller.Annual Review of Psychology . 1987

[10]

Polluters' Profits and Political Response: Direct Controls versus Taxes[J] . James M. Buchanan,Gordon Tullock.The American Economic Review . 1975 (1)

← 1 →