economics of climate change

城市低碳经济发展研究国内外文献综述1低碳经济相关概念研究进展在1992年《联合国气候变化框架公约》中最早提出低碳经济，首次提出温室气体库、汇和源的定义，并要求统筹兼顾把应对气候变化同社会经济发展结合起来。

1997年的《京都议定书》中又把市场机制作为解决温室气体减排问题的新途径，也就是说在政府对温室气体排放总量控制的前提下，把排放权当作一种商品，进而可以进行排放权的交易，即简称“碳交易”。

直到2003年布伦特兰在英国能源白皮书中，正式提出低碳经济。

国外关于低碳经济的研究起步较早，对于低碳经济内涵有着不同的看法。

Stern N认为低碳经济是一种新兴经济发展模式，以市场为基础、以政策为动力，促进温室气体减排技术升级，推动经济发展模式转型，形成高效能低排放的新发展模式［2］。

Charles Levy认为低碳经济是以化石能源的高效利用、发展碳封闭技术、制定碳交易机制为措施，达到减少二氧化碳排放的目的［3］。

2005年以来国内开始开展低碳经济研究。

付允等提出低碳经济的发展模式就是三低三高，具体就是低能耗、低污染、低排放以及高效率、高效能、高效益的一种经济发展模式［4］。

陈跃等将低碳经济划分为广义目标性定义和狭义目标性定义，其中广义定义突出强调低碳经济的“阶段性”，从整体可持续发展趋势来看，只有对人类现有的经济发展模式进行变革，才能最终实现温室气体排放量的减少，使人类社会进入生态文明。

在狭义目标性定义中更强调要素间的“协同性”，强调当下推动可持续发展具体方法，只有经济发展同节能减排协调作用，才能实现生态文明的最终目标［5］。

崔宁提出低碳经济是在优化产业结构和能源结构的理念下进行生产，用节能减排的方式抑制传统粗放型经济发展模式下产生的恶性影响［6］。

2低碳经济影响因素研究进展Mazzarino M通过研究表明运输业的碳排放量约占所有产业中的三分之一左右，即运输业是温室气体排放的最主要行业［7］。

Rehan R等认为水泥行业是各产业中碳排放较高的行业之一，并提出了清洁生产、排放交易、联合履行的方式降低碳排放［8］。

The Impact of Climate Change onAgricultureThe impact of climate change on agriculture is a pressing issue that affects not only farmers and food production but also global food security and the overall economy. Climate change refers to long-term changes in temperature, precipitation patterns, and extreme weather events, which are primarily caused by humanactivities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These changes have significant implications for agriculture, as they can disrupt growing seasons, alter the distribution of pests and diseases, and reduce water availability for irrigation. One perspective on the impact of climate change on agriculture isthat it poses a serious threat to food production and security. Rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns can lead to reduced crop yields and increased crop failures. For example, heat stress can negatively affect cropgrowth and development, leading to lower yields of staple crops such as wheat, rice, and maize. Additionally, changing precipitation patterns can result in droughts or floods, both of which can have devastating effects on crops. These climate-related challenges can lead to food shortages, price volatility, and increased vulnerability to hunger and malnutrition, particularly in developing countries where agriculture is a significant source of livelihood. Another perspective is that climate change also affects the distribution and prevalence of pests and diseases in agriculture. Warmer temperatures and altered rainfall patterns can create more favorable conditions for pests to thrive and spread. Insects like aphids, mites, and beetles can multiply rapidly under warmer conditions, leading to increased crop damage and yield losses. Similarly, changesin rainfall patterns can create conditions conducive to the spread of plant diseases caused by fungi, bacteria, and viruses. These pests and diseases can further reduce crop yields and quality, exacerbating the challenges already posed by climate change. Furthermore, climate change impacts water availability for agriculture, both in terms of quantity and quality. Changes in precipitation patterns can lead to water scarcity in some regions, making it challenging for farmers to irrigate their crops adequately. This can result in reduced crop yieldsand even crop failures. Additionally, rising temperatures can increase evaporation rates, further exacerbating water scarcity. Moreover, climate change can also affect water quality, as increased temperatures can lead to the proliferation of harmful algal blooms and the contamination of water sources with pollutants. This poses risks not only for crop irrigation but also for livestock production, as animals require clean and sufficient water for their well-being. From an economic perspective, the impact of climate change on agriculture can be significant. Crop failures and reduced yields can lead to increased food prices, affecting consumers' purchasing power and potentially leading to food insecurity. Moreover, the agricultural sector plays a crucial role in many economies, particularly in developing countries where it is a significant source of employment and income. Climate change-related challenges can undermine the livelihoods of farmers and rural communities, leading to increased poverty and inequality. Additionally, the need for adaptation and mitigation measures to address the impact of climate change on agriculture can impose financial burdens on farmers and governments, further straining already limited resources. In conclusion, the impact of climate change on agriculture is a complex and multifaceted issue. It poses a significant threat to food production and security, affecting crop yields, pest and disease prevalence, and water availability. Furthermore, the economic implications of climate change on agriculture can be far-reaching, affecting food prices, livelihoods, and overall economic stability. Addressing the impact of climate change on agriculture requires a comprehensive approach that includes both adaptation and mitigation strategies. It is crucial to invest in sustainable agricultural practices, improve water management, promote crop diversification, and support farmers in adopting climate-smart techniques. Additionally, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and transitioning to a low-carbon economy is essential to mitigate the long-term effects of climate change on agriculture and ensure food security for future generations.。

Summary of ConclusionsThere is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now.The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting.Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more.In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.The investment that takes place in the next 10-20 years will have a profound effect on the climate in the second half of this century and in the next. Our actions now and over the coming decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity, on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century. And it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes.So prompt and strong action is clearly warranted. Because climate change is a global problem, the response to it must be international. It must be based on a shared vision of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks that will accelerate action over the next decade, and it must build on mutually reinforcing approaches at national, regional and international level.Climate change could have very serious impacts on growth and development. If no action is taken to reduce emissions, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could reach double its pre-industrial level as early as 2035, virtually committing us to a global average temperature rise of over 2°C. In the longer term, there would be more than a 50% chance that the temperature rise would exceed 5°C. This rise would be very dangerous indeed; it is equivalent to the change in average temperatures from the last ice age to today. Such a radical change in the physical geography of the world must lead to major changes in the human geography – where people live and how they live their lives.Even at more moderate levels of warming, all the evidence – from detailed studies of regional and sectoral impacts of changing weather patterns through to economicmodels of the global effects – shows that climate change will have serious impacts on world output, on human life and on the environment.All countries will be affected. The most vulnerable – the poorest countries and populations – will suffer earliest and most, even though they have contributed least to the causes of climate change. The costs of extreme weather, including floods, droughts and storms, are already rising, including for rich countries.Adaptation to climate change – that is, taking steps to build resilience and minimise costs – is essential. It is no longer possible to prevent the climate change that will take place over the next two to three decades, but it is still possible to protect our societies and economies from its impacts to some extent – for example, by providing better information, improved planning and more climate-resilient crops and infrastructure. Adaptation will cost tens of billions of dollars a year in developing countries alone, and will put still further pressure on already scarce resources. Adaptation efforts, particularly in developing countries, should be accelerated.The costs of stabilising the climate are significant but manageable; delay would be dangerous and much more costly.The risks of the worst impacts of climate change can be substantially reduced if greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere can be stabilised between 450 and 550ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The current level is 430ppm CO2e today, and it is rising at more than 2ppm each year. Stabilisation in this range would require emissions to be at least 25% below current levels by 2050, and perhaps much more.Ultimately, stabilisation – at whatever level – requires that annual emissions be brought down to more than 80% below current levels.This is a major challenge, but sustained long-term action can achieve it at costs that are low in comparison to the risks of inaction. Central estimates of the annual costs of achieving stabilisation between 500 and 550ppm CO2e are around 1% of global GDP, if we start to take strong action now.Costs could be even lower than that if there are major gains in efficiency, or if the strong co-benefits, for example from reduced air pollution, are measured. Costs will be higher if innovation in low-carbon technologies is slower than expected, or if policy-makers fail to make the most of economic instruments that allow emissions to be reduced whenever, wherever and however it is cheapest to do so.It would already be very difficult and costly to aim to stabilise at 450ppm CO2e. If we delay, the opportunity to stabilise at 500-550ppm CO2e may slip away.Action on climate change is required across all countries, and it need not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries.The costs of taking action are not evenly distributed across sectors or around the world. Even if the rich world takes on responsibility for absolute cuts in emissions of 60-80% by 2050, developing countries must take significant action too. But developing countries should not be required to bear the full costs of this action alone, and they will not have to. Carbon markets in rich countries are already beginning to deliver flows of finance to support low-carbon development, including through the Clean Development Mechanism. A transformation of these flows is now required to support action on the scale required.Action on climate change will also create significant business opportunities, as new markets are created in low-carbon energy technologies and other low-carbon goods and services. These markets could grow to be worth hundreds of billions of dollars each year, and employment in these sectors will expand accordingly.The world does not need to choose between averting climate change and promoting growth and development. Changes in energy technologies and in the structure of economies have created opportunities to decouple growth from greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth.Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy for the longer term, and it can be done in a way that does not cap the aspirations for growth of rich or poor countries.A range of options exists to cut emissions; strong, deliberate policy action is required to motivate their take-up.Emissions can be cut through increased energy efficiency, changes in demand, and through adoption of clean power, heat and transport technologies. The power sector around the world would need to be at least 60% decarbonised by 2050 for atmospheric concentrations to stabilise at or below 550ppm CO2e, and deep emissions cuts will also be required in the transport sector.Even with very strong expansion of the use of renewable energy and other low-carbon energy sources, fossil fuels could still make up over half of global energy supply in 2050. Coal will continue to be important in the energy mix around the world, including in fast-growing economies. Extensive carbon capture and storage will be necessary to allow the continued use of fossil fuels without damage to the atmosphere.Cuts in non-energy emissions, such as those resulting from deforestation and from agricultural and industrial processes, are also essential.With strong, deliberate policy choices, it is possible to reduce emissions in both developed and developing economies on the scale necessary for stabilisation in the required range while continuing to grow.Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has ever seen, and it interacts with other market imperfections. Three elements of policy are required for an effective global response. The first is the pricing of carbon, implemented through tax, trading or regulation. The second is policy to support innovation and the deployment of low-carbon technologies. And the third is action to remove barriers to energy efficiency, and to inform, educate and persuade individuals about what they can do to respond to climate change.Climate change demands an international response, based on a shared understanding of long-term goals and agreement on frameworks for action. Many countries and regions are taking action already: the EU, California and China are among those with the most ambitious policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol provide a basis for international co-operation, along with a range of partnerships and other approaches. But more ambitious action is now required around the world.Countries facing diverse circumstances will use different approaches to make their contribution to tackling climate change. But action by individual countries is not enough. Each country, however large, is just a part of the problem. It is essential to create a shared international vision of long-term goals, and to build the international frameworks that will help each country to play its part in meeting these common goals.Key elements of future international frameworks should include:• Emissions trading: Expanding and linking the growing number of emissions trading schemes around the world is a powerful way to promote cost-effective reductions in emissions and to bring forward action in developing countries: strong targets in rich countries could drive flows amounting to tens of billions of dollars each year to support the transition to low-carbon development paths.• Technology cooperation: Informal co-ordination as well as formal agreements can boost the effectiveness of investments in innovation around the world. Globally, support for energy R&D should at least double, and support for the deployment of new low-carbon technologies should increase up to five-fold. International co-operation on product standards is a powerful way to boost energy efficiency.• Action to reduce deforestation: The loss of natural forests around the world contributes more to global emissions each year than the transport sector.Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way to reduce emissions; large-scale international pilot programmes to explore the best ways to do this could get underway very quickly.• Adaptation: The poorest countries are most vulnerable to climate change. It is essential that climate change be fully integrated into development policy, and that rich countries honour their pledges to increase support through overseas development assistance. International funding should also support improved regional information on climate change impacts, and research into new crop varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood.。

Economics of the EnvironmentApEc 8602Spring 2001MW 12:30 - 1:45COB B36Professor Steve Polasky337E Classroom Office Building 503 EcologyPh: 625-9213 624-3663Email: spolasky@Course Outline/objective: The course is designed to apply the tools of economic analysis to environmental policy issues. In the first part of the course, we will study externalities and methods to regulate externalities under both complete and asymmetric information. In the second part of the course, we will study methods to measure non-market benefits from environmental amenities. Prerequisites: This course will use both economic theory and econometrics. The prerequisite for the course is a Ph.D. level sequence in microeconomic theory. Students should have also had a graduate level econometrics class.Course Requirements:Problem Sets 15%Paper 25%Midterm I 30%Midterm II 30%Texts: Most of the readings in the course will come from journal articles. These articles will be available in Waite Library. We will also use three texts.1. Hanley, N., J.F. Shogren and B. White. 1996. Environmental Economics in Theory andPractice. New York: Oxford University Press.2. Baumol, W.J. and W.E. Oates. 1988. The Theory of Environmental Policy, 2nd Edition.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.3. Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values: Theory andMethods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.1In addition, there are a number of good books that you might want to consider having if you intend to do environmental economics as a field. Some recommended books are:1. Braden, J. and C. Kolstad (eds.) 1991. Measuring the Demand for EnvironmentalQuality. Amsterdam: North Holland.2. Bromley, D. (ed.) 1995. The Handbook of Environmental Economics. Cambridge, MA:Blackwell Publishers.3. Cornes, R. and T. Sandler. 1986. The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods and Clubs.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.4. Cummings, R., D. Brookshire and W. Schulze. 1986. Valuing Environmental Goods.Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.5. Dorfman, R. and N.S. Dorfman (eds.). 1993. Economics of the Environment: SelectedReadings 3rd Edition. New York: Norton.6. Hausman, J.A. (ed.) 1993. Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment. Amsterdam:North-Holland Press.7. Johnansson, P.-O. 1987. The Economic Theory and Measurement of EnvironmentalBenefits. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.8. Just, R., D. Hueth, and A. Schmitz. 1982. Applied Welfare Economics and Public Policy.Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.9. Kopp, R. and V.K. Smith (eds.) 1993. Valuing Natural Assets: The Economics ofNatural Resource Damage Assessments. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.10. Laffont, J. 1988. Fundamentals of Public Economics. Cambridge: MIT Press.11. Laffont, J.-J. and J. Tirole. 1993. A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation.Cambridge: MIT Press.12. Maler, K.-G. 1974. Environmental Economics: A Theoretical Inquiry. Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press.13. Mitchell, R. and R. Carson. 1989. Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The ContingentValuation Method. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.14. Oates, W. 1992. The Economics of the Environment. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.15. Portney, P.R. and R.N. Stavins (eds.) 2000. Public Policies for Environmental Protection,2nd Edition. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.16. Xepapadeas, A. 1998. Advanced Principles in Environmental Economics. Cheltenham,UK: Edward Elgar.Reading List(* indicates required readings)I. Introduction and Overview1. * Hanley, N., J.F. Shogren and B. White. 1996. Environmental Economics in Theory andPractice. Ch. 1.22. The Economist. Costing the earth: a survey of the environment. Sept. 2, 1989.3. Cropper, M. and W. Oates. 1992. Environmental economics: a survey. Journal of EconomicLiterature 30: 675-740.II. Externalities and Environmental Policy 1: Complete InformationA. Efficiency and the Welfare Theorems1. * Varian, H. 1992. Microeconomic Analysis, 3rd Edition. New York: Norton. Ch. 17-18.2. Dorfman, R. 1993. Some concepts from welfare economics. In Economics of theEnvironment: Selected Readings, R. Dorfman and N.S. Dorfman (eds.). New York: Norton.B. Public Goods, Externalities and Pigouvian Taxes1. * Hanley, N., J.F. Shogren and B. White. 1996. Environmental Economics in Theory andPractice. Ch.2 – 4.2. * Mas-Colell, A., M. Whinston and J. Green. 1995. Microeconomic Theory, Chapter 11.Oxford University Press.3. * Baumol, W. and W. Oates. The Theory of Environmental Policy, Ch. 2-4.4. Cornes, R. and T. Sandler. 1986. The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and ClubGoods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 5-6.5. Bator, F. 1958. The anatomy of market failure. Quarterly Journal of Economics 47: 351-379.6. Samuelson, P.A. 1955. Diagrammatic exposition of the pure theory of public expenditure.Review of Economics and Statistics 37: 350-356.C. Nonconvexities1. * Baumol, W. and W. Oates. The Theory of Environmental Policy, Ch. 7 - 8.2. * Hurwicz, L. 1999. Revisiting externalities. Journal of Public Economic Theory 2: 225-245.3. Starrett, D.A. 1972. Fundamental nonconvexities in the theory of externalities. Journal ofEconomic Theory 4: 180-199.4. Baumol, W.J. and D. F. Bradford. 1972. Detrimental externalities and non-convexities of theproduction set. Economica 39: 160-176.5. * Helfand, G. and J. Rubin. 1994. Spreading versus concentrating damages: environmentalpolicy in the presence of nonconvexities. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement 27: 84-91.3D. Entry and Exit1. Rose-Ackerman, S. 1973. Effluent charges: a critique. Canadian Journal of Economics 6:512-527.2. *Spulber, D. 1985. Effluent regulation and long-run optimality. Journal of EnvironmentalEconomics and Management 12: 103-116.3. Kohn, R.E. 1994. Do we need the entry-exit condition on polluting firms? Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management 27: 92-97.4. McKitrick, R. and R.A. Collinge. 2000. Linear Pigouvian taxes and the optimal size of apolluting industry. Canadian Journal of Economics 33: 1106-1119.E. Averting Behavior1. * Bird, P. 1987. The transferability and depletability of externalities. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management 14: 54-57.2. * Shibuta, H. and Winrich, J. 1983. Control of pollution when the offended defendthemselves. Economica 50: 425-437.3. Smith, V.K. and W.Desvouges. 1986. Averting behavior: does it exist? Economics Letters29: 291-296.F. Property Rights and Bargaining1. * Coase, R. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1-44.2. Demsetz, A. 1967. Toward a theory of property rights. American Economic Review 57:347-359.3. Libecap, G. 1989. Contracting for Property Rights. Cambridge University Press.G. Liability Rules1. * Segerson, K. 1995. Liability and penalty structures in policy design. In The Handbook ofEnvironmental Economics, D. Bromley (ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.2. Menell, P. 1991. The limitations of legal institutions for addressing environmental risks. Journalof Economic Perspectives 5: 93-113.H. Tradeable Permits1. * Hanley, N., J.F. Shogren and B. White. 1996. Environmental Economics in Theory andPractice. Ch. 5.2. * Baumol, W. and W. Oates. The Theory of Environmental Policy. Ch. 12.3. Dales, J.H. 1968. Land, water, and ownership. Canadian Journal of Economics 1: 791-804.4. * Montgomery, D. 1972. Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. Journalof Economic Theory 5: 395-418.45. * Oates, W., P. Portney and A. McGartland. 1989. The net benefits of incentive-basedregulation: a case study of environmental standard setting. American Economic Review 79:1233-1242.6. * Carlson, C., D. Burtraw, M. Cropper and K. Palmer. 2000. Sulfur dioxide control byelectric utilities: what are the gains from trade? Journal of Political Economy 108: 1292-1326.7. Hahn, R. 1984. Market power and transferable property rights. Quarterly Journal ofEconomics 99: 29-46.8. *C. Kling and J. Rubin. 1997. Bankable permits for the control of environmental pollution.Journal of Public Economics 64: 101-115.9. Rubin, J. 1996. A model of intertemporal emission trading, banking, and borrowing. Journalof Environmental Economics and Management 31: 269-286.10. Ellerman, A.D. et al. 2000. Markets for Clean Air: The U.S. Acid Rain Program. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.I. Political Economy and Environmental Policy1. * Buchanan, J. and G. Tullock. 1975. Polluters’ profits and political response: direct controlversus taxes. American Economic Review 65: 139-147.2. Cropper, M.L. 2000. Has economic research answered the needs of environmental policy?Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(3): 328-350.3. Hahn, R. 2000. The impacts of economics on environmental policy. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management 39(3): 375-399.4. * Cropper, M. W. Evans, S. Berardi, M. Ducla-Soares and P. Portney. 1992. TheDeterminants of Pesticide Regulation: A Statistical Analysis of EPA Decision-making. Journal of Political Economy 100: 175-197.5. * Metrick, A. and M. L. Weitzman. 1994. Patterns of behavior in endangered speciespreservation. Land Economics 72(1): 1-16.6. Hamilton, J. 1993. Politics and social costs: estimating the impact of collective action onhazardous waste facilities. Rand Journal of Economics: 101-125.III. Externalities and Environmental Policy 2: Asymmetric InformationA. Optimal Regulation with Asymmetric Information1. * Baumol and Oates. 1988. The Theory of Environmental Policy. Ch 5, 13.2. * Mas-Colell, A., M. Whinston and J. Green. 1995. Microeconomic Theory. Ch. 14.3. Laffont, J.-J. and J. Tirole. 1993. A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation.Cambridge: MIT Press. Ch. 1.4. * Weitzman, M. 1974. Prices vs. quantities. Review of Economic Studies 41: 477-491.55. * Kwerel, E. 1977. To tell the truth: imperfect information and optimal pollution control.Review of Economic Studies 44: 595-601.6. * Lewis, T. 1996. Protecting the environment when costs and benefits are privately known.Rand Journal of Economics 27: 819-847.7. Roberts, M. and M. Spence. 1976. Effluent charges and licenses under uncertainty. Journalof Public Economics 5: 193-208.8. Spulber, D. 1988. Optimal environmental regulation under asymmetric information. Journalof Public Economics 35: 163-181.9. Farrell, J. 1987. Information and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:113-129.10. * Shavell, S. 1984. A model of the optimal use of liability and safety regulations. RandJournal of Economics 15: 271-280.11. Xepapadeas, A. Environmental policy under imperfect information: incentives and moralhazard. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 20: 113-126.B. Non-point Source Pollution1. * Segerson, K. 1988. Uncertainty and incentives for non-point pollution control. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management 15: 87-98.2. Holmstrom, B. 1982. Moral hazard in teams. Bell Journal of Economics 13: 324-340.3. Cabe, R. and J. Herriges. 1992. The regulation of non-point source pollution under imperfectand asymmetric information. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22:134-146.4. Shortle, J.S., R.D. Horan, and D.G. Abler. 1997. Research issues in nonpoint source waterpollution control. American Journal of Agricultural Economics: 571-585.C. Monitoring and Enforcement1. Becker, G. 1968. Crime and punishment: an economic approach. Journal of PoliticalEconomy 76: 169-217.2. * Kaplow, L. and S. Shavell. 1994. Optimal law enforcement with self-reporting of behavior.Journal of Political Economy 102: 583-606.3. * Mookherjee, D. and I.P.L. Png. 1994. Marginal deterrence in enforcement of law. Journalof Political Economy 102: 1039-1066.4. Harrington, W. 1988. Enforcement leverage when penalties are restricted. Journal of PublicEconomics 37: 29-53.5. * Swierzbinski, J.E. 1994. Guilty until proven innocent - regulation with costly and limitedenforcement. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27: 127-146.6. Malik, A. 1993. Self-reporting and the design of policies for regulating stochastic pollution.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 24: 241-257.67. * Polasky, S. and H. Doremus. 1998. When the truth hurts: endangered species policy onprivate land with incomplete information. Journal of Environmental Economics andManagement 35: 22-47.D. R&D and Environmental Regulation1. Jaffe, A.B., R.G. Newell and R.N. Stavins. 2001. Technological change and the environment.In The Handbook of Environmental Economics, K-G Maler and J. Vincent (eds.).Amsterdam: North Holland/Elsevier Science.2. * Milliman, S.R. and R. Prince. 1989. Firm incentives to promote technological change inpollution control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 16: 52-57.3. * Laffont, J.-J. and J. Tirole. 1996. Pollution permits and compliance strategies. Journal ofPublic Economics 62: 85-125.4. * Laffont, J.-J. and J. Tirole. 1996. Pollution permits and environmental innovation. Journalof Public Economics 62: 127-140.5. * Jaffe, A.B. and R.N. Stavins. 1995. Dynamic incentives of environmental regulations: theeffect of alternative policy instruments of technological diffusion. Journal of EnvironmentalEconomics and Management 29: S43-S63.IV. Measuring Benefits and Costs of Environmental ImprovementA. Issues in Non-Market Valuation1. * Hanley, N., J.F. Shogren and B. White. 1996. Environmental Economics in Theory andPractice. Ch. 12.2. Krutilla, J.V. 1967. Conservation reconsidered. American Economic Review 57: 777-786.3. Smith, V.K. 1997. Pricing what is priceless: a status report on pricing non-market valuation ofenvironmental resources. In International Yearbook of Environmental and ResourceEconomics 1997/1998, H. Folmer and T. Tietenberg (eds.). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.4. Bockstael, N.B. and K.E. McConnell. 1993. Public goods as characteristics of nonmarketcommodities. Economic Journal 103: 1244-1257.B. Benefit-Cost Analysis1. * Dorfman, R. 1993. An introduction to benefit-cost analysis. In Economics of theEnvironment: Selected Readings, R. Dorfman and N.S. Dorfman (eds.). New York: Norton.2. * Arrow, K.J. et al. 1996. Is there a role for benefit-cost analysis in environmental, health, andsafety regulation? Science 272: 221-222.3. * Graham, D. 1981. Cost-benefit analysis under uncertainty. American Economic Review71: 715-725.4. Graham, D. 1992. Public expenditure under uncertainty: the net-benefits criteria. AmericanEconomic Review 82: 822-846.7C. Cost of Environmental Regulation1. * Jaffe, A.B., S.R. Peterson, P.R. Portney and R. Stavins. 1995. Environmental regulation andthe competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. Journal of Economic Literature 33: 132-163.2. * Hazilla, M. and R.J. Kopp. 1990. The social cost of environmental quality regulations: ageneral equilibrium analysis. Journal of Political Economy: 853-873.3. * Porter, M.E. and C. van der Linde. 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives 9: 97-118.4. * Palmer, K., W.E. Oates and P.R. Portney. 1995. Tightening environmental standards: thebenefit-cost or the no-cost paradigm? Journal of Economic Perspectives 9: 119-132.D. Principles of Welfare Change Measurement1. * Johansson, P.-O. 1987. The Economic Theory and Measurement of EnvironmentalBenefits. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 3-5.2. * Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values. Ch. 3-4.3. Willig, R. 1976. Consumer’s surplus without apology. American Economic Review 66: 589-597.4. Hausman, J. 1981. Exact consumer’s surplus and deadweight loss. American EconomicReview 71: 662-676.5. Morey, E. 1984. Confuser surplus. American Economic Review 74: 163-173.6. * Randall, A. and J.R. Stoll. 1980. Consumer's surplus in commodity space. AmericanEconomic Review 70: 449-455.7. * Hanemann, M. 1991. Willingness to pay and willingness to accept: how much can theydiffer? American Economic Review 81: 635-648.V. Revealed Preference MethodsA. Hedonic Models1. * Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values:Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Ch.11-12.2. Rosen, H. 1974. Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in purecompetition. Journal of Political Economy 82: 34-55.3. * Harrison, D. and D. Rubinfeld. 1978. Hedonic housing prices and the demand for clean air.Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 5: 81-102.4. * Smith, V.K. and J.-C. Huang. 1995. Can markets value air quality? A meta-analysis ofhedonic property value models. Journal of Political Economy 103: 209-227.85. Roback, J. 1982. Wages, rents, and the quality of life. Journal of Political Economy 90:1257-1278.6. * Bartik, T. 1987. The estimation of demand parameters in hedonic price models. Journal ofPolitical Economy 95: 81-88.7. Mahan, B., S. Polasky and R.M. Adams. 2000. Valuing urban wetlands: a property priceapproach. Land Economics 76: 100-113.B. Travel Cost1. * Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values:Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Ch.13.2. * Bockstael, N., I. Strand and W. Hanemann. 1987. Time and the recreation demand model.American Journal of Agricultural Economics 69: 293-302.3. * Bockstael, N., M. Hanemann and C. Kling. 1987. Modeling recreational demand in amultiple site framework. Water Resources Research 23: 951-960.4. * Morey, E.R., R.D. Rowe and M. Watson. 1993. A repeated nested logit model of Atlanticsalmon fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75: 578-593.5. Kling, C.L. and C.J. Thompson. 1996. The implications of model specification for welfareestimation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 103-114.VI. Stated Preference MethodsA. Contingent Valuation1. * Freeman, A.M. 1993. The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values:Theory and Methods. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Ch. 5-6.2. Arrow, K.J., R. Solow, P. Portney, E. Leamer, R. Radner, and H. Schuman. 1993. Report ofthe NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Federal Register 58: 4601-4614.3. * Portney, P.R. 1994.The contingent valuation debate: why economists should care. Journalof Economic Perspectives 8: 3-18.4. * Hanemann, W.M. 1994. Contingent valuation and economics. Journal of EconomicPerspectives 8: 19-44.5. * Diamond, P. and J. Hausman. 1994. Contingent valuation: is some number better than nonumber? Journal of Economic Perspectives 8: 45-64.6. Kahneman, D. and J.L. Knetsch. 1992. Valuing public goods: the purchase of moralsatisfaction. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 22: 57-70.7. Harrison, G.W. 1992. Valuing public goods with the contingent valuation method: a critique ofKahneman and Knetsch. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 23: 248-257.8. Smith, V.K. 1992. Arbitrary values, good causes, and premature verdicts. Journal ofEnvironmental Economics and Management 22: 71-89.99. * Smith, V.K. and L.L. Osborne. 1996. Do contingent valuation estimates pass a “scope”test? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31: 287-301.B. Comparing or Combining Stated and Revealed Preference Methods1. * Brookshire, D. and D. Coursey. 1987. Measuring the value of a public good: an empiricalcomparison of elicitation methods. American Economic Review 77: 4554-556.2. * Cummings, R.G., S. Elliott, G.W. Harrison and J. Murphy. 1997. Are hypothetical referendaincentive compatible? Journal of Political Economy 105: 609-621.3. Cummings, R.G., G.W. Harrison and E.E. Rutstrom. 1995. Homegrown values andhypothetical surveys: is the dichotomous choice approach incentive-compatible? AmericanEconomic Review 85: 260-266.4. * Cameron, T.A. 1992. Combining contingent valuation and travel cost data for the valuationof nonmarket goods. Land Economics 68: 302-317.5. * Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere and M. Williams. 1994. Combining revealed and statedpreference methods for valuing environmental amenities. Journal of EnvironmentalEconomics and Management 26: 271-292.VII. Special TopicsA. Biodiversity and Endangered Species1. * Weitzman, M. L. 1998. The Noah’s Ark problem. Econometrica 66: 1279-1298.2. * Solow, A. and S. Polasky. 1994. Measuring biological diversity. Environmental andEcological Statistics 1: 95-1073. * Ando, Amy, Jeffrey Camm, Stephen Polasky and Andrew Solow. 1998. Speciesdistributions, land values and efficient conservation. Science 279: 2126-2128.4. * Montgomery, Claire A., Robert A. Pollak, Kathryn Freemark and Denis White. 1999.Pricing biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38: 1-19.5. * Simpson, R. David, Roger A. Sedjo and John Reid. 1996. Valuing biodiversity for use inpharmaceutical research. Journal of Political Economy 104: 163-185.6. Montgomery, Claire A., Gardner M. Brown, Jr. and Darius M. Adams. 1994. The marginalcost of species preservation: the case of the northern spotted owl. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 26: 111-128.7. Berrens, Robert P., David S. Brookshire, Michael McKee and Christian Schmidt. 1998.Implementing the safe minimum standards approach: two case studies from the U.S.Endangered Species Act. Land Economics 74: 147-161.10B. Climate Change1. *Nordhaus, W.D. 1991. To slow or not to slow – the economics of the greenhouse effect.Economic Journal 101: 920-937.2. Nordhaus, W.D. 1994. Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of ClimateChange. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.3. Schelling, T. 1992. Some economics of global warming. American Economic Review 82: 1-14.4. * Chichilnisky, G. and G. Heal. 1994. Who should abate carbon emissions: an internationalviewpoint. Economics Letters 44: 443-449.5. The Energy Journal, May 1999. Special issue on the costs of the Kyoto Protocol.6. * Goulder, L.H. and K. Mathai. 2000. Optimal CO2 abatement in the presence of inducedtechnical change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39: 1-38.7. * Chakravorty, U., J. Roumasset and K. Tse. 1997. Endogenous substitution among energyresources and global warming. Journal of Political Economy 105: 1201-1234.C. Trade and Environment1. * Hanley, N., J.F. Shogren and B. White. 1996. Environmental Economics in Theory andPractice. Ch.6.2. * Baumol and Oates. 1988. The Theory of Environmental Policy, Ch. 16.3. * Markusen, J.R. 1975. International externalities and optimal tax structures. Journal ofInternational Economics 5: 15-29.4. * Copeland, B. and M. Taylor. 1995. Trade and transboundary pollution. AmericanEconomic Review 85: 716-737.5. Copeland, B. and M. Taylor. 1994. North-South trade and the environment. QuarterlyJournal of Economics 109: 755-87.6. Chichilnisky, G. 1994. North-South trade and the global environment. American EconomicReview 84: 851-874.7. * Lopez, R. 1994. The environment as a factor of production – the effects of growth and tradeliberalization. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 27: 163-184.D. Growth, Development and Environmental Quality1. * Arrow, K.J. et al. 1995. Economic growth, carrying capacity and the environment. Science269: 520-521.2. * Grossman, G. and A. Kreuger. 1995. Economic growth and the environment. QuarterlyJournal of Economics 110: 352-377.3. * Selden, T. and D. Song. 1994. Environmental quality and development: is there a KuznetsCurve for air pollution emissions? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management27: 147-162.114. * Selden, T. and D. Song. 1995. Neoclassical growth, the J Curve for abatement, and theinverted U curve for Pollution. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29: 162-169.5. Holtz-Eakin, D. and T. Selden. 1995. Stoking the Fires? CO2 emissions and economicgrowth. Journal of Public Economics 57: 85-101.6. * Stokey, N.L. 1998. Are there limits to growth? International Economic Review 39: 1-31.7. Environment and Development Economics 2(4), 1997. Special issue on the environmentalKuznets Curve.12。

climate change的英文文章Climate change is a pressing issue that is significantly impacting our planet. The rise in global temperatures is causing sea levels to increase, extreme weather events to become more frequent, and the natural habitats of many species to be disrupted. Human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, are major contributors to this problem. The emission of greenhouse gases is trapping heat in the atmosphere, leading to the phenomenon known as global warming. This has far-reaching consequences for ecosystems, agriculture, and human communities around the world.It is crucial for countries to take collective action to reduce emissions and transition to renewable energy sources in order to mitigate the effects of climate change and protect the environment for future generations.中文翻译:气候变化是一个迫在眉睫的问题，对我们的星球产生了重大影响。

reducing the effects of climate
change 阅读解析
“Reducing the effects of climate change”的意思是“减少气候变化的影响”。

这句话强调了采取措施来减轻气候变化的负面影响的重要性。

在气候变化的背景下，采取措施减少其影响是至关重要的。

这可能包括使用可再生能源、提高能效、推广低碳出行方式等。

这些措施可以减少温室气体的排放，减缓气候变化的速度，并保护环境和生态系统。

此外，国际社会也需要加强合作，共同应对气候变化带来的挑战。

这可能包括制定全球性政策和法规，以及支持研发和推广减排技术。

总之，减少气候变化的影响需要全球范围内的共同努力，采取积极的措施来应对这一挑战。

2024年高二英语气候经济学视角单选题20题1.Climate change has a significant impact on the global economy. The word “impact” in this sentence can be replaced by_____.A.effectB.resultC.consequenceD.outcome答案：A。

“impact”“effect”“result”“consequence”和“outcome”都有“结果、影响”之意，但“impact”和“effect”较为常用且意思最为接近，可互换使用。

“result”更强调由某个行为或事件产生的结果；“consequence”通常指不好的后果；“outcome”侧重于最终的结果或结局。

本题考查的是词汇的辨析，涉及气候经济学中的专业词汇“impact”。

2.In climate economics, “carbon footprint” refers to_____.A.the amount of carbon dioxide released by an individual or organizationB.the total area of forests needed to absorb carbon dioxideC.the number of cars that emit carbon dioxideD.the cost of reducing carbon dioxide emissions答案：A。

“carbon footprint”指的是一个人或组织释放的二氧化碳量。

选项B 是指吸收二氧化碳所需的森林总面积；选项C 是指排放二氧化碳的汽车数量；选项D 是指减少二氧化碳排放的成本。

本题考查气候经济学中的专业名词“carbon footprint”的定义。

3.The government is taking measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The verb “reduce” can be replaced by_____.A.lowerB.decreaseC.diminishD.minimize答案：B。

比尔盖茨_气候经济与人类未来英文版English: Bill Gates' book, "How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need," delves into the urgent need to address climate change and the economic opportunities that come with it. Gates argues that the world needs to reduce its carbon emissions to zero in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. He outlines the different sectors that contribute to carbon emissions and discusses potential solutions, including renewable energy, clean transportation, and innovations in agriculture. Gates also emphasizes the need for government policies and investments to support a transition to a carbon-neutral economy. Additionally, he underlines the importance of technological breakthroughs and encourages readers to support research and development in clean energy technologies. Ultimately, Gates provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges posed by climate change and offers pragmatic solutions for individuals, businesses, and governments to work towards a sustainable and prosperous future.中文翻译: 比尔盖茨的著作《如何避免气候灾难：我们拥有的解决方案和我们需要的突破》深入探讨了解决气候变化的紧急需求以及随之而来的经济机遇。

2024年考研《英语二》真题及答案【完整版】一、完形填空（20题，每题0.5分，共10分）Passage 1In the past few decades, the way we work has changed a lot. Technology has transformed the workplace, making it possible for people to work from anywhere. However, this shift has also brought about challenges. One of the biggest challenges is maintaining a healthy work-life balance. Here are some tips to help you achieve this balance in 2024.1. Set clear boundaries between work and personal life. It can be tempting to work late into the night or on weekends, but this can lead to burnout. Establish clear rules about when you will work and when you will relax.2. Prioritize tasks. Not all tasks are created equal. Focus on the most important tasksfirst, and don't waste time on less important ones.Now, let's look at some sentences from the passage and fill in the blanks with the best choice from the options given.1. A. change B. shift C. transformation D. evolution2. A. brought B. introduced C. created D. caused答案：1. C 2. DPassage 2The Internet has revolutionized the way we live, work, and communicate. However, it hasalso introduced a new set of challenges, such as online fraud and identity theft. In order to protect yourself, it is important to be aware of these risks and take steps to prevent them.1. Use strong passwords. Avoid using easily guessed passwords, such as your birthday or name. Instead, use a combination of letters, numbers, and symbols.2. Be cautious when sharing personal information. Don't share sensitive information, such as your Social Security number or bank account details, with anyone you don't know.1. A. revolutionized B. transformed C. altered D. changed2. A. aware B. conscious C. informed D. knowledgeable答案：1. A 2. B（以下为部分完形填空真题，为节省篇幅，仅展示两篇）二、阅读理解（20题，每题2分，共40分）Passage 1In recent years, the concept of remote work has gained popularity. Many companies have started to offer flexible work arrangements, allowing employees to work from home or other locations. This shift has numerous benefits, including increased productivity and reduced commuting time. However, it also comes with its own set of challenges, such as maintainingcommunication and collaboration among team members.1. What is the main idea of this passage?A. The benefits of remote workB. The challenges of remote workC. The rise of remote workD. The future of work答案：CPassage 2Climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing the world today. The increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as hurricanes, droughts, and floods, are causing significant damage to both human and natural systems. In order to address this issue, it is essential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the changing climate.1. What is the main purpose of this passage?A. To describe the effects of climate changeB. To explain the causes of climate changeC. To propose solutions to climate changeD. To discuss the future of climate change答案：C（以下为部分阅读理解真题，为节省篇幅，仅展示两篇）三、翻译（15分）Directions: For this part, you are allowed 30 minutes to translate a passage from Chinese into English. You should write your answer on Answer Sheet 2.段落内容：随着科技的快速发展，人工智能逐渐成为人们关注的焦点。