The social goals of reducing unemployment and enabling ecologically sustainable development are more likely to be achieved if the spatial dimensions of economic policy are made explicit. Looking from this perspective, this article considers recent policy initiatives undertaken by the federal Labor government in response to the global financial crisis. Investment in infrastructure is assessed by comparing where government expenditure is being targeted with the regional distribution of unemployment. The expansion of ‘green’ jobs is considered in relation to the prospects of marrying concerns of growth, equity and sustainability with proactive urban and regional policies.
This article describes a multidisciplinary study of market-based policies for controlling air pollution in China. While previous studies have examined the costs and benefits of pollution control separately, this approach determines them together using an economy–environment model for China. We employ air dispersion simulations and population maps to calculate health damages due to air pollution. This provides estimates of incremental damages for industry output and fuel use. Based on these marginal damages, we simulate the effect of “green taxes” on the economy and show that the environmental benefits exceed the aggregate costs, ignoring adjustment costs for individual sectors.
The 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change created the basic international architecture for addressing climate change. That treaty was negotiated at a time when the research literature examining emissions mitigation and the role of energy technology was relatively limited. In the two subsequent decades a great deal has been learned. The problem of stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has proved far more difficult than envisioned in 1992 and the role of technology appears even more important when emissions mitigation strategies are co-developed in the context of multiple competing ends.
This article appeared in the Energy Economics Supplemental Issue: Green Perspectives.
This paper argues that the 2009 pledge of $100 billion in 2020 by rich countries for mitigation and adaptation should not be used for mitigation by commercial firms in developing countries, since that would artificially create competitive advantage for such firms and provoke protectionist reactions in the rich countries where firms must bear the costs of mitigation, thereby undermining the world trading system. The costs of heating the earth's surface should be borne by all emitters, just as the price of copper and other scarce resources is paid by all users, rich or poor. That will still leave scope for rich country help in adaptation to climate change and in bringing to fruition new technologies to reduce emissions.
This article appeared in the Energy Economics Supplemental Issue: Green Perspectives.