英语论文网

fectiveness. A policy is cost-effective if it meets a given goal at least cost, but cost effectiveness does not encompass an evaluation of whether that goal has been set appropriately to maximize social welfare. All efficient policies are cost-effective, but it is not necessarily true that all cost-effective policies are efficient. A policy is considered cost-effective when marginal abatement costs are equal across all polluters. In other words, for any level of total abatement, each polluter has the same cost for their last unit abated.

Many environmental regulations in the Australia are prescriptive in nature and are often referred to as command-and-control regulations. A prescriptive regulation can be defined as a policy that prescribes how much pollution an individual source or plant is allowed to emit and/or what types of control equipment it must use to meet such requirements. Such a standard is often defined in terms of a source-level emissions rate. Despite the introduction of potentially more cost effective methods for regulating emissions, this type of regulation is still commonly used and is sometimes statutorily required. It is almost always available as a 'backstop' if other approaches do not achieve desired pollution limits. Because a prescriptive standard is commonly defined in terms of an emissions rate, it does not directly control the aggregate emission level. In such cases, aggregate emissions will depend on the number of polluters and the output of each polluter.

3.0基于市场的方法——3.0 Market based approach

Market based approach create an incentive for the private sector to incorporate pollution abatement into production or consumption decisions and to innovate in such a way as to continually search for the least costly method of abatement. Market-oriented approaches can differ from more traditional regulatory methods in terms of economic efficiency or cost-effectiveness and the distribution of benefits and costs (Dagwell 2007).

Because market-based approaches do not mandate that each polluter meet a given emissions standard, they typically allow firms more flexibility than more traditional regulations and capitalize on the heterogeneity of abatement costs across polluters to reduce aggregate pollution efficiently. Environmental economists generally favor market-based policies because they tend to be least costly, they place lower information burden on the regulator, and they provide incentives for technological advances.

The introduction of legislature leads to cap and trade system. In a cap-and-trade system the government sets the level of aggregate emissions, emission allowances are distributed to polluters and a market is established in which allowances may be bought or sold. The price of emission allowances is allowed to vary. Because different polluters incur different private abatement costs to control emissions, they are willing to pay different amounts for allowances. Therefore, a cap-and-trade system allows polluters who face high marginal abatement costs to purchase allowances from polluters with low marginal abatement costs, instead of installing expensive pollution control equipment or using more costly inputs. Cap-and-trade systems also differ from command-and-control regulations in that they aim to limit the aggregate emission level over a compliance period rather than 本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。