Green Growth and the Efficient Use of Natural Resources
Green Growth and the Efficient Use of Natural Resources
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.eneco.2012.08.033
复制
发表时间：
2012-06
期刊：
影响因子：
12.8
通讯作者：
J. Reilly
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Reilly
相对较新的“绿色增长”概念可以与新古典经济学的概念和理论有效地联系起来，包括市场外部性、李嘉图租金和霍特林租金，以及纠正外部性的政策，例如庇古税或旨在实现与成本效益评估一致的减排的限额与交易制度。部分均衡概念已扩展到一般均衡模型，包括它们在忠实地遵循新古典经济学理论概念的相对详细的经验模型中的实现。通过这些模型，我们能够了解资源枯竭和环境退化如何影响经济，以及减少这些环境和资源限制的影响如何能够改善经济增长和绩效。传统可计算一般均衡模型的基础是国民收入和产品账户 (NIPA)、投入产出 (I-O) 表和扩展的社会核算矩阵 (SAM)。将这些范围扩大到包括环境和资源资产和商品的基础是所谓的综合经济和环境社会账户（IEESA）。虽然环境影响通常被认为是“非市场”的，但环境的许多影响往往通过损害反映在市场账户中，这些损害可能包括劳动力减少（由于环境相关的健康问题）、农业生态系统生产力下降或对基础设施和其他生产资产的损害。面临的挑战是使环境联系变得明确，以便为政策变化可以带来好处提供指导。然而，有些损害根本没有进入账户，这主要是因为传统账户中一般不重视家庭劳动和闲暇时间。因此，标准账户中将忽略因家庭活动能力下降而造成的疾病成本。虽然各种评论已经阐述了扩大账户的理论结构，但这样做的实证挑战是巨大的。认真关注扩大NIPA账户，使其成为政府统计机构工作的常规组成部分，将改善分析潜在“绿色增长”政策和措施的基础。
The relatively new concept of “green growth” can be fruitfully connected to concepts and theories in neoclassical economics including market externalities, Ricardian and Hotelling rents, and policies that would correct externalities such as Pigovian taxes or a cap and trade system set to achieve emissions reductions consistent with cost benefit assessment. Partial equilibrium concepts have been extended to general equilibrium models, including their realization in relatively detailed empirical models that faithfully adhere to theoretical concepts of neoclassical economics. With such models we are then able to see how resource depletion and environmental degradation are affecting the economy, and how efforts to reduce the impact of these environmental and resource constraints could improve economic growth and performance. The foundation for traditional computable general equilibrium models are the National Income and Product Accounts (NIPAs), input–output (I–O) tables, and expanded Social Accounting Matrices (SAMs). The basis for extending these to include environmental and resource assets and goods are so called Integrated Economic and Environmental Social Accounts (IEESAs). While environmental effects are often considered to be “non-market,” many of the impacts of environment are often reflected in market accounts through damages that might include, for example, less labor (due to environment related health problems), reduced productivity of agroecosystems, or damage to infrastructure and other produced assets. The challenge is to make the environmental connection explicit so as to provide a guide to where changes in policies could provide benefit. However, some damages do not enter the accounts at all, and mainly this is because household labor and leisure time are generally not valued in traditional accounts. Hence the cost of illness in terms of reduced ability to contribute to household activities would be missed in the standard accounts. While the theoretical structure for expanding the accounts has been laid out in various reviews, the empirical challenge of doing so is substantial. Careful attention to expanding NIPA accounts, making it a regular part of government statistical agencies' efforts would improve the foundation for analysis of potential “green growth” policies and measures.