Who bears the brunt? Distributional effects of climate change mitigation policies
Who bears the brunt? Distributional effects of climate change mitigation policies
Climate change scholars generally urge that CO2 emissions need to be cut rapidly if we are to avoid dangerous risks of climate change. However, climate change mitigation policies are widely perceived to have regressive effects – that is, putting a higher financial burden as a proportion of household income on poor than on rich households. This is one of several major barriers to the adoption of effective mitigation policies. They would also have considerable social justice implications requiring significant welfare state responses. We assess the claim that climate change policies have regressive effects by comparing different types of mitigation policies. We will argue that many of these are indeed likely to have regressive distributional implications but that there are several policy options to counteract regressive effects.
285-307
Buchs, Milena
c62b4fbd-660c-4642-876e-de9512db9a9c
Bardsley, Nicholas
4cc36030-2783-4def-a06f-9f2aee92663e
Duwe, Sebastian
5544b4fb-9542-453b-933f-939a868f700d
16 February 2011
Buchs, Milena
c62b4fbd-660c-4642-876e-de9512db9a9c
Bardsley, Nicholas
4cc36030-2783-4def-a06f-9f2aee92663e
Duwe, Sebastian
5544b4fb-9542-453b-933f-939a868f700d
Buchs, Milena, Bardsley, Nicholas and Duwe, Sebastian
(2011)
Who bears the brunt? Distributional effects of climate change mitigation policies.
Critical Social Policy, 31 (2), .
(doi:10.1177/0261018310396036).
Abstract
Climate change scholars generally urge that CO2 emissions need to be cut rapidly if we are to avoid dangerous risks of climate change. However, climate change mitigation policies are widely perceived to have regressive effects – that is, putting a higher financial burden as a proportion of household income on poor than on rich households. This is one of several major barriers to the adoption of effective mitigation policies. They would also have considerable social justice implications requiring significant welfare state responses. We assess the claim that climate change policies have regressive effects by comparing different types of mitigation policies. We will argue that many of these are indeed likely to have regressive distributional implications but that there are several policy options to counteract regressive effects.
Text
CSP396036_proofs_24_jan_2011.pdf
- Author's Original
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
More information
Published date: 16 February 2011
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 183577
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/183577
ISSN: 0261-0183
PURE UUID: 807b990a-e2fc-420c-bba1-e18558d4494b
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 03 May 2011 12:37
Last modified: 14 Mar 2024 03:04
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Milena Buchs
Author:
Nicholas Bardsley
Author:
Sebastian Duwe
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics