上海市排污费征收标准调整的环境经济影响评估

通过建立上海市环境经济CGE模型,模拟了上海市排污费征收标准调整政策出台后对经济和主要大气污染物减排的影响以及与其它相关政策的协同效应。结果表明,不同的排污费调整政策情景均对GDP有一定的负面效应,2020年GDP损失约0.054%~0.095%,收费标准越高,负面影响越大,其中,受影响最大的为高耗能高排放的行业,但对电厂来说,在一系列补贴政策的激励下脱硫脱硝取得了重大进展,企业所负担的成本得到了有效缓解,降低了排污费调整带来的负面影响。排污收费标准提高产生的减排效果非常显著,如果所有的工业行业排放均按新的排放标准进行阶梯收费,2020年SO_2相对基准情景的减排率可达27.0%~36.2%,NO_x的减排率可达20.1%~29.6%,将会对实现"十三五"减排目标发挥非常重要的作用。结合实证研究结论,进一步围绕如何更好地发挥排污收费政策的作用提出了相关政策建议。     

法国投资10亿欧元加快开发生物燃料

人大代表和政协委员在分析污染企业“宁愿认罚不治污”的现象时普遍认为，企业违法成本低于守法成本是当前迫切需要解决的问题。王锡武代表近日到被国家环保总局挂牌督办的黄河沿岸一家重点柯染企业调研时发现，去年这家企业应当缴纳排污费116万元（实际上只交了36万元1。环保部门还对其罚款4万元，是历年来处罚数额最多的一次，照此计算，这家企业一年违法排污总成本为120万元。违法100年成本也不过1．2亿元。     

非主要污染因子超标排放现象不容忽视——以某城市污水处理厂超排判罚案为例

[案例提供单位]福建省龙岩市环境监察支队 [案例点评人]郭涌健 健福建省龙岩市环境监察支队 王然然 福建省黄石市环保局 [案例类型]示范类 [案例名称]某城市污水处理厂超排判罚始末 [主要违法行为]超标排污 [污染类型]水污染 [违法企业所属行业]城市污水处理厂 [处罚及执行情况]处应缴排污赍三倍罚款,执行完半 [关键词]非主要污染因子、超标排放、-款基数、自由载量     

非主要污染因子超标排放现象不容忽视——以某城市污水处理厂超排判罚案为例

【案例提供单位】福建省龙岩市环境监察支队【案例点评人】郭湧健福建省龙岩市环境监察支队王然然福建省黄石市环保局【案例类型】示范类【案例名称】某城市污水处理厂超排判罚始末【主要违法行为】超标排污【污染类型】水污染【违法企业所属行业】城市污水处理厂【处罚及执行情况】处应缴排污费三倍罚款,执行完毕【关键词】非主要污染因子、超标排放、罚款基数、自由裁量【案例概要】龙岩市环境监察执法人员在对某污水处理公司进行现场检查时对该公司总排放口外排废水     

介绍加拿大排污许可证制度

1排污许可证中规定的项目各种污染物排放源的基本情况，如使用的原材料、工作周期、产品等。各种污染物允许排放量，有浓度的也有总量的。确定允许排放量主要依据的法规、标准或其它有执法效力的材料说明。治理污染物采取的措施。取样、监测方法和频率。允许排放量所对应的排放状况。企业对采取的防治污染措施效果的自我评价。企业对执行排污许可证的许诺。许可证签发部门名称及签发者的签名，许可证有效期限。附加说明。2确定排污许可证允许排放量的主要依据在加拿大，排污许可证是作为执行各项法规、政策、标准及工作目标的一种具体化手段…     

区域矿业水污染防治与水循环经济发展——昆明“牛奶河”事件的启示

【案例来源】环境保护部环境监察局【案例提供单位】云南省环境保护厅昆明市环境保护局【案例分析人】雷鸣【案例类型】探索类【案例名称】区域矿业水污染防治与水循环经济发展——昆明"牛奶河"事件启示【主要违法行为】违反建设项目"三同时"及验收制度;违法排污【污染类型】水环境污染【违法企业所属行业】选矿【处罚及执行情况】责令停止生产或违法行为,并处罚款,已执行;对涉嫌犯罪的企业及责任人追究刑事责任,审理中。     

刍议总量控制约束下排污收费费率的修正

在污染物排放总量控制的政策框架下,要实现社会生产最大化,就必须提高排污企业和行业的排放绩效.现行的排污收费制度只对污染物排放当量收费而没有考虑污染物排放绩效,这一政策在改善企业环境行为方面的作用尚未发挥到极致.将排放绩效指标引入排污收费制度,鼓励排放绩效高的企业发展,抑制排放绩效低的企业发展,将使排污收费政策的作用从对污染物排放的总量控制转变为在污染物排放总量控制下对环境容量资源的有效配置,通过污染物排放量在各生产者之间的有效分配实现社会生产最大化.     

环境违法经济处罚设定研究——以《水污染防治法》为例

在环境违法行政处罚中最常用的处罚手段是罚款.随着我国经济的快速发展,环境污染源的经济实力迅速提升,这不仅意味着其排污水平在提高,也意味着其应对环境违法处罚的能力得到了提高,现行法律法规的处罚威慑力相对下降.这导致了目前违法行为屡禁不止,甚至排污者蔑视处罚、故意排放,而执法者却无可奈何的现象出现.     

水排污许可证制度下的违法经济处罚机制研究

随着现代工业化社会的不断推进,环境污染问题日益成为制约社会经济发展的主要矛盾。水排污许可证制度是控制污染物排放的国家性法律制度,而其中规定的违法经济处罚机制是保障环境保护各项政策顺利贯彻落实的法律保障,也是水排污许可证制度中的核心组成部分之一。当前我国水排污触发机制中存在诸多问题,比如处罚原则、评估依据以及处罚标准不明确、可执行性差、经济处罚力度小、违法成本低等,为污染物排放单位的约束性和威慑性较弱。因此必须改革当前水排污许可证制度下的违法经济处罚机制,增强法律的威慑性和约束性,从而为环境保护政策的贯彻实施保驾护航。     

石油加工业二氧化硫产排污系数验证研究——以济南某石化企业为例

确保主要行业主要污染物排放总量数据的准确性对制定总量减排和区域环境质量改善规划尤为重要.以济南某石化企业为例,对石油加工业常减压、催化裂化、延迟焦化、柴油加氢、硫磺回收等工艺二氧化硫产排污系数开展验证研究.将产排污系数与监测结果对比分析,发现该企业通过产排污系数计算的二氧化硫排放量远大于实际排放量.在此基础上,提出石油加工业二氧化硫产排污系数修订建议.     

Creating a market for reduced carbon monoxide emissions from mobile sources

Marginal cost curves are developed for carbon monoxide abatement from mobile sources through the use of a hypothetical incentive program. Highway toll discounts are provided to drivers who install abatement devices beyond those required to comply with state emissions standards. With participation rates and toll demand derived from data on the Garden State Parkway, New Jersey, marginal costs would be $78 per ton CO to abate emissions from current stationary sources, and would require a toll discount of $0.015 per toll. Marginal costs increase due to the inelastic demand for transportation services (tolls) from the Parkway.     

基于边际治理成本的环境保护税税率标准探究与政策建议

税负水平是税收调节作用的重要因素,各地区需要科学地制定符合本地区发展水平的环境保护税税率来平衡环境保护与经济发展.基于2016年东北某省14个市的钢铁、电力、化工、水泥行业的排污及治理成本数据,建立污染削减费用函数模型,计算该省大气、水中主要污染物的边际治理成本,并设置不同环境保护税税率的情景方案,以探究环境保护税税率对该省经济发展的影响.结果表明:①SO₂、NO_x、COD、NH₃-N的边际治理成本分别为3.44、5.03、3.81、8.15元/污染当量. ②重点行业主要污染物的边际治理成本不同,钢铁行业主要污染物的边际治理成本较高,其COD、NH₃-N的边际治理成本均高于总体边际治理成本;化工行业的COD边际治理成本高于总体边际治理成本;电力行业的大气主要污染物边际治理成本高于总体边际治理成本;水泥行业的大气主要污染物边际治理成本则相对较低. ③适当提高环境保护税税率对经济发展总体影响不大.研究显示:该省的边际治理成本远高于目前的环境保护税征收标准,若以边际治理成本作为环境保护税税率,不但会增加企业负担,而且会导致不同行业的边际治理成本相差较大,因此,建议提高该省的环境保护税税率标准,即大气污染物征收标准为2.4元/污染当量,水污染物征收标准为2.8元/污染当量,并设置环境保护税税率的行业差异化,将有利于政策功能的发挥.      

The role of uncertainty in future costs of key CO<Subscript>2</Subscript> abatement technologies: a sensitivity analysis with a global computable general equilibrium model

Deep emission cuts rely on the use of low carbon technologies like renewable energy or carbon capture and storage. There is considerable uncertainty about their future costs. We carry out a sensitivity analysis based on Gauss Quadrature for cost parameters describing these technologies in order to evaluate the effect of the uncertainty on total and marginal mitigation costs as well as composition changes in the energy system. Globally, effects in total cost often average out, but different regions are affected quite differently from the underlying uncertainty in costs for key abatement technologies. Regions can be either affected because they are well suited to deploy a technology for geophysical reasons or because of repercussions through international energy markets. The absolute impact of uncertainty on consumption increases over the time horizon and with the ambition of emission reductions. Uncertainty in abatement costs relative to expected abatement costs are however larger under a moderate ambition climate policy scenario because in this case the marginal abatement occurs in the electricity sector where the cost uncertainty is implemented. Under more ambitious climate policy in line with the two degree target, the electricity sector is always decarbonized by 2050, hence uncertainty has less effect on the electricity mix. The findings illustrate the need for regional results as global averages can hide distributional consequences on technological uncertainty.     

Climate change mitigation and international finance: the effectiveness of the Clean Development Mechanism and the Global Environment Facility in India and Brazil

This study analyzes the effectiveness and efficiency of the two principal United Nations (UN) climate change mitigation finance mechanisms, the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The realised abatement and costs of the two mechanisms in India and Brazil (using data from 28 GEF and 233 CDM project documents) are compared with theoretical marginal abatement cost curves, based on bottom-up technology studies. We find that both mechanisms have focused on negative and low-cost abatement potential but still leave substantial theoretical potential in this cost range untapped. CDM has more effectively harvested abatement potential of industrial gases and methane emissions, whereas GEF has more successfully targeted demand-side energy efficiency (EE) and transport emission reduction opportunities. CDM has excelled at capturing abatement potential in areas with a limited understanding of abatement, highlighting the shortcomings of theoretical estimates (such as Marginal Abatement Cost Curves) and the benefits of a market mechanism. In some sectors and technologies (particularly renewable energy), the two mechanisms overlapped, which suggests a need for better coordination in the future.     

运用经济制度推进污染减排的探索

随着经济规模的不断扩大,我国污染减排的压力持续加大,在充分运用必要的行政和法律手段的同时,应注重运用污染减排的税收制度、排污权交易制度、与金融部门共享环境信息等经济制度或手段调控社会环境行为,将环境成本内部化,增加企业直接排污成本,降低企业内部治理成本,调动减排积极性,促进污染减排计划的顺利实施。     

Technology-side carbon abatement cost curves for China’s power generation sector

China is among the largest emitters of carbon dioxide (CO₂), worldwide Thus, its emissions mitigation is of global concern. The power generation sector is responsible for nearly half of China’s total CO₂ emissions and plays a key role in emissions mitigation. This study is an integrated evaluation of abatement technologies, including both low-carbon power generation technologies and retrofitting options for coal power plants. We draw marginal abatement cost curves for these technologies using the conservation supply curve method. Using scenario analysis for the years 2015 to 2030, we discuss the potential performance of abatement technologies. Marginal costs for the analyzed abatement technologies range from RMB ? 357.41/ton CO₂ to RMB 927.95/ton CO₂. Furthermore, their cumulative mitigation potential relative to the baseline scenario could reach 35 billion tons of CO₂ in 2015–2030, with low-carbon power generation technologies and coal power abatement technologies contributing 55% and 45% of the total mitigation, respectively. Our case study of China demonstrates the power generation sector’s great potential to mitigate global emissions, and we suggest nuclear power, hydropower, and the comprehensive retrofitting of coal power as key technology options for the low-carbon transition of the energy system and long-term emissions mitigation strategies.

     

碳减排方案优化及其在产业升级中的效应研究

构建了包含能源消耗与碳排放的多行业动态一般均衡模型,研究发现,通过各行业的边际减排成本相等这一总体减排任务的合理分解方式,能够实现要素的优化配置并激发“创新补偿效应”,具有相对较高的增长效应与福利效应.分行业单独制定碳减排约束时的边际减排成本较高,且无法产生行业间减排的联动效应,因而总体减排方案是有效的.碳强度减排方案优化后,其在产业结构升级中的效应也十分明显.测算结果表明,碳减排对工业结构“重型化”的控制效应明显,还将农业减排的压力转化为“富碳农业”发展的动力,导致经济中农业占比上升.服务业企业通过增大劳动和资本等要素的投入替代产生高碳排放的能源要素,减缓碳减排政策对其生产行为的负向影响并实现了稳定增长.随着减排强度的加大,中国产业结构合理化和高度化程度得到了显著提升.     

中国石化和化工行业二氧化碳减排技术及成本研究

石化和化工行业是我国经济发展的支柱性产业,但同时也是高耗能、高排放行业。平衡石化和化工行业发展与碳达峰、碳中和之间的关系,制定科学、合理的减排措施,是实现石化和化工行业低碳绿色发展的重要措施。为此,研究围绕石化和化工重点行业,利用专家型和基于模型的边际成本曲线对我国石化和化工行业的关键减排技术及减排成本进行分析。研究结果显示,我国石化和化工行业平均减排成本为298元/tCO₂,2035年累积碳减排量为4.4亿t,约占行业碳排放总量的30%。与节能减排措施相比,能源替代手段具有较高的减排成本,但也同时具有较高的减排潜力。2035年,能源替代的减排潜力占到总减排潜力的62%。未来,应着力推动传统煤化工行业能源利用向可再生、清洁能源的转变,助推石化和化工行业碳达峰、碳中和目标的实现。     

中美环境执法与经济处罚的比较分析

对中美环境执法的制度背景、实施以及经济处罚三方面进行了对比,结果发现,中国的环境执法尚有诸多需要进一步改进和改善的地方.通过比较,为中国的环境执法提供了一些参考建议,包括加强环境法制建设、增强环境法律的可执行性,加强国家环境保护总局的监督、协调与执法能力,加强环境执法机构建设和提高违法经济处罚额度等.      

Linking the emissions trading schemes of Europe and China - Combining climate and energy policy instruments

Both Europe and China have announced targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction and renewable energy development. To achieve their emissions targets, Europe has introduced emissions trading scheme (ETS) since 2005 and China has planned to establish a national ETS in 2015. We assess the impact of a joint Europe-China ETS when both climate and energy policy instruments are simulated in a multiregional general equilibrium model. Our results show that a joint ETS markedly increases total carbon emissions from fossil fuels even though global mitigation costs are reduced. Moreover, a joint ETS helps China achieve its renewable energy target, but for Europe, it works opposite. While the renewable energy target does not help Europe achieve additional abatement, the renewable energy target in China reduces mitigation costs and emissions, and increases renewable energy consumption and sales of carbon allowances. Financial transfer through a joint ETS remains marginal compared to China’s demand for renewable energy subsidies. We conclude that as long as an absolute emissions cap is missing in China, a joint ETS is not attractive for mitigation and China’s renewable energy target can reduce emissions.