我国的低碳经济发展文献综述

合集下载

《城市低碳经济发展研究国内外文献综述3200字》

城市低碳经济发展研究国内外文献综述1低碳经济相关概念研究进展在1992年《联合国气候变化框架公约》中最早提出低碳经济，首次提出温室气体库、汇和源的定义，并要求统筹兼顾把应对气候变化同社会经济发展结合起来。

1997年的《京都议定书》中又把市场机制作为解决温室气体减排问题的新途径，也就是说在政府对温室气体排放总量控制的前提下，把排放权当作一种商品，进而可以进行排放权的交易，即简称“碳交易”。

直到2003年布伦特兰在英国能源白皮书中，正式提出低碳经济。

国外关于低碳经济的研究起步较早，对于低碳经济内涵有着不同的看法。

Stern N认为低碳经济是一种新兴经济发展模式，以市场为基础、以政策为动力，促进温室气体减排技术升级，推动经济发展模式转型，形成高效能低排放的新发展模式［2］。

Charles Levy认为低碳经济是以化石能源的高效利用、发展碳封闭技术、制定碳交易机制为措施，达到减少二氧化碳排放的目的［3］。

2005年以来国内开始开展低碳经济研究。

付允等提出低碳经济的发展模式就是三低三高，具体就是低能耗、低污染、低排放以及高效率、高效能、高效益的一种经济发展模式［4］。

陈跃等将低碳经济划分为广义目标性定义和狭义目标性定义，其中广义定义突出强调低碳经济的“阶段性”，从整体可持续发展趋势来看，只有对人类现有的经济发展模式进行变革，才能最终实现温室气体排放量的减少，使人类社会进入生态文明。

在狭义目标性定义中更强调要素间的“协同性”，强调当下推动可持续发展具体方法，只有经济发展同节能减排协调作用，才能实现生态文明的最终目标［5］。

崔宁提出低碳经济是在优化产业结构和能源结构的理念下进行生产，用节能减排的方式抑制传统粗放型经济发展模式下产生的恶性影响［6］。

2低碳经济影响因素研究进展Mazzarino M通过研究表明运输业的碳排放量约占所有产业中的三分之一左右，即运输业是温室气体排放的最主要行业［7］。

Rehan R等认为水泥行业是各产业中碳排放较高的行业之一，并提出了清洁生产、排放交易、联合履行的方式降低碳排放［8］。

论我国政府推行低碳经济的路径选择【文献综述】

毕业论文文献综述行政管理论我国政府推行低碳经济的路径选择一、引言“低碳经济”这一概念早在1993年，已由英国政府提出，真正受到重视是在2009年哥本哈根世界环境大会后。

随着世界经济的不断发展，二氧化碳等温室气体的排放逐渐影响世界气候变化，成为一个严峻的环境问题。

随着气温的上升，最重要的影响是海平面不断上升，影响地势低洼的沿海国家和城市；此外，对动植物的生长，人类健康也会产生一定的影响。

频发的气候及地质灾害与温室气体的排放有一定的关系。

中国是一个经济快速发展的国家，在经济发展的同时，也产生了一系列的问题。

环境的污染，资源的浪费与短缺，等等问题影响着中国各个方面的发展。

中国政府在意识到这个问题的基础上逐渐提出可持续发展，科学发展观等方针政策，提出建立环境型社会、节约型社会，改变高投入、高消耗、高污染、低效益”的经济增长方式。

低碳经济是指在可持续发展理念指导下，通过技术创新、制度创新、产业转型、新能源开发等多种手段，尽可能地减少煤炭石油等高碳能源消耗，减少温室气体排放，达到经济社会发展与生态环境保护双赢的一种经济发展形态。

推行低碳经济对解决中国当下问题，坚持可持续发展和科学发展观具有重要意义。

二、主题参考的文献资料主要是在学校图书馆的综合书库、期刊室、中国期刊网上搜集的，主要是关于我国高等教育以及新公共管理思想的一些文章和书本。

在此，根据参考的内容，我将我所参考的资料进行了分析和分类，如下：关于低碳以及低碳经济的一些概念和观点，主要是参考的是百度百科“低碳经济”，潘家华写的《澄清对低碳经济的几种误解》，张仲礼和王泠一写的《“低碳”概念的主要构成》等资料。

在这些资料中，作者主要对低碳和低碳经济的概念进行阐述，并描述了低碳经济的提出和发展历程。

从中，我可以得到以下信息：首先，低碳是“低碳”概念主要由三个核心术语组成:低碳经济、碳生产率和碳关税。

低碳经济经济是指低能耗、低污染、低排放为基础的经济模式，是人类社会继农业文明、工业文明之后的又一次重大进步。

【低碳经济发展研究国内外文献综述4000字】

低碳经济发展研究国内外文献综述1国内研究现状国内学者也投身到了对低碳经济的摸索道路上，而探究重心不外乎其意义、实现途径等。

知名学者庄贵阳（2010）曾表达过这样的理念，国内只有坚持改进能源利用率，打造出成熟的能源构架，并致力于研发工作，并不断优化政策，才能妥善把控好节能的节奏，顺利遏制气候的恶化。

张坤民、潘家华（2014）的看法是，低碳经济是全新的经济模式，若以能源的层面来解读，不妨将其视作凭借大量发达技术构筑出的先进经济形态，从而妥善统筹资源，充分发挥新能源的价值等，后者则以碳生产率来衡量人类活动。

付允等（2016）将其诠释为遵循绿色准则的经济框架，特质在于低排、低能耗与高效率。

在2015年，权威机构更是批示了相关文件，将低碳经济的概念界定为把金融、科研乃至社会融合成一个完整的框架，全方位控制能耗，从而立竿见影地削减碳排量，也塑造出理想的经济环境，和以往的经济模式存在着本质上的差别。

而谢来辉（2016）则另辟蹊径，强调低碳经济的核心为打破碳锁定。

王韬的看法是，低碳经济不妨从微观、宏观两条思路来解读，前者就是在振兴经济的道路上，尽可能削减碳排放；后者则代表着全新的经济框架，不再盲目依赖自然资源，摸索出更可靠、成熟的经济方针。

谢军安等（2017）看来，低碳经济其实是人类的自救措施，以免生态被破坏，带来难以挽回的后果。

总的来看，学术界迟迟未能对低碳经济做出权威、统一的诠释，各类观念、见解层出不穷。

如牛文元、贺庆棠、李国志等人（2016），就将其界定成具备绿色特质的生态经济。

刘薇（2012）全面介绍了世界各国在低碳发展方面的研究状况，认为低碳发展的内容包含了技术、制度及文化方面的创新，其中核心内容是技术方面的低碳发展，除此之外，创新制度及管理活动，也属于其中的内容。

根据冯志军（2013）的观点，让自然保护、生态保护的理念取代资源利用贯穿整个创新发展活动，进而在发展经济的同时，也让生态环境得到了相应的保护，不但能创造良好的经济效益，还能实现较高的环境效益。

低碳经济研究综述

在气候问题备受关注的国际大背景下，从《京都议定书》到“巴厘岛路线图”，世界各国都在为解决气候问题而努力，低碳经济的概念应运而生，越来越受到国际社会的重视，有的国家甚至提出要发展“零碳经济”。

中国作为发展中的温室气体排放大国，如何从自己的国情出发发展低碳经济，事关经济发展方式的转型、资源节约型社会和环境友好型社会的建立，影响重大而深远。

围绕这一问题，国内的一些学者提出了诸多有价值的见解，笔者将其中有代表性的观点简要综述如下，以有助于这一问题研究的深化。

一、什么是低碳经济国内较早研究低碳经济的学者庄贵阳认为，“低碳经济”（Ｌｏｗ—ｃａｒｂｏｎ　Ｅｃｏｎｏｍｙ）最先由英国政府提出，是指依靠技术创新和政策措施，实施一场能源革命，建立一种较少排放温室气体的经济发展模式，从而减缓气候变化。

低碳经济的实质是能源效率和清洁能源结构问题，核心是能源技术创新和制度创新，目标是减缓气候变化和促进人类的可持续发展。

２００９年１０月第５期总第１４６期October 2009No.5 Total No.146China Opening Herald开放导报【低碳经济与低碳城市化】低碳经济研究综述王仕军（南京陆军指挥学院，江苏南京２１００４５）［摘要］本文从什么是低碳经济、为什么要发展低碳经济、我国发展低碳经济条件如何、怎样发展低碳经济等四个方面对我国学术界关于发展低碳经济的研究进行了介绍和简要评论。

［关键词］　低碳经济研究述评［中图分类号］Ｆ１２０［文献标识码］Ａ［文章编号］１００４－６６２３（２００９）０５－００４４－０４［作者简介］王仕军（１９７３—），山东高密人，南京陆军指挥学院副教授，博士，研究方向：国防经济学和新制度经济学。

付允等认为低碳经济是一种绿色经济发展模式，它是以低能耗、低污染、低排放和高效能、高效率、高效益（三低三高）为基础，以低碳发展为发展方向，以节能减排为发展方式，以碳中和技术为发展方法的绿色经济发展模式。

我国低碳经济发展研究

我国低碳经济发展研究一、本文概述随着全球气候变化的日益严重，低碳经济的发展已成为各国关注的焦点。

作为世界上最大的发展中国家，我国在低碳经济发展中扮演着举足轻重的角色。

本文旨在全面、深入地研究我国低碳经济的发展现状、面临的挑战以及未来的发展趋势，以期为相关政策制定和实施提供科学依据和参考。

文章首先对我国低碳经济的发展背景进行了简要介绍，分析了低碳经济在我国经济社会发展中的重要性。

随后，文章从多个角度对我国低碳经济的发展现状进行了梳理和评价，包括能源结构、产业结构、技术创新、政策体系等方面。

在此基础上，文章深入探讨了我国低碳经济发展过程中面临的主要问题和挑战，如能源消费总量大、碳排放强度高、低碳技术创新能力不足等。

为了推动我国低碳经济的持续发展，文章提出了一系列政策建议和措施，包括优化能源结构、推动产业转型升级、加强科技创新和人才培养、完善政策体系等。

这些建议和措施旨在为我国低碳经济的发展提供有力的支持和保障。

文章对我国低碳经济的未来发展进行了展望，认为在全球绿色低碳转型的大背景下，我国低碳经济将迎来更加广阔的发展空间和机遇。

文章也指出了未来低碳经济发展中需要注意的问题和挑战，为我国低碳经济的可持续发展提供了有益的参考和借鉴。

二、低碳经济全球发展趋势随着全球气候变化问题的日益严重，低碳经济已成为各国共同关注的焦点。

全球低碳经济的发展呈现出以下几个趋势：政策引导加强：越来越多的国家开始制定并实施针对低碳经济的政策法规，包括碳排放交易、能源效率提升、可再生能源推广等。

政府通过政策引导，鼓励企业和公众减少高碳排放行为，推动低碳经济的发展。

技术创新推动：科技创新在低碳经济发展中发挥着关键作用。

新能源、新材料、节能技术、碳捕集和储存技术等领域的创新突破，为低碳经济的发展提供了强有力的技术支撑。

国际合作深化：面对全球性的气候变化问题，各国纷纷加强在低碳经济领域的国际合作。

通过共同研发、技术转让、资金支持等方式，推动全球低碳经济的协同发展。

发展低碳经济的行动和研究现状概述

低碳经济政策比较分析
01
政策目标比较
不同国家和地区的低碳经济政策目标存在差异，但都致力于推动低碳
经济的发展。
02
政策手段比较
不同国家和地区的低碳经济政策手段各异，包括法律、经济和行政手
段等。
03
政策效果比较
不同国家和地区的低碳经济政策效果存在差异，需要根据实际情况进
行评估和比较。
04
低碳技术及能源结构调整
发展低碳经济的行动和研究现状概述
xx年xx月xx日
contents
目录
• 引言 • 低碳经济国内外发展现状 • 低碳经济政策分析 • 低碳技术及能源结构调整 • 中国发展低碳经济的挑战与机遇 • 发展低碳经济的战略措施建议
01
引言
背景和意义
1 2
全球气候变化
人类活动导致温室气体排放增加，全球气候变暖现象日益显著。
发展低碳经济的机遇
政策支持
中国政府已出台多项政策，支持低碳经济的发展，如提供财政补贴、税收优惠等。
技术合作
中国可与发达国家开展技术合作，引进先进技术，提高能源利用效率。
新能源产业
发展新能源产业如太阳能、风能等，可为中国低碳经济的发展提供新的增长点。
发展低碳经济的前景展望
经济增长点
低碳经济的发展将有助于中国调整经济结构，促进新兴产业的发展，成为新的经济增长点。
应该从单一的能源消费方式向多元化的能源消费方式转变，例如发展智能电网、推广分布式能源等。
低碳技术与能源结构调整的相互作用
低碳技术的发展可以推动能源结构调整
低碳技术的发展可以降低能源消耗和碳排放，从而推动能源结构向更加清洁、高效的方向发展。
能源结构调整可以促进低碳技术的应用

我国低碳经济发展研究

我国低碳经济发展研究随着全球气候变化问题日益严峻，低碳经济作为一种创新型经济发展模式，越来越受到世界各国的。

我国作为世界上最大的发展中国家，积极推进低碳经济发展，既有利于环境保护，也有利于经济可持续发展。

本文将从背景介绍、现状分析、关键技术、政策法规和未来展望五个方面，探讨我国低碳经济的发展。

一、背景介绍低碳经济是指在可持续发展理念指导下，通过多种手段，尽量减少煤炭、石油等高碳能源消耗，减少温室气体排放，达到经济社会发展与生态环境保护双赢的一种经济发展形态。

随着全球气候变暖问题的加剧，发展低碳经济的重要性越来越突出。

我国政府高度重视低碳经济发展，制定了一系列政策和规划，以推动经济向低碳模式转型。

二、现状分析近年来，我国在低碳经济发展方面取得了一定进展。

一方面，我国加大了对清洁能源的投资力度，加快了风能、太阳能、水能等可再生能源的发展；另一方面，我国也加强了节能减排工作，通过技术创新和产业升级，提高了能源利用效率，减少了温室气体排放。

然而，我国低碳经济发展仍存在一些问题。

首先，能源结构不合理，煤炭等传统能源占比过大，清洁能源发展相对滞后；其次，节能减排技术水平有待提高，部分企业环保意识淡薄，存在偷排漏排现象；此外，政策法规不完善，监管力度不够，也是制约低碳经济发展的重要因素。

三、关键技术低碳经济领域的关键技术包括可再生能源、储能、燃料电池等。

其中，可再生能源技术如风能、太阳能、水能等，能够减少对传统能源的依赖，降低温室气体排放；储能技术则能在电力需求高峰期提供额外电力，提高电力系统的效率；燃料电池作为一种高效、环保的能源转换技术，能够减少对化石燃料的依赖，提高能源利用效率。

四、政策法规政府在低碳经济发展中发挥着至关重要的作用。

为了推动低碳经济的发展，我国政府制定了一系列政策和法规，包括碳排放权交易、税收优惠等。

碳排放权交易可以通过市场机制来提高企业的环保意识，促使企业减少温室气体排放；税收优惠则可以降低低碳企业的成本，有利于低碳经济的推广。

低碳经济发展模式文献综述及外文文献资料

低碳经济发展模式文献综述及外文文献资料本份文档包含：关于该选题的外文文献、文献综述一、外文文献标题: A practitioner's guide to a low-carbon economy: lessons from the UK作者: Fankhauser, Samuel.期刊: Climate Policy卷: 13；期: 3；页: 345-362；年份: 2013A practitioner's guide to a low-carbon economy: lessons from the UK AbstractPractically all major GHG emitters now have climate change legislation on their statute books. Given what is at stake, and the complexity of the task at hand, it is important that policy makers learn from each other and establish a code of good low-carbon practice. The main lessons from the UK are distilled and presented. Carbon policy is considered for key sectors, such as electricity, buildings, and transport, and possible decarburization paths are also outlined. It is shown that the transition to a low-carbon economy is economically and technologically feasible. Achieving it is primarily a question of policy competence and political will. This in turn means that climate change action needs a strong legislative basis to give the reforms statutory legitimacy. Low-carbon policies will have to address a wide range of market, investment and behavioral failures. Putting a price on carbon is an essential starting point, but only one of many policy reforms.Keywords: climate change policy; decarburization; green growth; low-carbon transition;1. IntroductionMore and more countries are taking action against climatechange. Nearly all major GHG emitters, including many emerging markets, now have climate change legislation on their statute books (Town- shend et ak, 2011). It is debatable whether these efforts - and any international agreement that might reinforce them - will be sufficient to limit climate change to an acceptable level. However, given what is at stake, and the complexity of the task at hand, it is important that policy makers learn from one another and establish a code of good low-carbon practice. This article attempts to distil the main lessons from the UK.The climate change debate in the UK is fairly advanced, with a strong legal basis for climate action, ambitious targets, and sophisticated institutional arrangements (Fankhauser, Kennedy, & Skea, 2009). The UK also has a constantly evolving regulatory landscape, with occasional policy failures and U- turns, while a waning commitment among politicians and latent climate scepticism in parts of the press are putting the institutional framework increasingly to the test. As such, the UK is a good case from which to learn lessons.1There is a rich analytical literature on many aspects of climate change policy. For example, much has been written about the relative merit of different policy options (Hepburn, 2006; Pizer, 2002), the design of emissions trading schemes (Fankhauser & Hepburn, 2010a, 2010b; Grüll & Taschini, 2011; Murray, Newell, & Pizer, 2009),policy performance (Ellerman & Buchner, 2008; Ellerman, Convery, de Perthuis, & Alberola, 2010; Martin, Preux, & Wagner, 2009), and low-carbon innovation (Acemoglu, Aghion, Bursztyn, & Heinous, 2009; Aghion, Boulanger, & Cohen, 2011; Aghion, Dechezleprêtre, Heinous, Martin, & van Reenen, 2011; Dechezleprêtre, Glachant, Hascic, Johnstone, & Ménière, 2011;Popp, 2002).This article differs from the existing literature in that it takes an explicitly practical approach. While drawing on the analytical literature, it looks at the specific case of a country that wants to reduce its GHG emissions, in this case the UK. The policy ambition is much deeper than a marginal change in emissions, which is the concern of much of the literature. It is a comprehensive redesign of the modern economy. At the same time, the scope is narrower than that of the green growth literature, which includes wider notions of sustainable development besides low-carbon growth (Bowen & Fan- khauser, 2011). All decarburization efforts will face at least four challenges. First, a strong legal and institutional basis for low-carbon policy must be put in place (Section 2). Second, low-carbon objectives must be translated into a credible roadmap of sector, technology, and reform targets that can guide policy and determine whether the objectives are achievable (Section 3). Third, the necessary policies to implement the roadmap must be put in place (Section 4). Fourth, the wider socio-economic conse- quences of decarburization must be managed (Section 5). It is concluded in Section 6 that the low- carbon transition is achievable if these challenges are met and there is sufficient policy competence and political will.2. Providing the legal and institutional basisThe starting point for economy-wide decarburization is a strong legislative basis. The fundamental reforms to energy, transport, industrial, agricultural, and fiscal policy that will follow will need statu- tory legitimacy. The adoption of a climate change law is also a way of forging the broad political con- sensus needed during implementation. It is striking how many of the climate change laws in major economies have been bipartisanefforts (Townshend et ak, 2011). The UK Climate Change Act of 2008, for example, was passed near-unanimously.Most climate change laws are unifying laws that bring together existing strands of regulation (e.g. on energy efficiency), express a long-term objective, and create a platform for subsequent action. The UK Climate Change Act calls for a cut in GHG emissions of at least 80%, relative to 1990, by 2050. This is based on an ambition to limit median global warming to 2°C and keep the risk of extreme climate change (of say 4°C) to a minimum. The Act also defines the mechanism through which the long- term target is to be met: a series of statutory, 5-year carbon budgets that set a binding ceiling for GHG emissions over that period. The UK has been subject to this economy-wide carbon constraint since 2008.One of the key purposes of the legislation is to make a statement of intent that can subsequently guide policy delivery and reduce uncertainty for decision makers. Although action is required immedi- ately, building a low-carbon economy will take decades, a much longer term than policy makers can credibly commit. This creates problems for businesses, which will mistrust the long-term validity of the plan and hedge their behaviour. An important role of climate change legislation is to overcome such time inconsistency problems and instil long-term credibility into the policy effort.The issue is akin to the credibility of inflation targets (Kydland & Prescott, 1977; Barro & Gordon, 1983; Rogoff, 1985), and the institutional remedies that have been proposed for both problems bear some resemblance to one another. An independent institution, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), was created to recommend and monitor carbon budgets,in the belief that technocrats are more likely to take a long-term view than politicians. However, the carbon budgets are ultimately passed by Parlia- ment to give them statutory credibility. A judicial review is likely if the government systematically ignores the Committee's advice or if key policy decisions are inconsistent with carbon objectives.3. Defining a strategy for deliveryFor the high-level objectives of the climate law to be credible they need to be backed up by a sound implementation strategy. The UK, EU, and many other jurisdictions have developed concrete decarbo- nization roadmaps for this purpose (CCC, 2010; DECC, 2011; EC, 2011). These are not blueprints that need to be implemented to the letter. The markets and private initiative will determine most of the details. However, they represent important strategies that will detennine the speed and direction of travel.These roadmaps are underpinned by a fair amount of technical analysis, which ensures that the strat- egy is technologically and economically rational, as well as consistent with the ultimate emissions objective. Numerical simulation models are well suited to the calculation of the least-cost way of meeting a certain emissions target under given technology constraints. In the UK, both the CCC and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) have used such models to inform their low-carbon roadmaps. The model evidence used by the CCC, in particular, is quite detailed. Even so, model results are heavily complemented and qualified by professional judgement.Least-cost optimization models (e.g. MARKAL) are used to determine the correct choice of technol- ogies as a function of their cost profiles (CCC, 2010), which are themselves derived fromdetailed engin- eering studies (e.g. Mott McDonald, 2011). Least-cost models also inform the allocation of scarce resources among competing uses; e.g. in determining whether the limited supply of sustainable biomass should be used for electricity generation, heating, or transport (CCC, 2011a). Detailed models of the electricity market can simulate how the power sector will cope with a rising share of inter- mittent renewables and inflexible nuclear capacity (P?yry, 2011). Least-cost models provide estimates of the likely economic costs, although these bottom-up estimates should be complemented with general equilibrium or macro-econometric model mns (Barker et ak, 2007).A key question that the roadmap should answer is about the speed of decarbonization: 'What is the most economically rational rate of bringing emissions down?' The anticipated fall in the cost of low- carbon technologies and the effect of discounting suggests that a slow start will be followed by steep emissions reductions later.2 However, progress in reducing technology costs is a function of cumulativeinvestment, not just the passage of time. Postponing low-carbon investment may therefore delay the point at which these technologies become cost-effective. Scientists can also point to the climate benefits of acting early: future climate change is determined by the sum total of emissions over time, and not their level in an arbitrary future year (Meinshausen et ak, 2009), so each year of delay imposes a social and environmental climate cost.Moreover, there are limits to the speed at which emissions may be reduced cost-effectively later. As an illustration, if carbon-intensive capital has a lifetime of 25 years, the maximum annual emissions cut that can be achieved through the regularinvestment cycle is 4%. To achieve this, all new invest- ment (in both replacement and expansionary capital) would have to be carbon-free. Going beyond 4% would require the premature scrapping of existing capital. This is expensive unless productivity improvements (e.g. through energy efficiency) are so high that an overall reduction in the capital stock is warranted. It is argued below that this is not the case.The UK debate about the speed of reducing emissions has been heavily influenced by the particular time profile of investment needed in UK power sector. A large proportion of UK power plants are due for renewal in the 2020s. This creates both an opportunity and a need to decarbonize power generation early, as the investments made in the 2020s will determine electricity emissions for many decades to come. For these reasons, the CCC has recommended a swift pace of emission reductions in the power sector and an overall abatement path that is only slightly back-loaded (see Figure 1). This decarbonization path has profound implications not just for electricity generation, but for all emitting sectors.3.1. EnergyThe decarbonization of the electricity sector is at the core of the low-carbon transition in UK and all industrialized countries, for several reasons. First, power generation is a major source of GHG emissions (see Figure 1). Second, low-carbon power generation is well-understood and feasible. A number of low- carbon options are available, including renewable energy (wind, solar, biomass, hydro, and in time perhaps even marine), nuclear energy, and the as yet unproven carbon capture and storage (CCS). Although each of these options has its challenges - related to cost (off-shore wind, perhaps nuclear), public acceptability(nuclear, onshore wind), and/or commercial availability (CCS, marine) - they provide an adequate technological basis and choice in low-carbon power generation. Third, decarbo- nized electricity has an important role to play in reducing emissions in other sectors, chief among them transport (through battery electric vehicles), residential heating (through ground source and air source heat pumps), and perhaps some parts of industry.Any combination of renewables, nuclear, and CCS will succeed in bringing down the carbon inten- sity of power production. The choice is determined by cost, environmental considerations, and issues of system operation, and different countries make this choice differently. Germany, for example, has resisted nuclear energy, but invested heavily in solar energy. The UK has emphasized wind power over solar photovoltaics, and so far has accepted nuclear power. It is putting particular emphasis on off- shore wind, which is more expensive than onshore wind but raises fewer localenvironmental concerns (Bassi, Bowen, & Bankh?user, 2012). The carbon intensity of electricity is required to fall by as much as 90% within 20 years, from over 500 gC02/kWh to 50 gC02/kWh, according to the timetable of the CCC (CCC, 2010). This tight target reduces the scope of intermediate technologies like gas, which might otherwise be attractive. Modern combined cycle gas turbines emit around 350 gC02/kWh, which is a considerable improvement on the current system average but too much in a truly low-carbon power sector. Unless fitted with CCS, future gas-fired power plants will therefore only be used spar- ingly, primarily as back-up capacity. This is a limited but important role. The combination of inter- mittent wind and baseload nuclear power creates challenges for load management,as neither is particularly flexible in responding to short-term fluctuations in demand. Gas can provide that flexibility and balance supply and demand. However, electricity market arrangements in the UK do not currently reward a mode of operation in which a plant is predominantly idle. This will have to change.Current electricity market arrangements create another obstacle to low-carbon investment. Power prices are presently determined competitively to reflect short-term operating costs. Low-carbon tech- nologies, such as nuclear and wind, typically have high capital costs and low operating costs. If they come to dominate the sector and set short-term marginal costs, market prices may fall to a level that is too low to recoup the upfront costs. In this case, further investment would stall.Reform of the electricity market has therefore become an essential prerequisite for decarbonization. After decades of liberalization, the reforms will bring about an increased role for the state. State inter- vention will be aimed, in particular, at rectifying three market failures that would otherwise prevent low-carbon investment. First, the state can put a price on carbon to internalize the climate change externality. Ideally, this would happen through a carbon tax or a stringent emissions trading scheme. The reality in the UK is somewhat more complicated. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) provides only a relatively weak price signal. The UK has thus legislated a unilateral carbon price floor to strengthen this signal. While this will motivate UK emitters to abate further, it will not reduce EU-wide emissions, which con- tinue to be set by the unchanged ETS cap (Fankhauser & Hepburn, 2010a, 2010b). The price instru- ments are complemented by a regulatory measure, an emissionsperformance standard set at (a high) 450 gC02/kWh.Second, the state can promote low-carbon (in particular renewable) energy and address market fail- ures related to technology development by using the classic instruments of either renewable energy obligations or feed-in tariffs (Section 4). The UK is moving from the former system to a variation of the latter, with the introduction of contracts for differences in low-carbon energy. Smaller-scale instal- lations benefit from a straight feed-in tariff. These demand-pull measures are complemented by a mod- erate supply-push from a new green investment bank, which will offer renewable energy investors improved access to finance. An investment subsidy is available for CCS pilots, although this process has been very slow.Third, the state can focus on the need to ensure investment into back-up capacity, as discussed above. In the UK, this will be achieved through the introduction of capacitypayments. The economic merit and practical challenges of this policy mix are further discussed in Section 4.3.2. TransportSurface transport is the second most important source of GHG emissions in the UK after electricity (see Figure 1). Cars dominate transport emissions, although emissions from lorries, vans, and buses are also substantial. Rail accounts for no more than 2% of the transport total.The strategy to reduce car emissions is two-pronged. In the short term, the emphasis is on reducing the carbon intensity of conventional cars through technological improvements and providing drivers with incentives to switch to more efficient cars. The UK has adopted an EU target to reduce the carbon intensity of new cars from current figure of around 145 g/km to 95 g/kmin 2020. There is a similar target for vans.In the medium term, further efficiency improvements will have to come from new technologies (e.g. battery electric cars, plug-in electric vehicles, and perhaps fuel-cell-based vehicles). Biofuels will also play a role, with the limited amount of sustainable biofuel probably best targeted at heavy goods vehicles and aviation (where there are fewer alternatives). The CCC has calculated that 60% of new cars sold in 2030 will need to be electric (CCC, 2010), rising to 100% by 2035 for a fully electric car fleet in the late 2040s. These are very ambitious targets, which, if met, will have repercussions on elec- tricity demand and the country's refuelling infrastmcture.In comparison to technology, the role of demand-side measures will be relatively modest and insuf- ficient to reverse the growth in driving-kilometres, although it will nevertheless be important. Changes in travel behaviour, such as eco-driving, better journey planning, car sharing, and modal shift, can have a significant effect, but alterning entrenched behaviour patterns will require persistent effort (as suggested in a recent UK pilot study on 'smarter choices'; CCC, 2010).As in the power sector, a diverse set of policies are in place to encourage the transition. Arguably the most powerful - fuel duty - is primarily a fiscal measure; it accounts for almost 5% of total government income and is the most important source of indirect tax revenue after V AT (Adam & Browne, 2011). Fuel duty helps to correct a multitude of transport-related externalities. If the entire levy were treated as a carbon tax, the implicit tax rate would be over ￡200 per tC02 (Bowen & Rydge, 2011).In addition, other vehicle-related taxes, such as excise duty or company car tax, are differentiated by carbon efficiency.Electric cars are subsidized by up to ￡5000 per vehicle, while matched funding for recharging stations is provided under the Plug-In Places programme. These policies have been rela- tively effective. Since 2008, the carbon intensity of new cars in the UK has fallen by about 9%, although the uptake of electric cars is still very low.3.3. Residential buildings and industryThe buildings and industrial sectors, when combined, account for over two-thirds of UK GHG emis- sions. A large part of these are indirect emissions from electricity use, which are assigned to the power sector in carbon accounts. However, both direct and indirect emissions are important from a demand-management perspective.The initial focus for reducing residential and industry emissions is on energy efficiency. There is much debate about the potential of energy-efficiency measures that are available at low or zero econ- omic cost. In the UK, the CCC expects a 23% reduction in non-electric energy use in buildings and industry by 2020, relative to 2007, and a 13% reduction in electricity use (CCC, 2012).Over the medium term, the focus may shift from energy efficiency to renewable heat. The CCC expects the share of renewable heat to rise from the current 1% of heat demand to 12% in 2020, much of it back-loaded, as renewable heat is still relatively expensive. From the late 2020s onwards, further decarbonization will require currently expensive options such as solid wall insulation and heat pumps. Additional measures in industry are difficult and will require new emissions reduction techniques. Options include industrial CCS, process innovation, and product substitution, none of which is as yet proven.Energy-efficiency gains are notoriously elusive. There are a multitude of policy, market, and behav- ioural barriers, some of which are well understood, others less so. This is mirrored in the policy frame- work. No other aspect of UK low-carbon agenda has seen more policy experimentation, and nowhere else is the policy landscape more complex. Although regulatory measures dominate, there are price incentives in the form of a Climate Change Levy (a carbon-cum-energy tax) and the indirect effect of the EU ETS, the cost of both are passed through to end-users. Energy-intensive businesses can avoid the Climate Change Levy by entering into a voluntary Climate Change Agreement; around 50 sectors have already done so.Renewable heat is subsidized through a renewable heat incentive. The service sector has its own mechanism, the CRC Energy Efficiency scheme, which relies on a combination of reputation effects (through a performance league table) and price incentives (through a carbon tax, later to be converted into a trading scheme). Residential energy efficiency has been promoted primarily through a succes- sion of supplier obligations (which commit energy utilities to certain energy savings or carbon emis- sions targets in their client base) and the much-vaunted Green Deal, which promises easier access to energy-efficiency finance by tying loans to the energy meter rather than householders. Despite this flurry of activity, progress in increasing residential and industrial energy efficiency has been mixed (CCC, 2012).3.4. AgricultureAgriculture accounts for perhaps 10% of UK GHG emissions, most in the form of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) (CCC, 2012). There are accounting issues, however: agricultural andland-use emis- sions are known with much less certainty than energy-related emissions. Similarly, low-GHG options for agriculture are less well understood than decarbonization in other sectors.The available evidence suggests that there is scope to reduce emissions further, e.g. through increased feed efficiency and dietary changes in livestock, the deployment of anaerobic digestion systems, and better nutrient management for crops. However, beyond these low-cost measures, deep decarbonization maybe difficult. On the supply side, further action may engender ethical and environ- mental issues (e.g. related to animal welfare and the role of genetically modified food). On the demand side,behavioural change with respect to diets is likely to be controversial (although it would have sub- stantial health benefits; see Ganten, Haines, & Souhami, 2010). It is therefore likely that agricultural emissions (together with sectors such as aviation) will account for an increasing fraction of the increas- ingly tighter carbon budgets over the longer term.Although agriculture is one of the most highly regulated sectors in the UK economy, the policy approach to agricultural decarbonization has chiefly relied on voluntary action. Opportunities to reduce emissions through adjustments in existing policies, such as the EU Nitrates Directive or the Common Agricultural Policy, have not been taken up. Consequently, emissions have primarily been reduced as a result of unrelated policies and developments. Fertilizer-related emissions, for example, have fallen significantly as a consequence of higher prices and regulation. (A similar story holds for waste management, where methane emissions havefallen sharply as a by-product of an aggressive landfill tax.)4. Designing policiesAs discussed in the previous section, policy measures to create a low-carbon economy are needed on three fronts (Stern, 2006). First, a price should be put on carbon to internalize the climate change externality. Second, low-carbon technology should be promoted by addressing externalities and market failures related to innovation. Third, carbon-efficient behaviour and investment should be encouraged, in particular to unlock the existing energy-efficiency potential.Although the emphasis is often on the carbon price, all three sets of policies are equally important. As shown in the previous section (see also Bowen & Rydge, 2011), the UK has an elaborate low-carbon policy landscape. There are measures to put a price on carbon (e.g. the EU ETS, Climate Change Levy, carbon price support), to support new technologies (e.g. renewable energy obligations, renewable heat incentives, feed-in tariffs), to provide investor confidence (e.g. electricity market reforms), to change energy-efficiency behaviour (e.g. CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, supplier obligations), and to facilitate access to finance (e.g. Green Deal, Green Investment Bank). Despite this complexity, which itself poses challenges, independent observers have expressed doubt that the UK policy environment is sufficient to meet the targets the country has set itself (CCC, 2010).4.1. Putting a price on carbonThere are two generic ways of putting a price on carbon: taxation or an emissions trading scheme.3 There is a large body of literature, going back to Weitzman (1974), on the relative merits of the two options (see Hoel & Karp, 2001; Newell & Pizer, 2003). Most economists probably favour a carbon tax, althoughwhere there are mandatory carbon constraints (as in the UK) the traditional Weitzman argu- ment would advocate quantity-based policies.4In practice, policy makers have been swayed less by theoretical niceties than by political realities, and in most cases an emissions trading scheme is easier to implement than a carbon tax: it creates a valuable asset - emissions permits - which can be used to pacify industry. In the case of the EU ETS, the stock of permits is worth around euro20 billion a year, and handing them out for free has indeed beensufficient to secure industry buy-in. However, there has also been a backlash against the windfall profits enjoyed by carbon 'fat cats' (Sandbag, 2011). Indeed, the European Commission has found it hard to reverse the practice of free allocation. This suggests that the use of free permits should be cur- tailed as much as possible from the outset, although some will be necessary to create consensus. The EU ETS has yielded a wealth of other practical lessons, including the need to manage price fluctuations (e.g. through an auction reserve price) and the importance of competent regulation (see Ellerman et ak, 2010; Fankhauser & Hepburn, 2010a, 2010b, for a review).Even in the presence of an emissions trading scheme, most countries have complementary taxes that cover emissions outside the scheme, strengthen the price signal within it, address other externalities, or simply raise revenue. Levying taxes on top of a trading scheme will have a detrimental effect on the carbon permit price and reduce the gains from trade (Fankhauser & Hepburn, 2010a, 2010b), but there is merit in using the two instruments in parallel in different parts of the economy.The most effective way of sending a carbon price signal。

发展低碳经济论文基于swot分析模型的中国低碳经济发展研究综述

中国低碳经济发展论文：基于SWOT分析模型的中国低碳经济发展研究综述摘要:全球变暖已经成为世界各国共同面临的威胁和挑战。

低碳经济是减少温室气体排放、应对气候变化的最佳经济发展模式。

本文通过文献综述的方法首先回顾了低碳经济的国内外动态和内涵,运用SWOT模型从内外驱动力方面分析评价了中国发展低碳经济的紧迫性和挑战性,并构建了SWOT矩阵,从发展低碳经济的契机结合内外驱动力,最后提出了中国发展低碳经济的长期战略。

关键词:低碳经济;节能减排; SWOT模型矩阵以全球气候变化为核心的全球变化是当今人类面临的最严峻的挑战之一,也是人类最伟大的成就—以人类历史上前所未有的规模大量创造物质财富的直接结果[1~2]。

人类的工业、农业等各种活动既排放CO2和其他温室气体,又改变着人类生活的环境,由此改变了大气对太阳辐射能的吸收状况,从而破坏了气候的脆弱平衡,继而威胁着全人类的生存与发展,其后果是灾难性的[2~3]。

2007年IPCC第四次科学评估报告发表以后,尤其是“巴厘岛路线图”达成后,人类必须迅速采取行动应对全球性气候变化的挑战,而发展低碳经济则成为世界经济发展的大势所趋,并逐渐成为各国各级决策者的共识[4~6]。

未来10~15年,是中国经济社会发展的重要战略机遇期,也是全球控制温室气体排放的关键时期[3,6]。

在世界各国都积极朝向低碳经济迈进的同时,中国走低碳发展道路也具有重大的内外驱动力。

作为最大的发展中国家,中国发展低碳经济既面临机遇,更需要迎接挑战。

中国是世界上人口最多的国家,也是世界上最大的煤炭消费国[7]。

当前,中国的温室气体排放总量居世界第二位,预计到2025年左右,中国的温室气体净排放量将与美国并驾齐驱。

《京都议定书》依据“共同但有区别责任”的原则,没有为中国等发展中国家规定具体的减排目标,因此《京都议定书》的生效并没给现在的中国带来切实压力,但对未来影响巨大[4,8]。

2009年在哥本哈根气候大会上,全球气候变化是不争的事实,中国节能减排再次被提到议程。

统计分析论文我国各低碳经济发展水平的综合评价分析

统计分析论文我国各省低碳经济发展水平的综合评价分析近年来，在我国经济蒸蒸日上的同时，同时也带来了各种各样的环境问题。

包括能源浪费、植被减少土地沙漠化，还有由于煤炭等资源快速消耗带来的温室效应。

为了在发展的同时改善我们的生活环境，让经济和环境协同发展，本文对已经研究好的指标体系进行改进和创新，形成了一套用于评价我国各个省份低碳经济发展情况的变量体系，再利用可靠的数据，进行聚类分析和因子分析，其中因子分析计算出的因子得分可以对各个省份的情况进行排序，由此对各省的低碳经济发展情况从不同角度做出评价分析，相应从不同角度对各个省份的改善方法提出建议。

世界经济发展的进程中，人们越来越看重能源消耗、环境污染、有害气体排放等问题，本文从环境情况，经济发展，碳减排能力，碳汇基础和社会发展水平 5 个方面，共选取了 19 个指标，利用聚类分析方法，研究我国低碳经济在东西部区域是否有显著差异，利用因子分析法对各省低碳经济综合发展水平进行排序比较。

根据上表中的结果，我们得到了 5 个公共因子，分别对这 5 个公共因子命名为环境治理、居民生活水平、能耗、城市绿化、经济发展因子，根据这 5 个因子分别计算出各省的因子的分排名，同时从这 5 个方面对各个省份提出建议。

关键词：区域；聚类分析；因子分析；低碳经济1．导论1.1 选题的背景与意义由于经济发展的调控，中国的经济增长正从急速转变为中高。

事实上，过去 30 年来，中国的快速增长伴随着巨大的能源消耗和环境破坏。

2002 年至2011 年，中国在世界能源消费中所占份额从 12.79 迅速上升至 22.496，而美国作为世界上的大型能源2014 年中国能源消费量达到 2159 个，与 2011 年相比下降幅度不大。

根据国家统计局2014 年数据显示，中国能源消费总量达到 4260 亿吨标准煤，煤炭消费量为 48.39 世界的。

在这种情况下，以煤为主的能源消费结构给中国的生活带来了巨大的压力。

我国低碳消费研究综述(全文)

我国低碳消费研究综述一、我国低碳消费研究的历史对于低碳经济及低碳消费行为的研究，世界上在40年前就已经开始了，并在过去40年里引起西方学者极大的兴趣，世界对低碳行为的研究最早是出于保护能源，应对石油危机方面的考虑。

20世纪90年代到21世纪初的相关研究，则更多地考虑可持续进展和气候变暖方面的因素。

我国对低碳消费的研究起步较晚，通过对ZG期刊XX以低碳消费为二、低碳经济与低碳消费模式的内涵第一，低碳经济的内涵。

低碳经济是人类社会面临日益加剧的全球气候变暖压力下提出的一种新的进展理念，究竟何为低碳经济？目前尚无严格定义，被广泛引用的是英国环境专家鲁宾斯德的阐述：低碳经济是一种正在兴起的经济模式，其核心是在市场机制基础上，通过制度框架和政策措施的制定和创新，推动提高能效技术、节约能源技术、可再生能源技术和温室气体减排技术的开发和运用，促进整个社会经济朝向高能效、低能耗和低碳排放的模式转型。

我国学者在借鉴国外学者观点的基础上，也有自己的见解。

如庄贵阳认为低碳经济的实质是提高能源效率和优化能源结构；夏堡认为低碳经济就是最大限度地减少煤炭和石油等高碳能源消耗的经济，也就是以低能耗低污染为基础的经济。

潘家华认为低碳经济是相对于农业经济、工业经济的一种经济形态，其特征表现在两方面：一是碳生产率即每单位碳排放所制造的GDP或附加值比较高。

二是社会人文进展水平、生活质量较高。

第二，低碳消费模式的内涵。

低碳经济包括低碳生产与低碳消费两个方面，而消费对生产具有反作用，并在一定程度上引导着生产的进展方向与趋势，所以对低碳消费模式的分析对于低碳经济的进展尤为重要。

低碳消费模式是以“低碳”为导向的一种共生型消费模式，这种模式体现出物质产品消费均衡，精神产品消费丰富，生态消费更加凸显。

其消费行为与消费结构更加科学化、合理化，是一种文明、科学、健康的生态化消费方式（黄毓哲、黄亚哲）。

三、我国对低碳消费模式的分析人们的消费模式和消费进展取向不仅影响和日常消费直接相关的能源消费，还将通过终端消费内容的变化，间接影响整个产业结构，对能源消费结构和数量产生重大影响。

低碳经济研究现状述评

（2）低碳经济发展战略与政策：我国政府高度重视低碳经济发展，制定了一系列发展战略和政策。国内学者对此进行了深入研究。例如，国务院发展研究中心（2009）提出了我国低碳经济的发展目标、重点领域和政策措施。庄贵阳等（2010）则研究了我国低碳经济发展的国际合作与竞争态势。
（3）低碳城市建设：低碳城市建设是低碳经济发展的重要组成部分。国内学者对低碳城市建设进行了广泛研究，包括城市规划、能源利用、交通出行等方面。例如，夏治飞和王颖（2011）提出了我国低碳城市建设的路径与对策建议。
2、国内研究现状
我国对低碳经济的研究起步较晚，但发展迅速。国内的研究主要集中在以下几个方面：
（1）碳排放与经济增长的关系：国内学者对碳排放与经济增长的关系进行了深入研究。例如，庄贵阳等（2005）认为我国碳排放与经济增长之间存在倒U 型关系，即随着经济增长，碳排放先上升后下降。周建和吴利华（2008）则认为我国碳排放与经济增长之间存在长期均衡关系。
五、总结
低碳经济和低碳城市是环保和可持续发展的必然选择。通过减缓气候变化、调整能源结构、促进技术创新等措施，可以实现低碳经济和低碳城市的快速发展，为人类社会的可持续发展做出贡献。虽然面临着一些挑战，但只要我们共同努力，相信一定能够克服困难，迎来更加美好的未来。
谢谢观看
8、加强政策制度研究：政策制度是推动低碳经济发展的重要保障
9、加强产业转型研究：产业转型是实现低碳经济的重要途径之一
参考内容
随着全球气候变化问题日益严峻，低碳经济和低碳城市成为了人们的焦点。本次演示将介绍低碳经济和低碳城市的概念、发展现状、重要性，以及未来的发展趋势和挑战。
一、低碳经济与低碳城市的基本概念
二、低碳经济的发展趋势

低碳经济的发展论文

低碳经济的发展论文一、发展低碳经济的必要性（一）低碳经济是全球经济发展的共同趋势美国在1990年颁布实施了《清洁空气法》，在20某某年制定通过了《能源政策法》，20某某年7月，美国参议院又提出了《低碳经济法案》，公布了创建低碳经济的10步计划。

此外，巴西、丹麦、德国、意大利等国家也在积极地发展低碳经济，大力发展风能、太阳能、核能等新能源，减少二氧化碳等温室气体的排放。

低碳经济的发展模式已成为世界主流经济的发展趋势，中国要想更好地参与国际竞争，在经济全球化的浪潮中立于不败之地，就必须重视低碳经济的发展，调整经济发展战略。

（二）低碳经济是实现我国经济持续发展的必然选择经济的发展，特别是工业的发展总是伴随着大量的能源消耗，而传统的化石燃料煤、石油、天燃气等都是属于不可再生资源。

虽然中国自然资源丰富，但目前处在工业化阶段，再加上人口众多，大量的消耗很可能会导致能源的枯竭，从而制约经济的持续性发展。

全球气温的不断升高、气候活动的异常便是一个现实的例子。

由于技术和设备相对陈旧，中国单位GDP的二氧化碳排放量远高于发达国家。

目前，中国二氧化碳排放总量居世界第二位。

预计到20某某年中国的二氧化碳排放量占世界的比例将达到20.7%，超过美国（20.1%）成为世界第一排放大国。

因此，发展低碳经济是中国实现经济持续、健康、快速发展的战略选择。

二、我国发展低碳经济面临的问题（一）节能减排的技术落后低碳经济最主要的特点就是低能耗、低污染、低排放，因此要实现在生产过程中的低能耗以及生产后排污中的低污染、低排放，就需要先进的技术支持。

低碳技术主要是指那些有助于降低经济发展对生态系统碳循环的影响，实现经济发展的碳中性的技术。

例如碳捕获和储存技术、节能减排技术和可再生能源技术以及一些现在未知的技术。

科技是发展低碳经济的重要保障，技术上的突破和创新是掌握低碳技术核心的关键。

然而，我国由于工业发展起步较晚，目前又正处在工业化快速发展的阶段，因此在节能减排方面并未投入足够的人力、物力、财力，所以科研水平较低、技术落后，制约了中国低碳经济的发展。

我国实现低碳经济路径选择研究综述

我国实现低碳经济路径选择研究综述 □ 四川省社会科学院经济研究所王婷 / 文本文从我国学术界关于实现低碳经济的路径选择研究方面进行文献综述。

对于我国而言，发展低碳经济，是作为负责的大国实现和平崛起和可持续发展的必然选择，顺乎世界潮流、合乎我国国情。

文章从对策建议、技术创新方面、消费方式创新、政策创新、环境金融创新、构建低碳城市、发展低碳农业7个方面对我国实现低碳经济的路径选择进行了综述。

低碳经济路径选择文献综述“低碳经济”这一理念始于气候变化和能源安全的考虑。

低碳经济是一种达到经济社会发展与生态环境保护双赢的一种经济发展形态，是一种减少高碳能源消耗的经济发展模式。

在全球气候变暖的背景下，以低能耗、低污染为基础的“低碳经济”已成为全球热点，寻求实现低碳经济的途径尤为关键。

国内学者从不同的角度对我同实现低碳经济的路径选择进行研究，本文就此进行较为详细的文献综述。

对策建议方面付允等（2008）在对国内外低碳经济理论和实践综述的基础上，从宏观、中观和微观3个层次论证了低碳经济发展模式是以低碳发展为发展方向，以节能减排为发展方式，以碳中性和技术为发展方法。

提出我国实施低碳经济发展模式的政策措施：节能优先，提高能源利用效率；化石能源低碳化，大力发展可再生能源；没立碳基金。

激励低碳技术的研究和开发；确立国家碳交易机制。

国务院发展研究中心应对气候变化课题组（2009）指出了当前发展低碳经济的重点与建议，包括：①总体规划，为低碳发展创造条件；②优化产业结构，发展低碳产业；③发展壮大循环经济，重点抓好节能减排；④加大新能源和可再生能源开发利用的扶持力度；⑤重视低碳技术的研究开发和技术储备；⑥厉行节约，鼓励消费的同时反对浪费；⑦用低碳理念规划和建设，开展低碳经济试点；⑧制定相关政策，形成低碳发展的长效机制；⑨加强国际合作，研发形成低碳技术体系；⑩广泛宣传教育，提高领导和公众的认知水平。

解振华（2010）强调尽管发展低碳经济已是大多数国家的共识，但不同国家发展阶段不同，国情不同，对低碳经济的理解和实现路径也不尽相同。

文献综述

关于我国碳金融发展问题的文献综述一、引言碳金融是随着低碳经济的兴起而出现的一个全新的金融概念，它是指服务于旨在减少温室气体排放的各种金融制度安排和金融交易活动。

包括直接投融资、碳指标交易、碳交易中介服务、银行贷款和碳金融衍生品交易等。

碳金融与传统意义上的金融的不同在于，碳金融的核心是碳排放权，随着全球气候的变暖，大气温室气体排放空间不再是免费的公共资源，基于经济实力、地缘政治等诸多因素进行多方博弈所形成的碳排放量成为一种可以获利的能力和资产。

2005年《京都议定书》正式生效，要求38个工业化国家在2012年之前二氧化碳等6种温室气体排放量较1990年降低5.2%，这是人类历史上首次以法规的形式限制温室气体的排放。

自《京都议定书》颁布以来，各发达国家纷纷采取措施发展碳金融，履行自己的减排义务，碳金融在这些发达国家取得了较好的发展。

但我国的碳金融事业却有点止步不前的现象，发展形式单一，且发展速度极其缓慢，这种现象已经越来越受到相关领域专家学者的关注。

发展碳金融不仅有利于保护环境，而且有利于促进经济的发展，在此基础上，对于我国碳金融发展存在的问题及其改善措施，国内许多专家学者提出了各自的看法。

本文通过对相关领域内的学者的观点进行分析、归纳，并适当提出自己的观点，力求较全面的指出我国碳金融发展存在的主要问题，同时指出相关解决措施。

希望对于探讨我国碳金融的发展有积极作用。

二、关于我国碳金融发展存在的问题每一项金融活动在不同的国家，由于受到其经济发展速度，国情等多方面因素的影响，发展速度、发展现状都会有很大的不同。

邹颖（2010）将影响我国碳金融发展的因素分为主客观两方面，主观方面是从我国社会的角度出发分析，他指出影响碳金融发展的因素是我国社会对碳金融的认识不到位，以及综合配套政策不完备。

而客观方面则是从碳金融自身的角度出发，邹颖（2010）认为，影响我国碳金融发展的因素是碳金融的交易复杂，碳金融的风险因素多这两点，即由于交易复杂，提高了交易难度，以及风险因素多，增加了碳金融发展的不确定性与不稳定性。

低碳经济实践论文：低碳经济理论与实践研究综述

低碳经济实践论文：低碳经济理论与实践研究综述摘要:发展低碳经济，是缓解资源压力，保护生态环境，开发清洁资源，促进全球经济可持续发展的重大战略举措。

本文根据当前学术界对低碳经济的研究状况，从低碳经济的起源、发展和研究的主要内容出发，对低碳经济的典型实践与推进策略以及基本趋势、制约因素和制度环境等方面进行了归纳和总结，并对需要进一步加强的理论与实践研究以及未来主要的研究方向进行了简短述评。

关键词:低碳经济;制度环境;低碳技术;气候变化;碳减排;碳排放;新能源;清洁能源一、低碳经济的起源与内涵1．低碳经济的起源及发展“低碳经济”最早见诸于政府文件是在2003年的英国能源白皮书《我们能源的未来:创建低碳经济》，其总体目标是2050年将二氧化碳的排放量在1990年的基础上削减60%，从根本上把英国变成一个低碳经济国家。

［1］2006年，前世界银行首席经济学家尼古拉斯·斯特恩牵头做出的《斯特恩报告》指出，全球以每年1%GDP的投入，可以避免将来每年5%～20%GDP的损失，呼吁全球向低碳经济转型。

［2］2007年7月，美国参议院提出《低碳经济法案》，表明低碳经济的发展道路有望成为美国未来的重要战略选择。

同年12月，联合国气候变化大会制订了应对气候变化的“巴厘岛路线图”，要求发达国家在2020年前将温室气体减排25%至40%。

“巴厘岛路线图”为全球进一步迈向低碳经济起到了积极的作用，具有里程碑的意义。

2008年，联合国环境规划署确定该年“世界环境日”的主题为“转变传统观念，推行低碳经济”。

2．低碳经济的内涵剖析英国在《我们能源的未来:创建低碳经济》的白皮书中指出，低碳经济是通过更少的自然资源消耗和更少的环境污染，获得更多经济产出;低碳经济是创造更高生活标准和更好生活质量的途径，为发展、应用和输出先进技术创造了机会，同时也能创造新的商机和更多的就业机会。

自2003年英国提出“低碳经济”后，一些学者从不同角度对其内涵进行了诠释。

近期关于我国发展低碳经济的观点综述

权利。或以 “ 不影响经济发展 ”为前提，或作在 “ 总量减排并不是发展低碳经济的前提条件 ”的说
５２２１．００６前进论坛ＱＡＪＮＵＴＮＩＮＩＬＮＡ
力。同时，在外部环境方面，需要国际社会的支持
和理解。
社会纵横发展低碳经济的不确定性低碳经济是一个具有广泛社会性的范畴，其发展不确定也来源于各个方面，需要用统筹的思路
要因素。一些发达国家根据《京都议定书》的规定承诺量化减排目标，所以其发展低碳经济的目标首
低碳经济及其发展的影响因素
“ 低碳经济 ”最早见诸于政府文件是在２００３年的英国能源白皮书《我们能源的未来：创建低碳经济》。作为一个前沿的经济理念，低碳经济目前
发展低碳经济的不确定性主要在于：第一，认识转变的不确定性。事实表明，改变人类自身的行为难度很大。联合国早在１９年的｛１纪议程》中就９２２世提出过改变消费形态的倡议，但至今仍没有成功经验可以推广。此外，靠需求拉动的市场经济与强调节约型的生活方式如何协调一致，在经济学基本理论上尚未解决。第二，科技创新和技术转移的不确定性。低碳发展离不开先进技术的支撑。国家能否在低碳科技方面加大投入力度，如何将低碳研发成果转化成成熟的产品，将直接决定中国实现低碳发展的技术可行性。此外，发达国家能否将本国的先

低碳经济发展模式与全球机制_文献综述

2010年第6期(总第474期)Jun .,2010公共管理V o.l 32 N o .06低碳经济发展模式与全球机制:文献综述*杨丹辉1,李伟2(1 中国社会科学院工业经济研究所,北京 100836;2 中国社会科学院研究生院,北京 100102)内容提要:气候变化已成为当今国际社会的热点和焦点问题,应对气候变化的全球实践催生了低碳经济的理念和发展模式,低碳经济将推动人类生产和消费方式的重大转变,促进相关领域国际协调机制的改革和创新。

目前,低碳经济受到了国内外学术界的普遍关注,这一领域的研究取得了重要进展。

本文从低碳经济的内涵、特征和发展动因入手,对相关研究成果进行综述,以现有文献为基础,着重分析低碳经济发展模式、全球机制以及低碳发展模式对中国经济增长的影响,探讨未来低碳经济研究的方向和重点。

关键词:低碳经济;气候变化;碳捕获与封存技术;碳市场;全球机制中图分类号:F205 文献标志码:A 文章编号:1002 5766(2010)06 0164 08收稿日期:2010-03-24*基金项目:中国社会科学院亚洲研究中心项目中韩清洁能源利用比较研究。

作者简介:杨丹辉(1969-),女,山东济南人。

副研究员,博士,研究方向是产业经济学、国际贸易与投资。

E m ai:l yangdan hu@i yahoo .co ;李伟(1984-),女,湖南益阳人。

硕士研究生,专业是产业经济学。

E m a i:l guowangdewe i x iao @163.co m 。

过去三百年中,以先污染后治理、先开发后保护为特征的增长方式主导了发达国家的工业化和现代化进程。

在要素配置全球化程度不断提高的条件下,传统的工业化和经济增长方式在世界范围内扩散,很多发展中国家工业化延续了高投入、高消耗、高污染的老路,经济增长的资源约束和环境污染加剧,可持续发展等全球性问题日益突出。

尽管关于人类生产活动对气候的影响以及全球气候变暖的程度、机理等问题仍存在重大争议,但进入21世纪,气候变化已成为人类经济和社会发展面临的共同挑战。