Psychological components A psychological component of distribution is knowledge and education. The distribution sets the tone for auctions, trading, and banking that take place, hence the need for knowing why some companies get their allowances free and others need to buy them. The industries need to be educated on how distributions works, so that they are able to know how much allowance they are getting and if they need more they can know how to get it. The distribution element is effective this element uses community based social marketing as it recognizes the barriers in this case time to make changes to reduce their emission, those giving plenty of free permits (Koger & Winter, 2010, p. 145). Furthermore, it selects a particular …show more content…
Another psychological element is found in the regulations of the system. Foremost, contingency occurs in the regulations. Here knowledge allows industries to know how penalties work in a way that makes sense to them (money). For instance, companies need to be given numbers or percentages of the importance to complying with the allowances they are given, so that they violations do not occur. Furthermore, giving companies the estimated reduction in cost that they will experience by complying will allowed the companies to want to keep their emissions by implementing new plans that will help achieve this, thus the incentives provide positive reinforcement. On the other side of the spectrum, if violations occur companies have to deal with penalties, which may be monetary (negative punishment). To prevent the leakage element from occurring, there is a need to promote social status for the companies that comply with the program. Promoting social status is a form of consequence strategy, since it promotes the continual environmental behavior (e.g. reducing emissions). The government can utilize feedback by letting the companies know how their change in behavior helps climate change and providing information on how to change their behaviors to reduce emissions. What 's more, the companies can gain feed back from the public,
Furthermore, criminal behaviour is learned, and when this behaviour is been taught, it entails techniques of committing the crime which at times can be complicated and other times quite simple; ' the specific direction of the motives, drives, rationalisation and attitudes.' (Newburn, 2013, pp. 394). Although this theory is rarely used when theorising white collar crime, it is nonetheless an important factor in many offending. For example, a study carried out by Geis of an electrical equipment company found that a lot of manufacture encouraged price fixing by their employee as a way of coping with market pressure. Geis pointed out that these activities was an established way of life where those that are involved learns attitudes and rationalisation that favour and support such misconduct. (Newburn, 2013). A second theory was given by Hirschi and Gottfredson, which is called the Self Control Theory. This theory focus on human nature and the significance of gratification. The central idea of this theory is that individuals peruse self interest and self gratification and the avoidance of pain. In regards to this theory crime is seen as a way in which individuals maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Furthermore, they argued that the differences that there are between those that chooses not to be involved in criminal activities and those that choose to
The argument about man’s role in climate change and the role of government, the role of industry and the role of citizens is a significant challenge that crosses all levels of government, crosses all geopolitical boundaries and crosses all sectors of business. National governments across the globe are dealing with the issue in different ways, but one overarching aspect of control and mitigation can be seen in the oversight and regulation of the electric energy industry. One significant challenge facing each nation is the cost to lower carbon emissions and the question of who will pay the additional cost for compliance. Though the cost issue is significant, a much more difficult question is whether any decision on lowering emissions can make
A common problem with public goods is the free rider problem. The free rider problem occurs when people want to use a public good, but do not want to pay for it. The reduction of greenhouse gasses should be a global effort. The benefits are vague and provided in the future, there is little incentives to reduce emission. If the Trump administration disregards America’s pledge to reduce carbon emission by 26 to 28 percent, the United States can save millions of dollars on climate policies but increase the threat to the planet. This can lead to other countries not meeting their emission quota. If a majority of the nations who signed the Paris agreement goes back on their promise, a market failure will occur, producing an inefficient result. If too many countries become free riders, the cost of the remaining countries will increase trying to reduce emission. This will then exceed the benefits for the counties to fix the climate problem. Eventually leading to the climate problem being too large for the few remaining countries to solve on their own.
The issue of carbon emissions is an important one not only from an environmental perspective but also an economic one. While reducing carbon emissions is an important one for the health of human beings as well as that of the environment, the larger question is what type of policy strategy is best for both reducing such emissions which might have an impact on efforts to mitigate the effects of pollution on climate change. While ther are options to consider which does not rely on economics-- technological or output standards achieved by command and control regulations--they are often fraught with political resistance by industry because they do not allow industry to make any choices or play a role in solving the problem of
on the way in which an environment shapes behaviour, by making it more or less rewarding to behave in particular ways. For example, if at work there is no regulation on where people are able to smoke cigarettes, it is easy to be a smoker. If regulations are in place, it is more difficult and, as a consequence, most smokers smokeless and find such an environment more supportive for quitting.
This theory explains why individuals stop offending and accounts for the reward systems that are in place. Bad behavior may look appealing in situations only where the response to that behavior is beneficial to the individual. On the flip side, when good behavior looks rewarding in a particular situation, the individual will conform to what is acceptable (Moffitt 1993).
A cap-and-trade program sets a maximum level of pollution, and distributes emission permits among firms that produce emissions (Carbon Tax, 2013). The purpose of which is regulation of specific emissions by stationary and mobile sources, and setting a specific level which all emitters are re-quired to meet. Cap-and-trade possibly has less of a direct economic component to it than the other alternatives to reducing emissions described due to the ability to trade permits versus the expendi-ture of resources improving technology, with some arguing it is to the detriment of the environment. As stated in the article found in Reclaiming the Environmental Agenda, by Ashford, N. et al., 2008, “being a market-based instrument, ‘the cap-and-trade option suggests that at least this form of MBI may be more environmentally effective than the usual command-and-control alternatives, in addition to being more economically efficient.” (Ashford, N. and Caldart, C., 2008, p. 908).
The cap on the market is set on carbon emissions, creating scarcity within the market. At the end of each year businesses within the scheme are required to ensure they have enough allowances to account for their installation’s actual emissions. Those firms that do not comply and pollute without sufficient permits are hit with heavy fines. (Euro 100 per ton). The aim of carbon trading is to create a market in pollution permits and put a price on carbon. In this way, policy can help internalise external costs of firms’ production and encourage lower emissions to tackle climate change. In a cap and trade system, the volume permits would gradually decline and total emissions, in theory, will diminish. The model of such can be shown as
A behavioral contingency is a temporal relationship between behavior and a consequence. A contingency exists when there is a casual relationship between two things and to be contingent implies to be caused by. This relationship is often captured by the “If…, then…,” statement. As an example, if you don’t come on time, then you cannot get the gift. Here there is a temporal relationship between the behavior and the event that follows it. The intended consequence from this situation is considered as a punisher. A contingency that works as a punisher must have a behavioral contingency. For a contingency to be reliable as a punisher there must be a link between a specific behavior and the
Government enacted solutions are probably the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and to control pollution since unfortunately the majority of individuals mainly act to their own self-interest and are not concerned with the future of the planet. This is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons, which is the exploitation of a common resource. In this case the common resource is the atmosphere. The first method proposed is the carbon cap trade system. The term cap means the limit or the maximum of the amount of pollutant to be emitted. A trade refers to the transfer of permits that have to be bought by firms that need to increase their volume of emissions from firms that require fewer permits 1. The carbon tax method is a tax on the carbon content of fuels — effectively a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels 2. So, which system would be best for the government to enact to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere?
They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing
Professor Juniper suggested polices such as ecological taxes and emission trading schemes. These polices can disrupt the unpleasant future of climate change because there will be consequences for not obeying the regulations under the policy, which amounts to economic growth, while combating climate change. In the textbook, Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change, it discusses similar incentives such as “carbon credit,” that will issue credit to nations for reducing carbon emission as a way of mitigating climate change and dealing with the economy. If proposals like these are taken seriously, the minor lost on present mitigation wouldn't compare. The discussion of the future in both scenarios or inactivity and actively doing something
When looking at the corporate businesses and the undoing of the human habitat; the United Nations has sanctioned many organizations to track climate change such as the UNEP, the World Meteorological Organization and the IPCC. Since the mid-eighties, these agencies have monitored the changes, yet have failed to convey the significance. Studies done by these agencies have concluded that the last fifty years are attributable to human activities and big corporations which lead to the changing in the compositions of the atmosphere throughout the 21st century (Saltori). These activities that are mentioned are those by means of businesses that grew into national conglomerates. Concurrent with business growth, the greenhouse gas emissions have grown seventy percent from 1970 to 2004 (Lehner). Recent studies have shown that 122 corporations produce eighty percent of greenhouse gases (IPCC). The climate is going to drastically change the world forever, but at whose expense? What exactly does the political eminence of these companies have
The system is supposed to enhance its internal practices to reducing greenhouse gas, and they will be increasing recycling processes. More importantly, it will also create strict guidelines for JPMorgan Chase's lending decisions when it comes to The mining, forestry, oil, and gas industries it will no longer finance projects that pose a danger to the environment It has also decided to encourage clients to design plans to try and reduce the large amounts of greenhouse gasses to help the environment. The modifications come from years of the hard word by the Stakeholders as well as some other groups that included nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), investors, and activists. Stakeholders, including NGOs, investors, and activists, as well as communities, labor, and consumers all, played a significant role in improving corporate behavior. Some NGOs are willing to put themselves in danger by using strategies of conflict. Others have been working to create partnerships with companies to help them green their production, often in ways that save them money. As well, the investor community is taking a progressively active role in work with the companies in the hopes of creating a partnerships with businesses in order to help them green their production, which often save them money on the long term outlook. Some of the investor community is taking an active role as well encouraging corporations to consider the long-term financial risks of social and environmental issues rather than the next quarter's
Pollution, specifically global warming, is of growing concern to people and governments. It is a controversial issue whose validity is still being debated by scientists. The Kyoto Protocol is an international attempt to address global warming through emissions controls. Traditional neoclassical economic models do not incorporate pollution in rudimentary theories of supply, demand, or pricing, as a result, firms do not consider pollution as a cost of production, which leaves government regulation as the primary method for controlling these externalities. The goal of emissions trading is to allow one business, which can make greenhouse gas emission reductions for a relatively low cost, to sell