英検 1 級 Reading 出題率 約 13 %。 Paris Agreement / discount rate / intergenerational justice の三本柱を 8 スライドで。
“Carbon emissions constitute a paradigmatic negative externality; only a Pigouvian tax, complemented by binding multilateral commitments, can internalise social costs and surmount the collective-action pathologies endemic to atmospheric commons.”
炭素排出は典型的な負の外部性であり、 ピグー税と拘束力ある多国間合意の組み合わせによってのみ社会的費用を内部化し、 大気というコモンズに固有の集合行為病理を克服できる。
key vocab: externality / Pigouvian tax / internalise / multilateral / commons
“Unilateral carbon pricing imposes regressive burdens on low-income households, induces carbon leakage to lax jurisdictions, and yields negligible mitigation absent enforceable global compliance — an empirically elusive condition.”
一方的な炭素価格付けは低所得世帯に逆進的な負担を強い、 規制の緩い管轄区域への炭素漏洩を誘発し、 強制力ある国際遵守 — 実証的に達成困難な条件 — なしには緩和効果はわずかである。
反論への反論: dividend スキームで逆進性は中和され、 CBAM (carbon border adjustment) で leakage は遮断可能。 (rebuttal: revenue-recycling and border adjustment)
“To discount the welfare of future generations merely because they are temporally distant is to commit a form of moral parochialism indistinguishable from spatial discrimination. The pure rate of time preference is, properly understood, ethically indefensible.”
単に時間的に隔たっているという理由で未来世代の福祉を割り引くことは、 空間的差別と区別できない道徳的偏狭の一形態である。 純粋時間選好率は、 正しく理解すれば倫理的に擁護不可能である。 (Stern Review, 2006)
I would argue that the climate emergency demands a tripartite policy architecture: a Pigouvian carbon tax to internalise externalities, binding multilateral commitments to overcome collective-action failures, and an explicit ethic of intergenerational justice to anchor long-term discount rates. The empirical case is unequivocal: warming has already reached 1.2 °C above pre-industrial levels, and the IPCC warns that emissions must fall 43 % by 2030 to retain any plausible 1.5 °C pathway. The Stern Review's estimated 5 to 20 % GDP loss from inaction dwarfs the 1 to 2 % cost of mitigation. Critics object that carbon taxes are regressive, but revenue-recycling dividends — as implemented in British Columbia — have empirically rendered them progressive. A second objection, carbon leakage, is met by carbon border-adjustment mechanisms such as the EU's CBAM. A third worry concerns the social discount rate: Nordhaus argues for higher rates, but Stern's near-zero pure time preference better reflects the moral arbitrariness of temporal location. Therefore, integrating Pigouvian instruments with cosmopolitan and intergenerational ethics yields the only defensible climate architecture.
Rebuttal 1: "Carbon taxes hurt the poor." → Revenue-recycling dividends render them net-progressive (British Columbia evidence).
Rebuttal 2: "Won't industry just move abroad?" → Border-carbon adjustments (CBAM) close leakage corridors.
Rebuttal 3: "Future generations don't yet exist — why prioritise them?" → Personal-identity asymmetry does not justify temporal discrimination (Parfit 1984).
Rebuttal 4: "Developing nations need fossil energy." → Common-but-differentiated responsibility + climate-finance transfers reconcile equity and ambition.
自信のない問題があれば、 次の単語ステップで強化します。
音から入れた単語は記憶定着が 2 倍以上違います。
次のステップで、 この自動復習を LINE で受け取れます。
無料 · 登録 1 タップ
※ カタカナ英語からやり直したい方は
14 日無料体験 も別途ご用意しています。