Discussion on Environmental Economics (Essay Sample)

The UK’s ten-point plan is an ambitious policy for achieving a green revolution in the nation. Students’ survey in ECON6003 regarding risks and the state's role is fundamental in determining the ten-point-plan implications.
Section 2: The Preferences of the Students in ECON6003 Concerning Risks and the State Role
Out of the eleven students, eight’s preferred option is a lottery ticket proving an opportunity to win £24,050 with 0.5% probability or nothing with 99.5 percent probability. They want to receive the amount they have won instantly. On the other hand, only three out of eleven students want to get £120 today. Moreover, six learners’ preferred option is to receive £250 in 2035, meaning after 15 years. However, five students chose a lottery ticket offering an option of winning £50 000 with 0.5 percent probability. The winner will receive the amount after 15 years.
Six out of eleven students want to receive £407 after 25 years. The remaining five selected an option of a lottery ticket proving a chance of £81 450 cash prize with a 99.5% probability of getting nothing. They get the amount won after 25 years. Besides, eight out of eleven learners preferred incurring extra living costs amounting to £120 for the 2021 year calendar. The other three students chose to incur £ 24 050 extra living costs with a 95.5 probability of no change.
Six out of eleven students chose the chance of £ 50 000 extra living cost with 99.5 percent probability. On the other hand, five learners selected pay £ 1 245 mitigation plan and eliminate losses possibility. Eight students faced the possibility of £ 50 000 incurrences with 0.5 probability. However, three learners preferred the option of £ 599 costs payment to eliminate potential losses.

The graph indicates people risk averse while expecting gains, but are more sensitive to losses than gains

Preferences of the students in ECON6003
State Role
Liberals argue states need to support poverty and the inequality capitalism created. They view the system as efficient, and the government has the mandate to regulate it. The liberals and utilitarians focus on the utility maximization of the society members (Sterling, Jost, and Hardin 2019). The total welfare maximization involves goods production and efficient distribution based on equity. Rawls developed the veil of ignorance hypothesis where negotiators take policy maximizing the status of the less fortunate.
Liberals perceive public and private property ownership as pragmatic because states have the freedom to adopt an amalgamation approach to attain policy objectives. Liberals asset taxation is an optional method towards objectives in policy (Sterling et al., 2019). They choose the optimal trade-off between efficiency and social justice. Utilitarians are for redistribution enhancing total welfare and consider the trade-off with high efficiency. Utilitarians offer a platform for government redistribution in egalitarian outcome pursuit. Utilitarianism sanctions injustice through justified harm to limited well-off if it maximizes total utility (Sterling et al., 2019). It is impossible to gain Paretian liberal because the actions of an individual impact other people’s welfare.
The impartial principle advocate for handling issues for all people’s benefit. Partiality pinpoints people should tackle climate change because of self-interest. Present and future generations will face problems if they do not handle climate change (Frijters, Clark, Krekel, and Layard 2020). Rawls, Stern, and Ramsey agree impartiality is a rational choice for people. Ramsey points out discount utilities place limited value on the future compared to current ones. Individuals need to treat utility in the current situation and 1000 years as identical. Stern says there should be zero time rate of preference on utility.
Role of Economics in Addressing Climate
Fossil fuel proportions and income are the main causes of carbon emission fall and rise. The consumption responsibility in the developed world is based on carbon weighting measures. Stakeholders can calculate carbon and rank responsibilities in lowering emissions at the international level (Frijters et al. 2020). The carbon emissions in services and goods gain prices irrespective of production places. People responsible for carbon consumption through services and goods pay increased charges. Consumer goods from the low-carbon source have less costs (Frijters et al. 2020). Carbon pricing tackles the demand and economic attractiveness of energy generation strategies.
The challenge is making progress away from instances carbon does not have a price. Taxing carbon consumption is complex because it is hard to calculate the carbon composition of all services and goods. It is practically impossible to work out carbon taxation for imports (Frijters et al. 2020). The US and Europe worsen climate change proposition through excessive consumption encouragement. It brought about rapid debt-financing growth in policy after the crash in the 2000 stock market.
The US and Britain debt financing spilled into international trade. It increased Chinese exports and led to high gas, coal, oil, and mineral demands. The commodity boom brought high exploration and production in resource-rich host nations, such as Canada, Indonesia, and Australia (Huber 2020). The emission rose, and world trade increased beyond its carbon-efficient level. The Great Recession when there was a debt-fueled bubble in 2006 (Huber 2020). The US and Europe lowered the need for China’s carbon-intensive exports.
Responsibility ascription for global emissions is a straightforward approach. Ethics look at different perspectives, for instance, historical stock of carbon, entitlement and individual emissions, and carbon consumption. The current strategy on Kyoto frameworks and UNFCCC is misleading (Patterson and Huitema 2019). The US and Europe emitted carbon into the atmosphere during the industrial revolution. The Americans and Europeans account for the highest carbon per capita (Patterson and Huitema 2019). They also consume the highest amount of carbon-inclined products.
Section 3: Implication of Q1 on Class Attitude towards UK’s Ten Point Plan does a Green Revolution
Students' surveys suggest the public fund is too limited, or the policy may galvanize private capital. Learners’ attitude about ambition is positive, but it may not evolve beyond the intent. The policy requires a detailed roadmap for private capital mobilization to make it a commendable vision (Vella 2021). The students welcome the plan; however, they think the Green revolution is limited. The green plan is ambitious because it has economic sense, and the plan for conserving the planet will promote new industries.
UK’s ten point plan
1 Net zero road map
2 COVID-19 recovery scheme
3 Covid financing and climate commitment
4 Electric demand incentives
5 Green hydrogen strategy
6 Burn internal combustion engine by 2032
7 Cross-departmental standards for building
8 Carbon take away laws
9 Nature-oriented carbon reduction
10 Communication campaign investment
Table 1: The UK Green Revolution
(Source: Livingstone 2021)
Learners’ attitudes imply the green revolution is a platform for the government to fill the gaps. The perspective is the initiative calls for down-payment on an economic-wide approach in green investment, jobs, and skills. The cost of not handling the climate emergency will affect the determination to align sectors with net-zero goals (Smc 2020). The student survey implies it is vital to concentrate on hydrogen because it complements wind and decarbonizes domestic heat. The blue hydrogen should come from natural gas because the UK government has a strategy for removing co-produced carbon.
Other students imply the UK government’s ten-point project is rhetoric that future generations will pay. The coordinated and timely approach is a proposal acting as a fragment of the problem.
Table 2: Carbon and Energy Changes in the UK
Carbon PEF
SAP2012 3.07 0.519
SAP 10 1.718 0.233
SAP10.1 1.501 0.136
GAS
SAP 2012 Carbon PEF
SAP2012 1.22 0.216
SAP10 1.122 0.21
SAP10.1 1.13 0.21
Oil
SAP2012 1.1 0.298
SAp10 1.18 0.298
SAP10.1 1.18 0.298
(Source: Glen Dimplex 2020)

Fig. 1 Carbon and energy factors changes in UK and wealth levels of capital
The wind power increase is welcome, but the 40 GW plan accounts for 7% of UK energy needs (Carbonbrief 2020). Nuclear is a reduced carbon option offering more than 3 percent of the country’s energy consumption. The UK plans to provide low-carbon homes resilient to climate changes (BGS 2020). Some learners imply that the plan seems to be a future technology wish and that the dominating concentration is energy (Carbonbrief 2020). It does not pinpoint the carbon budget perspective calling for yearly reduction. Green revolution does not refer to policies focused on high carbon emitters.
Section 4: Reflective Comments
I recall the UK’s ten-point green revolution promotes the nation’s climate motivation. The policy proposals and packages for funding framing are based on jobs creation and green recovery. I feel the eye-catching policy is burning the sales of new petrol and diesel vehicles by 2030. The emissions-cutting agenda attracts £4 billion in funds. The student’s survey suggests the plan may not reach net-zero because money is a shortcoming. The green revolution headlines point out a £ 12 billion figure, but £4bn from the announcement is new finances (Wilson and Westwater 2021). I feel that the package money is less than a 25th of the projected £100 billion high-speed rail cost in the UK.
I think policymakers ignore other individuals’ preferences; therefore, utilitarian options do not decide the strategy. It includes judgments concerning interdependence forms. In my perspective, the Rawlsian strategy does not portray complete egalitarianism because privilege is acceptable when it enhances the least fortunate’s position. I perceive liberals view market and public productions as dependent on effective approaches. The democratic and liberal socialists are inclined to welfare states (Landels 2021). Welfare is not a comprehensive solution for ending society’s issues but a tool to reduce them.
I believe the students’ survey implies the UK citizens welcome parts of the green revolution. Vehicle electrification, petrol and diesel phase-out, heat pump goals, and hydrogen scale-up are the most accepted points. However, the ten-point plan may not convince people that the UK government understands the gain of prioritizing energy demand reduction.
The support for cycling, public transport, and walking is important, but new resources are not promised (Huber 2020). The finance directed towards building energy efficiency is not adequate and does not call for long-term investment. The zero-carbon policy must concentrate on sustainable buildings investment and mobility requirements.