http://www.asyura2.com/15/nature6/msg/486.html
| Tweet |
件名：Summers memo
媒体：wikipedia
出所：https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summers_memo
-----
DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP
'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:
1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.
2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.
3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate[sic] cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate[sic] cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.
The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.
― Lawrence Summers,
-----
//memo
：サマーズ・メモは大別して以下の3つの論点からなる。[独自研究?][要出典]
● 環境汚染によるコストは、健康被害による死亡や傷害によって発生する逸失利益の額に依存する。したがって、最貧国であれば低コストで済む。
● 環境汚染によるコストは、環境汚染が増大することによって、当然上昇する。したがって、環境汚染が、すでに汚染されている国からまだ汚染されていない国に移れば、コストは低下する。
● 所得水準が上昇すると、環境に対する意識が高まるので、汚染物質の処分に一層のコストがかかる。したがって、環境汚染が経済先進地域から貧困地域へ移れば、コストは低下する。：
投稿コメント全ログ コメント即時配信 スレ建て依頼 削除コメント確認方法
▲上へ ★阿修羅♪ > 環境・自然・天文板6掲示板 次へ 前へ
スパムメールの中から見つけ出すためにメールのタイトルには必ず「阿修羅さんへ」と記述してください。すべてのページの引用、転載、リンクを許可します。確認メールは不要です。引用元リンクを表示してください。