...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Risk analysis >Strategic Appraisal of Environmental Risks: A Contrast Between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management
【24h】

Strategic Appraisal of Environmental Risks: A Contrast Between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

机译：环境风险的战略评估：英国对气候变化经济学的斯特恩评论与放射性废物管理委员会的对比

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In this article, we compare two high-profile strategic policy reviews undertaken for the U.K. government on environmental risks: radioactive waste management and climate change. These reviews took very different forms, both in terms of analytic approach and deliberation strategy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was largely an exercise in expert modeling, building, within a cost-benefit framework, an argument for immediate reductions in carbon emissions. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, on the other hand, followed a much more explicitly deliberative and participative process, using mul-ticriteria decision analysis to bring together scientific evidence and stakeholder and public values. In this article, we ask why the two reviews were different, and whether the differences are justified. We conclude that the differences were mainly due to political context, rather than the underpinning science, and as a consequence that, while in our view "fit for purpose," they would both have been stronger had they been less different. Stern's grappling with ethical issues could have been strengthened by a greater degree of public and stakeholder engagement, and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's handling of issues of uncertainty could have been strengthened by the explicitly probabilistic framework of Stern.
机译：在本文中，我们比较了针对环境风险对英国政府进行的两项备受瞩目的战略政策审查：放射性废物管理和气候变化。在分析方法和审议策略方面，这些审查采取了截然不同的形式。关于气候变化经济学的斯特恩评论很大程度上是在专家模型中进行的，在成本效益框架内建立了立即减少碳排放的观点。另一方面，放射性废物管理委员会遵循了更为明确的审议和参与性程序，使用多指标标准决策分析将科学证据与利益相关者和公共价值融合在一起。在本文中，我们问为什么两个评论不同，以及这些差异是否合理。我们得出的结论是，差异主要是由于政治背景，而不是基础科学，因此，虽然我们认为“适合目标”，但如果差异不大，则两者都将更加强大。公众和利益相关者的更多参与可以加强斯特恩对道德问题的处理，而斯特恩的明确概率框架可以加强放射性废物管理委员会对不确定性问题的处理。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号