グリーン移行の費用は誰が負担すべきか？推論のギャップ、負担分担原則、グローバル気候正義の認識論
Who should bear the costs of the green transition? Inferential gaps, burden-sharing principles, and the epistemology of global climate justice (原題)
Rafi Kurniawan
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
EUの炭素国境調整メカニズム（CBAM）とWTOパネル設置を背景に、グリーン移行の費用負担をめぐる問いが複合的であることを論じる概念論文。74件の文献マップから7つの推論ギャップを特定し、負担分担原則を証拠プログラムとして再構築。イスラム法格言との並行性を示し、規範的に透明な政策評価のための開示基準を提案する。
English
This conceptual article argues that the question of who bears green transition costs bundles distinct issues: effectiveness, welfare, incidence, normative allocation, and authority. Using a Scopus AI-assisted map of 74 records, it identifies seven inferential gaps bridged by undisclosed normative premises. It reconstructs burden-sharing principles as evidential programs and proposes a disclosure standard for transparent policy evaluation, applied to CBAM from middle-income exporters' perspective.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
CBAMは日本の輸出企業、特に鉄鋼・化学・セメント等の素材産業に直接影響し、SSBJや有報でのScope3・炭素集約度開示の重要性を高める。負担分担の衡平性議論は、日本のカーボンプライシング設計やGX推進における国際的公正性の観点から示唆に富む。
In the global GX context
CBAM's definitive regime and the WTO DS639 panel make burden-sharing a live institutional dispute. The paper's framework for normatively transparent policy evaluation speaks directly to ISSB/CSRD disclosure debates on incidence and equity, and to transition finance discussions about who ultimately bears decarbonization costs across supply chains.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:気候正義と経済的帰着の推論ギャップを整理した枠組みは、CBAMや負担分担の実証研究に応用可能。
🏢実務担当者:CBAM対応やScope3開示において、費用負担の帰着と開示境界の選択が自社の競争力に与える影響を理解する手がかり。
🏛政策担当者:炭素国境調整や気候資金の負担分担を設計する際、規範的前提の明示と衡平性評価の枠組みとして参照価値がある。
📄 Abstract（原文）
The definitive regime of the European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), in force since January 2026, and the establishment in September 2026 of a World Trade Organization panel to examine it (DS639) have turned the question of who should bear the costs of the green transition into a live institutional dispute. This conceptual article argues that the question is composite: it bundles questions about environmental effectiveness, aggregate welfare, incidence, normative allocation, and decision authority. Drawing on a Scopus AI–assisted evidence map of 74 records, supplemented by canonical work in climate ethics, welfare economics, and incidence theory, the article identifies seven inferential gaps through which evidence about one object is routinely taken to settle another: from effectiveness to legitimacy, statutory liability to economic incidence, proportional to absolute burden, entitlement to receipt, aggregate to individual outcomes, operational to life-cycle impacts, and present to future generations. Each gap is bridged by normative premises, such as welfare weights, baselines, units of analysis, and discount rates, that economic models embed but seldom disclose. Burden-sharing principles are then reconstructed as evidential programs; public data show that they rank economies differently and that accounting boundaries reorder responsibility. Islamic legal maxims are shown to encode parallel distinctions and to carry the same evidential burden. Applied to CBAM from the standpoint of exporting middle-income economies such as Indonesia, the framework yields a disclosure standard for normatively transparent policy evaluation and an agenda for firm- and household-level research. Keywords: border carbon adjustment; burden-sharing; climate justice; economic incidence; epistemology of economics; Islamic legal maxims; just transition
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- semanticscholar https://journal.privietlab.org/index.php/JEEP/article/download/2296/1195first seen 2026-10-09 05:31:26
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。