“限塑令”的生态学与经济法学思考
发布时间:2018-05-19 16:36
本文选题:“限塑令” + 谨慎行事原则 ; 参考:《西南政法大学》2009年硕士论文
【摘要】: 塑料袋在给人们带来便利的同时,也会引发可怕的“白色污染”。为了减轻“白色污染”,国务院办公厅发布了“限塑令”。“限塑令”一经公布,就得到了社会各界的广泛好评,一段时间内,环保呼声高涨,公民的环保热情持续升温。然而,关于“限塑令”的合法性和合理性却很少有人提出质疑;事实上,解决“白色污染”问题仅靠热情是不够的,我们更需要理性思考和科学决策。有鉴于此,本文通过生态学和经济法学相结合的方法对“限塑令”展开研究,力求客观全面地解析“限塑令”,进而为“限塑令”的技术合理性及制度走向提供一种理性的视角。 本文沿着“问题提出——微观解读——经济法分析——建议措施”的主线纵向展开,暗含“观念层面、技术层面、制度层面”三条支线,希望能够较为完整、客观地解析“限塑令”。 第一部分主要运用生态学知识,对“限塑令”的技术合理性进行解读。本部分沿着“为什么禁止超薄塑料购物袋”、“为什么只向塑料购物袋收费”、“‘限塑令'颁布后所提倡的可降解塑料袋与回收利用的本意何以可能”等三个路向进行诘问,对“限塑令”在技术上是否合理性进行深层次的解读。通过分析,得出了以下结论:超薄塑料袋并不是“白色污染”的“元凶”;如果只对塑料购物袋进行限制,则有可能造成更大的环境污染;“限塑令”出台后的结果与制定政策的本意自相矛盾。本部分意在为第二部分的经济法分析提供支持。 第二部分主要通过经济法的方法对“限塑令”的合理性和合法性进行分析。通过观念和制度两个方面的展开研究,笔者认为:塑料袋的大量使用和人们的随意处置,造成了严重的环境污染和资源浪费,而环境问题属于典型的市场失灵的表现,市场调节机制本身不足以对其解决奏效,这就使政府干预成为了必然。作为政府干预的体现,“限塑令”就是在这样的背景下出台的。但是,“限塑令”的初衷良好,却折射出了我国政府干预中的一些问题。这首先体现在政府干预中谨慎行事原则的缺失。这种缺失,造成了政府在干预环境问题时观念上偏向激进的态度;技术上尚存合理性疑问的“限塑令”仓促出台,正是这种“激进”的表现。其次,“限塑令”折射出的另一个问题,是政府干预的合理性和合法性未得到充分考量。“限塑令”在技术上欠缺足够的科学性且未能抓住治理“白色污染”的主要矛盾却能够得以出台,即反映出政府干预对合理性的考虑欠周;“限塑令”由作为国务院办公厅以“通知”的形式发布,却被赋予了直接的法律效力,则反映出政府干预合法性存在疑问。 第三部分主要涉及的是解决问题的措施及建议。笔者认为,由“限塑令”存在的问题推演,今后政府在基于保护和改善生态环境的目的而实施干预行为时,应恪守谨慎行事的原则,寻求技术上可行且经济的干预方案,切实完善和践行生态环境保护的科学论证的制度。
[Abstract]:In order to reduce the "white pollution", the office of the State Council issued a "plastic limiting order" to alleviate the "white pollution". "Plastic limiting order" has been widely praised by all walks of life. For some time, the voice of the ring is rising and the enthusiasm of the citizen's environmental protection continues to rise. However, few people have questioned the legitimacy and rationality of the "plastic limiting order". In fact, it is not enough to solve the problem of "white pollution" only by enthusiasm. We need more rational thinking and scientific decision-making. In this case, this paper studies the "plastic limiting order" through the combination of ecology and economic law, and strives to be objective. Analyze the "plastic limit order" and provide a rational perspective for the technical rationality and institutional trend of the "plastic limit".
This paper, along with the main line of the "problem proposition - micro interpretation - economic law analysis - suggested measures", contains the three lines of "conceptual level, technical level and system level", hoping to be more complete and objective analysis of the "plastic limiting order".
The first part mainly uses the ecological knowledge to interpret the technical rationality of the "plastic limiting order". This part follows the "why the prohibition of ultra thin plastic shopping bags", "why the plastic shopping bag is only charged", "why the plastic bag and the recycling of the plastic bags are promoted after the" plastic limit order "is possible" and so on three directions " Through the analysis, the following conclusion is drawn: the ultra thin plastic bag is not the "white pollution"; if only the plastic shopping bag is restricted, it may cause more environmental pollution; the result and formulation of the "plastic limiting order" after the introduction of the "plastic limit" The purpose of the policy is self contradictory. This part is intended to provide support for the second part of the economic law analysis.
The second part mainly analyzes the rationality and legitimacy of the "plastic limiting order" through the method of economic law. Through the study of the two aspects of the concept and system, the author thinks that the large use of plastic bags and the random disposal of people have caused serious environmental pollution and waste of resources, and the environmental problems are typical market failure. As a manifestation of government intervention, the "plastic limiting order" is introduced in this context. However, the original intention of the "plastic limiting order" is good, but it reflects some problems in the government of our country. This is first reflected in government intervention. The absence of the principle of prudence has caused the government to take a radical attitude towards the interference of the environment; the "plastic limit", which is still reasonable in technology, is the expression of this "radical". Secondly, the other question reflected by the "limit plastic order" is the reasonableness and legitimacy of government intervention. The "plastic limiting order", which lacks sufficient scientific nature and failed to grasp the "white pollution", can be introduced, reflecting the lack of consideration of the rationality of government intervention; the "plastic limiting order" is issued as a "knowledge" form of the office of the State Council, but has been given direct law. The effect of law reflects the doubt about the legitimacy of government intervention.
The third part mainly deals with the measures and suggestions to solve the problem. The author believes that the government should abide by the principle of prudence and seek a technically feasible and economical intervention for the purpose of protecting and improving the ecological environment. The system of scientific demonstration of state environmental protection.
【学位授予单位】:西南政法大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2009
【分类号】:D922.68
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前1条
1 陈泉生;宋婧;;论环境法的国家干预原则[J];当代法学;2006年05期
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 郭哲;政府干预经济机制研究[D];湖南大学;2007年
,本文编号:1910843
本文链接:https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/huanjingziyuanfa/1910843.html