Subsidies to Increase Remote Pollution?

  • Jana Kliestikova
  • Anna Krizanova
  • Tatiana Corejova
  • Pavol Kral
  • Erika Spuchlakova
Commentary
  • 80 Downloads

Abstract

During the last decade, Central Europe became a cynosure for the world for its unparalleled public support for renewable energy. For instance, the production of electricity from purpose-grown biomass received approximately twice the amount in subsidies as that produced from biowaste. Moreover, the guaranteed purchase price of electricity from solar panels was set approximately five times higher than that from conventional sources. This controversial environmental donation policy led to the devastation of large areas of arable land, a worsening of food availability, unprecedented market distortions, and serious threats to national budgets, among other things. Now, the first proposals to donate the purchase price of electric vehicles (and related infrastructure) from national budgets have appeared for public debate. Advocates of these ideas argue that they can solve the issue of electricity overproduction, and that electric vehicles will reduce emissions in cities. However, our analysis reveals that, as a result of previous scandals, environmental issues have become less significant to local citizens. Given that electric cars are not yet affordable for most people, in terms of local purchasing power, this action would further undermine national budgets. Furthermore, while today’s electromobiles produce zero pollution when operated, their sum of emissions (i.e. global warming potential) remains much higher than that of conventional combustion engines. Therefore, we conclude that the mass usage of electromobiles could result in the unethical improvement of a city environment at the expense of marginal regions.

Keywords

Renewables ethics Consumer behaviour Buying decision-making Economic policy 

References

  1. Amjad, S., Neelakrishnan, S., & Rudramoorthy, R. (2010). Review of design considerations and technological challenges for successful development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14(3), 1104–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbier, E. B. (2016). Is green growth relevant for poor economies? Resource and Energy Economics, 45(C), 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biswas, A., & Roy, M. (2015). Green products: An exploratory study on the consumer behaviour in emerging economies of the East. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87, 463–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carrington, M. J., Neville, B. A., & Whitwell, G. J. (2010). Why ethical consumers don’t walk their talk: Towards a framework for understanding the gap between the ethical purchase intentions and actual buying behaviour of ethically minded consumers. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chyong, H. T., Phang, G., Hasan, H., & Buncha, M. R. (2006). Going green: A study of consumers’ willingness to pay for green products in Kota Kinabalu. International Journal of Business and Society, 7(2), 40–54.Google Scholar
  6. Day, D., Gan, B., Gendall, P., & Esslemont, D. (1991). Predicting purchase behaviour. Marketing Bulletin, 2(3), 18–30.Google Scholar
  7. Durica, M., & Svabova, L. (2015). Improvement of company marketing strategy based on Google search results analysis. Paper presented at 4th world conference on business, economics and management (pp. 454–460). Ephesus.Google Scholar
  8. Eckhardt, G. M., Belk, R., & Devinney, T. M. (2010). Why don’t consumers consume ethically? Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9(6), 426–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Steger, C. J. (2009). Testing the value of customization: When do customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences? Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 103–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gallagher, K. S., & Muehlegger, E. (2011). Giving green to get green? Incentives and consumer adoption of hybrid vehicle technology. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 61(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greene, D. L., Evans, D. H., & Hiestand, J. (2013). Survey evidence on the willingness of US consumers to pay for automotive fuel economy. Energy Policy, 61, 1539–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Han, H., Hsu, L. T., & Lee, J. S. (2009). Empirical investigation of the roles of attitudes toward green behaviors, overall image, gender, and age in hotel customers’ eco-friendly decision-making process. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 28(4), 519–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hašková, S. (2016). Holistic assessment and ethical disputation on a new trend in solid biofuels. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawkins, T. R., Gausen, O. M., & Strømman, A. H. (2012). Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—A review. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(8), 997–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hur, W. M., Woo, J., & Kim, Y. (2015). The role of consumer values and socio-demographics in green product satisfaction: The case of hybrid cars. Psychological Reports, 117(2), 406–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lebeau, P., Macharis, C., & Van Mierlo, J. (2016). Exploring the choice of battery electric vehicles in city logistics: A conjoint-based choice analysis. Transportation Research Part E-Logistics and Transportation Review, 91, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mardoyan, A., & Braun, P. (2015). Analysis of Czech subsidies for solid biofuels. International Journal of Green Energy, 12(4), 405–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maroušek, J. (2013). Removal of hardly fermentable ballast from the maize silage to accelerate biogas production. Industrial Crops and Products, 44, 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maroušek, J. (2014). Significant breakthrough in biochar cost reduction. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 16(8), 1821–1825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maroušek, J., Hašková, S., Zeman, R., Váchal, J., & Vaníčková, R. (2015a). Assessing the implications of EU subsidy policy on renewable energy in Czech Republic. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 17(2), 549–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maroušek, J., Hašková, S., Zeman, R., & Vaníčková, R. (2015b). Managerial preferences in relation to financial indicators regarding the mitigation of global change. Science and Engineering Ethics, 21(1), 203–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maroušek, J., Hašková, S., Zeman, R., Žák, J., Vaníčková, R., Maroušková, A., et al. (2016). Polemics on ethical aspects in the compost business. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(2), 581–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maroušek, J., Kawamitsu, Y., Ueno, M., Kondo, Y., & Kolar, L. (2012). Methods for improving methane yield from rye straw. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 28(5), 747–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maroušková, A., & Braun, P. (2015). Enfoque holístico para mejorar la utilización de la energía de Jatropha curcas L. Revista Técnica de la Facultad de Ingeniería. Universidad del Zulia, 37(2), 144–150.Google Scholar
  25. Massiani, J. (2014). Stated preference surveys for electric and alternative fuel vehicles: Are we doing the right thing? Transportation Letters—The International Journal of Transportation Research, 6(3), 152–160.Google Scholar
  26. Morren, M., & Grinstein, A. (2016). Explaining environmental behaviour across borders: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 47, 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pollet, B. G., Staffell, I., & Shang, J. L. (2012). Current status of hybrid, battery and fuel cell electric vehicles: From electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochimica Acta, 84, 235–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value through business and social sector partnerships. California Management Review, 42(2), 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schwepker, C. H., & Cornwell, T. B. (1991). An examination of ecologically concerned consumers and their intention to purchase ecologically packaged products. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 10, 77–101.Google Scholar
  30. Soukopová, J., Struk, M., & Hřebíček, J. (2016). Population age structure and the cost of municipal waste collection. A case study from the Czech Republic. Journal of Environmental Management, 1–9 (In press).Google Scholar
  31. Syed, F. U., Kuang, M. L., Smith, M., Okubo, S., & Ying, H. (2009). Fuzzy gain-scheduling proportional-integral control for improving engine power and speed behavior in a hybrid electric vehicle. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 58(1), 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van Bree, B., Verbong, G. P., & Kramer, G. J. (2010). A multi-level perspective on the introduction of hydrogen and battery-electric vehicles. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(4), 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, Y. F., & Wang, C. J. (2016). Do psychological factors affect green food and beverage behaviour? An application of the theory of planned behaviour. British Food Journal, 118(9), 2171–2199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wu, M., Cui, Y., Bhargav, A., Losovyj, Y., Siegel, A., Agarwal, M., et al. (2016). Organotrisulfide: A high capacity cathode material for rechargeable lithium batteries. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 55(34), 10027–10031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yadav, R., & Pathak, G. S. (2016). Young consumers’ intention towards buying green products in a developing nation: Extending the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 732–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jana Kliestikova
    • 1
  • Anna Krizanova
    • 1
  • Tatiana Corejova
    • 1
  • Pavol Kral
    • 1
  • Erika Spuchlakova
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economics, Faculty of Operation and Economics of Transport and CommunicationsUniversity of ZilinaZilinaSlovak Republic

Personalised recommendations