1932

Abstract

Carbon markets are substantial and expanding. There are many lessons from experience over the past 9 years: fewer free allowances, careful moderation of low and high prices, and a recognition that trading systems require adjustments that have consequences for market participants and market confidence. Moreover, the emerging international architecture features separate emissions trading systems serving distinct jurisdictions. These programs are complemented by a variety of other types of policies alongside the carbon markets. This architecture sits in sharp contrast to the integrated global trading architecture envisioned 15 years ago by the designers of the Kyoto Protocol and raises a suite of new questions. In this new architecture, jurisdictions with emissions trading have to decide how, whether, and when to link with one another, and policy makers must confront how to measure both the comparability of efforts among markets and the comparability between markets and a variety of other policy approaches.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012655
2014-10-05
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/6/1/annurev-resource-100913-012655.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012655&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aldy JE, Krupnick AJ, Newell RG, Parry IWH, Pizer WA. 2010. Designing climate mitigation policy. J. Econ. Lit. 48:903–34 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aldy JE, Pizer WA. 2009. Issues in designing US climate change policy. Energy J. 30:179–210 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson B, Di Maria C. 2011. Abatement and allocation in the pilot phase of the EU ETS. Environ. Resour. Econ. 48:83–103 [Google Scholar]
  4. Arrow KJ, Cropper ML, Gollier C, Groom B, Heal GM, et al. 2012. How should benefits and costs be discounted in an intergenerational context? Discuss. Pap. 12-53, Resour. Future, Washington, DC
  5. Australia Liberal Party 2012. Our plan to abolish the carbon tax. https://www.liberal.org.au/our-plan-abolish-carbon-tax
  6. Australian Government. 2012. Australia and European Commission agree on pathway towards fully linking Emissions Trading systems. Press Release, Dep. Clim. Change Energy Effic., Aust. Gov
  7. Bailey E, Borenstein S, Bushnell J, Wolak F. 2012. Price containment reserve in California’s greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade market. Issue Anal., Emissions Market Assessment Committee for AB 32 Compliance Mechanisms, Sacramento. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/emissionsmarketassessment/pricecontainment.pdf
  8. Barrett S. 1998. Political economy of the Kyoto Protocol. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 14:20–40 [Google Scholar]
  9. Benessaiah K. 2012. Carbon and livelihoods in post-Kyoto: assessing voluntary carbon markets. Ecol. Econ. 77:May1–6 [Google Scholar]
  10. Boden T, Marland G, Andres B. 2013. Global CO2emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement manufacture, and gas flaring: 1751–2010. Data Sets, Carbon Dioxide Inf. Anal. Cent., Oak Ridge Natl. Lab., Oak Ridge, Tenn. http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
  11. Burtraw D, Evans DA. 2009. Tradable rights to emit air pollution. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 53:59–84 [Google Scholar]
  12. Burtraw D, Palmer K, Munnings C, Weber P, Woerman M. 2013. Linking by degrees. Discuss. Pap. 13-04, Resour. Future, Washington, DC
  13. Burtraw D, Szambelan SJ. 2009. US emissions trading markets for SO2and NOx. Rep. 09-40, Resour. Future, Washington, DC
  14. Calel R, Dechezleprêtre A. 2013. Environmental policy and directed technological change: evidence from the European carbon market. Work. Pap., Cent. Clim. Change Econ. Policy/Grantham Res. Inst. Clim. Change Environ., London Sch. Econ
  15. California Air Resources Board 2013. Topics subject to potential regulatory amendments. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/2013summary.pdf
  16. California Code of Regulations. 2011. California cap on greenhouse gas emissions and market-based compliance regulations. Artic. 5, Subchapter 10: Climate Change. Calif. Code Regs. tit. 17, §95800–6023
  17. Canadian Government. 2011. Parallel paths: Canada-US climate policy choices. Rep. 03, Natl. Roundtable Environ. Econ., Can. Gov., Ottawa
  18. Chacko R. 2012. Outcome of Doha climate negotiations. Rep., Conserv. Int., Washington, DC. http://www.conservation.org/publications/Documents/CI_analysis_Doha_Outcomes_2012_26Nov-8Dec.pdf
  19. Chen Y. 2009. Does a regional greenhouse gas policy make sense? A case study of carbon leakage and emissions spillover. Energy Econ. 31:667–75
  20. De Souza M. 2011. Canada won’t jump into cap-and-trade carbon market on its own: Kent. Vancouver Sun, Jan. 25
  21. Dechezleprêtre A, Glachant M, Ménière Y. 2008. The Clean Development Mechanism and the international diffusion of technologies: an empirical study. Energy Policy 36:1273–83 [Google Scholar]
  22. Demailly D, Quirion P. 2008. European Emission Trading Scheme and competitiveness: a case study on the iron and steel industry. Energy Econ. 30:2009–27 [Google Scholar]
  23. ECORYS. 2013. Carbon leakage evidence project. Fact sheet, ECORYS, Rotterdam, Neth
  24. Ecosystem Marketplace and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. 2008–2013. State of the voluntary carbon markets report
  25. Ellerman DA, Convery FJ, de Perthuis C. 2010. Pricing Carbon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  26. Elsworth B, Worthington B. 2010. International offsets and the EU 2009: an update on the usage of compliance offsets in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. Rep., Sandbag, London
  27. Environmental Defense Fund and International Emissions Trading Association. 2013. Alberta: The World’s Carbon Markets: A Case Study Guide to Emissions Trading. Washington, DC: Environ. Def. Fund/Int. Emiss. Trading Assoc
  28. Energy Information Administration. 2009. Energy Market and Economic Impacts of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. Rep., Energy Inf. Admin., Washington, DC
  29. European Commission. 2009. EU action against climate change: the EU Emissions Trading Scheme—2009 edition. Eur. Comm., Brussels
  30. Fallow B. 2009. Business backs emission plan changes. New Zealand Herald, Sep. 15
  31. Fawcett AA, Calvin KV, de la Chesnaye FC, Reilly JM, Weyant JP. 2009. . Overview of EMF 22 US transition scenarios. Energy Econ. 31:S198–211 [Google Scholar]
  32. Fell H, MacKenzie I, Pizer W. 2012. Prices versus quantities versus bankable quantities. Resour. Energy Econ. 34:607–23 [Google Scholar]
  33. Fell H, Morgenstern RD. 2009. Alternative approaches to cost containment in a cap-and-trade system. Discuss. Pap. 09-14, Resour. Future, Washington, DC
  34. Fenhann J, Ipsen Hansen J, Bertule M. 2012. CDM projects. Databases, United Nations Environ. Progr., Riso Cent. http://cdmpipeline.org/
  35. Fischer C. 2003. Combining rate-based and cap-and-trade emission policies. Clim. Policy 3:Suppl. 289–109 [Google Scholar]
  36. Fischer C, Fox A. 2009. Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: border tax adjustments versus rebates. Discuss. Pap. 09-02, Resour. Future, Washington, DC
  37. Gow D. 2006. Power tool. The Guardian, May 17. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/may/17/europeanunion.climatechange
  38. Hahn RW, Stavins RN. 1999. What Has the Kyoto Protocol Wrought? The Real Architecture of International Tradable Permit Markets. Washington, DC: AEI [Google Scholar]
  39. Han G, Olsson M, Hallding K, Lunsford D. 2012. China's carbon emission trading: an overview of current development. Rep., FORES Study 2012:1, SEI/FORES, Stockholm
  40. Harrison P. 2009. Carbon windfall profits seen for EU industry. Reuters, May 19
  41. Ho MS, Morgenstern R, Shih J-S. 2008. Impact of carbon price policies on US industry. Discuss. Pap. 08-37, Resour. Future, Washington, DC
  42. Interagency Competitiveness Analysis Team. 2009. The effects of H.R. 2454 on international competitiveness and emission leakage in energy-intensive trade-exposed industries. Rep., EPA, Washington, DC
  43. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (Interagency). 2009. Social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866. Tech. Supp. Doc., Interagency, US Gov., Washington, DC
  44. Interagency. 2013. Technical update of the social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis under Executive Order 12866. Tech. Supp. Doc., Interagency, US Gov., Washington, DC
  45. Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN. 2002. Environmental policy and technological change. Environ. Resour. Econ. 22:41–69 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jaffe J, Ranson M, Stavins RN. 2009. Linking tradable permit systems: a key element of emerging international climate policy architecture. Ecol. Law Q. 36:789–808 [Google Scholar]
  47. Jotzo F. 2010. Comparing the Copenhagen emission targets. Res. Rep. 1078, Environ. Econ. Res. Hub, Crawford Sch. Public Policy, Aust. Natl. Univ., Canberra
  48. Kindle AG, Shawhan DL, Swider MJ. 2011. An empirical test for inter-state carbon-dioxide emissions leakage resulting from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. Present., Rensselaer Polytech. Inst./N. Y. Indep. Syst. Oper
  49. Kruger J, Oates WE, Pizer WA. 2007. Decentralization in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme and lessons for global policy. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 1:112–33 [Google Scholar]
  50. Lacombe RH. 2008. Economic impact of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme: evidence from the refining sector. PhD Thesis, Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge, Mass
  51. Lambert RS. 2011. Perverse incentives under the CDM: an evaluation of HFC-23 destruction projects. Clim. Policy 11:851–64 [Google Scholar]
  52. Lecocq F, Ambrosi P. 2007. The Clean Development Mechanism: history, status, and prospects. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 1:134–51 [Google Scholar]
  53. Leiter AM, Paolini A, Winner H. 2011. Environmental regulation and investment: evidence from European industry data. Ecol. Econ. 70:759–70 [Google Scholar]
  54. Levin K, Bradley R. 2009. Comparability of Annex I emission reduction pledges. Work. Pap., World Resour. Inst., Washington, DC
  55. Mace MJ, Millar I, Schwarte C, Anderson J, Broekhoff D, et al. 2008. Analysis of the legal and organizational issues arising in linking the EU Emission Trading Scheme to other existing and emerging emission trading schemes. Rep., World Resour. Inst., Washington, DC
  56. Mehling M, Haites E. 2011. Mechanisms for linking emissions trading schemes. Clim. Policy 9:169–84 [Google Scholar]
  57. Murray BC, Newell RG, Pizer WA. 2009. Balancing cost and emissions certainty: an allowance reserve for cap-and-trade. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 3:84–103 [Google Scholar]
  58. National Research Council. 2010. Climate change: overview of quantifying and valuing climate-change impacts. In Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use, pp. 248–506. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  59. Neuhoff K, Schopp A, Boyd R, Stelmakh K, Vasa A. 2012. Banking of surplus emissions allowances: Does the volume matter? Work. Pap. 1196, DIW, Berlin
  60. New Zealand Government 2012. The New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. https://www.climatechange.govt.nz/emissions-trading-scheme/
  61. Newell RG. 2010. The role of markets and policies in delivering innovation for climate change mitigation. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 26:253–69 [Google Scholar]
  62. Newell RG, Pizer WA. 2003. Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45:416–32 [Google Scholar]
  63. Newell RG, Pizer WA, Raimi D. 2014. Carbon market lessons and global policy outlook. Science 343:1316–17 [Google Scholar]
  64. Newell RG, Pizer WA, Zhang J. 2005. Managing permit markets to stabilize prices. Environ. Resour. Econ. 31:133–57 [Google Scholar]
  65. Olsen KH. 2007. The Clean Development Mechanism’s contribution to sustainable development: a review of the literature. Clim. Change 84:59–73 [Google Scholar]
  66. Pew Center on Global Climate Change (Pew). 2011. Common metrics: comparing countries' climate pledges. Policy Brief, Pew, Washington, DC
  67. Pizer WA. 2002. Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change. J. Public Econ. 85:409–34 [Google Scholar]
  68. Pizer WA, Tatsutani M. 2008. Managing costs in a US greenhouse gas trading program. Discuss. Pap. 08-23, Resour. Future, Washington, DC
  69. Pizer WA, Yates AJ. 2013. Breaking up may not be hard to do: terminating links between emission trading programs. Rep. RPP-2013-12, Regul. Policy Progr., Harvard Kennedy Sch
  70. Popp D. 2011. International technology transfer, climate change, and the Clean Development Mechanism. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 5:131–52 [Google Scholar]
  71. Reinaud J. 2008. Climate policy and carbon leakage: impacts of the European Emissions Trading Scheme on aluminium. Inf. Pap., Int. Energy Agency, Vienna
  72. Reklev S. 2012. Australia to link with EU CO2 market, drops price floor. Point Carbon, Aug. 27. https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.1967394
  73. Reklev S. 2013. Factbox: China's seven pilot CO2 trading markets. Point Carbon, June 17. https://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2422941?&ref=searchlist
  74. Sandel M. 1997. It's immoral to buy the right to pollute. N. Y. Times, Dec. 15
  75. Schroeder M. 2009. Utilizing the Clean Development Mechanism for the deployment of renewable energies in China. Appl. Energy 86:75–90 [Google Scholar]
  76. Sijm J, Hers S, Lise W, Wetzelaer B. 2008. The impact of the EU ETS on electricity prices. Final Rep. to DG Environ. Eur. Comm., Brussels
  77. Stanway D. 2013. China climate chief says EU CO2 crisis will not hurt domestic plans. Reuters, Apr. 18
  78. Stavins RN. 1998. What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading. J. Econ. Perspect. 12:69–88 [Google Scholar]
  79. Sutter C, Parreno JC. 2007. Does the Current Clean Development Mechanism deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of officially registered CDM projects. Clim. Change 84:75–90 [Google Scholar]
  80. Szabo M. 2013. EU carbon vols down 23 pct y/y in Oct amid shift to bourses. Point Carbon, Nov. 1. http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2725173
  81. Tarr J, Monast J, Profeta T. 2013. Regulating carbon dioxide under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act: options, limits, and impacts. Rep., Nicholas Inst. Environ. Policy Solut., Duke Univ., Durham, N. C
  82. Tietenberg TH. 1985. Emissions Trading. Washington, DC: Resour. Future [Google Scholar]
  83. Tuerk A, Mehling M, Flachsland C, Sterk W. 2009. Linking carbon markets: concepts, case studies, and pathways. Clim. Policy 9:341–57 [Google Scholar]
  84. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 2012. Global warming potentials. https://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3825.php
  85. Wara M. 2008. Measuring the Clean Development Mechanism’s performance and potential. UCLA Law Rev. 55:1759–803 [Google Scholar]
  86. Weitzman ML. 1974. Prices vs. quantities. Rev. Econ. Stud. 41:477–91 [Google Scholar]
  87. Weyant JP, Hill J. 1999. Introduction and overview. In Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: a Multi-Model Evaluation [Energy Journal Special Issue], ed. JP Weyant, pp. vii–xliv. Cleveland, OH: Int. Assoc. Energy Econ
  88. Wiener J. 2001. Something borrowed for something blue: legal transplants and the evolution of global environmental law. Ecol. Law Q. 27:1295–371 [Google Scholar]
  89. Wing IS, Kolodziej M. 2009. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: emission leakage and the effectiveness of interstate border adjustments. Work. Pap., Dep. Geogr. Environ., Boston Univ
  90. World Bank. 2013. Carbon markets of the future are forming where you might not expect. News Artic., World Bank, Washington, DC
  91. Zhang J, Wang C. 2011. Co-benefits and additionality of the Clean Development Mechanism: an empirical analysis. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 62:140–54 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012655
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012655
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error