Sectoral linking of carbon markets: A trade-theory analysis

Resource and Energy Economics

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 585-606

  Marschinski, Robert ^a,b   Flachsland, Christian ^a   Jakob, Michael ^a  

^a POTSDAM INSTITUTE FOR CLIMATE IMPACT RESEARCH   (Germany)

^b TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

Competitiveness; Emission trading; Leakage; Linking; Trade theory

Indexed keywords

CARBON EMISSIONS; CARBON MARKETS; COMPETITIVENESS; EFFICIENCY GAIN; EMISSION TRADING; EMISSION TRADING SYSTEMS; GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM; GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM MODELS; GLOBAL EMISSIONS; LINKING; POLICY OPTIONS; WELFARE EFFECTS;

CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPETITION; GAS EMISSIONS; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; LEAKAGE (FLUID);

COMMERCE;

CARBON EMISSION; CLIMATE CHANGE; COMPETITIVENESS; ECONOMIC THEORY; EMISSIONS TRADING; GENERAL EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS; NUMERICAL MODEL; TRADE;

EID: 84862705225     PISSN: 09287655     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2012.05.005     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Alexeeva-Talebi, A., Anger, N., 2007. Developing Supra-European emissions trading schemes: an efficiency and international trade analysis. ZEW discussion paper no. 07-038.
2. Alexeeva-Talebi A., Anger N., Löschel A. Alleviating adverse implications of EU climate policy on competitiveness: the case for border tax adjustments or the Clean Development Mechanism?. Reforming Rules and Regulations, CESifo Seminar Series 2010, 105-127. The MIT Press. Vivek Ghosal (Ed.).
3. Anger N. Emissions trading beyond Europe: linking schemes in a post-Kyoto world. Energy Economics 2008, 30:2028-2049.
4. Anger N., Brouns B., Onigkeit J. Linking the EU emission trading scheme: economic implications of allowance allocation and global carbon constraints. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2009, 14:379-398.
5. Babiker M., Reilly J., Viguier L. Is international emissions trading always beneficial?. Energy Journal 2004, 25(2):33-56.
6. Bernstein P., Montgomery D.W., Rutherford T.F. Global impacts of the Kyoto agreement: results from the MS-MRT model. Resource and Energy Economics 1999, 21:375-413.
7. Böhringer C., Rosendahl K.E. Strategic partitioning of emission allowances under the EU emission trading scheme. Resource and Energy Economics 2009, 31(3):182-197.
8. Böhringer C., Rutherford T.F., Tol R.S.J. The EU 20/20/2020 targets: an overview of the EMF 22 assessment. Energy Economics 2009, 31:S268-S273.
9. Buchner B., Carraro C. Regional and sub-global climate blocs: a cost-benefit analysis of bottom-up climate regimes. Climate and Trade Policy. Bottom-up Approaches Towards Global Agreement. 2007, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. C. Carraro, C. Egenhofer (Eds.).
10. Burniaux J.-M., Oliveira Martins J. Carbon leakages: a general equilibrium view. Economic Theory 2012, 49(2):473-495.
11. Carbone J.C., Helm C., Rutherford T.F. The case for international emission trade in the absence of cooperative climate policy. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2009, 58(3):266-280.
12. Copeland B.R., Taylor M. Free trade and global warming: a trade theory view of the Kyoto protocol. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2005, 49(2):205-234.
13. Dijkstra B.R., Manderson E., Tae-Yeoun Lee Extending the sectoral coverage of an international emission trading scheme. Environmental and Resource Economics 2011, 50(2):243-266.
14. EEA - European Environment Agency, 2009. Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2007 and inventory report 2009. Submission to the UNFCCC Secretariat. Version 27 May 2009. Accessed via EEA greenhouse gas viewer.
15. Eichner T., Pethig R. Carbon leakage, the green paradox and perfect future markets. International Economic Review 2011, 52(3):767-805.
16. EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA analysis of the American clean energy and security act of 2009. H.R.2454 in the 111th Congress 2009, 6/23/09.
17. EU Commission, 2008. Impact assessment commission staff working document. Accompanying the Package of Implementation Measures for the EU's Objectives on Climate Change and Renewable Energy for 2020, Brussels, 23 Janvier 2008, SEC (2008), 85/3.
18. EU Commission, 2009. Towards a comprehensive climate change agreement in Copenhagen: communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, COM (2009) 39/9, Brussels.
19. European Union, 2009a. Decision No. 406/2009/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the effort of Member States to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to meet the Community's greenhouse gas emission reduction commitments up to 2020.
20. European Union, 2009b. Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the Community.
21. Flachsland C., Marschinski R., Edenhofer O. Global trading versus linking. Architectures for international emissions trading. Energy Policy 2009, 37:1637-1647.
22. Flachsland C., Marschinski R., Edenhofer O. To link or not to link: benefits and disadvantages of linking cap-and-trade systems. Climate Policy 2009, 9:358-372.
23. Helm C. International emissions trading with endogenous allowance choices. Journal of Public Economics 2003, 87:2737-2747.
24. Houser T., Bradley R., Childs B., Heilmayr R. Leveling the Carbon Playing Field: International Competition and US Climate Policy Design 2008, Peterson Institute and World Resource Institute, Washington, DC.
25. Krichene N. World crude oil and natural gas: a demand and supply model. Energy Economics 2002, 24:557-576.
26. Larsen J., Heilmayr R. Emission Reductions under Cap-and-Trade Proposals in the 111th Congress 2009, World Resources Institute, Available from: http://pdf.wri.org/usclimatetargets_2009-06-25.pdf (25.06.09).
27. Light, M., Koldstad, C., Rutherford, T., 1999. Coal Markets and the Kyoto Protocol. Working Paper No. 99-23. Department of Economics of the University of Colorado. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/papers/papers99/wp99-23.pdf.
28. Markusen J.R. Factor movements and commodity trade as complements. Journal of International Economics 1983, 14:341-356.
29. Mayer W. Short-run and long-run equilibrium for a small open economy. Journal of Political Economy 1974, 82(5):955-967.
30. McKibbin W.J., Shackleton R., Wilcoxen P.J. What to expect from an international system of tradable permits for carbon emissions. Resource and Energy Economics 1999, 21(3-4):319-346.
31. McKibbin, W.J., Morris, A., Wilcoxen, P.J., 2008. Expecting the unexpected: macroeconomic volatility and climate policy. Discussion Paper 08-16, Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School, November 2008.
32. Neary P. Short-run capital specificity and the pure theory of international trade. Economic Journal 1978, 88:488-510.
33. Neary P. Factor mobility and international trade. Canadian Journal of Economics 1995, 28(1):4-23.
34. Paltsev S., Reilly J.M., Jacoby H.D., Tay K.H. How (and why) do climate policy costs differ among countries?. Human-Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment 2007, 282-293. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. M.E. Schlesinger, H. Kheshgi, J.B. Smith, F.C. de la Chesnaye, J.M. Reilly, T. Wilson, C. Kolstad (Eds.).
35. Ramcharran H. Oil production responses to price changes: an empirical application of the competitive model to OPEC and non-OPEC countries. Energy Economics 2002, 24:97-106.
36. Rehdanz K., Tol R.S.J. Unilateral regulation of bilateral trade in greenhouse gas emission permits. Ecological Economics 2005, 54:397-416.
37. Russ, P., Ciscar, J.-C., Saveyn, B., Soria, A., Szábó, L., Van Ierland, T., Van Regemorter, D., Virdis, R., 2009. Economic assessment of post-2012 global climate policies: analysis of greenhouse gas emission reduction scenarios with the POLES and GEM-E3 models, EU Commission Joint Research Centre Report.
38. Schneider, L., 2007. Is the CDM fulfilling its environmental and sustainable development objectives? An evaluation of the CDM and Options for improvements, Report prepared by öko-Institut e. V. for WWF, 5 November 2007. Available from: http://www.oeko.de/files/forschungsergebnisse/application/octet-stream/download.php%3Fid=622.
39. Schneider, L., Cames, M., 2009. A framework for a sectoral crediting mechanism in a post-2012 climate regime. Report for the Global Wind Energy Council Berlin, 28 May 2009. öko-Institut.
40. Sinn H. Public policies against global warming: a supply side approach. International Tax and Public Finance 2008, 15:360-394.
41. Stankeviciute L., Kitous A., Criqui P. The fundamentals of the future international emissions trading system. Energy Policy 2008, 36(11):4272-4286.
42. Stavins, R.N., 2009. What hath Conpenhagen wrought?. A preliminary assessment of the Copenhagen accord. Blog posted on December 20, 2009. Available from: http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2009/12/20/what-hath-copenhagen-wrought-a-preliminary-assessment-of-the-copenhagen-accord/.
43. Sterk, W., Braun, M., Haug, C., Korytarova, K., Scholten, A., 2006. Ready to link up? Implications for design differences for linking domestic emissions trading schemes: joint emissions trading as a socio-ecological transformation. JET-SET Project Working Paper No. I/06.
44. Stern, N., 2008. Key elements of a global deal on climate change. Available from: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/4874/1/Key_Elements_of_a_Global_Deal_-Final_version_1300_30-4.pdf.
45. Tietenberg T.H. Emissions Trading: Principles and Practice 2006, RFF Press, Washington, DC. 2nd ed.
46. Tuerk A., Mehling M., Flachsland C., Sterk W. Linking carbon markets, concepts, case studies and pathways. Climate Policy 2009, 9:341-357.