Intensity allocation criteria of carbon emissions permits and regional economic development in china- based on a 30-province/autonomous region computable general equilibrium model

Advances in Climate Change Research

Volumn 3, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 154-162

  Yuan, Yong Na ^a,b   Shi, Min Jun ^a,b   Li, Na ^a,b   Zhou, Sheng Lü ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (China)

^b INSTITUTE OF GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS   (China)

Author keywords

Carbon emissions permits; Computable general equilibrium model; Intensity allocation criteria; Regional balanced development

Indexed keywords

EID: 84885862558     PISSN: 16749278     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1248.2012.00154     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Bernard, A., C. Fischer, and A. Fox, 2007: Is there a rationale for output-based rebating of environmental levies? Resource and Energy Economics, 29(2), 83-101.
2. Bovenberg, A. L., and L. H. Goulder, 2000 [2011-04-02]: Neutralizing the adverse industry impacts of CO2 abatement policies: What does it cost? NBER Working Papers, No. 7654, accessed http://www.nber.org/papers/w7654.
3. Burtraw, D., K. Palmer, and D. Kahn, 2005 [2010-10-15]: Allocation of CO2 emissions allowances in the regional greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. RFF Discussion Paper dp-05-25, accessed http://www.rff.org/RFF/Documents/RFF-DP-05-25.pdf.
4. Bushnell, J., and Y. Chen, 2009[2010-10-15]: Regulation, allocation, and leakage in cap-and-trade markets for CO2. NBER working paper, 15495, accessed http://www.nber.org/papers/w15495.pdf?newsub-/subwindow=1.
5. Catherine, B., and P. Quirion, 2002: Implementing greenhouse gas trading in Europe: Lessons from economic literature and international experiences. Ecological Economics, 43(2), 213-230.
6. Chen, Y., J. Sijm, B. Hobbs, et al., 2008: Implication of CO2 emissions trading for short-run electricity market outcomes in northwest Europe. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 34, 251-281.
7. Demailly, D., and P. Quirion, 2006: CO2 abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: Grandfathering versus output-based allocation. Climate Policy, 6, 93-113.
8. Fell, G. H., 2008[2010-11-12]: EU-ETS and Nordic electricity: A CVAR approach. RFF Discussion Paper No. 08-31, accessed http://www.rff.org/RFF/ Documents/RFF-DP-08-31.pdf.
9. Fischer, C., 2003: Combining rate-based and cap-and-trade emissions policies. Climate Policy, 3(S2), S89-S103.
10. Fischer, C., and K. Alan, 2007: Output-based allocation of emissions permits for mitigating tax and trade interactions. Land Economics, 83(4), 575-599.
11. Quirion, P., 2009: Historic versus output-based allocation of GHG tradable allowances: A comparison. Climate Policy, 9(6), 575-592.
12. Shi, M.-J., Y.-N. Yuan, N. Li, et al., 2011: Policy choices of energy saving and emission reduction facing climate change. in: Research on Costs, Roads and Policies of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation (in Chinese), Fan, Y. Ed., Science Press, 152-192.
13. Sijm, J., K. Neuhoff, and Y. Chen, 2006: CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Climate Policy, 6, 49-72.
14. Tietenberg, T., 2003: The tradable-permits approach to protecting the commons: Lessons for climate change. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(3), 400-419.
15. Yuan, Y.-N., M.-J. Shi, N. Li, et al., 2012: Initial allocation of carbon permits and regional economic development. in: Policy Choice of Low Carbon Development and Its Regional Response (in Chinese), Shi, M.-J. et al. Eds., Science Press, 155-174.