IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v73y2012icp19-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personal carbon trading: A critical survey Part 2: Efficiency and effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Starkey, Richard

Abstract

Equity, efficiency and effectiveness are three key criteria use to assess environmental policy instruments. Part 1 of this survey shows that, in terms of equity, Tradable Energy Quotas (TEQs) – a widely discussed personal carbon trading (PCT) scheme - cannot be differentiated from Cap and Dividend (C&D) or Cap and Share (C&S). Hence, Part 2 explores whether they can be differentiated in terms of efficiency and/or effectiveness. The paper reviews two studies that compare the efficiency of TEQs and C&D. Whilst their estimates of the costs and abatement potential of TEQs differ, neither study considers that there is a case, on efficiency grounds, for its implementation. The paper goes on to sketch two arguments for the implementation of PCT that might, nevertheless, be made on efficiency grounds and one – relating to public acceptability – that might be made on effectiveness grounds. Exploring the various public surveys conducted on the acceptability of PCT, the paper concludes that support for PCT is not obviously greater than for alternative instruments and notes a methodological limitation in the work reviewed. The paper concludes that, to date, the case against implementation of PCT is stronger than the case for.

Suggested Citation

  • Starkey, Richard, 2012. "Personal carbon trading: A critical survey Part 2: Efficiency and effectiveness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 19-28.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:73:y:2012:i:c:p:19-28
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800911003946
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bristow, Abigail L. & Wardman, Mark & Zanni, Alberto M. & Chintakayala, Phani K., 2010. "Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1824-1837, July.
    2. Sverker C. Jagers & Åsa Löfgren & Johannes Stripple, 2010. "Attitudes to personal carbon allowances: political trust, fairness and ideology," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 410-431, July.
    3. Andrew A. Wallace & Katherine N. Irvine & Andrew J. Wright & Paul D. Fleming, 2010. "Public attitudes to personal carbon allowances: findings from a mixed-method study," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 385-409, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fan, Jin & Wang, Shanyong & Wu, Yanrui & Li, Jun & Zhao, Dingtao, 2015. "Buffer effect and price effect of a personal carbon trading scheme," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 601-610.
    2. Daoyan Guo & Hong Chen & Ruyin Long, 2019. "How to involve individuals in personal carbon trading? A game model taking into account the heterogeneous emotions of government and individuals," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 95(1), pages 419-435, January.
    3. Howell, Rachel A., 2012. "Living with a carbon allowance: The experiences of Carbon Rationing Action Groups and implications for policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 250-258.
    4. Nie, Qingyun & Zhang, Lihui & Li, Songrui, 2022. "How can personal carbon trading be applied in electric vehicle subsidies? A Stackelberg game method in private vehicles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 313(C).
    5. Dogterom, Nico & Ettema, Dick & Dijst, Martin, 2018. "Behavioural effects of a tradable driving credit scheme: Results of an online stated adaptation experiment in the Netherlands," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 52-64.
    6. Yong Liu, 2019. "Residents’ Willingness and Influencing Factors on Action Personal Carbon Trading: A Case Study of Metropolitan Areas in Tianjin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-13, January.
    7. Fan, Jin & Li, Jun & Wu, Yanrui & Wang, Shanyong & Zhao, Dingtao, 2016. "The effects of allowance price on energy demand under a personal carbon trading scheme," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 242-249.
    8. Andersson, David & Löfgren, Åsa & Widerberg, Anna, 2011. "Attitudes to Personal Carbon Allowances," Working Papers in Economics 505, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    9. Pitkänen, Atte & von Wright, Tuuli & Kaseva, Janne & Kahiluoto, Helena, 2022. "Distributional fairness of personal carbon trading," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    10. Fan, Wenbo & Xiao, Feng & Nie, Yu (Macro), 2022. "Managing bottleneck congestion with tradable credits under asymmetric transaction cost," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    11. Anna-Katharina Kothe & Alexander Kuptel & Roman Seidl, 2021. "Simulating Personal Carbon Trading (PCT) with an Agent-Based Model (ABM): Investigating Adaptive Reduction Rates and Path Dependence," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(22), pages 1-15, November.
    12. Ziegler, Andreas, 2019. "The Relevance of Attitudinal Factors for the Acceptance of Energy Policy Measures: A Micro-econometric Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 129-140.
    13. Kuokkanen, Anna & Sihvonen, Markus & Uusitalo, Ville & Huttunen, Anna & Ronkainen, Tuuli & Kahiluoto, Helena, 2020. "A proposal for a novel urban mobility policy: Personal carbon trade experiment in Lahti city," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    14. Krabbenborg, Lizet & van Langevelde-van Bergen, Chris & Molin, Eric, 2021. "Public support for tradable peak credit schemes," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 243-259.
    15. von Wright, Tuuli & Kaseva, Janne & Kahiluoto, Helena, 2022. "Needs must? Fair allocation of personal carbon allowances in mobility," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    16. Alice Brock & Simon Kemp & Ian D. Williams, 2022. "Personal Carbon Budgets: A Pestle Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Daniel Engler & Elke D. Groh & Gunnar Gutsche & Andreas Ziegler, 2020. "Acceptance of climate-oriented policy measures in times of the COVID-19 crisis," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202029, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    18. Andreas Ziegler, 2017. "Economic calculus or personal and social values? A micro-econometric analysis of the acceptance of climate and energy policy measures," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201716, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    19. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    20. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:73:y:2012:i:c:p:19-28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.