IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v6y2006i4p457-475.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Harmonization versus decentralization in the EU ETS: an economic analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Pablo del R�o Gonz�lez

Abstract

Although certain guidelines have been put forward by the European Commission, Member States (MS) have had a considerable degree of freedom to elaborate their national allocation plans (NAPs) and decide on key elements for the first commitment period of the EU emissions trading scheme (EU ETS)(2005-2007). While some favour this decentralized approach, arguing that it provides flexibility and allows the consideration of 'national circumstances', it may also bring many problems, in particular a possible distortion of sectoral competition. This article reviews and analyses the arguments for and against delegating the decision on key allocation elements to the MS, it discusses different degrees and alternatives for harmonization of those key elements, and analyses their pros and cons according to several criteria. The article concludes that harmonization is generally preferable to a decentralized approach, although this preference depends on the specific elements and on the assessment criteria considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Pablo del R�o Gonz�lez, 2006. "Harmonization versus decentralization in the EU ETS: an economic analysis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(4), pages 457-475, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:6:y:2006:i:4:p:457-475
    DOI: 10.1080/14693062.2006.9685613
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/14693062.2006.9685613
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/14693062.2006.9685613?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. Kruger, Joseph & Pizer, William A., 2004. "The EU Emissions Trading Directive: Opportunities and Potential Pitfalls," Discussion Papers 10679, Resources for the Future.
    2. Sato, S. & Grubb, M. & Cust, J. & Chan, K. & Korppoo, A. & Ceppi, P., 2007. "Differentiation and dynamics of competitiveness impacts from the EU ETS," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0712, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephen Lecourt & Clément Pallière & Oliver Sartor, 2013. "The impact of emissions-performance benchmarking on free allocations in EU ETS Phase 3," RSCAS Working Papers 2013/17, European University Institute.
    2. Stephen Lecourt & Clement Palliere & Oliver Sartor, 2013. "Free allocations in EU ETS Phase 3: The impact of emissions-performance benchmarking for carbonintensive industry," Working Papers 1302, Chaire Economie du climat.
    3. Michael Grubb & Karsten Neuhoff, 2006. "Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 7-30, January.

    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. Regina Betz & Wolfgang Eichhammer & Joachim Schleich, 2004. "Designing National Allocation Plans for Eu-Emissions Trading — A First Analysis of the Outcomes," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(3), pages 375-425, July.
    2. repec:zbw:hohpro:338 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Axel Michaelowa & Sonja Butzengeiger, 2005. "EU emissions trading: navigating between Scylla and Charybdis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 1-9, January.
    4. Beat Hintermann, 2011. "Market Power, Permit Allocation and Efficiency in Emission Permit Markets," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 49(3), pages 327-349, July.
    5. Anderson, Barry & Leib, Jörg & Martin, Ralf & McGuigan, Marty & Muuls, Mirabelle & Wagner, Ulrich J. & de Preux, Laure B., 2011. "Climate change policy and business in Europe: evidence from interviewing managers," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 47493, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    6. Soleille, Sebastien, 2006. "Greenhouse gas emission trading schemes: a new tool for the environmental regulator's kit," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(13), pages 1473-1477, September.
    7. Michael Pollan, 2005. "Opportunities for GHG Mitigation in Latin America: Carbon Finance and the Clean Development Mechanism," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 25198, Inter-American Development Bank.
    8. Nelson, Per-Kristian, 2004. "Emissions Trading with Telecommuting Credits: Regulatory Background and Institutional Barriers," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-45, Resources for the Future.
    9. Frédéric Branger & Oskar Lecuyer & Philippe Quirion, 2015. "The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: should we throw the flagship out with the bathwater?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 9-16, January.
    10. Sandoff, Anders & Schaad, Gabriela, 2009. "Does EU ETS lead to emission reductions through trade? The case of the Swedish emissions trading sector participants," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 3967-3977, October.
    11. Hintermann, Beat, 2010. "Allowance price drivers in the first phase of the EU ETS," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 43-56, January.
    12. Gillenwater, Michael & Breidenich, Clare, 2009. "Internalizing carbon costs in electricity markets: Using certificates in a load-based emissions trading scheme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 290-299, January.
    13. Lakatos, Csilla & Walmsley, Terrie, 2011. "Dispute Settlement at the WTO: Impacts of a No Deal in the US-Brazil Cotton Dispute," Conference papers 332059, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    14. Schleich, Joachim & Betz, Regina & Rogge, Karoline S., 2007. "EU emission trading: better job second time around?," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S2/2007, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    15. Martin, Ralf & Muûls, Mirabelle & de Preux, Laure B. & Wagner, Ulrich J., 2014. "On the empirical content of carbon leakage criteria in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 78-88.
    16. repec:ces:ifodic:v:5:y:2007:i:4:p:14567295 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Peter Egger & Sergey Nigai, 2015. "Energy Demand and Trade in General Equilibrium," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 60(2), pages 191-213, February.
    18. Margaret Walls & Peter Nelson & Elena Safirova, 2005. "Telecommuting and environmental policy - lessons from the Ecommute program," ERSA conference papers ersa05p801, European Regional Science Association.
    19. Zhang, Zhong Xiang, 2012. "Competitiveness and Leakage Concerns and Border Carbon Adjustments," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 6(3), pages 225-287, December.
    20. Hilary Sigman, 2011. "Monitoring and Enforcement of Climate Policy," NBER Chapters, in: The Design and Implementation of US Climate Policy, pages 213-225, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Christoph Böhringer & Victoria Alexeeva-Talebi, 2011. "Unilateral climate policy and competitiveness: The implications of differential emission pricing," Working Papers V-338-11, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Jun 2011.
    22. Fischer, Carolyn & Fox, Alan K., 2012. "Comparing policies to combat emissions leakage: Border carbon adjustments versus rebates," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 199-216.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:taf:tcpoxx:v:6:y:2006:i:4:p:457-475. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    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.