This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Emissions trading without a quantity constraint

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
R. Andrew Muller

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

This paper examines the differences between standard “cap-and-trade” emissions trading plans and “credit” plans in which individual agents create credits by reducing emissions below a firmspecific baseline. The two are equivalent if the baseline is a fixed quantity, but not if the baseline is specified as a baseline emissions ratio times current output. In the latter case there is no exogenous constraint on aggregate emissions. It may be called the case of “(ratio-based) credit trading”. Examples include the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol and the Canadian Pilot Emissions Reduction Trading plan (PERT). Unlike the case of cap-and-trade, the theoretical properties of ratio-based credit trading plans are not well known. In the absence of a binding quantity constraint, it is even difficult to understand how an ERC plan can generate a positive price. This paper studies the difference between ratiobased credit trading and conventional “cap-and-trade” plans in the context of a very simple model. It also considers how the two plans might interact if, for example, credits from a credit plan could be applied to commitments under a quantity-based cap-and-trade plan, and applies its findings to current plans for credit trading, including PERT and the clean development mechanism. The paper demonstrates that ratio-based credit trading is more like a tax instrument than a quantity instrument. It shows that there is no incentive to trade in a ratio-based market in which all firms receive baselines computed using their “business as ususal” emission ratios. Combining ratio-based credit trading with “cap-and-trade” allowance markets effectively relaxes the quantity constraint in the cap-and-trade plan and reduces the price of traded allowances. In the long run, there will be no effective constraint on emissions. The results have strong implications for current policy. In particular, they suggest that mixing quantity-based and ratio-based emission trading plans is inappropriate.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/rsrch/papers/archive/99-13.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by McMaster University in its series Department of Economics Working Papers with number 1999-13.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 37 pages
Date of creation: 1999
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mcm:deptwp:1999-13

Contact details of provider:

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: ().

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports: References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
  1. Donald N. Dewees, 2000. "Emissions Trading: ERCs or Allowances," Working Papers dewees-00-01, University of Toronto, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.)

  1. Neil J. Buckley & R. Andrew Muller & Stuart Mestelman, 2004. "Cap-and-Trade versus Baseline-and-Credit Emission Trading Plans: Experimental Evidence Under Variable Output Capacity," McMaster Experimental Economics Laboratory Publications 2004-06, McMaster University. [Downloadable!]
  2. Neil J. Buckley, R. Andrew Muller, and Stuart Mestelman, 2005. "Baseline-and-Credit Style Emission Trading Mechanisms: An Experimental Investigation of Economic Inefficiency," Department of Economics Working Papers 2005-04, McMaster University. [Downloadable!]
  3. Neil J. Buckley, R. Andrew Muller, and Stuart Mestelman, 2005. "Baseline-and-Credit Emission Permit Trading: Experimental Evidence Under Variable Output Capacity," Department of Economics Working Papers 2005-03, McMaster University. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You can include your works in the database easily by uploading them on the Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA) if you do not have access to an institutional RePEc archive.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-12.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.