IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v121y2018icp441-451.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Allocating CO2 allowances to emitters in China: A multi-objective decision approach

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Bangzhu
  • Jiang, Mingxing
  • He, Kaijian
  • Chevallier, Julien
  • Xie, Rui

Abstract

China CO2 allowance (CHA) allocation for emitters is one of the pivotal issues to build the effective national carbon market. In this study, we propose a multi-objective decision approach, incorporating the principles of fairness, efficiency, and feasibility, to allocate the CHAs to emitters from the industry perspective. Taking Guangdong, China as an example, we employ the proposed approach for allocating the CHAs to six major industries of petrochemical, chemical, cement, steel, nonferrous metals, and electricity power by 2030. The empirical results show that there are significant conflicts between principles. The proposed approach can not only effectively eliminate the defects of single-object models to make the allocation results more reasonable and acceptable, but also achieve optimal allocation options under various decision preferences. The power industry has the highest CHA and petrochemical industry has the lowest one, and petrochemical, chemical, and steel industries have the greatest potential to reduce carbon intensity. Single-factor sensitivity analysis shows that the CHA/104 Yuan added value (TY) of the industry with lower emissions is more sensitive to the changes of physical capital stock but received fewer impacts from the changes of emissions cap for six industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Bangzhu & Jiang, Mingxing & He, Kaijian & Chevallier, Julien & Xie, Rui, 2018. "Allocating CO2 allowances to emitters in China: A multi-objective decision approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 441-451.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:121:y:2018:i:c:p:441-451
    DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2018.07.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518304488
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Rose, Adam, 1990. "Reducing conflict in global warming policy : The potential of equity as a unifying principle," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(10), pages 927-935, December.
    2. Markus Åihman & Lars Zetterberg, 2005. "Options for Emission Allowance Allocation Under the Eu Emissions Trading Directive," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 597-645, October.
    3. MacKenzie, Ian A. & Hanley, Nick & Kornienko, Tatiana, 2009. "Using contests to allocate pollution rights," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2798-2806, July.
    4. Cantore, Nicola & Padilla, Emilio, 2010. "Equality and CO2 emissions distribution in climate change integrated assessment modelling," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 298-313.
    5. Adam Rose & Zhong Zhang, 2004. "Interregional burden-sharing of greenhouse gas mitigation in the United States," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 477-500, October.
    6. Demailly, Damien & Quirion, Philippe, 2008. "European Emission Trading Scheme and competitiveness: A case study on the iron and steel industry," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 2009-2027, July.
    7. Nordhaus, William D & Yang, Zili, 1996. "A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 741-765, September.
    8. Zhou, P. & Wang, M., 2016. "Carbon dioxide emissions allocation: A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 47-59.
    9. Zhou, P. & Sun, Z.R. & Zhou, D.Q., 2014. "Optimal path for controlling CO2 emissions in China: A perspective of efficiency analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 99-110.
    10. Vaillancourt, Kathleen & Waaub, Jean-Philippe, 2004. "Equity in international greenhouse gases abatement scenarios: A multicriteria approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 489-505, March.
    11. Lasse Ringius & Asbjørn Torvanger & Arild Underdal, 2002. "Burden Sharing and Fairness Principles in International Climate Policy," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Böhringer, Christoph & Fischer, Carolyn & Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2014. "Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: Size matters," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 318-339.
    13. Eyckmans, Johan & Tulkens, Henry, 2003. "Simulating coalitionally stable burden sharing agreements for the climate change problem," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 299-327, October.
    14. Andries F. Hof & Michel G.J. Den Elzen, 2010. "The effect of different historical emissions datasets on emission targets of the sectoral mitigation approach Triptych," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(6), pages 684-704, November.
    15. Zhang, Yue-Jun & Wang, Ao-Dong & Da, Ya-Bin, 2014. "Regional allocation of carbon emission quotas in China: Evidence from the Shapley value method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 454-464.
    16. Ekholm, Tommi & Soimakallio, Sampo & Moltmann, Sara & Höhne, Niklas & Syri, Sanna & Savolainen, Ilkka, 2010. "Effort sharing in ambitious, global climate change mitigation scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 1797-1810, April.
    17. Ringius, Lasse & Torvanger, Asbjorn & Holtsmark, Bjart, 1998. "Can multi-criteria rules fairly distribute climate burdens?: OECD results from three burden sharing rules," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(10), pages 777-793, August.
    18. De Cara, Stéphane & Jayet, Pierre-Alain, 2011. "Marginal abatement costs of greenhouse gas emissions from European agriculture, cost effectiveness, and the EU non-ETS burden sharing agreement," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1680-1690, July.
    19. Niklas Höhne & Michel den Elzen & Martin Weiss, 2006. "Common but differentiated convergence (CDC): a new conceptual approach to long-term climate policy," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(2), pages 181-199, March.
    20. Damien Demailly & Philippe Quirion, 2006. "CO 2 abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: grandfathering versus output-based allocation," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(1), pages 93-113, January.
    21. Schmidt, Robert C. & Heitzig, Jobst, 2014. "Carbon leakage: Grandfathering as an incentive device to avert firm relocation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 209-223.
    22. Stern, David I., 2000. "A multivariate cointegration analysis of the role of energy in the US macroeconomy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 267-283, April.
    23. den Elzen, Michel & Höhne, Niklas & Moltmann, Sara, 2008. "The Triptych approach revisited: A staged sectoral approach for climate mitigation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 1107-1124, March.
    24. Damien Demailly & Philippe Quirion, 2006. "CO2 abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: Grandfathering vs. output-based allocation," Post-Print halshs-00639327, HAL.
    25. Miketa, Asami & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2006. "Equity implications of two burden-sharing rules for stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(7), pages 877-891, May.
    26. Lee, Chien-Chiang & Chang, Chun-Ping, 2008. "Energy consumption and economic growth in Asian economies: A more comprehensive analysis using panel data," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 50-65, January.
    27. Christian Stenqvist & Max Åhman, 2016. "Free allocation in the 3rd EU ETS period: assessing two manufacturing sectors," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(2), pages 125-144, March.
    28. Cui, Lian-Biao & Fan, Ying & Zhu, Lei & Bi, Qing-Hua, 2014. "How will the emissions trading scheme save cost for achieving China’s 2020 carbon intensity reduction target?," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1043-1052.
    29. Bohringer, Christoph & Lange, Andreas, 2005. "On the design of optimal grandfathering schemes for emission allowances," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(8), pages 2041-2055, November.
    30. Helm, Carsten, 2003. "International emissions trading with endogenous allowance choices," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(12), pages 2737-2747, December.
    31. Yi, Wen-Jing & Zou, Le-Le & Guo, Jie & Wang, Kai & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2011. "How can China reach its CO2 intensity reduction targets by 2020? A regional allocation based on equity and development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2407-2415, May.
    32. Adam Rose & Brandt Stevens & Jae Edmonds & Marshall Wise, 1998. "International Equity and Differentiation in Global Warming Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 25-51, July.
    33. Wu, Jie & Zhu, Qingyuan & Liang, Liang, 2016. "CO2 emissions and energy intensity reduction allocation over provincial industrial sectors in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 282-291.
    34. Feng, Chenpeng & Chu, Feng & Ding, Jingjing & Bi, Gongbing & Liang, Liang, 2015. "Carbon Emissions Abatement (CEA) allocation and compensation schemes based on DEA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 78-89.
    35. Jensen, Jesper & Rasmussen, Tobias N., 2000. "Allocation of CO2 Emissions Permits: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Policy Instruments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 111-136, September.
    36. Anger, Niels & Oberndorfer, Ulrich, 2008. "Firm performance and employment in the EU emissions trading scheme: An empirical assessment for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 12-22, January.
    37. Phylipsen, G J M & Bode, J W & Blok, K & Merkus, H & Metz, B, 1998. "A Triptych sectoral approach to burden differentiation; GHG emissions in the European bubble," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 929-943, October.
    38. Gupta, Sujata & M Bhandari, Preety, 1999. "An effective allocation criterion for CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(12), pages 727-736, November.
    39. Lennox, James A. & van Nieuwkoop, Renger, 2010. "Output-based allocations and revenue recycling: Implications for the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7861-7872, December.
    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. repec:eee:enepol:v:129:y:2019:i:c:p:1227-1239 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Q57; N55; 044; China CO2 allowance allocation; Major industries; Multi-objective decision analysis; Fairness; Efficiency; Feasibility;

    JEL classification:

    • Q57 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Ecological Economics
    • N55 - Economic History - - Agriculture, Natural Resources, Environment and Extractive Industries - - - Asia including Middle East

    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:eee:enepol:v:121:y:2018:i:c:p:441-451. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.