IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enepol/v31y2003i14p1531-1539.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to design greenhouse gas trading in the EU?

Author

Listed:
  • Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard
  • Vesterdal, Morten

Abstract

Summary: A new and remarkable Green Paper about how to trade Greenhouse gases (GHG) in the EU has recently been published by the Commission of the European Union. This to achieve the stated 8% reduction target level. The Green Paper raises ten questions about how greenhouse gas permit trading should be designed in the EU before year 2005. These ten questions can be compressed into four main issues, namely target group, allocation of emission allowances, how to mix emission trading with other instruments and fourth enforcement. In the literature, there is a strong need to guide decision-makers and stimulate academic debates concerning the actual design of a simple and workable GHG market model for the EU. This model must take both economic, administrative and political concerns into account so that it is feasible in practice. Based on our findings, we therefore develop a policy recommendation concerning the future design of GHG permit trading in the EU.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard & Vesterdal, Morten, 2003. "How to design greenhouse gas trading in the EU?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 1531-1539, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:31:y:2003:i:14:p:1531-1539
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301-4215(02)00209-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cramton, Peter & Kerr, Suzi, 2002. "Tradeable carbon permit auctions: How and why to auction not grandfather," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 333-345, March.
    2. Gert T. Svendsen, 2003. "The Political Economy of the European Union," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2621, August.
    3. Bouwe R. Dijkstra, 1999. "The Political Economy of Environmental Policy," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1636, August.
    4. Baumol,William J. & Oates,Wallace E., 1988. "The Theory of Environmental Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521322249, Enero-Abr.
    5. Gert T. Svendsen, 1998. "public choice and environmental regulation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1298, August.
    6. Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard & Christensen, Jan Lien, 1999. "The US SO2 auction: analysis and generalization," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 403-416, October.
    7. Nicolas Wallart, 1999. "The Political Economy of Environmental Taxes," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1876, August.
    8. Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard & Daugbjerg, Carsten & Hjollund, Lene & Pedersen, Anders Branth, 2001. "Consumers, industrialists and the political economy of green taxation: CO2 taxation in OECD," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 489-497, May.
    9. Carsten Daugbjerg & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2001. "Green Taxation in Question," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-59553-8, 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. Amélie Charles & Olivier Darné & Jessica Fouilloux, 2010. "Testing the Martingale Difference Hypothesis in the EU ETS Markets for the CO2 Emission Allowances: Evidence from Phase I and Phase II," Working Papers hal-00473727, HAL.
    2. Deepa Menon Choudhary, 2009. "Assessing Policy Choices For Managing SO2 Emisions From Indian Power Sector," Working Papers id:1957, eSocialSciences.
    3. Charles, Amélie & Darné, Olivier & Fouilloux, Jessica, 2011. "Testing the martingale difference hypothesis in CO2 emission allowances," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 27-35.
    4. Vesterdal, Morten & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2004. "How should greenhouse gas permits be allocated in the EU?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 961-968, June.
    5. Fan, Wen-Jing & Fang, Yao & Jiang, Rui-Bo, 2024. "An analysis of optimal equilibrium in the carbon trading market - From a tripartite evolutionary game perspective," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 96(PA).
    6. Markussen, Peter & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2005. "Industry lobbying and the political economy of GHG trade in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 245-255, January.
    7. B. Sudhakara Reddy & Gaudenz B. Assenza, 2008. "The Great climate debate : A Developing country perspective," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2008-008, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    8. Rousse, Olivier, 2008. "Environmental and economic benefits resulting from citizens' participation in CO2 emissions trading: An efficient alternative solution to the voluntary compensation of CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 388-397, January.
    9. Hansson, Sven Ove & Edvardsson Björnberg, Karin & Vredin Johansson, Maria, 2011. "Making Climate Policy Efficient Implementing a Model for Environmental Policy Efficiency," Working Papers 125, National Institute of Economic Research.
    10. Cong, Rong-Gang & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2010. "Auction design for the allocation of carbon emission allowances: uniform or discriminatory price?," MPRA Paper 112210, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Cong, Rong-Gang & Wei, Yi-Ming, 2012. "Experimental comparison of impact of auction format on carbon allowance market," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(6), pages 4148-4156.

    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. Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2004. "Rent-Seeking and Grandfathering: The Case of GHG Trade in the Eu," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(1), pages 69-80, January.
    2. Daugbjerg, Carsten & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2001. "Designing green taxes in a political context: From optimal to feasible environmental regulation," Working Papers 01-17, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    3. Morten Vesterdal & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2003. "EU Emission Trading: Starting with Carbon Dioxide," Energy & Environment, , vol. 14(4), pages 397-406, July.
    4. Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "The Political Economy of Environmental Policy," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 1, pages 3-30, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2002. "Hot air in Kyoto, cold air in The Hague--the failure of global climate negotiations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(13), pages 1191-1199, October.
    6. Lene Hjøllund & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2001. "Why Green Taxation?," Energy & Environment, , vol. 12(1), pages 29-38, January.
    7. Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2009. "The Choice between Auctioning and Grandfathering in the Eu," Energy & Environment, , vol. 20(7), pages 1117-1130, November.
    8. Sterner, Thomas & Muller, Adrian, 2006. "Output and Abatement Effects of Allocation Readjustment in Permit Trade," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-49, Resources for the Future.
    9. Pezzey, John C.V. & Jotzo, Frank, 2010. "Tax-Versus-Trading and Free Emission Shares as Issues for Climate Policy Design," Research Reports 95049, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    10. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2006. "Climate change negotiations and first-mover advantages: the case of the wind turbine industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1175-1184, July.
    11. Woerdman, Edwin, 2000. "Implementing the Kyoto protocol: why JI and CDM show more promise than international emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 29-38, January.
    12. Bang, Guri & Froyn, Camilla Bretteville & Hovi, Jon & Menz, Fredric C., 2007. "The United States and international climate cooperation: International "pull" versus domestic "push"," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1282-1291, February.
    13. Brandt, Urs Steiner, 2004. "Unilateral actions, the case of international environmental problems," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 373-391, December.
    14. Henrik Christoffersen & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2002. "Bureaucratic Tax-Seeking: The Danish Waste Tax," Energy & Environment, , vol. 13(3), pages 355-366, July.
    15. Hepburn, Cameron J. & Quah, John K.-H. & Ritz, Robert A., 2013. "Emissions trading with profit-neutral permit allocations," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 85-99.
    16. Amlendu Kumar Dubey, 2010. "Initial Allocation of Emissions Permits in the Two-Sided Matching Framework," Journal of Quantitative Economics, The Indian Econometric Society, vol. 8(1), pages 95-104, January.
    17. Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2001. "Hot air in Kyoto, cold air in The Hague," Working Papers 22/01, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    18. Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 355-435, Elsevier.
    19. Drew, Andres J., 2010. "New rules, new politics, same actors – explaining policy change in the EU ETS," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 37599, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Luca Taschini, 2010. "Environmental Economics and Modeling Marketable Permits," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 17(4), pages 325-343, December.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    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:31:y:2003:i:14:p:1531-1539. 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/enpol .

    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.