Economic impact assessment of Turkey's post-Kyoto vision on emission trading
For the post-Kyoto period, Turkey strongly emphasizes the establishment of national emission trading system by 2015 and its integration with the EU ETS along its accession process to the EU. In this paper, we study the mechanisms of adjustment and economic welfare consequences of various ETS regimes that Turkey considers to apply by 2020, i.e. regional ETS and international trading within the EU ETS. We conduct our analysis under the current EU 20–20–20 emission target, 20%, and also under its revised version, 30%. We find that Turkey has economic gains from linking with the EU ETS under the 20% cap, in comparison to the domestic ETSs. Despite the EU's welfare loss under linkage in comparison to the case where Turkey has domestic abatement efforts, it still prefers linking as it increases economic well being compared to the case where Turkey does not abate. Under 30% cutback, Turkey has critical output loss under linkage due to high abatement burden on the EU, while the EU is better off as it passes some of its abatement burden to Turkey. Therefore, emission quotas and their allocation across the ETS and non ETS sectors become highly critical in distributing the overall economic gains from bilateral trading.
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.:
- Telli, Çagatay & Voyvoda, Ebru & Yeldan, Erinç, 2008. "Economics of environmental policy in Turkey: A general equilibrium investigation of the economic evaluation of sectoral emission reduction policies for climate change," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 321-340.
- Kumbaroglu, Gurkan Selcuk, 2003. "Environmental taxation and economic effects: a computable general equilibrium analysis for Turkey," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 795-810, November.
- N. Anger & B. Brouns & J. Onigkeit, 2009. "Linking the EU emissions trading scheme: economic implications of allowance allocation and global carbon constraints," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 379-398, June.
- Mustafa Babiker, John Reilly and Laurent Viguier, 2004. "Is International Emissions Trading Always Beneficial?," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 33-56.
- Montgomery, W. David, 1972. "Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 395-418, December.
- Hiro Lee & Joaquim Oliveira Martins & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe, 1994. "The OECD Green Model: An Updated Overview," OECD Development Centre Working Papers 97, OECD Publishing.
- Anger, Niels, 2008. "Emissions trading beyond Europe: Linking schemes in a post-Kyoto world," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 2028-2049, July.
- AydIn, Levent & Acar, Mustafa, 2010. "Economic and environmental implications of Turkish accession to the European Union: A CGE analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 7031-7040, November.
- Eyckmans, Johan & Hagem, Cathrine, 2011. "The European Union's potential for strategic emissions trading through permit sales contracts," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 247-267, January.
- Christoph Böhringer & Thomas F. Rutherford, 2010. "The Costs of Compliance: A CGE Assessment of Canada's Policy Options under the Kyoto Protocol," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 177-211, 02.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enepol:v:60:y:2013:i:c:p:764-774. 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: (Zhang, Lei)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.