IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeeman/v40y2000i2p111-136.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Allocation of CO2 Emissions Permits: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Policy Instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Jensen, Jesper
  • Rasmussen, Tobias N.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeeman:v:40:y:2000:i:2:p:111-136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095-0696(99)91112-9
    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. Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 1998. "A general model for CO2 regulation: the case of Denmark," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 33-44, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Parry, Ian W. H. & Williams, Roberton III & Goulder, Lawrence H., 1999. "When Can Carbon Abatement Policies Increase Welfare? The Fundamental Role of Distorted Factor Markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 52-84, January.
    4. Ruud de Mooij & A. Bovenberg, 1998. "Environmental Taxes, International Capital Mobility and Inefficient Tax Systems: Tax Burden vs. Tax Shifting," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 5(1), pages 7-39, February.
    5. Burtraw, Dallas, 1998. "Cost Savings, Market Performance and Economic Benefits of the U.S. Acid Rain Program," Discussion Papers dp-98-28-rev, Resources For the Future.
    6. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Parry, Ian W. H. & Williams III, Roberton C. & Burtraw, Dallas, 1999. "The cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 329-360, June.
    7. Parry, Ian W. H. & Williams III, Roberton C., 1999. "A second-best evaluation of eight policy instruments to reduce carbon emissions," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 347-373, August.
    8. Patrick J. Kehoe & Andrew Atkeson, 1999. "Models of Energy Use: Putty-Putty versus Putty-Clay," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1028-1043, September.
    9. Rutherford, Thomas F, 1999. "Applied General Equilibrium Modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS Subsystem: An Overview of the Modeling Framework and Syntax," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 14(1-2), pages 1-46, October.
    10. Lawrence Goulder, 1995. "Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader's guide," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 2(2), pages 157-183, August.
    11. Alan S. Manne & Richard G. Richels, 1994. "The Costs of Stabilizing Global CO2 Emissions: A Probabilistic Analysis Based on Expert Judgments," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 1), pages 31-56.
    12. Burtraw, Dallas, 1998. "Cost Savings, Market Performance, and Economic Benefits of the U.S. Acid Rain Program," Discussion Papers 10885, Resources for the Future.
    13. Joskow, Paul L & Schmalensee, Richard, 1998. "The Political Economy of Market-Based Environmental Policy: The U.S. Acid Rain Program," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 37-83, April.
    14. Robert N. Stavins, 1998. "What Can We Learn from the Grand Policy Experiment? Lessons from SO2 Allowance Trading," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 69-88, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Fullerton, Don & Ta, Chi L., 2019. "Environmental policy on the back of an envelope: A Cobb-Douglas model is not just a teaching tool," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(S1).
    2. Pezzey, John C.V., 2006. "Neither the rock nor the hard place: using payment thresholds to balance the politics and the economics of emissions control," 2006 Conference (50th), February 8-10, 2006, Sydney, Australia 139892, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    3. Brita Bye & Karine Nyborg, 1999. "The Welfare Effects of Carbon Policies: Grandfathered Quotas versus Differentiated Taxes," Discussion Papers 261, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    4. Burtraw, Dallas & Palmer, Karen L. & Bharvirkar, Ranjit & Paul, Anthony, 2001. "The Effect of Allowance Allocation on the Cost of Carbon Emission Trading," Discussion Papers 10536, Resources for the Future.
    5. Jie Wu, Ying Fan, Yan Xia, 2016. "The Economic Effects of Initial Quota Allocations on Carbon Emissions Trading in China," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(China Spe).
    6. Zhang, ZhongXiang, 1999. "The design and implementation of an international greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme," MPRA Paper 13046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. MacKenzie, Ian A. & Hanley, Nick & Kornienko, Tatiana, 2009. "Using contests to allocate pollution rights," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(7), pages 2798-2806, July.
    8. Zhang, Zhong Xiang, 1999. "Should the rules of allocating emissions permits be harmonised?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 11-18, October.
    9. Sterner, Thomas & Muller, Adrian, 2006. "Output and Abatement Effects of Allocation Readjustment in Permit Trade," Discussion Papers dp-06-49, Resources For the Future.
    10. Brookshire, David S & Burness, H Stuart, 2001. "The Informational Role of the EPA SO2 Permit Auction," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 43-60, July.
    11. Dissou, Yazid, 2005. "Cost-effectiveness of the performance standard system to reduce CO2 emissions in Canada: a general equilibrium analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 187-207, October.
    12. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Parry, Ian W. H. & Williams III, Roberton C. & Burtraw, Dallas, 1999. "The cost-effectiveness of alternative instruments for environmental protection in a second-best setting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 329-360, June.
    13. Llop Llop, Maria, 2016. "A second-best analysis of alternative instruments for the preservation of natural resources?," Working Papers 2072/261533, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    14. Maria Llop, 2020. "A Second-Best Analysis of Alternative Instruments for the Preservation of Natural Resources," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-17, February.
    15. Mougeot Michel & Schwartz Sonia, 2018. "A Discriminatory Mechanism to Reduce Urban Congestion," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 19(2), pages 190-208, May.
    16. Ahman, Markus & Burtraw, Dallas & Kruger, Joseph & Zetterberg, Lars, 2007. "A Ten-Year Rule to guide the allocation of EU emission allowances," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 1718-1730, March.
    17. 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.
    18. : Eduardo L. Giménez (a) & Miguel Rodríguez, "undated". "Pigou’S Dividend Versus Ramsey’S Dividend In The Double Dividend Literature," Working Papers 2-06 Classification-JEL :, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.
    19. Lozano, S. & Villa, G. & Brännlund, R., 2009. "Centralised reallocation of emission permits using DEA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(3), pages 752-760, March.
    20. Stavins, Robert N., 2019. "The Future of U.S. Carbon-Pricing Policy: Normative Assessment and Positive Prognosis," Working Paper Series rwp19-017, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

    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:eee:jeeman:v:40:y:2000:i:2:p:111-136. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622870 .

    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/inca/622870 .

    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.