IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/asiaeu/v21y2023i1d10.1007_s10308-023-00657-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Divergences between the European Union and China on reducing international aviation emissions

Author

Listed:
  • Duong Thi Thuy Mai

    (Ruhr-University Bochum
    Fudan University)

  • Bo Yan

    (Fudan University)

Abstract

This paper provides a historical overview regarding the emergence, development and deepening of divergences between the European Union (EU) and the People’s Republic of China (China) in reducing global aviation emissions. It focuses on their divergences on three specific issues, i.e. under which framework to tackle global aviation emissions, whether and how to reflect the Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) principle in the design and implementation of the global market-based measures (MBMs) for international aviation and which role the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) should play in offsetting these emissions. Besides, this paper explains the driving forces behind these divergences by examining both normative and economic-related factors, which have formed different stances of both sides. From a Chinese perspective, considerations about the issues of state sovereignty, fairness regarding burden sharing in tackling climate change, the development of China’s aviation and aircraft manufacturing and its limited capability in promoting the large-scale SAF deployment help explain its hardline stance on reducing global aviation emissions. As for the EU, perceptions of its leading role in the global climate governance and the CBDR-RC principle, the targets of strengthening the EU ETS role in the global carbon market, and the competitiveness of the European airlines are underlying reasons behind its attempt to include the international aviation under its ETS. Moreover, the EU member states’ support to the ICAO can be explained through the conformity between the emissions offsetting objectives under this organisation and the EU’s current climate policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Duong Thi Thuy Mai & Bo Yan, 2023. "Divergences between the European Union and China on reducing international aviation emissions," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-21, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:asiaeu:v:21:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10308-023-00657-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10308-023-00657-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10308-023-00657-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10308-023-00657-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tim Laing & Misato Sato & Michael Grubb & Claudia Comberti, 2013. "Assessing the effectiveness of the EU Emissions Trading System," GRI Working Papers 106, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    2. Yitian Huang, 2017. "The prospect of engaging China in the ICAO global MBM scheme," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(4), pages 476-484, May.
    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. Huang, Wenyang & Zhao, Jianyu & Wang, Xiaokang, 2024. "Model-driven multimodal LSTM-CNN for unbiased structural forecasting of European Union allowances open-high-low-close price," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Stefan Niederhafner, 2014. "The Korean Energy and GHG Target Management System: An Alternative to Kyoto-Protocol Emissions Trading Systems?," TEMEP Discussion Papers 2014118, Seoul National University; Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program (TEMEP), revised Sep 2014.
    3. Johansson, Per-Olov, 2015. "Tradable Permits in Cost-Benefit Analysis," SSE Working Paper Series in Economics 2015:3, Stockholm School of Economics.
    4. Wang, Feng & Liu, Xiying & Nguyen, Tue Anh, 2018. "Evaluating the economic impacts and feasibility of China's energy cap: Based on an Analytic General Equilibrium Model," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 114-126.
    5. Karpf, Andreas & Mandel, Antoine & Battiston, Stefano, 2018. "Price and network dynamics in the European carbon market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 103-122.
    6. Sæther, Simen Rostad, 2021. "Climate policy choices: An empirical study of the effects on the OECD and BRICS power sector emission intensity," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 499-515.
    7. Bosello, Francesco & Davide, Marinella & Alloisio, Isabella, 2016. "Economic Implications of EU Mitigation Policies: Domestic and International Effects," EIA: Climate Change: Economic Impacts and Adaptation 234938, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).
    8. Requate, Till & Camacho-Cuena, Eva & Kean Siang, Ch'ng & Waichman, Israel, 2019. "Tell the truth or not? The montero mechanism for emissions control at work," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 133-152.
    9. Frédéric Branger & Oskar Lecuyer & Philippe Quirion, 2013. "The European Union Emissions Trading System : should we throw the flagship out with the bathwater ?," Working Papers hal-00866408, HAL.
    10. Endre Tvinnereim, 2014. "The bears are right: Why cap-and-trade yields greater emission reductions than expected, and what that means for climate policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 127(3), pages 447-461, December.
    11. Xu Liu & Bo Shen & Lynn Price & Ali Hasanbeigi & Hongyou Lu & Cong Yu & Guanyun Fu, 2019. "A review of international practices for energy efficiency and carbon emissions reduction and lessons learned for China," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(5), September.
    12. Hu, Jing & Crijns-Graus, Wina & Lam, Long & Gilbert, Alyssa, 2015. "Ex-ante evaluation of EU ETS during 2013–2030: EU-internal abatement," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 152-163.
    13. Luigi De Paoli, 2016. "The EU Emissions Trading System: For an effective and viable reform," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 5-40.
    14. Sebastian Schaefer, 2018. "Decoupling the EU ETS from subsidized renewables and other demand side effects Lessons from the impact of the EU ETS on CO2 emissions in the German electricity sector," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201835, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    15. Juris Justitio Hakim Putra & Nabilla Nabilla & Fidelia Yemima Jabanto, 2021. "Comparing Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade as Mechanism to Reduce Emission in Indonesia," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 11(5), pages 106-111.
    16. Krzysztof Wach & Agnieszka Głodowska & Marek Maciejewski & Marek Sieja, 2021. "Europeanization Processes of the EU Energy Policy in Visegrad Countries in the Years 2005–2018," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-23, March.
    17. Reckling, Dennis, 2016. "Variance risk premia in CO2 markets: A political perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 345-354.
    18. Johan Rootzén & Filip Johnsson, 2017. "Managing the costs of CO abatement in the cement industry," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 781-800, August.
    19. Joltreau, Eugénie & Sommerfeld, Katrin, 2016. "Why does emissions trading under the EU ETS not affect firms' competitiveness? Empirical findings from the literature," ZEW Discussion Papers 16-062, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Angela Köppl & Margit Schratzenstaller, 2023. "Carbon taxation: A review of the empirical literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1353-1388, September.

    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:kap:asiaeu:v:21:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s10308-023-00657-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.