IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/enreec/v5y1995i2p191-219.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Trade-offs in sulfur emission trading in Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Ger Klaassen

Abstract

How to implement emission trading is one question in the current negotiations on a new sulfur protocol in Europe. Whereas the current protocol stipulates a 30 percent uniform reduction, national emission ceilings included in the proposed new protocol imply differentiated reductions. In addition, emission and fuel standards are proposed. This paper examines the costs and environmental impacts of emission trading. Emission trading combined with regulations is a new element in the paper. Calculations using the RAINS (Regional Acidification INformation and Simulation) model suggest that overlaying emission trading on regulations not only reduces the cost savings but has beneficial impacts as well: ecosystem protection is not changed and significant decreases in environmental benefits for countries are largely avoided. Emission trading can also be used to decrease emissions and increase ecosystem protection. If combined with existing legislation, emission trading minimizes losses in expected environmental benefits for some countries, and most countries gain. However, the initial distribution of emission ceilings has to be used so that some countries are not confronted with higher costs. Trade-offs appear to exist between the use of emission trading to achieve cost savings on the one hand, and ecosystem protection and distributional equity on the other. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Suggested Citation

  • Ger Klaassen, 1995. "Trade-offs in sulfur emission trading in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 5(2), pages 191-219, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:enreec:v:5:y:1995:i:2:p:191-219
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00693023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00693023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00693023?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Montgomery, W. David, 1972. "Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 395-418, December.
    2. Krupnick, Alan J. & Oates, Wallace E. & Van De Verg, Eric, 1983. "On marketable air-pollution permits: The case for a system of pollution offsets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 233-247, September.
    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. Moslener, Ulf & Requate, Till, 2009. "The dynamics of optimal abatement strategies for multiple pollutants--An illustration in the Greenhouse," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(5), pages 1521-1534, March.

    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. Chao-Ning Liao, 2009. "Technology adoption decisions under a mixed regulatory system of tradable permits and air pollution fees for the control of Total Suspended Particulates in Taiwan," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 35(2), pages 135-153, April.
    2. Yu-Bong Lai, 2007. "The Optimal Distribution of Pollution Rights in the Presence of Political Distortions," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 36(3), pages 367-388, March.
    3. Robert W. Hahn & Robert N. Stavins, 2011. "The Effect of Allowance Allocations on Cap-and-Trade System Performance," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(S4), pages 267-294.
    4. Jay S. Coggins & Andrew L. Goodkind & Jason Nguyen & Zhiyu Wang, 2019. "Price Effects, Inefficient Environmental Policy, and Windfall Profits," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(3), pages 637-656, March.
    5. Y. Ermoliev & M. Michalevich & A. Nentjes, 2000. "Markets for Tradeable Emission and Ambient Permits: A Dynamic Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 15(1), pages 39-56, January.
    6. Dallas Burtraw & Keneth Harrison & Paul Turner, 1998. "Improving Efficiency in Bilateral Emission Trading," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 19-33, January.
    7. Simon Quemin & Christian Perthuis, 2019. "Transitional Restricted Linkage Between Emissions Trading Schemes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 1-32, September.
    8. Hung, Ming-Feng & Shaw, Daigee, 2005. "A trading-ratio system for trading water pollution discharge permits," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 83-102, January.
    9. Schwartz Sonia, 2007. "Market Power Effects on Market Equilibrium in Ambient Permit Markets," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, February.
    10. John Swinton, 2004. "Phase I Completed: An Empirical Assessment of the 1990 CAAA," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 27(3), pages 227-246, March.
    11. Lansink, Alfons Oude, 2003. "Technical efficiency and CO2 abatement policies in the Dutch glasshouse industry," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 99-108, March.
    12. Fernando Rodríguez, 1999. "Joint Implementation under the Second Sulfur Protocol: Analysis and Simulation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 143-168, March.
    13. Barrett, James & Segerson, Kathleen, 1997. "Prevention and Treatment in Environmental Policy Design," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 196-213, June.
    14. Heister, Johannes & Michelis, Peter, 1991. "Designing markets for CO 2 emissions and other pollutants," Kiel Working Papers 490, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    15. Berck, Peter & Helfand, Gloria E. & Kim, Hong Jin, 1999. "Spatial variation in benefits and costs, or why pollution isn't always for sale," CUDARE Working Papers 43914, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Ger Klaassen & Finn Førsund & Markus Amann, 1994. "Emission trading in Europe with an exchange rate," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 4(4), pages 305-330, August.
    17. Alessandra Casella, 1999. "Tradable deficit permits: efficient implementation of the Stability Pact in the European Monetary Union," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 14(29), pages 322-361.
    18. Lehmann, Paul, 2008. "Using a policy mix for pollution control: A review of economic literature," UFZ Discussion Papers 4/2008, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    19. Rouhi-Rad, Mani & Brozovic, Nicholas & Mieno, Taro, 2015. "Implications of Search Frictions for Tradeable Permit Markets," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205798, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Nicholas Z. Muller & Robert Mendelsohn, 2009. "Efficient Pollution Regulation: Getting the Prices Right," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1714-1739, December.

    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:enreec:v:5:y:1995:i:2:p:191-219. 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.