IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ieaple/v1y2001i3p379-395.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Emission Trading Restrictions with Endogenous Technological Change

Author

Listed:
  • Paolo Buonanno
  • Carlo Carraro
  • Efrem Castelnuovo
  • Marzio Galeotti

Abstract

In this paper we use a simple climate model with endogenous environmental technical change in order to analyse the effects on equity and efficiency of different degrees of restrictions on trade in the market for pollution permits. The model is obtained by incorporating in Nordhaus and Yang (1996)’s RICE model and the notion of induced technical change as proposed in Goulder and Mathai (1998). With the help of such a model we aim at assessing the pros and cons of the introduction of ceilings on emission trading. In particular, we analyse the implications of restrictions on trading both in terms of their cost effectiveness and in terms of their distributional effects. The analysis takes into account the role of environmental technical change that could be enhanced by the presence of ceilings on trading. However, this effect is shown to be offset by the increased abatement cost induced by the larger than optimal adoption of domestic policy measures when ceilings are binding. Hence, our analysis provides little support in favour of quantitative restrictions on emission trading even when these restrictions actually have a positive impact on technical change. Even in terms of equity, ceilings find no justification within our theoretical and modelling framework. Indeed, we find that flexibility mechanisms in the presence of endogenous technical change increase equity and that the highest equity levels are achieved without ceilings, both in the short and in the long run.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Paolo Buonanno & Carlo Carraro & Efrem Castelnuovo & Marzio Galeotti, 2001. "Emission Trading Restrictions with Endogenous Technological Change," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 379-395, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:1:y:2001:i:3:p:379-395
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1011594622427
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1011594622427
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam Rose & Erwin Bulte & Henk Folmer, 1999. "Long-Run Implications for Developing Countries of Joint Implementation of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 14(1), pages 19-31, July.
    2. ZhongXiang Zhang, 2000. "Estimating the size of the potential market for the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 136(3), pages 491-521, September.
    3. Zvi Griliches, 1984. "R&D, Patents, and Productivity," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number gril84-1.
    4. William D. Nordhaus & Joseph G. Boyer, 1999. "Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 93-130.
    5. Coe, David T. & Helpman, Elhanan, 1995. "International R&D spillovers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 859-887, May.
    6. CHANDER, Parkash & TULKENS, Henry & VAN YPERSELE, Jean - Pascal & WILLEMS, Stefane, 1999. "The Kyoto protocol: an economic and game theoretic interpretation," CORE Discussion Papers 1999025, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Nordhaus, William D & Yang, Zili, 1996. "A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(4), pages 741-765, September.
    9. Johan Eyckmans & Henry Tulkens, 1999. "Simulating with RICE Coalitionally Stable Burden Sharing Agreements for the Climate Change Problem," CESifo Working Paper Series 228, CESifo Group Munich.
    10. Eyckmans, Johan & Tulkens, Henry, 2003. "Simulating coalitionally stable burden sharing agreements for the climate change problem," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 299-327, October.
    11. Nordhaus, William D., 1993. "Rolling the 'DICE': an optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 27-50, March.
    12. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Mathai, Koshy, 2000. "Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-38, January.
    13. Lawrence H. Goulder & Koshy Mathai, 1998. "Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change," NBER Working Papers 6494, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Adam Rose & Brandt Stevens & Jae Edmonds & Marshall Wise, 1998. "International Equity and Differentiation in Global Warming Policy," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 12(1), pages 25-51, July.
    15. Adam Rose & Brandt Stevens, 2001. "An Economic Analysis of Flexible Permit Trading in the Kyoto Protocol," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 1(2), pages 219-242, April.
    16. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Schneider, Stephen H., 1999. "Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 211-253, August.
    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. Buchner, Barbara & Carraro, Carlo, 2005. "Regional and Sub-Global Climate Blocs. A Game-Theoretic Perspective on Bottom-up Climate Regimes," CEPR Discussion Papers 5034, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro & Igor Cersosimo & Carmen Marchiori, 2002. "Back to Kyoto? US Participation and the Linkage between R&D and Climate Cooperation," CESifo Working Paper Series 688, CESifo Group Munich.
    3. Lucas Bretschger & Roger Ramer & Florentine Schwark, 2010. "Long-Run Effects of Post-Kyoto Policies: Applying a Fully Dynamic CGE model with Heterogeneous Capital," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 10/129, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    4. Gil-Moltó, Maria José & Varvarigos, Dimitrios, 2013. "Emission taxes and the adoption of cleaner technologies: The case of environmentally conscious consumers," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 486-504.
    5. Barbara Buchner & Carlo Carraro, 2006. "‘US, China and the Economics of Climate Negotiations’," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 63-89, March.
    6. Castelnuovo, Efrem & Galeotti, Marzio & Gambarelli, Gretel & Vergalli, Sergio, 2005. "Learning-by-Doing vs. Learning by Researching in a model of climate change policy analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 261-276, August.
    7. Marzio Galeotti, 2003. "Environment and Economic Growth: Is Technical Change the Key to Decoupling?," Working Papers 2003.90, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Rolf Golombek & Michael Hoel, 2005. "Climate Policy under Technology Spillovers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 31(2), pages 201-227, June.
    9. Florentine Schwark, 2010. "Economics of Endogenous Technical Change in CGE Models - The Role of Gains from Specialization," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 10/130, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    10. Reyer Gerlagh & Bob van der Zwaan & Marjan Hofkes & Ger Klaassen, 2004. "Impacts of CO 2 -Taxes in an Economy with Niche Markets and Learning-by-Doing," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(3), pages 367-394, July.
    11. Bretschger, Lucas & Ramer, Roger & Schwark, Florentine, 2011. "Growth effects of carbon policies: Applying a fully dynamic CGE model with heterogeneous capital," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 963-980.
    12. Jesse Matheson, 2011. "Prices and social behavior: A study of adult smoking in Canadian Aboriginal communities," Discussion Papers in Economics 11/50, Department of Economics, University of Leicester, revised Dec 2012.
    13. Carlo Carraro & Barbara Buchner, 2003. "China and the Evolution of the Present Climate Regime," Working Papers 2003.103, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    14. Barbara Buchner & Marzio Galeotti, 2003. "Climate Policy and Economic Growth in Developing Countries," Working Papers 2003.91, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    15. Marzio Galeotti & Carlo Carraro, 2004. "Does Endogenous Technical Change Make a Difference in Climate Policy Analysis? A Robustness Exercise with the FEEM-RICE Model," Working Papers 2004.152, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    16. Takanobu Kosugi, 2010. "Assessments of ‘Greenhouse Insurance’: A Methodological Review," Asia-Pacific Financial Markets, Springer;Japanese Association of Financial Economics and Engineering, vol. 17(4), pages 345-363, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ceilings; climate policy; emission trading; environmental modelling; integrated assessment; technical change;

    JEL classification:

    • H0 - Public Economics - - General
    • H20 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - General
    • H30 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents - - - General

    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:spr:ieaple:v:1:y:2001:i:3:p:379-395. 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: (Sonal Shukla) or (Rebekah McClure). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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 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.

    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.