IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tcpoxx/v3y2003i3p261-278.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transaction costs of the Kyoto Mechanisms

Author

Listed:
  • Axel Michaelowa
  • Marcus Stronzik
  • Frauke Eckermann
  • Alistair Hunt

Abstract

Transaction costs will reduce the attractiveness of the Kyoto Mechanisms compared to domestic abatement options. Especially the project-based mechanisms Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) are likely to entail considerable costs of baseline development, verification and certification. The Activities Implemented Jointly (AIJ) pilot phase and the Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF) programme give indications about the level of these costs. Under current estimates of world market prices for greenhouse gas emission permits, projects with annual emission reductions of less than 50,000 t CO 2 equivalent are unlikely to be viable; for micro projects transaction costs can reach several hundred € per t CO 2 equivalent. Thus, the Marrakech Accord rule to have special rules for small scale CDM projects makes sense, even if the thresholds chosen advantage certain project types; projects below 1000 t CO 2 equivalent per year should get further exemptions. An alternative solution with no risk for the environmental credibility of the projects would be to subsidise baseline setting and charge lower, subsidised fees for small projects for the different steps of the CDM/second track JI project cycle.

Suggested Citation

  • Axel Michaelowa & Marcus Stronzik & Frauke Eckermann & Alistair Hunt, 2003. "Transaction costs of the Kyoto Mechanisms," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 261-278, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tcpoxx:v:3:y:2003:i:3:p:261-278
    DOI: 10.3763/cpol.2003.0332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3763/cpol.2003.0332
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3763/cpol.2003.0332?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. Steve Sorrell & Jim Skea (ed.), 1999. "Pollution for Sale," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1696.
    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. Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Economics," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-54, Resources for the Future.
    2. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2017. "Lessons Learned from Three Decades of Experience with Cap and Trade," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(1), pages 59-79.
    3. Juan-Pablo Montero, 2002. "Trading Quasi-emission Permits.Vers. 6/2003," Documentos de Trabajo 201, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
    4. Martin Larsson, 2017. "EU Emissions Trading: Policy-Induced Innovation, or Business as Usual? Findings from Company Case Studies in the Republic of Croatia," Working Papers 1705, The Institute of Economics, Zagreb.
    5. Suzi Kerr & Catherine Leining, 2003. "Joint Implementation in Climate Change Policy," Working Papers 03_04, Motu Economic and Public Policy Research.
    6. Edwin Woerdman, 2000. "Competitive Distortions In An International Emissions Trading Market," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 337-360, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Christoph Böhringer & Andreas Löschel, 2008. "Climate Policy‐induced Investments in Developing Countries: The Implications of Investment Risks," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 367-392, March.
    9. Stavins, Robert, 2003. "Market-Based Environmental Policies: What Can We Learn from U.S. Experience and Related Research?," Working Paper Series rwp03-031, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    10. Anne Egelston & Maurie J. Cohen, 2004. "California RECLAIM's market failure: lessons for the Kyoto Protocol," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(4), pages 427-442, December.
    11. Gagelmann, Frank, 2003. "E.T. and innovation - science fiction or reality? An assessment of the impact of emissions trading on innovation," UFZ Discussion Papers 13/2003, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    12. Stefano Carattini & Eli P. Fenichel & Alexander Gordan & Patrick Gourley, 2020. "For want of a chair: Teaching price formation using a cap and trade game," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(1), pages 52-66, January.
    13. Juan-Pablo Montero, 2004. "Tradable permits with incomplete monitoring - Evidence from Santiago's particulate permits program," Working Papers 0415, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
    14. Woerdman, Edwin, 2000. "Implementing the Kyoto protocol: why JI and CDM show more promise than international emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 29-38, January.
    15. Richard Schmalensee & Robert N. Stavins, 2013. "The SO 2 Allowance Trading System: The Ironic History of a Grand Policy Experiment," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 27(1), pages 103-122, Winter.
    16. Carlsson, Fredrik & Hammar, Henrik, 2002. "Incentive-based regulation of CO2 emissions from international aviation," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 8(6), pages 365-372.
    17. Revesz, Richard & Stavins, Robert, 2004. "Environmental Law and Policy," Working Paper Series rwp04-023, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    18. Daigneault, Adam & Greenhalgh, Suzie & Samarasinghe, Oshadhi, 2017. "Equitably slicing the pie: Water policy and allocation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 449-459.
    19. Juan-Pablo Montero, 2005. "Pollution Markets with Imperfectly Observed Emissions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(3), pages 645-660, Autumn.
    20. Robert N. Stavins, 2020. "The Future of US Carbon-Pricing Policy," Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 8-64.

    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:taf:tcpoxx:v:3:y:2003:i:3:p:261-278. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tcpo20 .

    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.