IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/zbw/zewco2/109796.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

KfW/ZEW CO2 Barometer 2012: Anreizwirkung des EU-Emissionshandels auf Unternehmen gering – Klimapolitische Regulierung wenig relevant für Standortentscheidungen

Author

Listed:
  • Brockmann, Karl Ludwig
  • Heindl, Peter
  • Löschel, Andreas
  • Lutz, Benjamin
  • Schumacher, Jan

Abstract

Im Rahmen eines Kooperationsprojekts mit der KfW Bankengruppe führt das Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung GmbH (ZEW) seit 2009 jährlich eine Befragung unter allen regulierten deutschen Unternehmen und zahlreichen internationalen Marktexperten des EU Emissionshandelssystems durch. Der Zweck der Datenerhebung ist die Analyse des Marktes für Emissionszertifikate und seiner Entwicklung. Die Ergebnisse werden in einem jährlichen, breit angelegten Marktreport, dem KfW/ZEW CO2-Barometer publiziert. Darüber hinaus gibt es eine Kurzveröffentlichung auf halbjährlicher Basis, die über aktuelle CO2-Barometer Entwicklungen auf dem Markt berichtet. Das Wichtigste in Kürze: Europäisches Emissionshandelssystem (EU-EHS) setzt nur sehr geringe Anreize zur CO2-Vermeidung. Kosten des Emissionshandels haben bislang kaum Einfluss auf die Standortplanungen der Unternehmen. Möglichkeiten einer strengeren Ausgestaltung des Emissionshandels sollten geprüft werden.

Suggested Citation

  • Brockmann, Karl Ludwig & Heindl, Peter & Löschel, Andreas & Lutz, Benjamin & Schumacher, Jan, 2012. "KfW/ZEW CO2 Barometer 2012: Anreizwirkung des EU-Emissionshandels auf Unternehmen gering – Klimapolitische Regulierung wenig relevant für Standortentscheidungen," KfW/ZEW-CO2-Barometer, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 109796.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewco2:109796
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/109796/1/CO2-Barometer-2012.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Adam B. Jaffe & Karen Palmer, 1997. "Environmental Regulation And Innovation: A Panel Data Study," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(4), pages 610-619, November.
    2. Rogge, Karoline S. & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2010. "The impact of the EU ETS on the sectoral innovation system for power generation technologies - Findings for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(12), pages 7639-7652, December.
    3. Heindl, Peter & Lutz, Benjamin, 2012. "Carbon management: Evidence from case studies of German firms under the EU ETS," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-079, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    4. Downing, Paul B. & White, Lawrence J., 1986. "Innovation in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 18-29, March.
    5. Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney & Karen Palmer & Wallace E. Oates & Paul R. Portney, 2004. "Tightening Environmental Standards: The Benefit-Cost or the No-Cost Paradigm?," Chapters, in: Environmental Policy and Fiscal Federalism, chapter 3, pages 53-66, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. David Popp, 2006. "Exploring Links Between Innovation and Diffusion: Adoption of NOx Control Technologies at U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants," NBER Working Papers 12119, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Hoffmann, Volker H., 2007. "EU ETS and Investment Decisions:: The Case of the German Electricity Industry," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 464-474, December.
    8. Rogge, Karoline S. & Schneider, Malte & Hoffmann, Volker H., 2011. "The innovation impact of the EU Emission Trading System -- Findings of company case studies in the German power sector," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 513-523, January.
    9. Heindl, Peter, 2012. "Transaction costs and tradable permits: Empirical evidence from the EU emissions trading scheme," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-021, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    10. Milliman, Scott R. & Prince, Raymond, 1989. "Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 247-265, November.
    11. Dylan Rassier & Dietrich Earnhart, 2010. "Does the Porter Hypothesis Explain Expected Future Financial Performance? The Effect of Clean Water Regulation on Chemical Manufacturing Firms," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 353-377, March.
    12. Rexhäuser, Sascha & Rammer, Christian, 2011. "Unmasking the Porter hypothesis: Environmental innovations and firm-profitability," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-036, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    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. Treude, Sibylle & Hülsemann, Dominic & Liemersdorf, Elisa & Raucher, Caroline & Seul, Jennifer, 2021. "Unternehmenspolitische Implikationen des Emissionshandels im Rahmen der EU-Klimapolitik," Wissenschaftliche Schriften des Fachbereichs Wirtschaftswissenschaften 33-2021, Hochschule Koblenz - University of Applied Sciences, Fachbereich Wirtschaftswissenschaften.
    2. Heindl, Peter, 2012. "Financial intermediaries and emissions trading market development and pricing strategies," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-064, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    3. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. Raphael Calel, 2020. "Adopt or Innovate: Understanding Technological Responses to Cap-and-Trade," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 170-201, August.
    3. repec:diw:diwwpp:dp1318 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. 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.
    5. Borghesi, Simone & Cainelli, Giulio & Mazzanti, Massimiliano, 2015. "Linking emission trading to environmental innovation: Evidence from the Italian manufacturing industry," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 669-683.
    6. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    7. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    8. Heindl, Peter & Lutz, Benjamin, 2012. "Carbon management: Evidence from case studies of German firms under the EU ETS," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-079, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    9. Vanessa OLTRA & Maïder SAINT JEAN, 2009. "Environmental Innovations and Industrial Dynamics (In French)," Cahiers du GREThA (2007-2019) 2009-22, Groupe de Recherche en Economie Théorique et Appliquée (GREThA).
    10. Bel, Germà & Joseph, Stephan, 2018. "Policy stringency under the European Union Emission trading system and its impact on technological change in the energy sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 434-444.
    11. Shi, Beibei & Feng, Chen & Qiu, Meng & Ekeland, Anders, 2018. "Innovation suppression and migration effect: The unintentional consequences of environmental regulation," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 1-23.
    12. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Popp, David & Newell, Richard G. & Jaffe, Adam B., 2010. "Energy, the Environment, and Technological Change," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 873-937, Elsevier.
    14. Adam B. Jaffe & Richard G. Newell & Robert N. Stavins, 2004. "Technology Policy for Energy and the Environment," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 4, pages 35-68, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Yao, Shiyue & Yu, Xueying & Yan, Sen & Wen, Shiyan, 2021. "Heterogeneous emission trading schemes and green innovation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    16. Thomas Ziesemer & Peter Michaelis, 2008. "Strategic Environmental Policy and the Accumulation of Knowledge," Discussion Paper Series 301, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
    17. Germà Bel & Stephan Joseph, 2015. "“Certificate Oversupply in the European Union Emission Trading System and its Impact on Technological Change”," IREA Working Papers 201520, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Sep 2015.
    18. Ren, Shenggang & Hu, Yucai & Zheng, Jingjing & Wang, Yangjie, 2020. "Emissions trading and firm innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Alessandra Colombelli & Jackie Krafft & Francesco Quatraro, 2015. "Eco-innovation and Firm Growth: Do Green Gazelles Run Faster? Microeconometric Evidence from a Sample of European Firms. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 88," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 57897.
    20. Yasushi Ito, 2012. "The effects of carbon/energy taxes on R&D expenditure in Sweden," Chapters, in: Larry Kreiser & Ana Yábar Sterling & Pedro Herrera & Janet E. Milne & Hope Ashiabor (ed.), Carbon Pricing, Growth and the Environment, chapter 14, pages 220-229, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    21. 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.

    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:zbw:zewco2:109796. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.html .

    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.