IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mcm/deptwp/1999-13.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Emissions trading without a quantity constraint

Author

Listed:
  • R. Andrew Muller

Abstract

This paper examines the differences between standard “cap-and-trade” emissions trading plans and “credit” plans in which individual agents create credits by reducing emissions below a firmspecific baseline. The two are equivalent if the baseline is a fixed quantity, but not if the baseline is specified as a baseline emissions ratio times current output. In the latter case there is no exogenous constraint on aggregate emissions. It may be called the case of “(ratio-based) credit trading”. Examples include the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto Protocol and the Canadian Pilot Emissions Reduction Trading plan (PERT). Unlike the case of cap-and-trade, the theoretical properties of ratio-based credit trading plans are not well known. In the absence of a binding quantity constraint, it is even difficult to understand how an ERC plan can generate a positive price. This paper studies the difference between ratiobased credit trading and conventional “cap-and-trade” plans in the context of a very simple model. It also considers how the two plans might interact if, for example, credits from a credit plan could be applied to commitments under a quantity-based cap-and-trade plan, and applies its findings to current plans for credit trading, including PERT and the clean development mechanism. The paper demonstrates that ratio-based credit trading is more like a tax instrument than a quantity instrument. It shows that there is no incentive to trade in a ratio-based market in which all firms receive baselines computed using their “business as ususal” emission ratios. Combining ratio-based credit trading with “cap-and-trade” allowance markets effectively relaxes the quantity constraint in the cap-and-trade plan and reduces the price of traded allowances. In the long run, there will be no effective constraint on emissions. The results have strong implications for current policy. In particular, they suggest that mixing quantity-based and ratio-based emission trading plans is inappropriate.

Suggested Citation

  • R. Andrew Muller, 1999. "Emissions trading without a quantity constraint," Department of Economics Working Papers 1999-13, McMaster University.
    • Handle: RePEc:mcm:deptwp:1999-13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://socserv.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/rsrch/papers/archive/99-13.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald N. Dewees, 2001. "Emissions Trading: ERCs or Allowances?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 513-526.
    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. Neil J. Buckley & Stuart Mestelman & R. Andrew Muller, 2014. "Production Capacity and Abatement Technology Strategies in Emissions Trading Markets," Department of Economics Working Papers 2014-16, McMaster University.
    2. Neil J. Buckley & R. Andrew Muller & Stuart Mestelman, 2005. "Baseline-and-Credit Emission Permit Trading: Experimental Evidence Under Variable Output Capacity," Department of Economics Working Papers 2005-03, McMaster University.
    3. Neil J. Buckley & R. Andrew Muller & Stuart Mestelman, 2004. "Cap-and-Trade versus Baseline-and-Credit Emission Trading Plans: Experimental Evidence Under Variable Output Capacity," McMaster Experimental Economics Laboratory Publications 2004-06, McMaster University.
    4. Neil J. Buckley & R. Andrew Muller & Stuart Mestelman, 2005. "Baseline-and-Credit Style Emission Trading Mechanisms: An Experimental Investigation of Economic Inefficiency," Department of Economics Working Papers 2005-04, McMaster University.

    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. Sterner, Thomas & Muller, Adrian, 2006. "Output and Abatement Effects of Allocation Readjustment in Permit Trade," RFF Working Paper Series dp-06-49, Resources for the Future.
    2. V. Oikonomou & C. Jepma, 2008. "A framework on interactions of climate and energy policy instruments," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 131-156, February.
    3. Woerdman Edwin & Nentjes Andries, 2019. "Emissions Trading Hybrids: The Case of the EU ETS," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 1-32, March.
    4. Woodward, Richard T., 2011. "Double-dipping in environmental markets," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 153-169, March.
    5. Woodward, Richard T. & Han, Manseung, 2004. "Double Dipping In Pollution Markets," 2004 Annual meeting, August 1-4, Denver, CO 20323, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    6. John Pezzey, 2003. "Emission Taxes and Tradeable Permits A Comparison of Views on Long-Run Efficiency," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 26(2), pages 329-342, October.
    7. Neil J. Buckley, 2004. "Short-Run Implications of Cap-and-Trade versus Baseline-and-Credit Emission Trading Plans: Experimental Evidence," Department of Economics Working Papers 2004-05, McMaster University.
    8. Neil J. Buckley & Stuart Mestelman & R. Andrew Muller, 2014. "Production Capacity and Abatement Technology Strategies in Emissions Trading Markets," Department of Economics Working Papers 2014-16, McMaster University.
    9. Zhong Wang & Mingyu Wu & Shixiang Li & Changji Wang, 2021. "The Effect Evaluation of China’s Energy-Consuming Right Trading Policy: Empirical Analysis Based on PSM-DID," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-16, October.
    10. Jan-Tjeerd Boom & Bouwe Dijkstra, 2009. "Permit Trading and Credit Trading: A Comparison of Cap-Based and Rate-Based Emissions Trading Under Perfect and Imperfect Competition," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(1), pages 107-136, September.
    11. Zhang, Cheng & Wang, Qunwei & Shi, Dan & Li, Pengfei & Cai, Wanhuan, 2016. "Scenario-based potential effects of carbon trading in China: An integrated approach," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C), pages 177-190.
    12. de, Vries Frans & Dijkstra, Bouwe R & McGinty, Matthew, 2011. "Emissions Trading and Intersectoral Dynamics: Absolute versus Relative Design Schemes," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2011-15, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    13. Neil J. Buckley & R. Andrew Muller & Stuart Mestelman, 2005. "Baseline-and-Credit Emission Permit Trading: Experimental Evidence Under Variable Output Capacity," Department of Economics Working Papers 2005-03, McMaster University.
    14. Bing Zhang & Yongliang Zhang, 2016. "Policy Conflicts and the Performance of Emissions Trading Markets: An Adaptive Agent-based Analysis," EEPSEA Research Report rr20160339, Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), revised Mar 2016.
    15. Evy Crals & Lode Vereeck, 2005. "Taxes, Tradable Rights and Transaction Costs," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 199-223, September.
    16. Donald N. Dewees, 2003. "Price and Environment in Electricity Restructuring," Working Papers dewees-01-01, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    17. Neil J. Buckley & R. Andrew Muller & Stuart Mestelman, 2004. "Cap-and-Trade versus Baseline-and-Credit Emission Trading Plans: Experimental Evidence Under Variable Output Capacity," McMaster Experimental Economics Laboratory Publications 2004-06, McMaster University.
    18. Neil J. Buckley & R. Andrew Muller & Stuart Mestelman, 2005. "Baseline-and-Credit Style Emission Trading Mechanisms: An Experimental Investigation of Economic Inefficiency," Department of Economics Working Papers 2005-04, McMaster University.
    19. Frans Vries & Bouwe Dijkstra & Matthew McGinty, 2014. "On Emissions Trading and Market Structure: Cap-and-Trade versus Intensity Standards," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 58(4), pages 665-682, August.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mcm:deptwp:1999-13. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/demcmca.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.