IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/not/notecp/06-10.html

Permit Trading and Credit Trading: A Comparison of Cap-Based and Rate-Based Emissions Trading under Perfect and Imperfect Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Jan-Tjeerd Boom
  • Bouwe R. Dijkstra

Abstract

This paper compares emissions trading based on a cap on total emissions (permit trading) and on relative standards per unit of output (credit trading). Two types of market structure are considered: perfect competition and Cournot oligopoly. The e?ect of combining the two schemes is also discussed. We ?nd that output and abatement costs are higher under credit trading. Combining the two schemes may give an increase in welfare. With perfect competition, permit trading always leads to higher welfare than credit trading. With imperfect competition, credit trading may out perform permit trading. Environmental policy can lead to both entry and exit of ?rms. Entry and exit have a profound impact on the performance of the schemes, especially under imperfect competition. We ?nd that it may be impossible to implement certain levels of total industry emissions. Under credit trading several levels of the relative standard can achieve the same total level of emissions.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan-Tjeerd Boom & Bouwe R. Dijkstra, 2006. "Permit Trading and Credit Trading: A Comparison of Cap-Based and Rate-Based Emissions Trading under Perfect and Imperfect Competition," Discussion Papers 06/10, University of Nottingham, School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:not:notecp:06/10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/documents/discussion-papers/06-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alfred Endres & Tim Friehe, 2013. "The monopolistic polluter under environmental liability law: incentives for abatement and R&D," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 40(3), pages 753-770, March.
    2. Kato, Shinya & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2017. "A CGE analysis of a rate-based policy for climate change mitigation," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 88-95.
    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. 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.
    5. Bouwe R. Dijkstra & Maria J. Gil‐Moltó, 2018. "Is emission intensity or output U‐shaped in the strictness of environmental policy?," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(2), pages 177-201, April.
    6. Dijkstra, Bouwe R. & Rübbelke, Dirk T.G., 2013. "Group rewards and individual sanctions in environmental policy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(1), pages 38-59.
    7. Kim, Yong-Gun & Lim, Jong-Soo, 2014. "An emissions trading scheme design for power industries facing price regulation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 84-90.
    8. Adriana Gama, 2020. "Standards and social welfare in Cournot oligopolies," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 22(3), pages 467-483, July.
    9. Sungwan Hong & Seung-Gyu Sim, 2018. "Inelastic Supply of Fossil Energy and Competing Environmental Regulatory Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-17, January.
    10. 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.
    11. Geng, Wenxin & Fan, Ying, 2022. "An imperfectly competitive permit market under a rate-based scheme," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    12. Yihsu Chen & Makoto Tanaka & Afzal S. Siddiqui, 2018. "Market Power with Tradable Performance-Based CO2 Emission Standards in the Electricity Sector," The Energy Journal, , vol. 39(6), pages 121-146, November.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • H23 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Externalities; Redistributive Effects; Environmental Taxes and Subsidies
    • H3 - Public Economics - - Fiscal Policies and Behavior of Economic Agents
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
    • Q52 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Pollution Control Adoption and Costs; Distributional Effects; Employment Effects
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    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:not:notecp:06/10. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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/denotuk.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.