IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sdk/wpaper/42.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Hot Air as an Implicit Side Payment Arrangement: Could a Hot Air Provision have Saved the Kyoto-Agreement?

Author

Listed:
  • Urs Steiner Brandt

    (Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark)

  • Gert Tinggaard Svendsen

    (Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to analyse whether the presence of Hot Air trading jeopardizes the environmental target of an international environmental agree-ment. We argue that Hot Air can be used as an implicit side-payment mecha-nism to actually bring about higher environmental protection compared to the situation without the trade option. We point to the existence of a fundamental trade-off between costs of compliance and the creation of dynamic incentives to develop cheaper reduction technologies. Implicit side-payments, in terms of Hot Air provision, may be needed in order to establish a compromise between these opposing demands. We identify the shortcomings and benefits of allowing fully flexible permit trading including the allocation rule of grandfathering.

Suggested Citation

  • Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2003. "Hot Air as an Implicit Side Payment Arrangement: Could a Hot Air Provision have Saved the Kyoto-Agreement?," Working Papers 42/03, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:sdk:wpaper:42
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sdu.dk/~/media/Files/Om_SDU/Institutter/Miljo/ime/wp/brandt42.ashx
    File Function: First version, 2003-07
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Springer, Urs, 2003. "The market for tradable GHG permits under the Kyoto Protocol: a survey of model studies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 527-551, September.
    3. Gert T. Svendsen, 2003. "The Political Economy of the European Union," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2621.
    4. Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2001. "Hot air in Kyoto, cold air in The Hague," Working Papers 22/01, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    5. Gusbin, Dominique & Klaassen, Ger & Kouvaritakis, Nikos, 1999. "Costs of a ceiling on Kyoto flexibility," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(14), pages 833-844, December.
    6. Scott Barret, 1998. "On the Theory and Diplomacy of Environmental Treaty-Making," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 11(3), pages 317-333, April.
    7. Stavins, Robert N., 2001. "Lessons From the American Experiment With Market-Based Environmental Policies," Discussion Papers 10589, Resources for the Future.
    8. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2002. "Hot air in Kyoto, cold air in The Hague--the failure of global climate negotiations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(13), pages 1191-1199, October.
    9. Joachim Schleich & Wolfgang Eichhammer & Ulla Boede & Frank Gagelmann & Eberhard Jochem & Barbara Schlomann & Hans-Joachim Ziesing, 2001. "Greenhouse gas reductions in Germany-lucky strike or hard work?," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(3), pages 363-380, September.
    10. Barrett, Scott, 1997. "The strategy of trade sanctions in international environmental agreements," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 345-361, November.
    11. Ger Klaassen, 1996. "Acid Rain and Environmental Degradation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 1165.
    12. Grubler, Arnulf & Nakicenovic, Nebojsa & Victor, David G., 1999. "Dynamics of energy technologies and global change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 247-280, May.
    13. Barrett, Scott, 1998. "Political Economy of the Kyoto Protocol," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 14(4), pages 20-39, Winter.
    14. Chen, Wenying, 2003. "Carbon quota price and CDM potentials after Marrakesh," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 709-719, June.
    15. Carraro, Carlo & Siniscalco, Domenico, 1992. "The international dimension of environmental policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(2-3), pages 379-387, April.
    16. Carsten Daugbjerg & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2001. "Green Taxation in Question," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-59553-8, March.
    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. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2006. "Climate change negotiations and first-mover advantages: the case of the wind turbine industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1175-1184, July.
    2. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2004. "Switch Point and First-Mover Advantage: The Case of the Wind Turbine Industry," Working Papers 04-2, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.

    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. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2006. "Climate change negotiations and first-mover advantages: the case of the wind turbine industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 1175-1184, July.
    2. Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2003. "Fighting windmills? EU industrial interests and global climate negotiations," Working Papers 37/03, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    3. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2002. "Hot air in Kyoto, cold air in The Hague--the failure of global climate negotiations," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(13), pages 1191-1199, October.
    4. Urs Steiner Brandt & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2004. "Rent-Seeking and Grandfathering: The Case of GHG Trade in the Eu," Energy & Environment, , vol. 15(1), pages 69-80, January.
    5. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2004. "Switch Point and First-Mover Advantage: The Case of the Wind Turbine Industry," Working Papers 04-2, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    6. David M. McEvoy & John K. Stranlund, 2006. "Enforcing ‘Self-Enforcing’ International Environmental Agreements," Working Papers 2006-6, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Resource Economics.
    7. Morten Vesterdal & Gert Tinggaard Svendsen, 2003. "EU Emission Trading: Starting with Carbon Dioxide," Energy & Environment, , vol. 14(4), pages 397-406, July.
    8. Flachsland, Christian & Marschinski, Robert & Edenhofer, Ottmar, 2009. "Global trading versus linking: Architectures for international emissions trading," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 1637-1647, May.
    9. Brandt, Urs Steiner & Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard, 2003. "The coalition of industrialists and environmentalists in the climate change issue," Working Papers 03-18, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    10. Jean-Christophe Pereau & Tarik Tazdait, 2001. "Co-operation and Unilateral Commitment in the Presence of Global Environmental Problems," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 20(3), pages 225-239, November.
    11. Klaassen, Ger & Nentjes, Andries & Smith, Mark, 2005. "Testing the theory of emissions trading: Experimental evidence on alternative mechanisms for global carbon trading," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 47-58, April.
    12. Kai A. Konrad & Marcel Thum, 2018. "Does a Clean Development Mechanism Facilitate International Environmental Agreements?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(4), pages 837-851, April.
    13. Gullberg, Anne Therese, 2008. "Lobbying friends and foes in climate policy: The case of business and environmental interest groups in the European Union," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(8), pages 2954-2962, August.
    14. Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard & Vesterdal, Morten, 2003. "How to design greenhouse gas trading in the EU?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 1531-1539, November.
    15. Dagoumas, A.S. & Papagiannis, G.K. & Dokopoulos, P.S., 2006. "An economic assessment of the Kyoto Protocol application," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 26-39, January.
    16. Morten Søberg, 2000. "Price Expectations and International Quota Trading: An Experimental Evaluation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 17(3), pages 259-277, November.
    17. Claudia Kemfert & Wietze Lise & Richard Tol, 2004. "Games of Climate Change with International Trade," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 28(2), pages 209-232, June.
    18. Scott Barrett & Robert Stavins, 2003. "Increasing Participation and Compliance in International Climate Change Agreements," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(4), pages 349-376, December.
    19. Jørgen Juel Andersen & Mads Greaker, 2018. "Emission Trading with Fiscal Externalities: The Case for a Common Carbon Tax for the Non-ETS Emissions in the EU," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(3), pages 803-823, November.
    20. Springer, Urs, 2003. "The market for tradable GHG permits under the Kyoto Protocol: a survey of model studies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 527-551, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Hot Air; Global GHG trade; Kyoto protocol; Grandfathering; Cost issue; EU; US;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy
    • H2 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue
    • H4 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods

    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:sdk:wpaper:42. 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: Ulla H. Oehlenschläger (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iehhsdk.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.