Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T07:30:10.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tradable emission quotas, technical progress and climate change*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

I.G. Bertram
I.G. Bertram
Affiliation:
Faculty of Commerce and Administration, Victorian University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper reviews two alternative rules for allocation of property rights in a global greenhouse-gas emissions budget, assuming implementation of a tradablequota arrangement. These are the per capita rule and no-regrets-for-the-South (NRFTS) rule. The operation of a quota market under these alternative regimes is simulated on a spreadsheet, using 1990–1 data from 125 countries. A significant result is that once the South has secured a quota allocation based on the per capita principle, it stands collectively to lose from progress in abatement technology because of the strong link from technical progress to the world market price of quota. The more restricted NRFTS rule gives the South smaller gains from the quota system, but enables it to retain some of the rents from its own technical progress. Some implications for the South's position in future negotiations are noted.

Type
Policy Options
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 1 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 465 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © 1996, Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrett, S. (1992), ‘“Acceptable” allocations of tradeable carbon emissions entitlements in a global warming treaty’, in United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Combating Global Warming: Study on a Global System of Tradeable Carbon Emission Entitlements, New York: United Nations, ch. 6.Google Scholar
Barro, R.J. and Sala-i-Martin, X. (1995), Economic Growth, New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bertram, G. (1992a), ‘Latin America in a World Greenhouse Convention’, Victoria Economic Commentaries 9(2): 27–34.Google Scholar
Bertram, G. (1992b), ‘Tradeable emission permits and the control of greenhouse gases’, Journal of Development Studies 28(3): 423–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, P. (1992), ‘Distributional implications of allowing international trade in CO2 emission quotas’, The World Economy 15(1): 107–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, A. and Hoeller, P. (1992), ‘Costs of reducing CO2 emissions: evidence from six global models’, OECD Economic Studies 19, OECD Paris.Google Scholar
Edmonds, J.A., Barnes, D.W. and Ton, M. (1993), ‘Carbon coalitions—the cost and effectiveness of energy agreement to alter trajectories of atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions’, mimeo. Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Grubb, M. (1989), The Greenhouse Effect: Negotiating Targets. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
Grubb, M., Edmonds, J., Brink, P. Ten and Morrison, M. (1993), ‘The costs of limiting fossil-fuel CO2 emissions: a survey and analysis’, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 18: 397–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hourcade, J.C., Halsnaes, K., Jaccard, M., Montgomery, D., Richels, R., Robinson, J., Shukla, P.R. and Sturm, P. (1996), ‘A review of mitigation cost studies’, in IPCC, Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change— Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kosobud, R.F., Daly, T.A., South, D.W. and Quinn, K.G. (1994), ‘Tradable cumulative CO2 permits and global warming control’, The Energy Journal 15(2): 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, B. and Shah, A. (1994), ‘Global tradeable carbon permits, participation incentives and transfers’, Oxford Economic Papers 46: 841–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pindyck, R. and Dixit, A. (1994), Investment Under Uncertainty, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sandler, T. and Sargent, K. (1995), ‘Management of transnational commons: coordination, publicness, and treaty formation’, Land Economics 71(2): 145–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, J.A. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, P.N. (1994), ‘On the optimum trend of fossil fuel taxation’, Oxford Economic Papers 46: 869–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavins, R.N. (1995), ‘Transaction costs and tradeable permits’, Journal of Environment Economics and Management 29(2): 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulph, A. and Ulph, D. (1994), ‘The optimal time path of a carbon tax’, Oxford Economic Papers 46: 857–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Resources Institute (1994), World Resources 1994–95, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar