IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331190.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Modeling the European Directive Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Allowance Trading and Assessing the Market Power of Firms

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard, Alain
  • Vielle, Marc
  • Viguier, Laurent

Abstract

It has long been acknowledged that market mechanisms may decrease the welfare cost of an environmental policy and, in the case of the Kyoto Protocol, three instruments have been designed, Tradable Permits (TP), Joint Implementation (JI) and Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). European Union long-standing position has been to claim that these flexibility mechanisms may only be supplemental to domestic action, but at the same time to favor trade between firms within Europe, especially among firms belonging to highly energy intensive sectors. This endeavor lead to the vote of a Directive (2003/87/CE) establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas allowance trading. Trading is limited, at least in a first stage, to some industrial sectors, precisely defined in the Directive. Two important features characterize the Directive: on the one hand, the almost free of charge allocation of allowances to firms (only 5% may be sold or auctioned) and on the other hand the responsibility given to each Government to determine the total amount of domestic allowances and to allocate them among sectors and among firms. This scheme appears to favor the electric generation sector and particularly the German utilities, which are the biggest emitters of GES in Europe. Using a simple representation of the market of tradable allowances calibrated on a General Equilibrium Model (GEMINI-E3), the topic of the paper is to assess the working of the trading scheme, its likely inefficiencies and the possible market power given by Governments to domestic firms. The main results are twofold: on the one hand, it can be demonstrated that, though it is partial (i. e. concerns only a limited set of sectors), the trading scheme can be as efficient as a generalized European market of permits provided that each country allocate the right quantity of quotas to the firms belonging to the trading sector and that the latter behave competitively; on the other hand, there is a real market power of German firms, which of course depends on the quantity of quotas allocated to them by the Government. But purchasing countries, mainly Italy and The Netherlands, also have the possibility to restrict demand and exert a symmetric market power. The welfare cost of non–cooperative strategies is assessed and shown to be of a very limited magnitude, compared to the gain accruing from the Union-wide trade of emission permits that the European Directive makes possible.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard, Alain & Vielle, Marc & Viguier, Laurent, 2004. "Modeling the European Directive Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Allowance Trading and Assessing the Market Power of Firms," Conference papers 331190, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331190
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331190/files/1670.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aaditya Mattoo & Devesh Roy & Arvind Subramanian, 2003. "The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and its Rules of Origin: Generosity Undermined?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 829-851, June.
    2. Kenneth A. Reinert, 2000. "Give Us Virtue, But Not Yet: Safegaurd Actions Under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 25-55, January.
    3. Xinshen Diao & Agapi Somwaru, 2002. "A Global Perspective of Liberalizing World Textile and Apparel Trade," Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 28, pages 127-145.
    4. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    5. Kathuria, Sanjay & Bhardwaj, Anjali, 1998. "Export quotas and policy constraints in the Indian textile and garment industries," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2012, The World Bank.
    6. Sung Jae Kim & Kenneth A. Reinert & G. Chris Rodrigo, 2002. "The Agreement on Textiles and Clothing: Safeguard Actions from 1995 to 2001," Journal of International Economic Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 445-468, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. McCorriston, Steve & MacLaren, Donald, 2005. "Market Access and the Reform of State Trading Enterprises," Conference papers 331330, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    2. Harrison, Jill W. & Horridge, J. Mark & Pearson, Ken, 2005. "Using GEMPACK Subroutines in your Fortran Programs," Conference papers 331348, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    3. Aziz ELBEHRI, 2010. "MFA Quota Removal and Global Textile and Cotton Trade: Estimating Quota Trade Restrictiveness and Quantifying Post-MFA Trade Patterns," EcoMod2004 330600048, EcoMod.
    4. Walmsley, Terrie L. & Hertel, Thomas W. & Ianchovichina, Elena, 2001. "Assessing the Impact of China’s WTO Accession on Foreign Ownership," Conference papers 330941, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    5. Aaditya Mattoo & Devesh Roy & Arvind Subramanian, 2003. "The Africa Growth and Opportunity Act and its Rules of Origin: Generosity Undermined?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(6), pages 829-851, June.
    6. Meenu Tewari, 2005. "The Role of Price and Cost Competitiveness in Apparel Exports, Post-MFA: A Review," Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi Working Papers 173, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, New Delhi, India.
    7. Rivera, Sandra A. & Tsigas, Marinos E., 2005. "How does China’s growth affect India? An Economywide Analysis," Conference papers 331359, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    8. Simon J.Evenett & Mia Mikic & Ravi Ratnayake (ed.), 2011. "Trade-led growth: A sound strategy for Asia," ARTNeT Books and Research Reports, United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), number brr10.
    9. Eromenko, Igor, 2010. "Accession to the WTO. Computable General Equilibrium Analysis: the Case of Ukraine. Part I," MPRA Paper 67476, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Ianchovichina, Elena, 2004. "Trade policy analysis in the presence of duty drawbacks," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 353-371, April.
    11. Ivanic, Maros & Martin, Will, 2010. "Promoting Global Agricultural Growth and Poverty Reduction," Conference papers 331944, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    12. Ronald D. Sands & Katja Schumacher & Hannah Forster, 2014. "U.S. CO2 Mitigation in a Global Context: Welfare, Trade and Land Use," The Energy Journal, , vol. 35(1_suppl), pages 181-198, June.
    13. Sergey Paltsev & John Reilly, 2007. "Long-Term Energy Scenarios for Asia," Energy and Environmental Modeling 2007 24000047, EcoMod.
    14. Pierre Boulanger & Hasan Dudu & Emanuele Ferrari & George Philippidis, 2016. "Russian Roulette at the Trade Table: A Specific Factors CGE Analysis of an Agri-food Import Ban," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 272-291, June.
    15. Gruere, Guillaume P. & Mevel, Simon & Bouet, Antoine, 2007. "Genetically Modified Rice, International Trade, and First-Mover Advantage: The Case of India and China," 2007: China's Agricultural Trade: Issues and Prospects Symposium, July 2007, Beijing, China 55032, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
    16. Keck, Alexander & Low, Patrick, 2004. "Special and differential treatment in the WTO: Why, when and how?," WTO Staff Working Papers ERSD-2004-03, World Trade Organization (WTO), Economic Research and Statistics Division.
    17. Peterson, Everett B., 2004. "A Comparison of Marketing Margins Across Sectors, Users, and Regions," Conference papers 331224, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    18. Jiang, Tingsong, 2003. "The Impact of China's WTO Accession on its Regional Economies," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 11.
    19. Knut Einar Rosendahl & Jon Strand, 2011. "Carbon Leakage from the Clean Development Mechanism," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 27-50.
    20. Henseler, Martin & Piot-Lepetit, Isabelle & Ferrari, Emanuele & Mellado, Aida Gonzalez & Banse, Martin & Grethe, Harald & Parisi, Claudia & Hélaine, Sophie, 2013. "On the asynchronous approvals of GM crops: Potential market impacts of a trade disruption of EU soy imports," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 166-176.

    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:ags:pugtwp:331190. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.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.