IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/331324.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Assessing the role of CDM and JI for the European climate strategy and the European Emissions Trading Scheme

Author

Listed:
  • Klepper, Gernot
  • Peterson, Sonja

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to assess the likely allocation effects of the current climate protection strategy as it is laid out in the National Allocation Plans (NAPs) for the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The multi-regional, multi-sectoral CGE-model DART is used to simulate the effects of the current policies in the year 2012 when the Kyoto targets need to be met. Different scenarios are simulated in order to highlight the effects of the grandfathering of permits to energy-intensive installations, the use of the project-based mechanisms (CDM and JI), and the restriction imposed by the supplementarity criterion.

Suggested Citation

  • Klepper, Gernot & Peterson, Sonja, 2005. "Assessing the role of CDM and JI for the European climate strategy and the European Emissions Trading Scheme," Conference papers 331324, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:331324
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/331324/files/1814.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey A. Frankel & Andrew K. Rose, 2005. "Is Trade Good or Bad for the Environment? Sorting Out the Causality," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(1), pages 85-91, February.
    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. Löschel, Andreas & Pothen, Frank & Schymura, Michael, 2015. "Peeling the onion: Analyzing aggregate, national and sectoral energy intensity in the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(S1), pages 63-75.
    2. Nicole A. MATHYS & Jaime DE MELO, 2010. "Trade and Climate Change: The Challenges Ahead," Working Papers P14, FERDI.
    3. Yuping Deng & Helian Xu, 2015. "International Direct Investment and Transboundary Pollution: An Empirical Analysis of Complex Networks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-25, April.
    4. Sinha, Avik & Shahbaz, Muhammad, 2018. "Estimation of Environmental Kuznets Curve for CO2 emission: Role of renewable energy generation in India," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 703-711.
    5. Daniel Fiorino, 2011. "Explaining national environmental performance: approaches, evidence, and implications," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(4), pages 367-389, November.
    6. Gani, Azmat & Scrimgeour, Frank, 2014. "Modeling governance and water pollution using the institutional ecological economic framework," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 363-372.
    7. Cui, Jingbo & Lapan, Harvey E. & Moschini, GianCarlo, 2012. "Are exporters more environmentally friendly than non-exporters? Theory and evidence," ISU General Staff Papers 201210040700001076, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Yiping Sun & Xiangyi Li & Tengyuan Zhang & Jiawei Fu, 2022. "Does Trade Policy Uncertainty Exacerbate Environmental Pollution?—Evidence from Chinese Cities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-21, February.
    9. Tang, John P., 2015. "Pollution havens and the trade in toxic chemicals: Evidence from U.S. trade flows," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 150-160.
    10. Ashim Kumar Kar, 2023. "Pollution and income: Looking into the environmental Kuznets curve in south Asian countries," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 43(4), pages 1680-1697.
    11. Qiang Li & Lian An & Jing Xu & Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, 2018. "Corruption costs lives: evidence from a cross-country study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(1), pages 153-165, January.
    12. Ajayi, Patricia & Ogunrinola, Adedeji, 2020. "Growth, Trade Openness and Environmental Degradation in Nigeria," MPRA Paper 100713, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Shahbaz, Muhammad & Nasreen, Samia & Ahmed, Khalid & Hammoudeh, Shawkat, 2017. "Trade openness–carbon emissions nexus: The importance of turning points of trade openness for country panels," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 221-232.
    14. Roy, Jayjit, 2017. "On the environmental consequences of intra-industry trade," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 50-67.
    15. Elif Akbostancı & G. Ipek Tunc & Serap Turut-Asık, 2008. "Environmental impact of customs union agreement with EU on Turkey's trade in manufacturing industry," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(17), pages 2295-2304.
    16. Natalia Zugravu-Soilita, 2019. "Trade in Environmental Goods and Air Pollution: A Mediation Analysis to Estimate Total, Direct and Indirect Effects," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(3), pages 1125-1162, November.
    17. Subhayu Bandyopadhyay & Sumon Bhaumik & Howard J. Wall, 2013. "Biofuel Subsidies and International Trade," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(2), pages 181-199, July.
    18. Ulltveit-Moe, Karen Helene & Forslid, Rikard & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2011. "Why are firms that export cleaner? International trade and CO2 emissions," CEPR Discussion Papers 8583, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Dang, Hai-Anh H. & Trinh, Trong-Anh, 2020. "Does the COVID-19 Pandemic Improve Global Air Quality? New Cross-national Evidence on Its Unintended Consequences," GLO Discussion Paper Series 606, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    20. Christopher R. Knittel & Konstantinos Metaxoglou & Anson Soderbery & André Trindade, 2022. "Exporting global warming? Coal trade and the shale gas boom," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1294-1333, August.

    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:331324. 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.