IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/osloec/2006_019.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Clean development mechanism (CDM) vs. international permit trading – the impact on technological change

Author

Listed:
  • Hagem, Cathrine

    (Dept. of Economics, University of Oslo)

Abstract

The clean development mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol may induce a technological change in developing countries. As an alternative to the CDM-regime, developing countries may accept a (generous) cap on their own emissions, let domestic producers invest in new efficient technologies, and sell the excess emission permits on the international permit market (cap&trade-regime). The purpose of this paper is to show how the gains from investment, and hence the incentive for investment in new technology may deviate between the two alternative regimes. We show that the difference in gains from investment depends on whether the producers face competitive or non-competitive output markets, whether the investment affects fixed or variable production costs and whether the producers can reduce emissions through other means than investment in new technology

Suggested Citation

  • Hagem, Cathrine, 2006. "Clean development mechanism (CDM) vs. international permit trading – the impact on technological change," Memorandum 19/2006, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:osloec:2006_019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sv.uio.no/econ/english/research/unpublished-works/working-papers/pdf-files/2006/Memo-19-2006.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steffen Kallbekken & Hege Westskog, 2005. "Should Developing Countries Take on Binding Commitments in a Climate Agreement? An Assessment of Gains and Uncertainty," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3), pages 41-60.
    2. Requate, Till, 1998. "Incentives to innovate under emission taxes and tradeable permits," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 139-165, February.
    3. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
    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. Wang, Bo, 2010. "Can CDM bring technology transfer to China?--An empirical study of technology transfer in China's CDM projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 2572-2585, May.

    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. Hagem, Cathrine, 2009. "The clean development mechanism versus international permit trading: The effect on technological change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-12, January.
    2. Arguedas, Carmen & van Soest, Daan P., 2009. "On reducing the windfall profits in environmental subsidy programs," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 192-205, September.
    3. Frondel, Manuel & Horbach, Jens & Rennings, Klaus, 2008. "What triggers environmental management and innovation? Empirical evidence for Germany," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 153-160, May.
    4. Mehdi Fadaee & Luca Lambertini, 2015. "Non-tradeable pollution permits as green R&D incentives," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 17(1), pages 27-42, January.
    5. Liu, Yang & Han, Liyan & Yin, Ziqiao & Luo, Kongyi, 2017. "A competitive carbon emissions scheme with hybrid fiscal incentives: The evidence from a taxi industry," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 414-422.
    6. repec:zbw:rwidps:0015 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Manuel Frondel & Jens Horbach & Klaus Rennings, 2004. "What Triggers Environmental Management and Innovation? – Empirical Evidence for Germany," RWI Discussion Papers 0015, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.
    8. Zhangsheng Liu & Liuqingqing Yang & Liqin Fan, 2021. "Induced Effect of Environmental Regulation on Green Innovation: Evidence from the Increasing-Block Pricing Scheme," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-15, March.
    9. Halvor Briseid Storrøsten, 2012. "Prices vs. quantities: Technology choice, uncertainty and welfare," Discussion Papers 677, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    10. Zhang, Hui & Cao, Libin & Zhang, Bing, 2017. "Emissions trading and technology adoption: An adaptive agent-based analysis of thermal power plants in China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 23-32.
    11. Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2017. "The Strong Porter Hypothesis in an Endogenous Growth Model with Satisficing Managers," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2641-2654.
    12. Karp, Larry S., 2008. "Correct (and misleading) argument for using market-based pollution control policies," 2008 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2008, Orlando, Florida 6030, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    13. Durán-Romero, Gemma & López, Ana M. & Beliaeva, Tatiana & Ferasso, Marcos & Garonne, Christophe & Jones, Paul, 2020. "Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    14. Ren, Shenggang & Hu, Yucai & Zheng, Jingjing & Wang, Yangjie, 2020. "Emissions trading and firm innovation: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    15. Perino, Grischa & Requate, Till, 2012. "Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 456-467.
    16. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    17. Giovanni Marin & Francesca Lotti, 2017. "Productivity effects of eco-innovations using data on eco-patents," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 26(1), pages 125-148.
    18. Johan Lilliestam & Anthony Patt & Germán Bersalli, 2022. "On the quality of emission reductions: observed effects of carbon pricing on investments, innovation, and operational shifts. A response to van den Bergh and Savin (2021)," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 733-758, November.
    19. Staffan Waldo & Anton Paulrud, 2017. "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Fisheries: The Case of Multiple Regulatory Instruments in Sweden," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(2), pages 275-295, October.
    20. Axel Dreher, 2002. "Does Globalization Affect Growth?," Development and Comp Systems 0210004, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 16 Jun 2003.
    21. Shum, Kwok L. & Watanabe, Chihiro, 2010. "Network externality perspective of feed-in-tariffs (FIT) instruments--Some observations and suggestions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(7), pages 3266-3269, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Climate Policy; Technology Adoption; Emission Trading; Clean Development Mechanism; Technological Change;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • Q28 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:osloec:2006_019. 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: Mari Strønstad Øverås (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/souiono.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.