IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/sunrpe/2002_0011.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Comparing Permit Allocation Options: The Main Points

Author

Listed:
  • Bohm, Peter

    (Dept. of Economics, Stockholm University)

Abstract

In discussions about the policy design of domestic emission trading, e.g., when implementing the Kyoto Protocol, the two permit allocation alternatives ­ auctioning and allocation gratis (grandfathering) ­ are often pitted against each other as representing utopian cost-effectiveness and political realism, respectively. In this note, an attempt is made to extract the main points of a comparison between the two options with respect to efficiency and distribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Bohm, Peter, 2002. "Comparing Permit Allocation Options: The Main Points," Research Papers in Economics 2002:11, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:sunrpe:2002_0011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www2.ne.su.se/paper/wp02_11.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Svante Mandell, 2005. "The choice of multiple or single auctions in emissions trading," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 97-107, January.
    2. Tanja Markovič-Hribernik & Aleksandra Murks, 2007. "Slovenia's climate policy efforts: CO 2 tax and implementation of EU ETS," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 139-155, March.
    3. Bode, Sven, 2006. "Multi-period emissions trading in the electricity sector--winners and losers," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 680-691, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Domestic carbon emissions trading; permit allocation; grandfathering; auctioning; cost effectiveness; Kyoto protocol;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q25 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Water
    • 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:sunrpe:2002_0011. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Anne Jensen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/neisuse.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.