IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-11-40.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Output-Based Allocation of Emissions Permits for Mitigating the Leakage and Competitiveness Issues for the Japanese Economy

Author

Listed:
  • Takeda, Shiro
  • Arimura, Toshi H.
  • Tamechika, Hanae
  • Fischer, Carolyn

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Fox, Alan K.

Abstract

The adoption of domestic emissions trading schemes (ETS) can impose a heavy burden on energy-intensive industries. In particular, energy-intensive industries competing with foreign competitors could lose their international edge. Although the abatement of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in industrialized countries entails the reduction of their energy-intensive production, a corresponding increase in the production of energy-intensive goods in countries without CO2 regulations may lead to carbon “leakage.” This paper examines the effects of various allocation methods for granting emissions permits in the Japanese ETS on the economy and CO2 emissions using a multiregional and multisector computable general equilibrium model. Specifically, we apply the Fischer and Fox (2007) model to the Japanese economy to address carbon leakage and competitiveness issues. We compare auction schemes, grandfathering schemes, and output-based allocation (OBA) schemes. We further extend the model by examining a combination of auctions and OBA. Though the auction scheme is found to be the best in terms of macroeconomic impacts (welfare and GDP effects), the leakage rate is high and the harm to energy-intensive sectors can be significant. OBA causes less leakage and damage to energy-intensive sectors, but the macroeconomic impact is undesirable. Considering all three effects—leakage, competitiveness, and macroeconomics—we find that combinations of auctions and OBA (with gratis allocations solely to energy-intensive, trade-exposed sectors) are desirable.

Suggested Citation

  • Takeda, Shiro & Arimura, Toshi H. & Tamechika, Hanae & Fischer, Carolyn & Fox, Alan K., 2011. "Output-Based Allocation of Emissions Permits for Mitigating the Leakage and Competitiveness Issues for the Japanese Economy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-11-40, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-11-40
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-11-40.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ian W.H. Parry & Roberton C. Williams III & Lawrence H. Goulder, 2002. "When Can Carbon Abatement Policies Increase Welfare? The Fundamental Role of Distorted Factor Markets," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 25, pages 471-503, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W.H. Parry & Roberton C. Williams III & Dallas Burtraw, 2002. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Instruments for Environmental Protection in a Second-Best Setting," Chapters, in: Lawrence H. Goulder (ed.), Environmental Policy Making in Economies with Prior Tax Distortions, chapter 27, pages 523-554, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. Carolyn Fischer & Alan K. Fox, 2007. "Output-Based Allocation of Emissions Permits for Mitigating Tax and Trade Interactions," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(4), pages 575-599.
    4. Sugino, Makoto & Arimura, Toshi H. & Morgenstern, Richard D., 2013. "The effects of alternative carbon mitigation policies on Japanese industries," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 1254-1267.
    5. Christoph Böhringer & Andreas Lange, 2005. "Economic Implications of Alternative Allocation Schemes for Emission Allowances," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 107(3), pages 563-581, September.
    6. Dissou Yazid, 2006. "Efficiency and Sectoral Distributional Impacts of Output-Based Emissions Allowances in Canada," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-33.
    7. Jean-Marc Burniaux & Joaquim Oliveira Martins, 2000. "Carbon Emission Leakages: A General Equilibrium View," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 242, OECD Publishing.
    8. Jensen, Jesper & Rasmussen, Tobias N., 2000. "Allocation of CO2 Emissions Permits: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Policy Instruments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 111-136, September.
    9. A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Public Economics," Handbook of Public Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 4, number 4.
    10. A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), 2002. "Handbook of Public Economics," Handbook of Public Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 3, number 3.
    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. Frédéric Branger & Misato Sato, 2017. "Solving the clinker dilemma with hybrid output-based allocation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 483-501, February.
    2. Airebule, Palizha & Cheng, Haitao & Ishikawa, Jota, 2023. "Assessing carbon emissions embodied in international trade based on shared responsibility," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Yong-Gun Kim & Jong-Soo Lim, 2021. "Treatment of indirect emissions from the power sector in Korean emissions trading system," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(3), pages 581-592, July.
    4. Takeda, Shiro & Arimura, Toshi H., 2024. "A computable general equilibrium analysis of the EU CBAM for the Japanese economy," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Julien Lefevre, 2018. "Modeling the Socioeconomic Impacts of the Adoption of a Carbon Pricing Instrument – Literature review," CIRED Working Papers hal-03128619, HAL.
    6. Bin Ye & Jingjing Jiang & Lixin Miao & Ji Li & Yang Peng, 2015. "Innovative Carbon Allowance Allocation Policy for the Shenzhen Emission Trading Scheme in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Jared C. Carbone & Nicholas Rivers, 2014. "Climate policy and competitiveness: Policy guidance and quantitative evidence," Working Papers 2014-05, Colorado School of Mines, Division of Economics and Business.
    8. Kato, Shinya & Takeuchi, Kenji, 2017. "A CGE analysis of a rate-based policy for climate change mitigation," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 88-95.
    9. Ji, Xiang & Li, Guo & Wang, Zhaohua, 2017. "Allocation of emission permits for China’s power plants: A systemic Pareto optimal method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 607-619.
    10. Xin Liu & Yuan Li & Dayong Zhang & Lei Zhu, 2018. "On the Effectiveness of the Abatement Policy Mix: A Case Study of China’s Energy-Intensive Sectors," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-31, March.
    11. Jiasen Sun & Guo Li, 2020. "Designing a double auction mechanism for the re-allocation of emission permits," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 291(1), pages 847-874, August.
    12. Shiro Takeda & Horie Tetsuya & Toshi H. Arimura, 2012. "A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis Of Border Adjustments Under The Cap-And-Trade System: A Case Study Of The Japanese Economy," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01), pages 1-30.
    13. Zhu, Lei & Zhang, Xiao-Bing & Li, Yuan & Wang, Xu & Guo, Jianxin, 2017. "Can an emission trading scheme promote the withdrawal of outdated capacity in energy-intensive sectors? A case study on China's iron and steel industry," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 332-347.
    14. Di Zhou & Xiaoyu Liang & Ye Zhou & Kai Tang, 2020. "Does Emission Trading Boost Carbon Productivity? Evidence from China’s Pilot Emission Trading Scheme," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-16, July.
    15. Sadayuki, Taisuke & Arimura, Toshi H., 2021. "Do regional emission trading schemes lead to carbon leakage within firms? Evidence from Japan," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    16. Shiro Takeda & Toshi H. Arimura & Makoto Sugino, 2019. "Labor Market Distortions and Welfare-Decreasing International Emissions Trading," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 271-293, September.
    17. Jiasen Sun & Yelin Fu & Xiang Ji & Ray Y. Zhong, 2017. "Allocation of emission permits using DEA-game-theoretic model," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 867-884, October.
    18. Jie Wu & Qingyuan Zhu & Junfei Chu & Qingxian An & Liang Liang, 2016. "A DEA-based approach for allocation of emission reduction tasks," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(18), pages 5618-5633, September.
    19. Jie Wu & Jun-Fei Chu & Liang Liang, 2016. "Target setting and allocation of carbon emissions abatement based on DEA and closest target: an application to 20 APEC economies," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 84(1), pages 279-296, November.

    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. Ian W.H. Parry, 2005. "Fiscal Interactions and the Costs of Controlling Pollution from Electricity," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 36(4), pages 849-869, Winter.
    2. Knut Einar Rosendahl & Halvor Briseid Storrøsten, 2011. "Output-based allocation and investment in clean technologies," Discussion Papers 644, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    3. Julie Rozenberg & Stéphane Hallegatte & Adrien Vogt-Schilb & Olivier Sassi & Céline Guivarch & Henri Waisman & Jean Charles Hourcade, 2010. "Climate policies as a hedge against the uncertainty on future oil supply," CIRED Working Papers hal-00866449, HAL.
    4. Torstein Bye & Annegrete Bruvoll, 2008. "Multiple instruments to change energy behaviour: The emperor's new clothes?," Discussion Papers 549, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    5. Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2007. "Incentives and quota prices in an emission trading scheme with updating," Discussion Papers 495, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    6. Bento, Antonio M. & Jacobsen, Mark, 2007. "Ricardian rents, environmental policy and the `double-dividend' hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 53(1), pages 17-31, January.
    7. Fischer, Carolyn & Springborn, Michael, 2011. "Emissions targets and the real business cycle: Intensity targets versus caps or taxes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 352-366.
    8. Yoshifumi Konishi & Nori Tarui, 2015. "Emissions Trading, Firm Heterogeneity, and Intra-industry Reallocations in the Long Run," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 2(1), pages 1-42.
    9. : Eduardo L. Giménez (a) & Miguel Rodríguez, "undated". "Pigou’S Dividend Versus Ramsey’S Dividend In The Double Dividend Literature," Working Papers 2-06 Classification-JEL :, Instituto de Estudios Fiscales.
    10. Shiro Takeda & Toshi H. Arimura & Makoto Sugino, 2019. "Labor Market Distortions and Welfare-Decreasing International Emissions Trading," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 271-293, September.
    11. Rosendahl, Knut Einar, 2008. "Incentives and prices in an emissions trading scheme with updating," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(1), pages 69-82, July.
    12. Philippe Quirion, 2004. "Prices versus Quantities in a Second-Best Setting," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 29(3), pages 337-359, November.
    13. Bushnell, James & Chen, Yihsu, 2012. "Allocation and leakage in regional cap-and-trade markets for CO2," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 647-668.
    14. Dissou, Yazid & Eyland, Terry, 2011. "Carbon control policies, competitiveness, and border tax adjustments," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 556-564, May.
    15. Wråke, Markus & Myers, Erica & Mandell, Svante & Holt, Charles & Burtraw, Dallas, 2008. "Pricing Strategies under Emissions Trading: An Experimental Analysis," RFF Working Paper Series dp-08-49, Resources for the Future.
    16. Brita Bye & Snorre Kverndokk & Knut Rosendahl, 2002. "Mitigation costs, distributional effects, and ancillary benefits of carbon policies in the Nordic countries, the U.K., and Ireland," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 7(4), pages 339-366, December.
    17. Parry, Ian W.H., 2007. "Are the costs of reducing greenhouse gases from passenger vehicles negative?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 273-293, September.
    18. Frédéric Branger & Misato Sato, 2017. "Solving the clinker dilemma with hybrid output-based allocation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 140(3), pages 483-501, February.
    19. Jiasen Sun & Yelin Fu & Xiang Ji & Ray Y. Zhong, 2017. "Allocation of emission permits using DEA-game-theoretic model," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 867-884, October.
    20. Stef Proost & Denise Van Regemorter, 2004. "Climate Change Policy in European Countries and its effects on industry," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 9(4), pages 453-473, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    climate change; emissions trading; emissions permit allocations; output-based allocation; auction; grandfathering; international competitiveness; carbon leakage; CGE analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C68 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - Computable General Equilibrium Models
    • D42 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Monopoly

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-11-40. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.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.