Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part 1 Regulatory instruments for climate policy: theoretical aspects
- Part 2 The US approach to pollution control: lessons for climate policy
- Part 3 European policies to control greenhouse gases: the EU directive on emissions trading
- 14 Concluding observations
- Index
- References
1 - Introduction
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 September 2009
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of figures
- List of tables
- List of contributors
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- Part 1 Regulatory instruments for climate policy: theoretical aspects
- Part 2 The US approach to pollution control: lessons for climate policy
- Part 3 European policies to control greenhouse gases: the EU directive on emissions trading
- 14 Concluding observations
- Index
- References
Summary
Climate policy and emissions trading after Kyoto
The 1997 Kyoto Conference ushered in a new direction in the discussion of climate protection. Its final document, the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, assigned in 1997, established “quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments” to OECD countries and some economies in transition (“Annex I countries”). This heralded a completely new tack in climate policy: whereas the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions had already been acknowledged at the United Nations World Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, it was only at the Kyoto Conference that specific reduction targets for signatory countries were laid down for the first time.
Another fresh direction brought about by the Kyoto Protocol was the introduction of new policy instruments for climate protection, namely the Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation, and emissions trading (ET). Since then emissions trading, in particular, has become a widely discussed instrument for climate policy. One reason for the attention emissions trading has received is that it had already been the subject of intense debate in the United States owing to the introduction of several national US programs in the early 1980s and 1990s (see below).
Ever since the Kyoto Protocol was signed, intensive discussion has raged over the need to comply with the Protocol, strategies for doing so, and the details of these new instruments for climate protection. Recent developments have revealed interesting features in US and European climate policy.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Emissions Trading for Climate PolicyUS and European Perspectives, pp. 1 - 14Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005
References
, and 1988. The Theory of Environmental Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1996. “The SO2 allowance trading program: cost savings without allowance trades,” Contemporary Economic Policy 14: 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2000. “Innovation under the tradable sulphur dioxide emission permits programme in the US electricity sector,” in OECD (ed.). Innovation and the Environment. Paris: OECD, pp. 63–84.Google Scholar
, and 2003. The Evolution of NOX Control for Coal-Fired Power Plants in the United States. Discussion Paper 03–23, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
, and 1996. “A new standard of performance: an analysis of the Clean Air Act's acid rain program,” Environmental Law Review News and Analyses 26: 10411–23.Google Scholar
Crocker, T. 1966. “The structuring of atmospheric pollution control systems,” in (ed.). The Economics of Air Pollution. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., pp. 61–86.Google Scholar
Ellerman, A. D. 2000. “From autarkic to market-based compliance,” in (ed.), pp. 190–203.
, , and 2003. Emissions Trading in the US: Experience, Lessons, and Considerations for Greenhouse Gases. Washington, DC: PEW Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
, , , , and 2000. Markets for Clean Air. The US Acid Rain Program. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Union 2003. “Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13. October 2003 establishing a system for greenhouse gas emissions trading within the European Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC.” ABL 275. Brussels, October 25, 2003.
, and 1996. “Emissions trading in theory and practice. An analysis of Regional Clean Air Incentives Market in Southern California,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 14: 367–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 1998. “Zertifikatemärkte der ‘zweiten Generation' – Die amerikanischen Erfahrungen mit dem Acid Rain- und dem Regional Clean Air Incentives Market-Programm” (“Second-generation emissions trading – the US experience with the acid rain- and the Regional Clean Air Incentives Market programs”), in (ed.). Umweltzertifikate – Der steinige Weg zur Marktwirtschaft. Berlin: Analytica, pp. 150–65.Google Scholar
, and 2002. “Climate protection through tradable permits: the EU proposal for a CO2 emissions trading system in Europe,” European Environment 12: 185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1989. “Economic prescriptions for environmental problems: how the patient followed the doctor's order,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 3: 95–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1989a. “Marketable permits: lessons for theory and practice,” Ecology Law Quarterly 16: 361–406.Google Scholar
, and 1989b. “Where did all the markets go? An analysis of Environmental Protection Agency's emissions trading program,” Yale Journal on Regulation 6: 109–53.Google Scholar
Hahn, R., and Noll, R. 1982. “Designing a market for tradable permits,” in (ed.). Reform of Environmental Regulation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 119–46.Google Scholar
1998. “The sulfur dioxide allowance trading market: recent developments and lessons to be learned,” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 16: 341–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 1998. “The political economy of market-based environmental policy: the US acid rain program,” Journal of Law and Economics 41: 37–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2001. Policy-Induced Technology Adoption: Evidence from the US Lead Phasedown. Discussion Paper 01–14, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Kete, N. 1993. “The politics of markets: the acid rain control policy in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University.
2000 (ed.). Emissions Trading. Environmental Policy's New Approach. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
, and 2004. The EU Emissions Trading Directive: Opportunities and Potential Pitfalls. Discussion Paper 04–24, Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Lent, J. M. 2000. “The Regional Clean Air Incentives Market program (Los Angeles' market-based emissions reduction program) at three years,” in (ed.), pp. 219–40.
1972. “Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs,” Journal of Economic Theory 3: 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (eds.) 1999. Pollution for Sale. Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
South Coast Air Quality Management District 1993. Regional Clean Air Incentives Market, vol. I: Development Report and Proposed Rules. Riverside, CA.
1998. “What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12: 69–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stavins, R. N., and Whitehead, B. W. 1997. “Market-based environmental policies,” in and (eds.). Thinking Ecologically: The Next Generation of Environmental Policy. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 105–17.Google Scholar
1985. Emissions Trading: An Exercise in Reforming Pollution Policy. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
1998. “Tradable permits and the control of air pollution,” in (ed.). Umweltzertifikate – Der steinige Weg zur Marktwirtschaft. Berlin: Analytica, pp. 11–31.Google Scholar
2003. “The tradable-permit approach to protecting the commons: Lessons for climate change,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 19: 400–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wätzold, F. 2004. “SO2 emissions in Germany: regulations to fight Waldsterben,” in , , and T. Sterner (eds.). Choosing Environmental Policy: Comparing Instruments and Outcomes in the United States and Europe. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, pp. 23–40.Google Scholar
Zapfel, P. 2001. “Handel mit den Treibhausgas-Emissionen in der EU – Grünbuch und andere Aktivitäten” (“Trade with greenhouse gas emissions in the EU – greenbook and other activities”), in Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Umweltfragen (AGU) (ed.). Umweltlizenzen und Umweltzertifikate (Environmental Licenses and Environmental Certificates). Bonn: AGU, pp. 53–66.
- 2
- Cited by