Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Global climate governance beyond 2012
- Part I Architecture
- 2 The architecture of global climate governance
- 3 The consequences of a fragmented climate governance architecture
- 4 Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes
- 5 Developing the international carbon market beyond 2012
- 6 The overlap between the UN climate regime and the World Trade Organization
- 7 An architecture for long-term climate change
- 8 Shaping the architecture of future climate governance
- Part II Agency
- Part III Adaptation
- Index
- References
5 - Developing the international carbon market beyond 2012
options and the costs of delay
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface
- List of abbreviations
- 1 Global climate governance beyond 2012
- Part I Architecture
- 2 The architecture of global climate governance
- 3 The consequences of a fragmented climate governance architecture
- 4 Environmental effectiveness and economic consequences of fragmented versus universal regimes
- 5 Developing the international carbon market beyond 2012
- 6 The overlap between the UN climate regime and the World Trade Organization
- 7 An architecture for long-term climate change
- 8 Shaping the architecture of future climate governance
- Part II Agency
- Part III Adaptation
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
Emission trading has become one of the most important policy instruments for controlling greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol introduced an intergovernmental emissions trading system that runs from 2008 to 2012 and in which countries accepted economy-wide caps and the possibility to trade so-called Assigned Amount Units. Participation of developing countries is possible through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (Stripple and Lövbrand, this volume, Chapter 11). With its International Transaction Log the climate secretariat provides the institutional infrastructure for these trading mechanisms. Complementing the Kyoto trading system, the European Union has established a company-level EU emissions trading scheme in 2005, with its second trading period running in parallel to the Kyoto system (van Asselt 2010). The EU emissions trading scheme regulates about 10 000 facilities that currently emit around 2 gigatonnes carbon dioxide per year (Skjærseth and Wettestad 2008).
In addition to these developments, an increasing number of industrialized countries are implementing or planning to set up national cap-and-trade systems, including Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada and Japan. On the sub-national level, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the Western Climate Initiative and the Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Accord have emerged in the United States, while the Japanese provinces of Kyoto and Tokyo consider the introduction of regional emissions trading. In 2007, several of these national and sub-national initiatives and the European Union inaugurated the International Carbon Action Partnership with the explicit aim of exploring options for linking the domestic trading systems in the broader perspective of creating a global carbon market (Bergfelder 2008).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Global Climate Governance Beyond 2012Architecture, Agency and Adaptation, pp. 60 - 78Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
2008. ‘Emissions trading beyond Europe: linking schemes in a post-Kyoto world’, Energy Economics 30: 2028–2049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2010 (in press). ‘Emissions trading: the enthusiastic adoption of an alien instrument?’, in , , , and (eds.), Climate Change Policy in the European Union: Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
, and 2004. ‘Is international emissions trading always beneficial?’, Energy Journal 25: 33–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008. ‘In the market. ICAP – the International Carbon Action Partnership: building a global carbon market from the bottom-up’, Carbon and Climate Law Review 2: 202–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2003. ‘Market power and hot air in international emissions trading: the impacts of US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol’, Applied Economics 35: 651–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2008. Delayed Action and Uncertain Targets: How Much Will Climate Policy Cost?, Working Paper No. 69.2008. Milan: FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei).Google Scholar
and 2005. ‘Free trade and global warming: a trade theory view of the Kyoto Protocol’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49: 205–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2008. ‘Stabilizing CO2 concentrations with incomplete international cooperation’, Climate Policy 8: 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2007. ‘The making of the EU emissions trading scheme: status, prospect and implications for business’, European Management Journal 25: 453–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008. The EU Emission Trading Scheme: A Prototype Global System?, Discussion Paper No. 08–02. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements.Google Scholar
2007. Final Report of the 4th meeting of the European Climate Change Programme Working Group on Emissions Trading on the Review of the EU–ETS on Linking with Emissions Trading Schemes of Third Countries, 14–15 June 2007. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
2009. Towards a Comprehensive Climate Change Agreement in Copenhagen, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, Doc. No. COM(2009) 39 final. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
, , and 2008. Developing the International Carbon Market: Linking Options for the EU–ETS, Report to the Policy Planning Staff in the Federal Foreign Office. Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.Google Scholar
, and 2009a. ‘Global trading versus linking. Architectures for international emissions trading’, Energy Policy 5: 1637–1647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and 2009b. ‘To link or not to link: benefits and disadvantages of linking cap-and-trade systems’, Climate Policy 9: 358–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2001. Linking Domestic and Industry Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Systems. Palo Alto, CA: Electric Power Research Institute. .Google Scholar
2000. An upstream/Downstream Hybrid Approach to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading. Washington, DC: Center for Clean Air Policy.Google Scholar
2003. ‘International emissions trading with endogenous allowance choices’, Journal of Public Economics 87: 2737–2747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2005. Act Locally, Trade Globally: Emissions Trading for Climate Policy. Paris: International Energy Agency/OECD.Google Scholar
and 2007. Linking Tradable Permit Systems for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Opportunities, Implications and Challenges, IETA (International Emissions Trading Association) Report on linking GHG emissions trading systems. Geneva: IETA.Google Scholar
and 2008. Linkage of Tradable Permit Systems in International Climate Policy Architecture, Discussion Paper No. 2008–07. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2010 (in press). ‘The evolution of climate change policy in the European Union: a historical overview’, in , , , and (eds.), Climate Change Policy in the European Union: Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2008. Toward a Post-Kyoto Climate Change Architecture: A Political Analysis, Discussion Paper No. 08–01. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements.Google Scholar
2000. ‘Domestic greenhouse gas regulation and international emissions grading’, in (ed.), Global Emissions Trading: Key Issues for Industrialized Countries. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, pp. 131–156.Google Scholar
, , and 2008. Mitigation Costs in a Globalized World: Climate Policy Analysis with REMIND-R, PIK Working Paper. Potsdam: Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.Google Scholar
, , , , , , and 2008. Analysis of the Legal and Organisational Issues Arising in Linking the EU Emissions Trading Scheme to Other Existing and Emerging Emissions Trading Schemes, Study commissioned by the European Commission – DG-Environment, Climate Change and Air, Final Report. London: Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development.Google Scholar
2007. ‘Bridging the transatlantic divide: legal aspects of a link between regional carbon markets in Europe and the United States’, Sustainable Development Law and Policy 7: 47–52.Google Scholar
2004. ‘Briefing: contraction and convergence’, Engineering Sustainability 157: 189–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2003. ‘Transaction costs of the Kyoto mechanisms’, Climate Policy 3: 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2008. Tackling Carbon: How to Price Carbon for Climate Policy. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Electricity Policy Research Group. .Google Scholar
and 2005. ‘Unilateral regulation of bilateral trade in greenhouse gas emission permits’, Ecological Economics 54: 397–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and 2006. Sector-Based Approach to the Post-2012 Climate Change Policy Architecture. Washington, DC: Center for Clean Air Policy.Google Scholar
2007. Is the CDM Fulfilling its Environmental and Sustainable Development Objectives? An Evaluation of the CDM and Options for Improvement, Report prepared for WWF. Freiburg, Germany: Öko-Institut.Google Scholar
and 2008. EU Emissions trading: Initiation, Decision-Making and Implementation. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
2007. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
and 2005. ‘Converging markets’, International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 5: 47–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2003. Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, 6th edn. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
, , and 2009. ‘Linking carbon markets: concepts, case studies and pathways’, Climate Policy 9: 341–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2007. ‘Fragmented carbon markets and reluctant nations: implications for the design of effective architectures’, in and (eds.), Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 133–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and 2002. Pathways to European Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading: History and Misconceptions, Working Paper No. 85.2002. Milan: FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei).Google Scholar