Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- List of contributors
- List of abbreviations
- Part I Introduction and overview
- Part II The evolving governance context: the European Union
- Part III Climate policy in the European Union: understanding the past
- 4 Burden sharing: distributing burdens orsharing efforts?
- 5 Renewable energies: a continuing balancing act?
- 6 Emissions trading: the enthusiastic adoption of an ‘alien’ instrument?
- 7 Adapting to a changing climate: an emerging European Union policy?
- 8 Adaptation in the water sector: will mainstreaming be sufficient?
- 9 The evolution of climate change policy in the European Union: a synthesis
- Part IV Climate policy in the European Union: future challenges
- Part V Climate policy in the European Union: retrospect and prospect
- Index
- References
6 - Emissions trading: the enthusiastic adoption of an ‘alien’ instrument?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2011
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- Preface
- List of contributors
- List of abbreviations
- Part I Introduction and overview
- Part II The evolving governance context: the European Union
- Part III Climate policy in the European Union: understanding the past
- 4 Burden sharing: distributing burdens orsharing efforts?
- 5 Renewable energies: a continuing balancing act?
- 6 Emissions trading: the enthusiastic adoption of an ‘alien’ instrument?
- 7 Adapting to a changing climate: an emerging European Union policy?
- 8 Adaptation in the water sector: will mainstreaming be sufficient?
- 9 The evolution of climate change policy in the European Union: a synthesis
- Part IV Climate policy in the European Union: future challenges
- Part V Climate policy in the European Union: retrospect and prospect
- Index
- References
Summary
Introduction
This chapter focuses on what has arguably become the linchpin of EU climate policy, namely emissions trading. In January 2005, the EU adopted a ‘cap-and-trade’ emissions trading system (ETS), through which a certain emission cap was set and a fixed number of emission allowances distributed among the various Member States. Remarkably, despite encountering some significant problems (see Chapter 3), European governors have not lost faith in this instrument, even though it was originally ‘imported’ from the USA. On the contrary, even more now depends on its performance – not least the EU's credibility in international climate politics – than when it was first adopted. The system is .undeniably innovative. Prior to 2005, only a few countries had experimented with emissions trading and no one had ever attempted to employ it at a supranational level. Consequently, the EU's struggle to make this ‘alien’ instrument (Sbragia 2000: 296) work in the manner outlined in economic textbooks could provide lessons for those seeking to implement emissions trading at a global level (Delbeke 2006).
In theory, emissions trading offers a more cost-effective means to achieve a given environmental target than regulation. In practice, however, the ultimate design and implementation of all policy instruments depends on the interaction between political factors, including the actors involved and their interests, as well as the prevailing system of governance (Bressers and Huitema 1999).
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Climate Change Policy in the European UnionConfronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation?, pp. 125 - 144Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2010
References
and (1987). Reforming environmental law: the democratic case for market incentives. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 13, 171–99.Google Scholar
, , and (2007). A ten-year rule to guide emission allowances. Energy Policy, 35(3), 1718–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2008). Public Interest vs. Interest Groups: Allowance Allocation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, ZEW Discussion Paper No. 08–023. Mannheim: ZEW.Google Scholar
(2007). Neoliberalism, climate governance and the scalar politics of EU emissions trading. Area, 39(4), 431–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2006). EU emission trading: an early analysis of national allocation plans for 2008–2012. Climate Policy, 6(4), 361–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2005). Mission impossible!? On the harmonisation of national allocation plans under the EU emissions trading directive. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 27(1), 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2009). The evolution of emissions trading in the European Union – the role of policy networks, knowledge and policy entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(3/4), 469–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1999). Economic instruments for environmental protection: can we trust the ‘magic carpet’?International Political Science Review, 20(2), 175–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2007). Governance and Environmental Policy Integration in Europe: What Can We Learn from the EU Emission Trading Scheme?, Nota di Lavoro 54.2007. Venice: FEEM (Fondoziane Eni Enrico Mattei).Google Scholar
and (2002). Tradable carbon permit auctions: how and why to auction not grandfather. Energy Policy, 30(4), 333–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2003). Emissions trading at Kyoto: from EU resistance to Union innovation. Environmental Politics, 12(2), 71–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. (2006). Harmonisation versus decentralisation in the EU ETS: an economic analysis. Climate Policy, 6(4), 457–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). The emissions trading scheme (ETS): the cornerstone of the EU's implementation of the Kyoto protocol. In EU Energy Law. Vol. IV of EU Environmental Law: The EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme, ed. . Leuven: Claeys & Casteels, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
(2000). Tracing the Origins of the Kyoto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History. U.N. Doc. FCCC/TP/2000/2. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
(2005). Design, trading and innovation. In Moving to Markets in Environmental Regulation: Lessons from Twenty Years of Experience, ed. and . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 436–88.Google Scholar
(2007). The making of the EU emissions trading scheme:status, prospects and implications for business. European Management Journal, 25(6), 453–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2001). Carbon taxes and carbon emissions trading. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15(3), 325–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007). The European Union emissions trading scheme: origins, allocation, and early results. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1(1), 66–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2008). Over-allocation or abatement? A preliminary analysis of the EU ETS based on the 2005–06 emissions data. Environmental and Resource Economics, 41(2), 267–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2007). Unifying themes. In Allocation in the European Emissions Trading Scheme: Rights, Rents and Fairness, ed. , and . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 339–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and , Jr. (2003). Emissions Trading in the US: Experience, Lessons, and Considerations for Greenhouse Gases. Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on Global Climate Change.Google Scholar
, , , and (2000). Markets for Clean Air: The U.S. Acid Rain Program. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(various years). London: Environmental Data Services (ENDS) Ltd. http://www.endseuropedaily.com/articles/index.cfm.
, and (2005). Allowance allocation in the European emissions trading system: a commentary. Climate Policy, 5(1), 127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview. Climate Policy, 6(1), 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (1991). Incentive-based environmental regulation: a new ear for an old idea. Ecology Law Quarterly, 18, 1–42.Google Scholar
, , , and (2006). Auctioning of EU ETS phase II allowances: how and why?Climate Policy, 6(1), 137–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1994). Taxes versus tradable discharge permits: a review in the light of the U.S. and European experience. Environmental & Resource Economics, 4(2), 151–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2003). New environmental policy instruments: an evolution or a revolution in environmental policy. Environmental Politics, 12(1), 201–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2005). The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government?Political Studies, 53(3), 477–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). The Coordination of the European Union: Exploring the Capacities of Networked Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1998). The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 22(2), 313–67.Google Scholar
, , and (2008). Stringency and distribution in the EU emissions trading scheme: first evidence. Climate Policy, 8(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). Emissions trading, CDM, JI, and more: the climate strategy of the EU. The Energy Journal, 27(2), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2007). Environmental Politics in the European Union Policy-Making, Implementation and Patterns of Multi-Level Governance. Manchester: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2008). Economic impacts of the EU ETS: preliminary evidence. In Climate Change and European Emissions Trading: Lessons for Theory and Practice, ed. and . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 208–22.Google Scholar
(2007). Denmark. In Allocation in the European Emissions Trading Scheme: Rights, Rents and Fairness, ed. , and . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 106–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1972). Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. Journal of Economic Theory, 5, 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2004). The UK Emissions Trading Scheme. A New Way to Combat Climate Change. London: National Audit Office.Google Scholar
and (2008). Creating the UK emission trading scheme: motives and symbolic politics. European Environment, 18(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007). Europe's Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn't Working. London: Open Europe.Google Scholar
(2006). Enforcement of the EU greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme. In EU Climate Change Policy: The Challenge of New Regulatory Initiatives, ed. and . Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 169–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2000). Environmental policy. In Policy Making in the EU, 4th edn, ed. and . Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 293–316.Google Scholar
and (2005). The Allocation of European Union Allowances: Lessons, Unifying Themes and General Principles, MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Report No. 127. Boston, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
, and (2006). CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Climate Policy, 6(1), 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2008). EU Emissions Trading: Initiation, Decision-making and Implementation. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
(2004). Policy transfer in the development of UK climate policy. Policy and Politics, 32(1), 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). Back to the Drawing Board? Implications of the EU Emissions Trading Directive for UK Climate Policy. Brighton: Science Policy Research Unit.Google Scholar
(2005). Lobbying and CO2 trade in the EU. In Emissions Trading for Climate Policy, ed. . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 150–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
and (2006). Economic analysis of EU-wide CO2 emission trading. In EU Energy Law. Vol. IV of EU Environmental Law: The EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme, ed. . Leuven: Claeys & Casteels, pp. 153–84.Google Scholar
and (2007). European emissions trading and the international competitiveness of energy-intensive industries: a legal and political evaluation of possible supporting measures. Energy Policy, 35(1), 497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). Basic design options for emissions trading. In EU Energy Law. Vol. IV of EU Environmental Law: The EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme, ed. . Leuven: Claeys & Casteels, pp. 39–61.Google Scholar
(2007). Innovation processes in governance: the development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2001). Limiting Emissions Trading. The EU Proposal on Supplementarity. Report ECOF-RM – 29. Department of Economics and Public Finance ECOF, Faculty of Law, University of Groningen. Groningen: ECOF.Google Scholar
- 20
- Cited by