Home A Comparative Analysis of Emissions Trading Systems: Cost Efficiency and Environmental Jurisdictional Authority Overlap
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A Comparative Analysis of Emissions Trading Systems: Cost Efficiency and Environmental Jurisdictional Authority Overlap

  • Philip Inyeob Ji EMAIL logo , Richard Mulenga and Seema Bogati Bhandari
Published/Copyright: August 9, 2022
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Abstract

This study conducts a comparative analysis of selected emissions trading systems (ETS) by examining them in terms of cost efficiency and jurisdictional authority overlap. Findings show that, the selected allowances markets generally exhibit cost inefficiency as manifested by price volatility. It is also found that ETS environmental jurisdictional overlaps are largely caused by the overly centralized environmental policy regulation. Literature review indicates that practical approaches to mitigating price volatility and jurisdictional authority problems include, among others, linking of ETS jurisdictions as exemplified by the linked California-Quebec ETS, integration of allowances markets, switching from emission-based taxation to consumption-based taxation, and development of the derivatives markets. Streamlining and delegation of environmental laws and judicial reviews are some of the efforts that could help mitigate jurisdictional overlap disputes.


Corresponding author: Philip Inyeob Ji, Department of Economics, Dongguk University Seoul, Jung-gu, South Korea, E-mail:

References

Ayoko, K. 2017. Japan: Green Gas Emissions Trading Schemes. Tokyo: White & Case LLP Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Baumol, W. J., and W. E Oates. 1971. “The Use of Standards and Prices for Protection of the Environment.” The Swedish Journal of Economics 73 (1): 42–54, https://doi.org/10.2307/3439132.Search in Google Scholar

Borghesi, S, and M. Montini. 2016. “The Best (and Worst) of GHG Emission Trading Systems: Comparing the EU ETS with its Followers.” Frontiers in Energy Research Journal 4 (27): 1–20, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31186-9_1.Search in Google Scholar

Brown, D. B. 2012. “Cooperative Versus Competitive Federalism Outcomes and Consequences of Intergovernmental Relations on Climate Change Issues in Canada.” Zeitschrift für Kanada-Studien 32 (2): 9–27.Search in Google Scholar

Carbon Pricing Dashboard. 2021. World Bank Group Map and Data. Washington: World Bank.Search in Google Scholar

Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions, C2ES. 2009. Meaningful and Cost Effective Climate Policy: The Case for Cap and Trade. Arlington: C2ES Publications.Search in Google Scholar

Chomitz, K. M. 1999. “Evaluating Carbon Offsets from Forestry and Energy Projects: How Do They Compare?” Policy Research Working Paper Series 2357.10.1596/1813-9450-2357Search in Google Scholar

Cludius, J., V. Duscha, N. Friedrichsen, and K. Schumacher 2019. “Cost-Efficiency of the EU Emissions Trading System: An Evaluation of the Second Trading Period.” Economics of Energy and Environmental Policy Journal 8 (1): 1944–9089, https://doi.org/10.5547/2160-5890.8.1.jclu.Search in Google Scholar

Coase, R. H. 1960. “The Problem of Social Cost.” Journal of Law & Economics 3 (1): 1–44, https://doi.org/10.1086/466560.Search in Google Scholar

Curto, J. D., and J. C. Pinto. 2009. “The Coefficient of Variation Asymptotic Distribution in the Case of Non-iid Random Variables.” Journal of Applied Statistics 36 (1): 21–32, https://doi.org/10.1080/02664760802382491.Search in Google Scholar

Dang, T., and J. Raghbendra. 2011. “Inflation Variability and the Relationship Between Inflation and Growth,” CAMA Working Papers 2011-08, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, Canberra: The Australian National University.Search in Google Scholar

Dragoo, D. 2020. Environment and Climate Change Laws and Regulations USA 2022. Dallas, USA: Snell & Wilmer Publications, EDGAR Data, (2021), Global Legal Group.Search in Google Scholar

Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research, EDGAR. 2021. “CO2 and GHG Emissions Reports 2021.” European Commission, Brussels: EDGAR.Search in Google Scholar

European Commission. 2017a. “Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council: Report on the Functioning of the European Carbon-Market.” Luxembourg (EC): Publications Office of the European Union.Search in Google Scholar

European Parliament. 1957. “Treaty of Rome (EEC) 1957 – Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community.” Luxembourg: European Parliament Publications, The Parliament & Treaties.Search in Google Scholar

European Parliament. 1987. “Single European Act 1987.” Luxembourg: EUROPA Publications, SEA, EUR-Lex/EUROPA.Search in Google Scholar

Fama, E. F. 1970. “Efficient Capital Markets: A Review of Theory and Empirical Work.” Journal of Finance 25 (2): 383–417, https://doi.org/10.2307/2325486.Search in Google Scholar

Fan, X., K. Chen, and Y.-J. Chen. 2022. “Is Price Commitment a Better Solution to Control Carbon Emissions and Promote Technology Investment?” Journal of Management Science 22 (10): 1–17.10.1287/mnsc.2022.4365Search in Google Scholar

Frasch, F. 2007. “Transaction Costs of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme in German Companies.” Sustainable Development Law & Policy 7 (3): 48–51.Search in Google Scholar

Goers, S. 2013. “Testing for Informational Efficiency in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.” Journal of Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems 2 (4): 319–30.10.13044/j.sdewes.2014.02.0026Search in Google Scholar

Goulder, H. L., and A. R. Schein. 2013. “Carbon Taxes Versus Cap and Trade: A Critical Review Climate Change Economics.” Climate Change Economics 4 (3): 135–62.10.3386/w19338Search in Google Scholar

Grantham-Misato, S., T. Laing, S. Cooper, and L. Wang. 2015. Methods for Evaluating the Performance of Emissions Trading Schemes, Discussion paper 2015/11/CS-China ETS Climate strategies. London: Climate Strategies.Search in Google Scholar

Haites, H., H. Duan, H. Gallagher, H. Mascher, H. Narassimhan, H. Richards, and H. Wakabayashi. 2018. “Experience with Carbon Taxes and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Systems Working Paper 2018-01.” Duke Duke Environmental Law & Policy Forum XXIX: 101–82.10.2139/ssrn.3119241Search in Google Scholar

International Carbon Action Partnership, ICAP. 2017h. “International Carbon Partnership-Status Report.” Berlin: International Carbon Action Partnership.Search in Google Scholar

International Carbon Action Partnership, ICAP. 2021a. “Emissions Trading Worldwide: Status Report 2021. Adelphi Publications.” Berlin: International Carbon Action Partnership.Search in Google Scholar

International Carbon Action Partnership, ICAP. 2021b. “ICAP Fact Sheet (2021)-Carbon-Prices/Map.” Berlin: International Carbon Action Partnership.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, J., and K. Pak. 2021. “Improving Liquidity in Emission Trading Schemes.” Journal of Futures Markets 41 (9): 1397–411, https://doi.org/10.1002/fut.22220.Search in Google Scholar

Kim, M. 2015. “A Study on the Impact Analysis of Introducing Emission Trading System on CBP Market and Policy Implications.” The Transactions of the Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers 64 (5): 667–79, https://doi.org/10.5370/kiee.2015.64.5.667.Search in Google Scholar

Lee, Y. J., N. -W. Kim, K. -H. Choi, and S. -M. Yoon 2020. “Analysis of the Informational Efficiency of the EU Carbon Emission Trading Market: Asymmetric MF-DFA Approach.” MDPI, Energies Journal 13 (9): 2171, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13092171.Search in Google Scholar

Lin, H. C., and S. G. Sim. 2018. “Competitive Dominance of Emission Trading Over Pigouvian Taxation in a Globalized Economy.” Economics Letters 163 (C): 158–61.10.1016/j.econlet.2017.12.015Search in Google Scholar

Lo, A. W., and A. C. MacKinlay. 1988. “Stock Market Prices Do Not Follow Random Walks: Evidence from a Simple Specification Test.” Review of Financial Studies 1 (1): 41–66, https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/1.1.41.Search in Google Scholar

Mankiw, L. G. 2006. “The Pigou Club Manifesto”, Greg Mankiw’s Blog. Also available at https://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/10/pigou-club-manifesto.html.Search in Google Scholar

Masayo, W., and O. Kimura. 2018. “The Impact of the Tokyo Metropolitan Emissions Trading Scheme on Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Findings from a Facility-Based Study.” 18 CLIMATE POLICY 1028 18 (8): 1752–7457.10.1080/14693062.2018.1437018Search in Google Scholar

Mehling, A. M., A. Tuerk, and S. Klinsky. 2012. “Beyond Déjà Vu: Opportunities for Policy Learning from Emissions Trading in Developed Countries.” Carbon & Climate Law Review 6 (4): 291–305.10.21552/CCLR/2012/4/226Search in Google Scholar

Millimet, D. L. 2013. “Environmental Federalism: A Survey of the Empirical Literature, IZA Discussion Papers.” Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), No. 7831.10.2139/ssrn.2372540Search in Google Scholar

Narassimhan, E., K. S. Gallagher, S. Koester, and J. R. Alejo. 2018. “Carbon Pricing in Practice: A Review of Existing Emissions Trading Systems.” Climate Policy 18 (8): 967–91, https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1467827.Search in Google Scholar

Pigou, A. C. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillian and Co., Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Ram, L., V. P. Singh, S. K. Singh, B. S. Acharya, and Y. He. 2021. “What is the Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Global Carbon Emissions?” Science of The Total Environment 816: 151503.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151503Search in Google Scholar

Raymond, C. 2016. “The Two Sides of the Paris Climate Agreement: Dismal Failure or Historic Breakthrough?” The Journal of Environment & Development 25 (1): 1123–44.10.1177/1070496516631362Search in Google Scholar

Rosen, H. S., and T. Gayer. 2008. Public Finance, 4th ed., 90–4. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Shobe, M., and B. Dallas. 2012. “Rethinking Environmental Federalism in a Warming World William January 2012 n RFF Discussion Paper.” Journal of Resources for the Future 3(4): 1–42, Discussion Paper No. 12-04.Search in Google Scholar

Stavins, R. N. 2019. “Carbon Taxes vs. Cap-and-Trade: Theory and Practice.” The Ninth in a Series of Annual Discussion Papers Supported by the Enel Foundation, 1–62. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School, Discussion Paper ES 19-9.Search in Google Scholar

Vogel, D., M. Toffel, D. Post, and N. Z. Uludere Aragon. 2010. “Environmental Federalism in the European Union and the United States,” Working Paper, 10–85. Boston: MA: Harvard Business School.10.2139/ssrn.1573698Search in Google Scholar

World Bank; Ecofys; Vivid Economics. 2016. State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2016. Washington DC: World Bank.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2022-08-09

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Downloaded on 23.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/ajle-2022-0058/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button