This article provides an analysis of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and the harmonized benchmark-based allocation procedures by comparing two energy-intensive sectors with activities in three Member States. These sectors include the cement industry (CEI) and the pulp and paper industry (PPI) in the UK, Sweden, and France. Our results show that the new procedures are better suited for the more homogeneous CEI, in which the outcome of stricter allocation of emissions allowances is consistent between Member States. For the more heterogeneous PPI – in terms of its product portfolios, technical infrastructures, and fuel mixes – the allocation procedures lead to diverse outcomes. It is the lack of product benchmark curves, and the alternative use of benchmark values that are biased towards a fossil fuel-mix and are based on specific energy use rather than emission intensity, which leads to allocations to the PPI that do not represent the average performance of the top 10% of GHG-efficient installations. Another matter is that grandfathering is still present via the historically based production volumes. How to deal with structural change and provisions regarding capacity reductions and partial cessation is an issue that is highly relevant for the PPI but less so for the CEI.
Policy relevance
After an unprecedented amount of consultation with industrial associations and other stakeholders, a harmonized benchmark-based allocation methodology was introduced in the third trading period of the EU ETS. Establishing a reliable and robust benchmark methodology for free allocation that shields against high direct carbon costs, is perceived as fair and politically acceptable, and still incentivizes firms to take action, is a significant challenge. This article contributes to a deeper understanding of the challenges in effectively applying harmonized rules in industrial sectors that are heterogeneous. This is essential for the debate on structural reformation of the EU ETS, and for sharing experiences with other emerging emissions trading systems in the world that also consider benchmark methodologies. 相似文献
Over 40 studies that analyse future GHG emissions allowances or reduction targets for different regions based on a wide range of effort-sharing approaches and long-term concentration stabilization levels are compared. This updates previous work undertaken for the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Regional reduction targets differ significantly for each effort-sharing approach. For example, in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) 1990 region, new proposals that emphasize the equity principles of responsibility, capability, and need, and those based on equal cumulative per capita emissions (carbon budgets), lead to relatively stringent emissions reduction targets. In order to reach a low concentration stabilization level of 450?ppm CO2e, the allowances under all effort sharing approaches in OECD1990 for 2030 would be approximately half of the emissions of 2010 with a large range, roughly two-thirds in the Economies in Transition (EIT), roughly at the 2010 emissions level or slightly below in Asia, slightly above the 2010 level in the Middle East and Africa and well below the 2010 level in Latin America. For 2050, allowances in OECD1990 and EIT would be a fraction of today's emissions, approximately half of 2010 emission levels in Asia, and possibly less than half of the 2010 level in Latin America.Policy relevanceThe concept of equity and the stringency of future national GHG reduction targets are at the heart of the current debate on the new international climate change agreement to be adopted in 2015. Policy insights gained from an analysis of over 40 studies, which have quantitatively analysed the proposed GHG reduction targets, are presented. It is found that the outcome of effort-sharing approaches is often largely determined by the way the equity principle is implemented and that the distributional impacts of such approaches can be significantly different depending on the criteria used, the stabilization level and shape of the global emissions pathway. However, the current literature only covers a small proportion of the possible allocation approaches. There should thus be an in-depth modelling comparison to ensure consistency and comparability of results and inform decision making regarding the reduction of GHG emissions. 相似文献
Two ways of allocating greenhouse gas (GHG) allowances are compared: historic allocation (HA) based solely on past information, and output-based allocation (OBA) based on an allocation proportional to the current output level. The advantages and problems of each allocation method are considered and compared. It is essential to distinguish the sectors sheltered from international competition (e.g. power generation) from the exposed sectors. In the sheltered sectors, OBA entails a much higher overall cost because it provides too little incentive to reduce the production of the polluting goods. HA does not suffer from this drawback but its distributional impact is highly unfair. Hence in these sectors neither of these two ways of freely allocating allowances can be supported, and auctioning should be favoured. However, in the exposed sectors, OBA is an option worth considering because it reduces carbon leakage, although it also suffers from some drawbacks compared with auctioning. 相似文献
Up to now there is no specification about the allowance of lateral breakthrough error for super long tunnel from 20 km to 50 km. On the basis of the design of GPS networks located outside and inside tunnel traverse network, we propose a method for calculating the influence value caused by control surveying errors. Through a lot of simulative calculations and combination with piercing practice of super tunnels in Wan Jiazai Project, Shanxi province, we present an allowance table of lateral breakthrough error for super long tunnels from 20 km to 50 km. 相似文献
The results from a semi-experimental study of Swedish students’ stated willingness to purchase emission allowances for carbon dioxide are presented. Drawing heavily on recent developments in the literature on integrating norm-motivated behaviour into neoclassical consumer theory, it is assumed that individuals have a preference for maintaining a self-image as a responsible (and thus norm-compliant) person. The results indicate that students’ willingness to purchase carbon allowances is determined by both price and the presence of norms: those who feel personally responsible for contributing to reducing climate damages also appear more inclined to buy allowances. The empirical findings are consistent with the notion that a person's beliefs about others’ stated willingness to purchase carbon allowances imply improvements in their own self-image and ultimately behavioural change. This suggests that information campaigns that attempt to influence beliefs about others’ intentions could promote ‘green’ consumer behaviour in the carbon allowance market. Such (stated) behaviour also appears to be influenced by a person's awareness of the problem of climate change and their beliefs about their own ability to contribute to solving it.Policy relevanceAlthough there is a concern that public goods such as reduced climate change may be under-provided in the free market, individual concern for the environment occasionally has profound impacts on consumer choice and voluntary action. This research suggests that information campaigns that attempt to influence beliefs about others’ intentions could promote ‘green’ consumer behaviour in carbon allowance markets. Publicly-provided information about the impacts of climate change and the ways in which these damages stem from individual choices could also induce this type of behaviour. 相似文献
Phase 3 of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS; 2013–2020) sees the introduction of new rules governing the free allocations of emissions allowances given to energy-intensive industries. In contrast to Phases 1 and 2, allocations will be based on historical production multiplied by best available emissions technology benchmarks. This article exploits an original database to provide a first analysis of the distributional and economic efficiency implications of the new rules. It is shown empirically that the new allocation rules reduce the scope for windfall gains by EU ETS firms while also effectively mitigating carbon leakage risks, even assuming optimistic forecasts of Phase 3 carbon prices. The example of the cement sector is used to show that benchmarking significantly improves the harmonization of the levels of free allocations to competing firms throughout the EU compared to Phase 2. However, it is also found that the use of ex ante output levels to determine allocations still leaves considerable scope for windfall gains and possible distortions of the internal market. 相似文献