Carbon pricing in the EU: Evaluation of different EU ETS reform options

被引:91
作者
Brink, Corjan [1 ]
Vollebergh, Herman R. J. [1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ]
van der Werf, Edwin [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] PBL Netherlands Environm Assessment Agcy, The Hague, Netherlands
[2] Tilburg Univ, CentER, NL-5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands
[3] Tilburg Univ, Tilburg Sustainabil Ctr, NL-5000 LE Tilburg, Netherlands
[4] Wageningen Univ, Environm Econ & Nat Resources Grp, NL-6700 AP Wageningen, Netherlands
[5] CESifo, Munich, Germany
关键词
European Union Emission Trading System; Auction reserve price; Carbon tax; Price floor; Banking; Computable general equilibrium; CLIMATE POLICY; BANKING; IMPACT; COST;
D O I
10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.023
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This paper studies various options to support allowance prices in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), such as adjusting the cap, an auction reserve price, and fixed and variable carbon taxes in addition to the EU ETS. We use a dynamic computable general equilibrium model that explicitly allows for allowance banking and for a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis at the EU Member State level. We find that tightening the cap provides an ad hoc solution to the fundamental issue of the robustness of the effective carbon price, while introducing a price component to the ETS brings structural carbon price support in times of negative demand shocks for emission allowances. These price-based policies still benefit from the intertemporal flexibility through the banking provision in the EU ETS by re-allocating emissions over time with stronger emission reductions in early years and emission increases in later years. A higher emission price has a larger negative impact on the new Member States' economies than on other Member States. Furthermore, introducing a carbon tax in addition to the EU ETS decreases the price of allowances, resulting in welfare gains for net buyers of allowances while net sellers are worse off. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:603 / 617
页数:15
相关论文
共 48 条
  • [1] Altmann M., 2013, IPAITREST201211
  • [2] Amann M., 2011, NEG REV GOTH PROT CO
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2010, PRICING CARBON
  • [4] [Anonymous], 2011, World Energy Outlook 2011
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2015, WORLD EN OUTL
  • [6] ARMINGTON PS, 1969, INT MONET FUND S PAP, V16, P159
  • [7] Forward-looking versus recursive-dynamic modeling in climate policy analysis: A comparison
    Babiker, Mustafa
    Gurgel, Angelo
    Paltsev, Sergey
    Reilly, John
    [J]. ECONOMIC MODELLING, 2009, 26 (06) : 1341 - 1354
  • [8] Cost-effective unilateral climate policy design: Size matters
    Boehringer, Christoph
    Fischer, Carolyn
    Rosendahl, Knut Einar
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2014, 67 (03) : 318 - 339
  • [9] EU climate policy up to 2020: An economic impact assessment
    Boehringer, Christoph
    Loeschel, Andreas
    Moslener, Ulf
    Rutherford, Thomas F.
    [J]. ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2009, 31 : S295 - S305
  • [10] THE EU 20/20/2020 targets: An overview of the EMF22 assessment
    Boehringer, Christoph
    Rutherford, Thomas F.
    Tol, Richard S. J.
    [J]. ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2009, 31 : S268 - S273