The Origin, Evolution and Consequences of the EU Emissions Trading System

Skjærseth, Jon Birger; Wettestad, Jørgen

doi:10.1162/glep.2009.9.2.101

Cited by 87 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another option in this regard might be the coupling of cap and tax. Cap and trade as well as cap and dividend systems have been discussed in literature sufficiently and implemented successfully on the industrial level (Ellerman and Buchner 2007;Skjaerseth and Wettestad 2009;Kunkel and Kammen 2011). A to-bedeveloped approach may be a composition of both approaches, adapted to households.…”

Section: Outlook and Policy Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional carbon footprints of households: a German case study

Miehe

Scheumann

Jones

et al. 2015

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Households are either directly or indirectly responsible for the highest share of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, programs helping to improve human consumption habits have been identified as a comparatively cost-effective way to reduce household emissions significantly. Recently, various studies have determined strong regional differences in household carbon footprints, yet a case study for Germany has not been conducted. Local information and policies directed at household consumption in Germany thus devoid of any foundation. In this paper, we analyze the impact of different criteria such as location, income and size on household carbon footprints in Germany and demonstrate how the impact of GHG mitigation opportunities varies for different population segments. We use a multi-region input output hybrid LCA approach to developing a regionalized household carbon footprint calculator for Germany that considers 16 sub-national regions, 15 different household sizes, and eight different income and age categories. The model reveals substantial regional differences in magnitude and composition of household carbon footprints, essentially influenced by two criteria: income and size. The highest income household is found to emit 4.25 times as much CO 2 e than the lowest. We identify indirect emissions from consumption as the largest share of household carbon footprints, although this is subject to fluctuation based on household type. Due primarily to local differences in vehicle availability, income and nutrition, an average household in Baden-Wuerttemberg is found to have 25 % higher carbon footprint than its R. Miehe (&) Sustainable Production and Quality Management, Fraunhofer Institute for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation (IPA),

show abstract

Section: Outlook and Policy Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional carbon footprints of households: a German case study

Miehe

Scheumann

Jones

et al. 2015

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We have pointed to poor experience with the first trading period largely as a result of the member states' influence as one important explanation for the change in actors' positions. In fact, a number of conditions changed in the negotiations on the revised ETS, but that is another story told elsewhere (see Skjaerseth and Wettestad, 2009).…”

Section: Analysis Of Expectations and Observationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In addition, allocation of allowances will be based on harmonized rules and auctioning will be the main allocation method. Auctioning will increase from less than 4% in the 2008-2012 trading period to more than 50% in the third period (Skjaerseth and Wettestad, 2009). …”

Section: Making the Eu Etsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Making the EU Emissions Trading System: The European Commission as an entrepreneurial epistemic leader

Skjærseth

Wettestad

2010

Global Environmental Change

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The decision process for free allocation of EUAs was decentralised to MS´s NAPs and based on grandfathering of historical emissions. This decentralised approach, together with the free allocation, helped to gain acceptance among MS and participating sectors and enabled a smooth implementation (Skjaerseth & Wettestad, 2009). Some national authorities were overly generous in handing out free EUAs to domestic industries (Andersson & Di Maria, 2011).…”

Section: A Background To Eu Etsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Free allocation in the 3rd EU ETS period: assessing two manufacturing sectors

Stenqvist

Åhman

2014

Climate Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Free allocation in hte 3rd EU ETS period: assessing two manufacturing sectorsStenqvist, Christian; Åhman, Max Link to publication Citation for published version (APA): Stenqvist, C., & Åhman, M. (2016). Free allocation in hte 3rd EU ETS period: assessing two manufacturing sectors. Climate Policy, 16(2), 125-144. DOI: 10.1080125-144. DOI: 10. /14693062.2014 General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.• You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. 1Free allocation in the 3 rd EU ETS period: assessing two manufacturing sectors AbstractThis paper provides an analysis of the EU ETS harmonised benchmark-based allocation procedures by comparing two energy-intensive sectors with activities in three Member States (MS); the cement industry (CEI) and the pulp and paper industry (PPI) in UK, Sweden and France. Results show that the new procedures are better suited for the homogenous CEI, for which allocation is to decrease in a consistent manner. For the heterogeneous PPI -with diverse product portfolios, technical infrastructure and fuel-mixes -the allocation procedures cause dispersed outcomes. The lack of product benchmark curves, biased reference values on fuel-mix and specific energy use as well as other issues, leads to allocations that do not represent the average performance of the 10% most GHG efficient installations. Another issue with the 3 rd phase allocation procedure 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, which is highly relevant for the PPI but less so for the CEI. In manufacturing sectors such as cement industry (CEI) and pulp and paper industry (PPI), the new banchmark-based allocation procedures have managed to reduce the EU-wide free allocation in the 3 rd period compared with the 2 nd period. For the homogenous CEI the outcome of stricter allocation is consistent between Member States. However, free allocation based on grandfathering of prerecession activity levels and CO2 performances is likely to create long positions in coming years. Our results disclose differing outcomes between sectors and Member States, with cases of conspicuous supply of allowances in the heterogeneous PPI. Lack of product benchmark curves, biased reference values on fuel-mix and...

show abstract

The Origin, Evolution and Consequences of the EU Emissions Trading System

Cited by 87 publications

References 16 publications

Regional carbon footprints of households: a German case study

Regional carbon footprints of households: a German case study

Making the EU Emissions Trading System: The European Commission as an entrepreneurial epistemic leader

Free allocation in the 3rd EU ETS period: assessing two manufacturing sectors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About