Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Linking the emissions trading schemes of Europe and China - Combining climate and energy policy instruments

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Both Europe and China have announced targets for greenhouse gas emissions reduction and renewable energy development. To achieve their emissions targets, Europe has introduced emissions trading scheme (ETS) since 2005 and China has planned to establish a national ETS in 2015. We assess the impact of a joint Europe-China ETS when both climate and energy policy instruments are simulated in a multiregional general equilibrium model. Our results show that a joint ETS markedly increases total carbon emissions from fossil fuels even though global mitigation costs are reduced. Moreover, a joint ETS helps China achieve its renewable energy target, but for Europe, it works opposite. While the renewable energy target does not help Europe achieve additional abatement, the renewable energy target in China reduces mitigation costs and emissions, and increases renewable energy consumption and sales of carbon allowances. Financial transfer through a joint ETS remains marginal compared to China’s demand for renewable energy subsidies. We conclude that as long as an absolute emissions cap is missing in China, a joint ETS is not attractive for mitigation and China’s renewable energy target can reduce emissions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. OECD refers to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and OECD Europe include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom.

  2. To aggregate the GTAP data by sector and region to the data needed by GRACE, we adopted the codes provided by Rutherford (2005) after slight modification for GTAP 7 database.

  3. A detailed description of the electricity generation module can be found in the Appendix 1 of Glomsrød et al. (2014).

  4. The efficiency implications related to the different subsidy forms, such as the feed-in tariff or tradable green certificates, is beyond the scope of this study.

  5. Note that India also sets a carbon intensity target and emits more in all four scenarios than the BAU level due to lower prices of fossil fuels.

  6. The transfer is USD 0.6 billion in the case without the renewable subsidy (SN2).

References

  • Aaheim A, Rive N (2005) A Model for Global Responses to Anthropogenic Changes in the Environment (GRACE). Report CICERO, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  • Aaheim A, Amundsen H, Dokken T, Wei T (2012) Impacts and adaptation to climate change in European economies. Glob Environ Chang Human Policy Dimens 22:959–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Badri NG, Walmsley TL (2008) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 7 data base. Center for global trade analysis, Purdue University, https://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/databases/v7/v7_doco.asp

  • Badri N, Aguiar A, McDougall R (2012) Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 8 data base. Center for global trade analysis, Purdue University, http://www.gtap.agecon.purdue.edu/databases/v8/v8_doco.asp

  • Bernard A, Vielle M (2009) Assessment of European Union transition scenarios with a special focus on the issue of carbon leakage. Energy Econ 31(Supplement 2):S274–S284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Rosendahl K (2010) Green promotes the dirtiest: on the interaction between black and green quotas in energy markets. J Regul Econ 37:316–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Löschel A, Moslener U, Rutherford TF (2009) EU climate policy up to 2020: An economic impact assessment. Energy Econ 31(Supplement 2):S295–S305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvin K, Clarke L, Krey V, Blanford G, Jiang K, Kainuma M, Kriegler E, Luderer G, Shukla PR (2012) The role of Asia in mitigating climate change: Results from the Asia modeling exercise. Energy Econ 34(Supplement 3):S251–S260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capros P, Mantzos L, Parousos L, Tasios N, Klaassen G, Van Ierland T (2011) Analysis of the EU policy package on climate change and renewables. Energy Policy 39:1476–1485

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellerman AD, Wing IS (2003) Absolute versus intensity-based emission caps. Clim Pol 3(Supplement 2):S7–S20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eskeland GS, Rive NA, Mideksa TK (2012) Europe’s climate goals and the electricity sector. Energy Policy 41:200–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission, (2012) The state of the European carbon market in 2012, report from the commission to the European parliament and the council

  • Fischer C (2010) Renewable portfolio standards: when do they lower energy prices? The Energy Journal 31

  • Gavard C, Winchester N, Paltsev S (2013) Limited sectoral trading between the EU ETS and China, joint program report series

  • Glomsrød S, Wei T, Alfsen K (2013) Pledges for climate mitigation: the effects of the Copenhagen accord on CO2 emissions and mitigation costs. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 18:619–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glomsrød S, Wei T, Mideksa T, Samset B (2014) Energy market impacts of nuclear power phase-out policies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 1–17

  • Hawkins S, Jegou I (2014) Linking emissions trading schemes: considerations and recommendations for a joint EU-Korean carbon market. International centre for trade and sustainable development, Geneva, Switzerland, www.ictsd.org

  • IEA (2010) World energy outlook 2010, international energy agency

  • Lee HL (2008) The combustion-based CO2 emissions data for GTAP version 7 data base. GTAP

  • Lehmann P, Gawel E (2013) Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme? Energy Policy 52:597–607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell RG, Pizer WA (2008) Indexed regulation. J Environ Econ Manag 56:221–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell RG, Pizer WA, Raimi D (2014) Carbon Market Lessons and Global Policy Outlook. Science 343:1316–1317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranson M, Stavins R (2014) Linkage of greenhouse gas emissions trading systems: Learning from experience. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Working Paper 19824

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • REN21 (2011) Renewables 2011 Global status report, Paris, Renewabl Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21) Secretariat

  • Rutherford TF (2005) GTAP6inGAMS: The dataset and static model

  • Rypdal K, Rive N, Åström S, Karvosenoja N, Aunan K, Bak JL, Kupiainen K, Kukkonen J (2007) Nordic air quality co-benefits from European post-2012 climate policies. Energy Policy 35:6309–6322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tol RSJ (2012) A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package. Energy Policy 49:288–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Traber T, Kemfert C (2009) Impacts of the German Support for Renewable Energy on Electricity Prices, Emissions, and Firms. Energy J 30

  • UNFCCC (2010) Information provided by Parties to the convention relating to the copenhagen accord, in: change, U.N.F.C.o.C. (Ed.)

  • Zhang S, Bauer N (2013) Utilization of the non-fossil fuel target and its implications in China. Clim Pol 13:328–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D, Karplus VJ, Cassisa C, Zhang X (2014) Emissions trading in China: Progress and prospects. Energy policy.

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for constructive comments by Solveig Glomsrød, Anna Creti, Jean-Pierre Ponssard and three anonymous referees. This study was supported by the Research Council of Norway (grant 209701/E20) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 71333010). Yang Liu also acknowledges financial support from the Ecole Polytechnique chair EDF-Sustainable Development and China Scholarship Council.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Taoyuan Wei.

Appendix A. Description of the GRACE model

Appendix A. Description of the GRACE model

As a recursively dynamic model, GRACE finds a static general equilibrium solution for a period given exogenous settings, which can be updated from one period to another. For example, total returns to capital of all regions are allocated to regions proportional to shares of regional savings at the beginning of a period. After receiving its share of returns to capital and other income, a region allocate a fixed share of its income for investment in the global economy such that the changes in expected rates of return to capital are equalized for all regions. The investment forms new capital stock available for the next period. In a region, productivity of labor and natural resources increases at the same rates as GDP growth while productivity of capital keeps constant over time. The effective supply of labor and capital is updated such that economic growth approximately follows a plausible projection.

Interregional commodity flows may include international trade and transboundary flows of capital, labor, natural resources, and greenhouse gas emissions. This version of GRACE does not allow transboundary flows of labor and natural resources. Capital existing already at the beginning of the previous period is immobile even between production activities though its depreciation together with investments forms new capital at the end of the previous period. The new capital is fully mobile across production activities and regions to equalize expected changes in the rates of returns to capital.

International trade is modeled through a nested constant elasticity of substitution (CES) function (Fig. 7). The parameters starting with small letter ‘e’ indicate the elasticities of substitution at the level where they stay. An Armington good combines domestic production and an aggregate of imports from all other regions. Exceptions of the elasticities are made for the following sectors: (a) refined oil (eARM = 6), (b) electricity (eARM = 0.5; eIMP = 0.3), and (c) gas and coal (eIMP = 4). With the trade of a good, the importing country pays a fixed unit cost to the international transport sector. The international transport is provided by a Cobb-Douglas composite of regional transport services.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Bilateral imports and the Armington aggregate. The parameters starting with small letter “e” indicate the elasticities of substitution at the level where they stay

Figure 8 illustrates the economic activities of a region. Together with intermediate inputs of goods and services, available productive resources – capital (CAP), labor (LAB), and natural resources (RES) – are utilized to produce goods and services, which can export to other regions and meet final demand for domestic private and public consumption and investments together with imported substitutes. Investments form new capital for the next period. As by-products, greenhouse gas emissions accompany with these economic activities. CO2 emissions from fossil fuels (Lee 2008) are linked to fossil fuels used by producers and households by fixed emission factors.

Fig. 8
figure 8

Economic activities of a region

Sectoral production is simulated by two types of nested CES functions. One type is illustrated in Fig. 9 for production of primary energy, i.e., crude oil, coal, and gas. To highlight the dependence on natural resources, the top level is a combination of the natural resource and an aggregate of remaining inputs. At the middle level, the remaining inputs are a Leontief composite of intermediate goods and value added, where the value added combines capital and labor.

Fig. 9
figure 9

Production structure of primary energy goods. The parameters starting with small letter “e” indicate the elasticities of substitution at the level where they stay

The other type of production functions (Fig. 10) is for goods and services other than the primary energy. The top level is a Leontief composite of intermediate non-energy inputs and an aggregate of value-added and energy inputs (VA-Energy). The next level is a combination of value-added and energy inputs. The value added is further a combination of capital and labor. The energy inputs are a combination of electricity (ELC) and other energy inputs as a Cobb-Douglas aggregate of crude oil (CRU), coal (COL), refined oil (REF), and gas (GAS).

Fig. 10
figure 10

Production structure of goods/services other than primary energy. The parameters starting with small letter “e” indicate the elasticities of substitution at the level where they stay

Figure 11 Illustrates the demand structures of consumers and investors. At the top level, substitution can be made between energy and non-energy goods. At the bottom level, the energy combines five energy goods and the non-energy combines all the other goods.

Fig. 11
figure 11

Final demand structure. The parameters starting with small letter “e” indicate the elasticities of substitution at the level where they stay

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Y., Wei, T. Linking the emissions trading schemes of Europe and China - Combining climate and energy policy instruments. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 21, 135–151 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9580-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9580-5

Keywords

Navigation