Abstract
This study establishes theoretical models of supply and demand for carbon trading and proposes conditions for optimal trading prices and periods. Taiwan’s carbon market is used to verify the validity of the models. Simulations and empirical analysis position firms that emit greenhouse gases as the market buyers, and landowners that convert agricultural lands into plantation forests as the market sellers. The study compares four trading scenarios to determine optimal trading prices and time periods. There were four key conclusions. First, the higher the buyer’s cost to reduce carbon emissions, the higher the demand price is in the carbon trading market. The longer the trading period, the higher the carbon offsets, and the higher the demand price is for emissions trading. Second, the higher the emission trading price, the longer the optimal forest rotation period is for landowners. If emission costs do not exist at the time of logging, landowners are encouraged to log early, reducing the length of rotation periods. Furthermore, as the extension period in the trading scenarios increases, landowners’ costs increase, raising the market equilibrium price. Third, when landowners participate in forest carbon trading mechanisms or carbon subsidy policies, they may not always lengthen forest rotation periods. Therefore, if and when the government implements these mechanisms or policies, it should consider the factors affecting the length of forest rotation period. Finally, to respond to international interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the government should design separate carbon programs and trading mechanisms for different types of private landowners. This would strengthen incentives for participating in the afforestation program.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Benitez PC, Kuosmanen T, Olschewski R, van Kooten GC (2006) Conservation payments under risk: a stochastic dominance approach. Am J Agric Econ 88(1):1–15
Cacho OJ, Hean RL, Wise RM (2003) Carbon-accounting methods and reforestation incentives. Aust j Agric Resour Econ 47(2):153–179
Cacho OJ, Wise RM, Macdicken KG (2004) Carbon monitoring costs and their effect on incentives to sequester carbon through forestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 9(3):273–293
Cannon T, Müller-Mahn D (2010) Vulnerability, resilience and development discourses in context of climate change. Nat Hazards 55(3):621–635
Chazdon RL (2008) Beyond deforestation: restoring forests and ecosystem services on degraded lands. Science 320(5882):1458–1460
Chen LC, Huang CM (1992) Research on the economic value of logs produced from Lianhua Pond Manmade Cunninghamia lanceolata Forest using the Weibull probability density function. Bull Taiwan For Res Inst 7(3):221–230
Chomitz KM, Lecocq F (2003) Temporary sequestration credits: an instrument for carbon bears. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3181
Diaz-Balteiro L, Martell DL, Romero C, Weintraub A (2014) The optimal rotation of a flammable forest stand when both carbon sequestration and timber are valued: a multi-criteria approach. Nat Hazards 72(2):375–387
Estrella R, Cattrysse D, Van Orshoven J (2014) Comparison of three ideal point-based multi-criteria decision methods for afforestation planning. Forests 5(12):3222–3240
Ferraro JP, Simpson RD (2002) The cost-effectiveness of conservation payments. Land Econ 78(3):339–353
Forestry Bureau, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan (2005) Forestry statistics. Forestry Bureau, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan, Taipei
Forestry Bureau, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan (2014) Wood price inquiry system. Available at: http://woodprice.forest.gov.tw/forest-wood/
Kirschbaum MUF (2006) Temporary carbon sequestration cannot prevent climate change. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 11(5–6):1151–1164
Kischbaum MUF (2000) What contribution can tree plantations make towards meeting Australia’s commitments under the Kyoto Protocol? Environ Sci Policy 3:83–90
Lee HC, McCarl BA, Schneider UA, Chen CC (2007) Leakage and comparative advantage implications of agricultural participation in greenhouse gas emission mitigation. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 12(4):471–494
Lin KC, Liu WY (2007a) An analysis of optimal rotation and expected land values under carbon pricing in Taiwan. Taiwanese Agric Econ Rev 13(2):1–35
Lin KC, Liu WY (2007b) An evaluation and assessment of reforestation policy in Taiwan. Agric Econ 38:31–65
Liu CM (1997) Impacts of thinning operations on optimal rotations for Taiwania plantations. Quart J Chin For 30(1):71–81
Liu WY (2009) A study on the adjustment of management policy of forestry resources under the trend of GHG reduction. For Res Newsletter 16(2):21–25
Liu CM, Chung HH (1993) Establishing the Non-Linear Harvest Model for Taiwania cryptomerioides. Quart J Chin For 26(2):39–49
Liu WY, Lin KC (2009) An economic analysis of price of certified emission reductions under Kyoto mechanism in Taiwan. Agric Econ 42:1–38
Moura-Costa P (2002) Carbon trading and investment in clean energy projects. In: Proceedings of the Oxford University and Petrobras conference
Moura-Costa P, Wilson C (2000) An equivalence factor between CO2avoided, emissions and sequestration: description and applications in forestry. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 5(1):51–60
OECD (1997) Available at:http://www.oecd.org/employment/emp/2080431.pdf
Olschewski R, Benitez PC, De Koning GHJ, Schlichter T (2005) How attractive are forest carbon sinks? Economic insights into supply and demand of certified emission reductions. J For Econ 11(2):77–94
Pagiola S, Arcenas A, Platais G (2005) Can payments for environmental services help reduce poverty? An exploration of the issues and evidence to date from Latin America. World Dev 33(2):237–255
Parks PJ, Hardie IW (1995). Least-cost forest carbon reserves: cost-effective subsidies to convert marginal agricultural land to forests. Land Economics, pp 122–136
Rudel T, Coomes OT, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A, Xu J, Lambin E (2005) Forest transitions: towards a global understanding of land use change. Glob Environ Change 15(1):23–31
Tang BJ, Shen C, Zhao YF (2015) Market risk in carbon market: an empirical analysis of the EUA and CER. Nat Hazards 75(2):333–346
Watson R, Noble I, Bolin B, et al (2000) Summary for policymakers: land-use, land-use change and forestry. In: A special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press
Woerdman E (2000) Organizing emissions trading: the barrier of domestic permit allocation. Energy Policy 28(9):613–623
Woerdman E (2001) Emissions trading and transaction costs: analyzing the flaws in the discussion. Ecol Econ 38:293–304
Zbinden S, Lee DR (2005) Paying for environmental services: an analysis of participation in Costa Rica’s PSA program. World Dev 33(2):25–272
Acknowledgments
Qunwei Wang gratefully acknowledges the financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 71,203,151, 71,573,186), the Postdoctoral Science Foundation of China (Nos. 2012M510139, 2013T60561), and Jiangsu Qing Lan project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, WY., Wang, Q. Optimal pricing of the Taiwan carbon trading market based on a demand–supply model. Nat Hazards 84 (Suppl 1), 209–242 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2093-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-015-2093-z