Climatic Change

, Volume 100, Issue 3–4, pp 779–786 | Cite as

Should carbon-exporting countries strive for consumption-based accounting in a global cap-and-trade regime?

A letter
  • Jan Christoph SteckelEmail author
  • Matthias Kalkuhl
  • Robert Marschinski


In the context of the post-Kyoto policy debate, the question was raised whether the current practice of production-based emissions accounting should be replaced by a consumption-based approach. In this paper, we qualify the conditions under which the way of carbon accounting makes a difference, and show how this affects the incentive of countries to opt for one or the other alternative. Two main insights are presented: First, it is emphasized—and formally shown with a general equilibrium trade model—that the way of accounting has neither efficiency nor distributive effects in the presence of a global cap-and-trade regime with full coverage and given national emission caps. Second, the accounting scheme does matter whenever the initial allocation rule for emission rights is related to past emissions. However, for a net exporter of carbon such as China, the preference for one or the other turns out to be ambiguous, since the current production-based accounting would be favored under grandfathering, whereas consumed carbon would be the preferred measure whenever higher current or historic emissions imply a lower initial allowance, as e.g. under the principle of historical responsibility.


Emission Allowance Emission Permit Initial Allocation Carbon Leakage Accounting Scheme 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baer P, Harte J, Haya B, Herzog AV, Holdren J, Hultman NE, Kammen DM, Norgaard RB, Raymond L (2000) Equity and greenhouse gas responsibility. Science 289:2287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bastianoni S, Pulselli FM, Tiezzi E (2004) The problem of assigning responsibility for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecol Econ 49:253–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bodansky D (2004) International climate efforts beyond 2012: a survey of approaches. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. Dröge S, van Asselt H, Brewer T, Grubb M, Ismer R, Kameyama Y, Mehling M, Monjon S, Neuhoff K, Quirion P, Schumacher K, Mohr L, Suwala W, Takamura Y, Voituriez T, Wang X (2009) Tackling Leakage in a world of unequal carbon prices. Climate Strategies, Cambridge. Accessed 14 December 2009
  5. Guan D, Peters GP, Weber CL, Hubacek K (2009) Journey to world top emitter: an analysis of the driving forces of China’s recent CO2 emissions surge. Geophys Res Lett 36:L04709. doi: 10.1029/2008GL036540 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lin B, Sun C (2010) Evaluating carbon dioxide emissions in international trade of China. Energy Policy 38:613–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Liu X, Wang C (2009) Quantitative analysis of CO2 embodiment in international trade: an overview of emerging literatures. Front Environ Sci Eng China 3(1):12–19. doi: 10.1007/s11783-009-0011-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Munksgaard J, Pedersen KA (2001) CO2 accounts for open economies: producer or consumer responsibility. Energy Policy 29:327–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Pan J, Phillips J, Chen Y (2008) China’s balance of emissions embodied in trade: approaches to measurement and allocating international responsibility. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24:354–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2008a) CO2 embodied in international trade with implications for global climate policy. Environ Sci Technol 42:1401–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Peters GP, Hertwich EG (2008b) Post-Kyoto greenhouse gas inventories: production versus consumption. Clim Change 86:51–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Richels R, Blanford G, Rutherford T (2009) International climate policy: a “second best” solution for a “second best” world? Clim Change Lett 97(1):289–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Salanie B (2002) The economics of taxation. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Stern N (2009) The global deal: climate change and the creation of a new era of progress and prosperity. Public AffairsGoogle Scholar
  15. Wang T, Watson J (2008) China’s carbon emissions and international trade: implications for post-2012 policy. Clim Policy 8:577–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. WBGU (2009) Solving the climate dilemma: the budget approach. Special Report. German Advisory Council on Global Change. WBGU, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. Weber CL, Peters GP, Guan D, Hubacek K (2008) The contribution of Chinese exports to climate change. Energy Policy 36:3572–3577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yang Y, Yang L (2010) China’s foreign trade and climate change: a case study of CO2 emissions. Energy Policy 38:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Christoph Steckel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthias Kalkuhl
    • 1
  • Robert Marschinski
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Technische Universität BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations