Skip to main content

Trading Hot-Air. The Influence of Permit Allocation Rules, Market Power and the US Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol


After the conferences in Bonn and Marrakech, it is likely that international emissions trading will be realized in the near future. Major influences on the permit market␣are the institutional detail, the participation structure and the treatment of hot-air. Different scenarios not only differ in their implications for the demand and supply of permits and thus the permit price, but also in their allocative effects. In this paper we discuss likely the institutional designs for permit allocation in the hot-air economies and the use of market power and quantify the resulting effects by using the computable general equilibrium model DART. It turns out that the amount of hot-air supplied will be small if hot-air economies cooperate in their decisions. Under welfare maximization, more hot-airis supplied than in the case where governments try to maximize revenues from permit sales.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  • Babiker M. H., H. D. Jacoby, J. M. Reily and D. M. Reiner (2002), The Evolution of a Climate Regime: Kyoto to Marrakech. Report 82. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

  • Baron, R. (1999, October), Market Power and Market Access in International GHG Emisson Trading . IEA Information Paper International Energy Agency.

  • Baron, R. and S. Bygrave (2002), Towards International Emission Trading: Design Implications for Linkages. OECD Information Paper COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2002)5.

  • Bernstein, P. M., D. W. Montgomery, T. F. Rutherford, and G.-F. Yang (1999), ‘Effects of Restrictions on International Permit Trading: The MS-MRT model’, The Energy Journal – Special Issue, 221–255.

  • C. Boehringer (2002) ArticleTitle‘Climate Politics From Kyoto to Bonn: From Little to Nothing?!?’ Energy Journal 23 IssueID3 51–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehringer, C. and A. Loeschel (2001), Market Power in International Emission Trading: The Impacts of U.S. Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, Discussion Paper 01–58, ZEW, Mannheim.

  • Burniaux, J.-M. (1999), ‘How Important is Market Power in Achieving Kyoto? – An Assessment Based on the GREEN model. OECD paper. Paris: Economics Directorate OECD.

  • den Elzen M. G. J. and A. P. G. de Moor (2001a). The Bonn and Marrakech Accords: An Updated analysis. RIVM report 728001/017. Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).

  • den Elzen, M. G. J. and A. P. G. de Moor (2001b). Evaluating the Bonn Agreement and Some Key Issues. RIVM report 728001/016, Netherlands National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM).

  • M.G.J. Elzen Particleden A.P.G. Moor Particlede (2002) ArticleTitle‘Evaluating the Bonn-Marrakesh Agreement’ Climate Policy 2 111–117 Occurrence Handle10.1016/S1469-3062(02)00010-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EIA (2002), International Energy Outlook 2003. Energy Information Agency (EIA).

  • R. E. Hall C. I. Jones (1999) ArticleTitle‘Why Do Some Countries Produce so Much More Output Than Others?’ Quarterly Journal of Economics 114 IssueID1 83–116 Occurrence Handle10.1162/003355399555954

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, D. and D. B. Radov (2002), Evaluation of Alternative Initial Allocation Mechanisms in a European Union Greenhouse Gas Emissons Allowance trading Scheme. Paper prepared for the DG Environment, European Commission.

  • IETA (2001), IETA Summary of Marrakech Accords. Memo, International Emissions Trading Association (IETA).

  • IPCC (ed.) (1996), Climate Change 1995 – Impacts, Adaptions and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific Technical Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

  • Klaassen, G. and O. Percl (2002). Carbon Trading: Models, Markets and Modest Supply. Paper prepared for the conference on Global Trading, Kiel, 30 September–1 October, 2002.

  • Loeschel A. and Z. X. Zhang (2002), ‘The Economic and Environmental Implications of the US Repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol and The subsequent Deals in Bonn and Marrakech’, Nota di la Voro 23.2002, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.

  • Manne, A. S. and R. G. Richels (2001). US Rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: The Impact on Compliance Costs and CO 2 Emissions. Working Paper 01–12. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.

  • Missfeldt, F. and A. Villavicenco (2002). How can economies in transition pursue emission trading or joint implementation? Nota di Lavoro 59.2002, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).

  • Paltsev, S. V. (2000), The Kyoto Protocol: “Hot air” for Russia?. Working Paper 00-9. Department of Economics, University of Colorado.

  • Springer, K. (1998), The DART General Equilibrium Model: A Technical Description. Kiel Working Papers 883. Kiel Institute for World Economics.

  • Steenberghe, V. V. (2003), CO 2 Abatement Costs and Permit’s Price: Exploring the Impact of Banking and the Role of Future Commitment. CORE Discussion Paper. Université Catolique de Louvain.

  • Weyant J. P. (ed.), (1999) ‘The Cost of the Kyoto Protocol – A Multi-Model Evaluation’, The Energy Journal – Special Issue.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gernot Klepper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Klepper, G., Peterson, S. Trading Hot-Air. The Influence of Permit Allocation Rules, Market Power and the US Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. Environ Resource Econ 32, 205–228 (2005).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • CGE model
  • DART
  • emission trading
  • hot-air
  • Kyoto Protocol
  • market power
  • permit allocation

JEL classifications

  • C68
  • D58
  • F18
  • Q48