Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Analysis with the CERT Model of the FSU Market Power in the Carbon Emissions Trading Market

  • Published:
Environmental Modeling & Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to assess the consequences of the amendments made to the Kyoto Protocol during COP 7 in Marrakech. The major issue of “hot air” and CDM transaction costs is examined using the CERT model to show that primary supply regions, typically those with “hot air” availability, might control the emissions reduction permit supply market and maximise net export revenues of permit supply by withholding 40 to 60% of available “hot air” credits. The assumption that primary permit suppliers control permit price via a restriction of “hot air” supply to the market will inadvertently leave a portion of the market share open to non-Annex B CDM supply, despite potentially extreme variance in CDM transaction costs. A summary table of policy implications on the emissions reduction permit market is also included.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D. Beecy, J. Weyant and R. Richels, The energy modeling forum study on technology and global change policies: EMF-19, Presented at GHGT-5 Fifth International Conference on GHG control technologies, August 13-16 (2000).

  2. A. Bernard, A. Haurie, M. Vielle and L. Viguier, A two-level dynamic game of carbon emissions trading between Russia, China and Annex B countries, NCCR-WP4 Working Paper 11 (September 2002).

  3. C. Beuermann, T. Langrock and H. Ott, Evaluation of (non-sink) AIJ projects in developing countries (Ensadec), Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy (January 2000).

  4. O. Blanchard, P. Criqui and A. Kitous, After the Hague, Bonn and Marrakech: the future international market for emissions permits and the issue of hot air, Institute d'Economie et de Politique de l'Energie. Cahier de Recherche No. 27bis (January 2002).

  5. C. Böhringer and A. Löschel, Market Power in International Emissions Trading: The Impacts of US Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol (Center for European Economic Research (ZEW), Germany, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brown et al., An economic assessment of the Kyoto Protocol using the global trade and environment model, OECD Workshop on The Economic Modeling of Climate Change: Background Analysis for The Kyoto Protocol, Paris, September 17-18 (1998).

  7. J.M. Burniaux, A multi-gas assessment of the Kyoto Protocol, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 270 (November 2000).

  8. F. Cappelen, Investor perspectives on joint implementation, OECD, IETA, IEA Workshop National Systems on Flexibility Mechanisms, September 13 (2002).

  9. M. Carrington, A business view on key issues relating to the Kyoto mechanisms, Prepared by Pricewater house Coopers for the DETR, London (October 2000).

  10. P. Criqui and N. Kouvaritakis, Les couts pour le secteur énérgetique de la réduction des émissions de CO2: une evaluation internationale avec le modèle POLES, IEPE, October 8 (1998).

  11. P. Criqui and S. Mima, The European greenhouse gas tradable emission permit system: some policy issues identified with the POLESASPEN model, ENER Forum 1. Integrating the Kyoto Mechanisms into the National Framework, Krakow, Poland, February 8-9 (2001).

  12. P. Criqui, S. Mima and L. Viguier, Marginal abatement costs of CO2 emissions reductions, geographical flexibility and concrete ceilings: An assessment using the POLES model, Energy Policy 27 (1999) 585–601.

    Google Scholar 

  13. S. Dhakal, CDM market size: size, barriers and prospects, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (11 January 2001).

  14. Eyckmans et al., Is Kyoto fatally flawed? An analysis with MacGEM, Working paper series No. 2001-18, Center for Economic Studies, Belgium (September 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher et al., Kyoto Protocol. The first commitment period and beyond, Australian Commodities Journal 9(1) (2002).

  16. Green et al., Streamlining CDM procedures for solar home systems-A review of issues and options, ECN-C-01-098 (December 2001).

  17. J.M. Grütter, The GHG market after Bonn, Grütter Consulting (October 2001).

  18. J.M. Grütter, World market for GHG emission reductions, Prepared for the World Bank's National AIJ/JI/CDM Strategy Studies Program (March 2001).

  19. J.M. Grütter, R. Kappel and P. Staub, Users Guide CERT Version 1.2; Carbon Emission Reduction Trade Model (NSS Program, World Bank, October 2001).

  20. G. Hodes, Matrix of AIJ Projects Underway Globally (Environmental Policies and Institutions for Central Asia: Global Climate Change, 2000).

  21. International Energy Agency, International energy outlook 2002: Environmental issues and world energy energy use, Report#: DOE/EIA-0484(2002) (26 March 2002).

  22. International Energy Agency, Technologies for activities implemented jointly-Highlights of the Vancouver Conference, Maximising the Value of AIJ, IEA GHG Research and Development Program (November 1997).

  23. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC (Cambridge University Press, USA, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  24. R. Kappel, Simulating the market for greenhouse gas emissions; The CERT model, in: SAEE/CEPE Annual Research Conference on Applied Energy Economics and Policy (ETH, Zürich, 17 October 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  25. A. Löschel and Z. Zhang, The economic and environmental implications of the U.S. repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol and the subsequent deals in Bonn and Marrakech, East-West Center Working Paper, Environmental Series, No. 52 (April 2002).

  26. A. Manne and R. Richels, A multi-gas approach to climate policy, Draft (April 2000).

  27. A. Manne and R. Richels, US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: The impact on compliance costs and CO2 emissions, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Working Paper 01-12 (October 2001).

  28. A. Michaelowa, Baseline setting in the AIJ pilot phase, in: Reports on AIJ Projects and Contributions to the Discussion on Kyoto Mechanisms (Bundesumweltministerium, Wuppertal-Institut, Berlin, 1999) pp. 82–93.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Natsource LLC., Global Change Strategies Inc., Assessment of private sector anticipatory response to greenhouse gas market development, Conducted for Environment Canada, Final analysis (July 2002).

  30. J. Pan, Transaction costs for undertaking CDM projects, Prepared for UNF project on capacity building for CDM projects in China (January 2002).

  31. H. Pant, Global Trade and Environment Model (GTEM): A computable general equilibrium model of the global economy and environment, Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE), document in progress (2002).

  32. Reilly et al., Multi-gas assessment of the Kyoto Protocol, Nature 401 (1999).

  33. C. Sutter, Small-scale CDM projects: Opportunities and obstacles. Can small-scale projects attract funding from private CDM investors?, Factor Consulting + Management Ltd. Zürich (November 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  34. UNFCCC, GHG emissions database, Submissions by Annex 1 parties, Available online http://unfccc.int/program/mis/ghg/index.html (2001).

  35. UNFCCC, Marrakech accords and the Marrakech Declaration, Product of COP 7, Marrakech, Morocco (9 November 2001).

  36. UNFCCC, The Bonn Agreement, Decision 5/CP.6, Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, FCCC/CP/2001/L.7, Product of COP 6.5, Bonn, Germany (27 July 2001).

  37. C. Vrolijk, Quantifying the Kyoto Commitments (The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 18 May 2000).

  38. J.P. Weyant, The costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A multi-model evaluation, The Energy Journal (Special Issue) (1999).

  39. Z.X. Zhang, Estimating the Size of the Potential Market for the Kyoto Flexibility Mechanisms (University of Groningen, The Netherlands, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Paul Scherrer Institute, CH-5232, Villigen, Switzerland

    Jeremy Sager

  2. DGC – Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

    Jeremy Sager

Authors
  1. Jeremy Sager
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sager, J. An Analysis with the CERT Model of the FSU Market Power in the Carbon Emissions Trading Market. Environmental Modeling & Assessment 8, 219–238 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025547308030

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025547308030

Search

Navigation