Advertisement

Compliance and emission trading rules for asymmetric emission uncertainty estimates

  • Zbigniew Nahorski
  • Joanna Horabik
Chapter

Abstract

Greenhouse gases emission inventories are computed with rather low precision. Moreover, their uncertainty distributions may be asymmetric. This should be accounted for in the compliance and trading rules. In this paper we model the uncertainty of inventories as intervals or using fuzzy numbers. The latter allows us to better shape the uncertainty distributions. The compliance and emission trading rules obtained generalize the results for the symmetric uncertainty distributions that were considered in the earlier papers by the present authors (Nahorski et al., Water Air & Soil Pollution. Focus 7(4–5):539–558, 2007; Nahorski and Horabik, 2007, J Energy Eng 134(2):47–52, 2008). However, unlike in the symmetric distribution, in the asymmetric fuzzy case it is necessary to apply approximations because of nonlinearities in the formulas. The final conclusion is that the interval uncertainty rules can be applied, but with a much higher substitutional noncompliance risk, which is a parameter of the rules.

Keywords

Membership Function Fuzzy Number Kyoto Protocol Emission Trading Interval Uncertainty 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bandemer H (2006) Mathematics of uncertainty. In: Studies in fuzziness and soft computing, vol 189. Springer Verlag, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Dubois D, Prade H (1978) Operations on fuzzy numbers. Int J Syst Sci 9:613–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dubois D, Prade H (2005) Fuzzy intervals versus fuzzy numbers: is there a missing concept in fuzzy set theory? In: Proc. 25th Linz seminar fuzzy set theory, Linz, AustriaGoogle Scholar
  4. Gillenwater M, Sussman F, Cohen J (2007) Practical policy applications of uncertainty analysis for national greenhouse gas inventories. Water, Air & Soil Pollution. Focus 7(4–5):451–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hurteaux MD, Hungate BA, Koch GW (2009) Accounting for risk in valuing forest carbon offset. Carbon Balance and Management 4:1. http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/4/1/1
  6. Jonas M, Nilsson S (2007) Prior to economic treatment of emissions and their uncertainties under the Kyoto protocol: scientific uncertainties that must be kept in mind. Water, Air & Soil Pollution. Focus 7(4–5):495–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jonas M, Gusti M, Jȩda W, Nahorski Z, Nilsson S (2010) Comparison of preparatory signal detection techniques for consideration in the (post-)Kyoto policy process. Clim Change. doi:  10.1007/s10584-010-9914-6 Google Scholar
  8. Mignone BK, Hurteau MD, Chen Y, Sohngen B (2009) Carbon offsets, reversal risk and US climate policy. Carbon Balance and Management 4:3. http://www.cbmjournal.com/content/4/1/3
  9. Monni S, Syri S, Pipatti R, Savolainen I (2007) Extension of EU emissions trading scheme to other sectors and gases: consequences for uncertainty of total tradable amount. Water, Air & Soil Pollution. Focus 7(4–5):529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Nahorski Z, Horabik J, Jonas M (2007) Compliance and emission trading under the Kyoto protocol: rules for uncertain inventories. Water, Air & Soil Pollution. Focus 7(4–5):539–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nahorski Z, Horabik J (2007) Compliance and emission trading rules for uncertain estimates of inventory uncertainty. In: Proc 2nd int workshop on uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories. IIASA, Laxenburg, pp 149–161Google Scholar
  12. Nahorski Z, Horabik J (2008) Greenhouse gas emission permit trading with different uncertainties in emission sources. J Energy Eng 134(2):47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ramirez AR, de Keizer C, van der Sluijs JP (2006) Monte Carlo analysis of uncertainties in The Netherlands greenhouse gas emission inventory for 1990–2004. Report NWS-E-2006-58. Copernicus Institute for Sustainable Development and Innovation. Utrecht. http://www.chem.uu.nl/nws/www/publica/publicaties2006/E2006-58.pdf
  14. Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change. In: The stern review. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Winiwarter W (2004) National greenhouse gas inventories: understanding uncertainties versus potential for improving reliability. Water, Air & Soil Pollution. Focus 7(4–5):443–450Google Scholar
  16. Winiwarter W, Muik B (2007) Statistical dependences in input data of national GHG emission inventories: effects on the overall GHG uncertainty and related policy issues. In: Presentation at 2nd int workshop uncertainty in greenhouse gas inventories, IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, 27–28 September 2007. http://www.ibspan.waw.pl/ghg2007/Presentation/Winiwarter.pdf

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Systems Research InstitutePolish Academy of SciencesWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations