Restricted linking of emissions trading systems: options, benefits, and challenges

Lambert Schneider (), Michael Lazarus, Carrie Lee and Harro van Asselt
Additional contact information
Lambert Schneider: Stockholm Environment Institute
Michael Lazarus: Stockholm Environment Institute
Carrie Lee: Stockholm Environment Institute
Harro van Asselt: Stockholm Environment Institute

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 2017, vol. 17, issue 6, No 7, 883-898

Abstract: Abstract With over 17 emissions trading systems (ETSs) now in place across four continents, interest in linking ETSs is growing. Linking ETSs offers economic, political, and administrative benefits. It also faces major challenges. Linking can affect overall ambition, financial flows, and the location and nature of investments, reduces regulatory autonomy, and requires harmonization of ETS design elements. This article examines three options that could help overcome challenges by restricting the flow of units among jurisdictions through quotas, exchange rates, or discount rates. We use a simple model and three criteria—abatement outcome, economic implications, and feasibility—to assess these ‘restricted linking’ options. Quotas can enhance cost-effectiveness relative to no linking and allow policy-makers to retain control on the extent of unit flows. Exchange rates can create abatement and economic benefits or unintended adverse implications for cost-effectiveness and total abatement, depending on how rates are set. Due to information asymmetries between the regulated entities and policy-makers setting the exchange rate, as well as uncertainties about future developments, setting exchange rates in a manner that avoids such unintended consequences could prove difficult. Discount rates, in contrast, can ensure that both cost-effectiveness and total abatement are enhanced. Overall, restricted linking options do not achieve the benefits of full linking, but also avoid some major pitfalls, as well as offering levers that can be adjusted, should linking concerns prove to be more significant than anticipated.

Keywords: Emissions trading; Linking; Climate mitigation; Greenhouse gas abatement (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (11)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10784-017-9370-0 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:ieaple:v:17:y:2017:i:6:d:10.1007_s10784-017-9370-0

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/10784

DOI: 10.1007/s10784-017-9370-0

Access Statistics for this article

International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics is currently edited by Joyeeta Gupta

More articles in International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().