Ineffectiveness of carbon cap-and-trade market

IF 4 4区环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES

Energy & Environment Pub Date : 2022-06-22 DOI:10.1177/0958305X221105268

Yu Yan, Yiming Lei, Yuyang Tang, Xufeng Zhao

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Under neoclassical assumptions, this paper develops a model to illustrate the effects of government use of carbon allowances for carbon emission control. We find that control using the instrument of issuing long-term carbon allowances does not produce the same good results in the Decentralised Equilibrium as in the Planning Problem. Thus, while Coase's Theorem ensures that the Pareto optimum is maintained in an economy with multiple agents, it does not align the social development with the economic optimum of the planner. We believe this is due to the that the price of carbon allowances is determined by asset profiles of investors rather than externalities. The steady-state under the special pathway shows that consumption is determined by the rate of technological progress, the total amount of carbon dioxide at steady-state, the level of technology at which steady-state is reached and the total amount of carbon allowances remaining. The comparison with the optimal tax path reveals that the price of carbon allowances has increased too quickly, leading to excessive consumption of fossil fuels in the early stages.

查看原文本刊更多论文

碳限额与交易市场的无效

在新古典主义的假设下，本文建立了一个模型来说明政府使用碳配额对碳排放控制的影响。我们发现，使用发放长期碳配额的工具进行控制，在分散均衡中不能产生与计划问题中相同的好结果。因此，虽然科斯定理保证了在多主体经济中帕累托最优是保持的，但它并没有使社会发展与计划者的经济最优保持一致。我们认为，这是由于碳配额的价格是由投资者的资产概况而不是外部因素决定的。特殊路径下的稳态表明，消费由技术进步速度、稳态二氧化碳总量、达到稳态的技术水平和剩余碳总量决定。与最优税收路径的比较表明，碳配额价格上涨过快，导致前期化石燃料的过度消耗。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Energy & Environment ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES-

CiteScore

7.60

自引率

7.10%

发文量

157

期刊介绍： Energy & Environment is an interdisciplinary journal inviting energy policy analysts, natural scientists and engineers, as well as lawyers and economists to contribute to mutual understanding and learning, believing that better communication between experts will enhance the quality of policy, advance social well-being and help to reduce conflict. The journal encourages dialogue between the social sciences as energy demand and supply are observed and analysed with reference to politics of policy-making and implementation. The rapidly evolving social and environmental impacts of energy supply, transport, production and use at all levels require contribution from many disciplines if policy is to be effective. In particular E & E invite contributions from the study of policy delivery, ultimately more important than policy formation. The geopolitics of energy are also important, as are the impacts of environmental regulations and advancing technologies on national and local politics, and even global energy politics. Energy & Environment is a forum for constructive, professional information sharing, as well as debate across disciplines and professions, including the financial sector. Mathematical articles are outside the scope of Energy & Environment. The broader policy implications of submitted research should be addressed and environmental implications, not just emission quantities, be discussed with reference to scientific assumptions. This applies especially to technical papers based on arguments suggested by other disciplines, funding bodies or directly by policy-makers.