Advertisement

Ensuring the environmental effectiveness of linked emissions trading schemes over time

  • E. Haites
  • X. Wang
Original Article

Abstract

Linking emissions trading schemes allows the combined emissions cap to be achieved at lower cost. Linking is usually environmentally neutral, but some design features can lead to higher aggregate emissions if schemes are linked. Technical solutions to limit the potential emissions increases due to design differences implemented when schemes are linked are not sufficient to ensure the environmental effectiveness of the linked schemes over time. Technological, economic, administrative and other changes that can lead to higher aggregate emissions are inevitable. The administrators of the linked schemes must ensure the stringency of the emissions cap relative to the “business as usual” emissions of affected sources, the accuracy of the emissions reported by affected sources, the integrity of the allowance registry, effective compliance enforcement, and the environmental integrity of the credits issued for emission reduction projects over time. This will require a process for agreeing on revisions to the regulations of the linked schemes, a mechanism to provide assurance of the environmental effectiveness of each of the linked schemes, and a procedure for terminating the linking agreement.

Keywords

Emissions trading Environmental effectiveness Linking Temporal aspects 

References

  1. Baron R, Bygrave S (2002) Towards international emissions trading: design implications for linkages. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and International Energy Agency (IEA), ParisGoogle Scholar
  2. Blyth W, Bosi M (2004) Linking non-EU domestic emissions trading schemes with the EU emissions trading scheme. OECD and IEA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. EC (2003) Emissions Trading Directive: Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. Official Journal of the European Union 25.10.2003, L 275/32-46Google Scholar
  4. EC (2004a) Monitoring and Reporting Guidelines: Commission Decision of 29 January 2004 establishing guidelines for the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Union 26.2.2004, L 59/1-74Google Scholar
  5. EC (2004b) Linking Directive: Directive 2004/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 October 2004 amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community, in respect of the Kyoto Protocol’s project mechanisms. Official Journal of the European Union 13.11.2004, L 338/18-23Google Scholar
  6. EC (2004c) Registries Regulation: Commission Regulation No 2216/2004 of 21 December 2004 for a standardised and secured system of registries pursuant to Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Decision No 280/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Union 29.12.2004, L 386/1-77Google Scholar
  7. Ellis J, Tirpark D (2006) Linking GHG emission trading systems and markets. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  8. Haites E (2003) Harmonisation between national and international tradeable permit schemes: CATEP synthesis paper. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  9. Haites E, Mullins F (2001) Linking domestic and industry greenhouse gas emission trading systems. EPRI, International Energy Agency (IEA) and International Emissions Trading Association (IETA), ParisGoogle Scholar
  10. Jaffe J, Stavins R (2007) Linking Tradable Permit Systems for Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Opportunities, Implications, and Challenges. International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Margaree Consultants Inc.TorontoCanada
  2. 2.Legal DepartmentWorld BankNW, WashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations