Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The CO2 Trading Market in Europe: A Financial Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Financial Aspects in Energy

Abstract

The trading of carbon dioxide (CO2) emission allowances, or permits, has been established in recent years as one of the primary mechanisms for tackling global warming and climate change. The European Union (EU) has taken an important initiative in this direction by establishing in 2003 the first ever mandatory cap-and-trade system for CO2 permits: the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS). The purpose of this paper is to initially provide a brief introduction to the EU ETS and subsequently assess its operation during the years 2005–2010 from a financial market perspective. The insights gained through this analysis are particularly important not only for policy makers and market stakeholders but also for the growing community of the so-called ‘carbon’ investors.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    These goals are part of the so-called ‘Climate-energy legislative package’ adopted by the EU Commission on April 2009 (see: 8434/09 (Presse 77), ‘Council adopts climate-energy legislative package’, European Commission, Brussels, 2009).

  2. 2.

    The European countries were free to decide whether or not to allow emission allowance banking between Phase I and Phase II of the EU ETS. With the exception of France and Poland, all other member states decided against this possibility. Even in these two cases however, banking was strictly limited since it could only be implemented after the approval of the EU Commission. Furthermore, there was a maximum limit on the number of EUAs that could actually be banked, equal to the difference between the initially allocated allowances and the effective emissions of the installation. More importantly, any EUAs purchased in the EU ETS markets during the preliminary period of the scheme could not be banked. For Phase II onwards though, inter-phase banking is permitted (see MEMO/06/452).

  3. 3.

    There is a debate on whether carbon markets are part of the energy markets with convincing arguments from both sides. From a regulation perspective however this is considered to be the case.

  4. 4.

    See: COM (2009) 332 final, ‘Ensuring efficient, safe and sound derivatives markets’, European Commission, Brussels, (2009).

  5. 5.

    See: ECFIN/ARES 205086, ‘Report on oil price developments and transparency issues (Note for the attention of the Economic Policy Committee, DG Economic and Financial Affairs)’, European Commission, Brussels, (2010).

  6. 6.

    See: COM (2009) 332 final, ‘Ensuring efficient, safe and sound derivatives markets’, European Commission, Brussels, (2009).

  7. 7.

    This is to be expected however since the prices of the intra-phase futures are directly linked to spot prices through the cost-of-carry relationship with zero storage costs and convenience yield. In other words, intra-period carbon futures prices are simply discounted expected future spot prices (see Daskalakis et al. 2009).

  8. 8.

    Again the free initial allocation of emission allowances in the firm level was against the consensus view in the literature. Specifically, the initial allocation can take the form of either free allocation, based on the historical emission patterns of the relevant sectors (the so-called ‘grandfathering’), or through auctions, or through a combination of both (see Boemare and Quirion 2002; Böhringer and Lange 2005; Vesterdal and Svendsen 2004 among others). Researchers however point out that auctions should be preferred since only then there would be a clear price signal for the permits that could in turn foster price transparency in the market (Grubb and Neuhoff 2006).

  9. 9.

    Although it can be argued that these profits were far from unexpected for electricity producers.

References

  • Allen F (2009) Lessons from the crisis. Presentation at the Economics Department, European University Institute, Florence, Italy

    Google Scholar 

  • Babiker MH, Jacoby HD, Reilly JM, Reiner DM (2002) The evolution of a climate regime: Kyoto to Marrakesh and beyond. Environ Sci Policy 5:195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boemare C, Quirion P (2002) Implementing greenhouse gas trading in Europe: lessons from economic literature and international experiences. Ecol Econ 43:213–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böhringer C, Lange A (2005) On the design of optimal grandfathering schemes for emission allowances. Eur Econ Rev 49:2041–2055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capoor K, Ambrosi P (2008) State and trends of the carbon market 2008. World Bank Research Report, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase R (1960) The problem of social cost. J Law Econ 3:1–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Council Decision 2002/358/EC Official Journal of the European Union 130:1–3, 15/05/2002

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropper ML, Oates WE (1992) Environmental economics: a survey. J Econ Lit 30:675–740

    Google Scholar 

  • Dales J (1968) Pollution property and prices: an essay in policy-making and economics. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Daskalakis G, Markellos RN (2008) Are the European carbon markets efficient? Rev Futures Markets 17:103–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Daskalakis G, Markellos RN (2009) Are electricity risk premia affected by emission allowance prices? Evidence from the EEX, Nord Pool and Powernext. Energy Policy 37:2594–2604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daskalakis G, Psychoyios D, Markellos RN (2009) Modeling CO2 emission allowance prices and derivatives: evidence from the European trading scheme. J Bank Finance 33:1230–1241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • den Elzen MGJ, de Moor APG (2002) Analyzing the Kyoto Protocol under the Marrakesh Accords: economic efficiency and environmental effectiveness. Ecol Econ 43:141–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2003/87/EC Official Journal of the European Union, 275:32, 25/10/2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2004/101/EC Official Journal of the European Union, 338:18–23, 13/11/2004

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2008/101/EC Official Journal of the European Union, 8:3–21, 13/01/2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Directive 2009/29/EC Official Journal of the European Union, 140:63–87, 05/06/2009

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle E, Hill J, Jack I (2007) Growth in commodity investment: risks and challenges for commodity market participants. FSA Markets Infrastructure Department, Financial Services Authority, London

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission (2006a) IP/06/1650 Emissions trading: Commission decides on first set of national allocation plans for the 2008–2012 trading period, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • EU Commission (2006b) MEMO/06/452 Questions and answers on emissions trading and national allocation plans for 2008 to 2012, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Fezzi C, Bunn D (2007) Structural interactions of European carbon trading and energy prices. J Energy Markets 2:53–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Fusaro PC (2007) Energy and environmental hedge funds. Commodities Now, September, 1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Godal O, Klaasen G (2006) Carbon trading across sources and periods constrained by the Marrakesh Accords. J Environ Econ Manage 51:308–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubb M, Neuhoff K (2006) Allocation and competitiveness in the EU emissions trading scheme: policy overview. Clim Policy 6:7–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanks S (2010) UK and EU regulation of energy derivatives and emission allowance derivatives. Presentation at the Environmental and Energy Finance Group (EEFG) Seminar Series, Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill J, Jennings T, Vanezi E (2008) The emissions trading market: risks and challenges. FSA Commodities Group, Financial Services Authority, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Joskow PL, Schmalensee R, Bailey EM (1998) The market for sulfur dioxide emissions. Am Econ Rev 88:669–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Kara M, Syri S, Lehtilä A, Helynen S, Kekkonen V, Ruska M, Forsström J (2008) The impacts of EU CO2 emissions trading on electricity markets and electricity consumers in Finland. Energy Econ 30:193–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keats K, Neuhoff K (2005) Allocation of carbon emissions certificates in the power sector: how generators profit from grandfathered rights. Clim Policy 5:61–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Kling C, Rubin J (1997) Bankable permits for the control of environmental pollution. J Publ Econ 64:101–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossoy A, Ambrosi P (2010) State and trends of the carbon market 2010. World Bank Research Report, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Linares P, Santos FJ, Ventosa M, Lapiedra L (2006) Impacts of the European emission trading directive and permit assignment methods on the Spanish electricity sector. Energy J 27:79–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery W (1972) Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. J Econ Theory 5:395–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nentjes A, Klaasen G (2004) On the quality of compliance mechanisms in the Kyoto Protocol. Energy Policy 32:531–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paolella MS, Taschini L (2008) An econometric analysis of emission trading allowances. J Bank Finance 32:2022–2032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons JE, Ellerman AD, Feilhauer S (2009) Designing a US market for CO2. J Appl Corp Finance 21:79–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rubin JD (1996) A model of intertemporal emissions trading, banking, and borrowing. J Environ Econ Manage 31:269–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schennach SM (2000) The economics of pollution permit banking in the context of Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Amendments. J Environ Econ Manage 40:189–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schleich J, Ehrhart KM, Hoppe C, Seifert S (2006) Banning banking in EU emissions trading? Energy Policy 34:112–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalensee R, Joskow PL, Ellerman AD, Montero JP, Bailey EM (1998) An interim evaluation of sulfur dioxide emissions trading. J Econ Perspect 12:53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sijm J, Neuhoff K, Chen Y (2006) CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Clim Policy 6:47–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Smale R, Hartley M, Hepburn C, Ward J, Grubb M (2006) The impacts of CO2 emissions trading on firm profits and market prices. Clim Policy 6:29–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Stavins RN (1998) What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons from SO2 allowance trading. J Econ Perspect 12:69–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern N (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen GT, Vesterdal M (2003) How to design greenhouse gas trading in the EU? Energy Policy 31:1531–1539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesterdal M, Svendsen GT (2004) How should greenhouse gas permits be allocated in the EU? Energy Policy 32:961–968

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Norwich Business School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK

    George Daskalakis, Gbenga Ibikunle & Ivan Diaz-Rainey

Authors
  1. George Daskalakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gbenga Ibikunle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ivan Diaz-Rainey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George Daskalakis .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Finance, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, Amsterdam, 1081 HV, Netherlands

    André Dorsman

  2. , Economics, Econometrics and Finance, University of Groningen, Nettelbosje 2, Groningen, 9747 AE, Groningen, Netherlands

    Wim Westerman

  3. , Business Administration, Hacettepe University, Beytepe Campus, Ankara, 06800, Turkey

    Mehmet Baha Karan

  4. , Business Administration, Hacettepe University, Beytepe Campus, Ankara, 06800, Turkey

    Özgür Arslan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Daskalakis, G., Ibikunle, G., Diaz-Rainey, I. (2011). The CO2 Trading Market in Europe: A Financial Perspective. In: Dorsman, A., Westerman, W., Karan, M., Arslan, Ö. (eds) Financial Aspects in Energy. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19709-3_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19709-3_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-19708-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-19709-3

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation