Emissions Trading

Part of the Sustainability and Innovation book series (SUSTAINABILITY)

Emissions trading is a comparatively new policy instrument which has recently been introduced to the existing governance structure of electricity systems in Europe. The development of emissions trading thus represents an innovation in its own right, an innovation in governance.

This chapter discusses emissions trading as an innovation in the context of the broader task of transforming electricity systems for sustainable development. We place a special focus on the various design options of emissions trading and their likely impact on the sustainable development of electricity systems. A short analysis of the innovation process that led to the currently observable policy practices demonstrates the intricacies of putting policy theory in practice. In conclusion, we draw together analysis of design options and innovation dynamics to discuss possibilities for shaping the innovation process of emissions trading with a view to exploiting the potentials of emissions trading for the sustainable development of electricity systems.


Kyoto Protocol Trading Scheme Emission Trading Design Option Emission Trading Scheme 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BASIC (2006) The Sao Paulo Proposal for an Agreement on Future International Climate Policy. Discussion Paper for COP-12 & COP-MOP-2, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  2. Blyth W, Yang M (2006) Impact of Climate Change Policy Uncertainty in Power Investment. IEA Working Papers LTO/2006//02. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchner B (2007) Policy Uncertainty, Investment and Commitment Periods. COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2007)8. IEA (International Energy Agency) and OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Buchner B, Bosetti V, Carraro C (2004) Climate Policy and the Kyoto Protocol — Banking Provision. Does it Really Matter? FEEM (Fondazione ENI Enrico Mattei), MilanGoogle Scholar
  5. Cames M (forthcoming) Emissions Trading and Innovation in the German Electricity Industry. PhD Thesis, TU Berlin, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  6. Cames M, Weidlich A (2006) Emissions trading and innovation in the German electricity industry. In: Antes R, Hansjürgens B, Letmathe P (eds) Emissions Trading and Business. Springer/Physika, Heidelberg, New York, pp 39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CAN Europe (2008) Emissions Trading in the EU. Retrieved 5 May 2008, from
  8. Cass L (2005) Norm Entrapment and Preference Change: The Evolution of the European Union Position on International Emissions Trading. Global Environmental Politics 5 (2): 38–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christiansen AC, Wettestad J (2003) The EU as a frontrunner on greenhouse gas emissions trading: how did it happen and will the EU succeed? Climate Policy 3 (1): 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coase RH (1960) The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3: 1–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cook BJ (1988) Bureaucratic Politics and regulatory reform. The EPA and Emission Trading. Greenwood Press, WestportGoogle Scholar
  12. Cronshaw MB, Kruse JB (1996) Regulated Firms in Pollution Permit Markets With Banking. Journal of Regulatory Economics 9 (2): 179–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dales JH (1968) Pollution, Property, and Prices. Toronto University Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  14. Damro C, Luaces Méndez P (2003) Emissions Trading at Kyoto: From EU Resistance to Union Innovation. Environmental Politics 12 (2): 71–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DEFRA (2003) Commentary on preliminary 1st year results and 2002 transaction log, London, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UKGoogle Scholar
  16. DEFRA (2007) Taking Forward the UK Climate Change Bill: The Government Response to Pre-Legislative Scrutiny and Public Consultation, London, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. Deutscher Bundestag (2007) Gesetz über den nationalen Zuteilungsplan für Treibhausgas-Emissionsberechtigungen in der Zuteilungsperiode 2008 bis 2012 (Zuteilungsgesetz 2012). Bundesgesetzblatt. Bundesanzeiger Verlag, pp 1788–1808Google Scholar
  18. Ecofys (2008) Future International Action on Climate Change Network. Retrieved 8 May 2008, from
  19. ECX (2007) Historical data — ECX CFI Futures Contract. Retrieved 05 August 2008, from asp?id =4&sid =Futures%20PriceV
  20. EEA (2007) Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2005 and inventory report 2007. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  21. Ellerman AD (2006) New Entrant and Closure Provisions: How do they distort? Working Papers WP-2006-013. MIT CEEPR (Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research), Cambridge/MAGoogle Scholar
  22. Ellerman AD, Joskow PL, Schmalensee R, Montero J-P, Bailey EM (2000) Markets for Clean Air. The U.S. Acid Rain Program. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. EU Council (2007) Presidency Conclusions European Council 8/9 March 2007, Brussels, 2 May 2007, Council of the European UnionGoogle Scholar
  24. European Commission (1999) Preparing for Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Commission Communication to the Council and the Parliament, Brussels, 19 May 1999, COM(1999) 230Google Scholar
  25. European Commission (2000) Green Paper on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Within the European Union, Brussels, 8 March 2000, COM(2000) 87 finalGoogle Scholar
  26. European Commission (2001) Final Report: ECCP Working Group 1 “Flexible Mechanisms”, Brussels, 2 May 2001Google Scholar
  27. European Commission (2008) Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading system of the Community, Brussels, 23 Jan 2008, COM(2008) 16 finalGoogle Scholar
  28. European Parliament and Council of the EU (2003) 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 96/6 1/EC, Strasbourg, Brussels, Official Journal of the European Union, pp 32–46Google Scholar
  29. European Parliament and Council of the EU (2004) 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, Strasbourg, Brussels, Official Journal of the European Union, pp 18–23Google Scholar
  30. Godby RW, Mestelman S, Muller RA, Weiland JD (1997) Emissions Trading with Shares and Coupons when Control over Discharges Is Uncertain. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 32 (3): 359–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Graichen P, Requate T (2003) Der steinige Weg von der Theorie in die Praxis des Emissionshandels — Die EU-Richtlinie zum CO2-Emissionshandel und ihre nationale Umsetzung. Economics Working Paper No 003–08. CAU (Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel), KielGoogle Scholar
  32. Groscurth H-M (2007) Effects of emissions trading estimated with the DECCO-S electricity market model for Germany. Personal communication, 29 Nov. 2007. Arrhenius Institute for Energy and Climate PolicyGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrison D, Jr. (1999) Turning theory into practice for emissions trading in the Los Angeles air basin. In: Sorrell S, Skea J (eds) Pollution for Sale. Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 63–82Google Scholar
  34. Hoibye G (1999) Designing a scheme for SO2 trading in Norway. In: Sorrell S, Skea J (eds) Pollution for sale. Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 101–108Google Scholar
  35. IEA (2007) Tackling Investment Challenges in Power Generation In IEA Countries. International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. Ishii J, Yan J (2004) Investment under Regulatory Uncertainty: U.S. Electricity Generation Investment Since 1996. Working Paper CSEM WP 127. Center for the Study of Energy Markets, Berkeley/CAGoogle Scholar
  37. Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2001) Technological Change and the Environment. RFF Discussion Paper 00-47REV, Washington, NovemberGoogle Scholar
  38. Jung C, Krutilla K, Boyd R (1996) Incentives for Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology at the Industry Level: An Evaluation of Policy Alternatives. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 30(1): 95–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kling C, Rubin J (1997) Bankable permits for the control of environmental pollution. Journal of Public Economics 64 (1): 101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Marcus AA (1980) Promise and Performance. Choosing and Implementing an Environmental Policy. Greenwood, Westport, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  41. Matthes FC, Neuhoff K (2007) Auctioning in the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Final Report. Comissioned by WWF. Öko-Institut and University of Cambridge, Berlin/CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Meidinger E (1985) On Explaining the Development of ‘Emissions Trading’ in U.S. Air Pollution Regulation. Law and Policy 7 (4): 447–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Milliman SR, Prince R (1989) Firm incentives to promote technological change in pollution control. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 17 (3): 247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. MoE (2007) The Midnight Sun Dialogue on Climate Change. Discussion and Background Papers. Ministry of the Environment, Sweden, RiksgränsenGoogle Scholar
  45. Montgomery WD (1972) Markets in Licenses and Efficient Pollution Control Programs. Journal of Economic Theory 5 (3): 395–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Müller C (2007) Der Emissionsrechtehandel und die Emissionsrechtewirtschaft. Aspekte, die zu einer veränderten Diskussion des Politikinstruments Emissionshandel führen. PhD Thesis, RWTH Aachen, Institut für Politische Wissenschaft, AachenGoogle Scholar
  47. NETT (2006) Possible Design for a National Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme. Discussion Paper. National Emissions Trading TaskforceGoogle Scholar
  48. Oberndorfer U, Rennings K, Sahin B (2006) The Impacts of the European Emissions Trading Scheme on Competitiveness and Employment in Europe, a Literature Review. ZEW (Center for European Economic Research), MannheimGoogle Scholar
  49. Oberthür S, Ott H (1999) The Kyoto Protocol: International Climate Policy for the 21st Century. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  50. OECD (1997) Putting Markets to Work: The Design and Use of Marketable Permits and Obligations. Public Management Occasional Papers. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  51. OECD/IEA (2004) Emission Trading: Taking Stock and Looking Forward. Information Paper for UNFCCC Annex I Expert Group. OECD Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency, ParisGoogle Scholar
  52. Pedersen SL (2000) The Danish CO2 Emissions Trading System. RECIEL 9 (3): 223–237Google Scholar
  53. Phaneuf DJ, Requate T (2002) Incentives for Investment in Advanced Pollution Abatement Technology in Emission Permit Markets with Banking. Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 369–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prittwitz V (1990) Das Katastrophenparadox. Elemente einer Theorie der Umweltpolitik. Leske+Budrich, OpladenGoogle Scholar
  55. Project 88 (1988) Harnessing Market Forces to Protect the Environment. First Report, Cambridge, MassachussetsGoogle Scholar
  56. Requate T, Unold W (2003) Environmental policy incentives to adopt advanced abatement technology: Will the true ranking please stand up? European Economic Review 47: 125–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schleich J, Betz R (2005) Incentives for energy efficiency and Innovation in the European Emissions Trading System. What Works & Who Delivers? Eceee 2005 Summer Study, Mandelieu, European Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, pp 1495–1506Google Scholar
  58. Schneider L (2007) Is the CDM fulfilling its environmental and sustainable development objectives? An evaluation of the CDM and options for improvement. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature), Öko-Institut, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  59. Schumacher K, Sands RD (2006) Innovative energy technologies and climate policy in Germany. Energy Policy 34 (18): 3929–3941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Schwarze R (2001) Dynamische Anreizwirkung von Umweltzertifikaten. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht 24 (4): 501–536Google Scholar
  61. Sharpe WF, Alexander GJ (1990) Investments. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  62. Sijm J, Neuhoff K, Chen Y (2006) CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Climate Policy 6 (1): 49–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith A (2004) Policy transfer and the development of UK climate policy. Policy & Politics 32 (1): 79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sorrell S (1999) Why sulphur trading failed in the UK. In: Sorrell S, Skea J (eds) Pollution for sale. Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 170–209Google Scholar
  65. Stavins RN (2002) Lessons from the American Experiment with Market-Based Environmental Policies. Nota di Lavoro 30. FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei), MilanoGoogle Scholar
  66. Stephan G, Müller-Fürstenberger G (1999) Banking and Trade of Carbon Emission Rights — A CGE Analysis. Institute of Applied Micro-Economics, University of Bern, BernGoogle Scholar
  67. Sullivan R, Blyth W (2006) Climate Change Policy Uncertainty and the Electricity Industry: Implications and Unintended Consequences. Briefing Paper EEDP BP 06/02. Chatham House and Insight Investment, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. Tietenberg TH (1985) Emissions Trading. An Exercise in Reforming Pollution Policy. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  69. Tietenberg TH (2002) The Tradable Permits Approach to Protecting the Commons: What Have We Learned? Nota di lavoro 36.2002. FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei), MilanoGoogle Scholar
  70. van Lente H (1993) Promising technologies: The dynamics of expectations in technological development. Twente University Press, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  71. van Lente H, Rip A (1998) Expectations in technological developments: An example of prospective structures to be filled in by agency. In: Disco C, van der Meulen BJR (eds) Getting New Things Together. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, pp 195–220Google Scholar
  72. Voß J-P (2007) Designs on governance. Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. PhD Thesis, Twente University, School of Management and Governance, EnschedeGoogle Scholar
  73. Weimann J (1991) Umweltökonomik. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  74. Wettestad J (2005) The Making of the 2003 EU Emissions Trading Directive: An Ultra-Quick Process due to Entrepreneurial Efficiency? Global Environmental Politics 5 (1): 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Woerdman E (2002) Implementing Kyoto Mechanisms: Political Barriers and Path Dependence. PhD Thesis, University of Groningen, GroningenGoogle Scholar
  76. Zapfel P (2007) Entstehungsgeschichte des Europäischen Emissionshandelssystems. Interview by Cames M and Voß JP, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  77. Zapfel P, Vainio M (2002) Pathways to European Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading History and Misconceptions. Nota Di Lavoro 85.2002. FEEM (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Physica-Verlag Heidelberg 2009

Personalised recommendations