4.7 Article

Designing an emissions trading scheme for China with a dynamic computable general equilibrium model

Journal

ENERGY POLICY
Volume 97, Issue -, Pages 507-520

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.07.039

Keywords

Emissions trading scheme (ETS); Computable general equilibrium (CGE); China; Carbon cap; Permit allocation

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [71301006, 71433001]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in BUCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To fulfill its Copenhagen pledges to control carbon emissions and mitigate climate change, China plans to establish a nationwide emissions trading scheme (ETS) in 2016. This paper develops a multi-sector dynamic computable general equilibrium model with an ETS module to study the appropriate ETS policy design, including a carbon cap, permit allocation and supplementary policies (e.g., penalty policies and subsidy policies). The main results are as follows. (1) To achieve China's Copenhagen pledge, the equilibrium nationwide carbon price is observed to be between 36 and 40 RMB yuan per metric ton. (2) The ETS policy has a cost-effective mitigation effect by improving China's production and energy structures with relatively little economic harm. (3) Various ETS sub-policies should be carefully designed to balance economic growth and carbon mitigation. In particular, the carbon cap should be set according to China's Copenhagen pledge. A relatively large distribution ratio of free permits, the output-based grandfathering rule for free permits, a penalty price (on illegitimate emissions) slightly above the carbon price, and a sufficient subsidy (from ETS revenue) are strongly recommended in the early stages to avoid significant economic loss. These designs can be adjusted in later stages to enhance the mitigation effect. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available