Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system: A multi-criteria analysis. Clò, S., Battles, S., & Zoppoli, P. Energy Policy. ![Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system: A multi-criteria analysis [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex This paper considers several policy options which have been proposed to improve the functioning of the ETS. These options require an intervention either on the ETS cap (−30% target, set-aside, carbon central bank, long-term target) or on the carbon price (European and national price floor). We analyse the impact of each policy on the ETS carbon price and emissions. A multi-criteria evaluation method is applied to compare the policy options against a plurality of environmental, economic and procedural criteria. We find that the final ranking depends on the goals to be achieved, i.e., the relative weights attributed to the criteria. When policymakers want mainly to support the carbon price both in the short and long-run, while improving ETS flexibility and harmonization, the CCB and the EU price floor are, respectively ranked as first and second-best options. As the preference for environmental and implementation goals gradually increases, the position of the EU price floor and CCB options tend to invert. The −30% target should be adopted when reducing emissions is the priority goal, while a national price floor is the worst option, in this case. Nevertheless, self-interested States looking for a relatively quick, feasible solution, may find it optimal.
@article{clo_policy_????,
title = {Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the {EU} emissions trading system: {A} multi-criteria analysis},
issn = {0301-4215},
shorttitle = {Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the {EU} emissions trading system},
url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513001006},
doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.015},
abstract = {This paper considers several policy options which have been proposed to improve the functioning of the ETS. These options require an intervention either on the ETS cap (−30\% target, set-aside, carbon central bank, long-term target) or on the carbon price (European and national price floor). We analyse the impact of each policy on the ETS carbon price and emissions. A multi-criteria evaluation method is applied to compare the policy options against a plurality of environmental, economic and procedural criteria. We find that the final ranking depends on the goals to be achieved, i.e., the relative weights attributed to the criteria. When policymakers want mainly to support the carbon price both in the short and long-run, while improving ETS flexibility and harmonization, the CCB and the EU price floor are, respectively ranked as first and second-best options. As the preference for environmental and implementation goals gradually increases, the position of the EU price floor and CCB options tend to invert. The −30\% target should be adopted when reducing emissions is the priority goal, while a national price floor is the worst option, in this case. Nevertheless, self-interested States looking for a relatively quick, feasible solution, may find it optimal.},
urldate = {2013-03-08},
journal = {Energy Policy},
author = {Clò, Stefano and Battles, Susan and Zoppoli, Pietro},
keywords = {Carbon central bank, Multi-criteria analysis, Price floor},
file = {Mix.pdf:files/37862/Mix.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:files/37946/Clò et al. - Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:files/38307/Clò et al. - 2013 - Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Snapshot:files/37898/S0301421513001006.html:text/html}
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"y8pwB4qffWD6dWmS6","bibbaseid":"cl-battles-zoppoli-policyoptionstoimprovetheeffectivenessoftheeuemissionstradingsystemamulticriteriaanalysis","downloads":0,"creationDate":"2016-09-09T06:27:31.642Z","title":"Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system: A multi-criteria analysis","author_short":["Clò, S.","Battles, S.","Zoppoli, P."],"year":null,"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://www.sfu.ca/~howlett/howlett16.bib","bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system: A multi-criteria analysis","issn":"0301-4215","shorttitle":"Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the EU emissions trading system","url":"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513001006","doi":"10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.015","abstract":"This paper considers several policy options which have been proposed to improve the functioning of the ETS. These options require an intervention either on the ETS cap (−30% target, set-aside, carbon central bank, long-term target) or on the carbon price (European and national price floor). We analyse the impact of each policy on the ETS carbon price and emissions. A multi-criteria evaluation method is applied to compare the policy options against a plurality of environmental, economic and procedural criteria. We find that the final ranking depends on the goals to be achieved, i.e., the relative weights attributed to the criteria. When policymakers want mainly to support the carbon price both in the short and long-run, while improving ETS flexibility and harmonization, the CCB and the EU price floor are, respectively ranked as first and second-best options. As the preference for environmental and implementation goals gradually increases, the position of the EU price floor and CCB options tend to invert. The −30% target should be adopted when reducing emissions is the priority goal, while a national price floor is the worst option, in this case. Nevertheless, self-interested States looking for a relatively quick, feasible solution, may find it optimal.","urldate":"2013-03-08","journal":"Energy Policy","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Clò"],"firstnames":["Stefano"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Battles"],"firstnames":["Susan"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Zoppoli"],"firstnames":["Pietro"],"suffixes":[]}],"keywords":"Carbon central bank, Multi-criteria analysis, Price floor","file":"Mix.pdf:files/37862/Mix.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:files/37946/Clò et al. - Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:files/38307/Clò et al. - 2013 - Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Snapshot:files/37898/S0301421513001006.html:text/html","bibtex":"@article{clo_policy_????,\n\ttitle = {Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the {EU} emissions trading system: {A} multi-criteria analysis},\n\tissn = {0301-4215},\n\tshorttitle = {Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the {EU} emissions trading system},\n\turl = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513001006},\n\tdoi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2013.02.015},\n\tabstract = {This paper considers several policy options which have been proposed to improve the functioning of the ETS. These options require an intervention either on the ETS cap (−30\\% target, set-aside, carbon central bank, long-term target) or on the carbon price (European and national price floor). We analyse the impact of each policy on the ETS carbon price and emissions. A multi-criteria evaluation method is applied to compare the policy options against a plurality of environmental, economic and procedural criteria. We find that the final ranking depends on the goals to be achieved, i.e., the relative weights attributed to the criteria. When policymakers want mainly to support the carbon price both in the short and long-run, while improving ETS flexibility and harmonization, the CCB and the EU price floor are, respectively ranked as first and second-best options. As the preference for environmental and implementation goals gradually increases, the position of the EU price floor and CCB options tend to invert. The −30\\% target should be adopted when reducing emissions is the priority goal, while a national price floor is the worst option, in this case. Nevertheless, self-interested States looking for a relatively quick, feasible solution, may find it optimal.},\n\turldate = {2013-03-08},\n\tjournal = {Energy Policy},\n\tauthor = {Clò, Stefano and Battles, Susan and Zoppoli, Pietro},\n\tkeywords = {Carbon central bank, Multi-criteria analysis, Price floor},\n\tfile = {Mix.pdf:files/37862/Mix.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:files/37946/Clò et al. - Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Full Text PDF:files/38307/Clò et al. - 2013 - Policy options to improve the effectiveness of the.pdf:application/pdf;ScienceDirect Snapshot:files/37898/S0301421513001006.html:text/html}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Clò, S.","Battles, S.","Zoppoli, P."],"key":"clo_policy_????","id":"clo_policy_????","bibbaseid":"cl-battles-zoppoli-policyoptionstoimprovetheeffectivenessoftheeuemissionstradingsystemamulticriteriaanalysis","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513001006"},"keyword":["Carbon central bank","Multi-criteria analysis","Price floor"],"downloads":0},"search_terms":["policy","options","improve","effectiveness","emissions","trading","system","multi","criteria","analysis","clò","battles","zoppoli"],"keywords":["carbon central bank","multi-criteria analysis","price floor"],"authorIDs":[],"dataSources":["Bn7xRaKMY43f7hFwh"]}