Post-Kyoto Global Emissions Trading: Perspectives for Linking National Emissions Trading Schemes with the EU ETS in a Bottom-Up Approach


The analysis at hand constitutes a legal, institutional and in particular qualitatively economic assessment of a global climate change policy architecture evolving from the linkage of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) with emerging domestic emissions trading schemes (ETS) worldwide. Initially, the marked-based climate change regimes on global as well as on EU level are reviewed. The efficiency of the complex negotiation process at the global level is assessed by its outcome according to international law. The analysis of EU legislation sets the stage for deducing essential criteria as provisions for an effective linking with other national ETS. These critical design issues are then revealed for each linking candidate in order to evaluate the linking potentials of specific domestic ETS. Moreover, the results of this multi-dimensional approach enable statements on the economic efficiency and ecological effectiveness. In particular the inefficiencies of centralized and decentralized regimes are analyzed. Due to these findings subsequent challenges for a fair and effective allocation of allowances in a bottom-up system without a centralized institution re-sponsible for the limitation of the total amount of certificates are dealt with. As starting point for a discussion on con-ceivable legal constructions thereto the latter may play a role within the negotiation process towards future climate change combat strategies and agreements.

Share and Cite:

S. Goers and B. Pflüglmayer, "Post-Kyoto Global Emissions Trading: Perspectives for Linking National Emissions Trading Schemes with the EU ETS in a Bottom-Up Approach," Low Carbon Economy, Vol. 3 No. 3A, 2012, pp. 69-79. doi: 10.4236/lce.2012.323010.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] T. Marauhn and A.-M. B?hringer, “Climate Policy after Copenhagen. The Future of Climate Protection according to International Law,” In: J. Gundel and K. W. Lange, Eds., Climate Policy after Copenhagen—International Instruments and National Implementation, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2011, pp. 1-6.
[2] J. Peel, L. Godden and R. J. Keenan, “Climate Change Law and Governance from the “Bottom up”: Introduction to the Special Issue,” Climate Law, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2011, pp. 459-468.
[3] R. Schüle and W. Sterk, “Linking Domestic Trading Schemes and the Evolution of the International Climate Regime Bottom-Up Support of Top-Down Processes? Introduction to the Special Issue of MITI,” Mitigation and Adaption Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 14, No. 5, 2009, pp. 376-378. doi:10.1007/s11027-009-9182-9
[4] M. Mace, I. Miller, C. Schwarte, J. Anderson, D. Broekhoff, R. Bradley, C. Bowyer and R. Heilmayr, “Analysis of the Legal and Organizational Issues Arising in Linking the EU Emissions Trading Scheme to Other Existing and Emerging Emissions Trading Schemes,” Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development, London, Institute for European Environmental Policy In- stitute, Brussels, World Resources Institute, Washington, 2008.
[5] C. Hood, “Reviewing Existing and Proposed Emissions Trading Schemes,” International Energy Agency, Paris, 2010. doi:10.1787/5km4hv3mlg5c-en
[6] C. Fischer, “Combining Rate-Based and Cap-and-Trade Emissions Policies,” Climate Policy, Vol. 3, No. Supplement 2, 2003, pp. S89-S103.
[7] C. Flachsland, R. Marschinski and O. Edenhofer, “Global Trading versus Linking: Architectures for international Emission Trading,” Energy Policy, Vol. 37, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1637-1647. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2008.12.008
[8] J. Jaffe and R. Stavins, “Linkage of Tradable Permit Systems in International Climate Policy Architecture (Discussion Paper 08-07),” The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Cambridge, 2008. doi:10.3386/w14432
[9] C. Helm, “International Emissions Trading with Endogenous Allowance Choices,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 87, No. 12, 2003, pp. 2737-2747. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00138-X
[10] A. D’Amato and E. Valentini, “A Note on International Emissions Trading with Endogenous Allowance Choice,” Economics Bulletin, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2011, pp. 1451-1462.
[11] J. Cao, “Beyond Copenhagen: Reconciling International Fairness, Economic Development and Climate Protection (Discussion Paper 10-44),” The Harvard Project on International Climate Agreements, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 2010.
[12] F. Ekardt and A. von H?vel, “Distributive Justice, Competitiveness, and Transnational Climate Protection: One Human—One Emission Right,” Carbon & Climate Law Review, Vol. 1, 2009, pp. 102-113.
[13] J. Onigkeit, N. Anger and B. Brouns, “Fairness Aspects of linking the European emissions Trading Scheme under a Long-Term Stabilization Scenario for CO2 Concentrations,” Mitigation and Adaption Strategies for Global Change, Vol. 14, No. 5, 2009, pp. 477-494. doi:10.1007/s11027-009-9177-6
[14] S. Monjon and P. Quirion, “Addressing Leakage in the EU ETS: Border Adjustment or Output-Based Allocation?” Ecological Economics, Vol. 70, No. 11, 2011, pp. 1657-1971. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.020

Copyright © 2024 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.