¬ã°Q¤é´Á |
2024¦~11¤ë11¤é12:10-13:50 |
¬ã°Q¦aÂI |
°ê¥ß»OÆW¤j¾ÇªÀ·|¬ì¾Ç°|710·|ij«Ç |
¥DÁ¿ÃD¥Ø Title of the paper |
On
Emissions Trading and Market Structure: Cap-and-Trade versus Intensity
Standards |
§@ªÌ Authors of the paper |
Frans
P. de Vries, Bouwe R. Dijkstra, Matthew McGinty |
¤åÄm¥X³B Journal, vol.(issue), pp |
Environmental
and Resource Economics Volume 58, pages 665¡V682, 30 August 2013 |
¥DÁ¿¤H |
¬IÎr¥þ |
°Ñ¥[¤Hû |
ªL¿P²Q¡B¬IÎr¥þ¡B³\¦Ü¤A¡B°ª°ê峯¡B Bui Dang-Long¡BAyu Sasni Munte¡BMicah Mainala¡BAnggoro Prihandoko¡B¬xºÍµ¾ |
ºKn Abstract of the Paper |
This
paper examines the interdependence between imperfect competition and emissions
trading. We particularly analyze the long run equilibrium in a two-sector
(¡¥clean¡¦ and ¡¥dirty¡¦) model with Cournot competition among firms who face a
fixed cost of production. The clean sector is defined as the sector with the
highest long run cost margin on emissions. We compare the welfare
implications of a cap-and-trade scheme with an emissions trading scheme based
on relative intensity standards. It is shown that a firm¡¦s long run
equilibrium output in the clean or dirty sector does not depend on the
emissions trading format, but only depends on the fixed cost of producing in
the respective sector. Intensity standards can result in clean firms selling
allowances to dirty firms, or dirty firms selling to clean firms. The former
outcome yields higher welfare. It is demonstrated that cap-and-trade
outperforms the intensity-based trading scheme in terms of long run welfare
with free entry and exit. With intensity standards the size of the clean
sector is too large. |