Search

This paper provides a detailed analysis of the Tokyo Metropolitan Emissions Trading Scheme (Tokyo ETS), Japan’s first emissions trading scheme with mandatory cap initiated by the government of Tokyo. Unlike trading schemes in other countries, the Tokyo ETS covers indirect emissions from the commercial sector. It is well known that a variety of market barriers impede full realization of energy efficiency opportunities, especially in the commercial sector. Experiences with the Tokyo ETS should therefore provide important lessons for the design of climate change mitigation policies, especially when targeting the commercial sector. The emissions from covered entities have been drastically reduced from those at the scheme’s outset, with an average 14% reduction as of the end of the first commitment period of five years (2010-2014) compared with 2009 levels. This paper shows that the Tokyo ETS alone did not cause these reductions; there were other drivers. Among them, the energy savings triggered by the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 were crucial. The contribution of credit trading, in contrast, was limited since most of the covered entities reduced emissions by themselves. Through an investigation of official reports, an assessment of the emissions data from the covered entities compared to those of uncovered entities and in-depth interviews with firms covered by the scheme, this paper confirms that the main drivers of emissions reductions by covered entities were separate from the ETS. In fact, the advisory aspect of the scheme seems to be much more important in encouraging energy-saving actions. Key policy insights Most of the observed emission reductions were not caused by the Tokyo ETS alone. An advisory instrument was crucial to the effectiveness of the Tokyo ETS. The experience of the Tokyo ETS suggests that making full use of the advantages of emissions trading is difficult in the case of the commercial sector. Price signals have not provided a stimulus to climate change mitigation actions, which implies that establishing a cap to yield effective carbon prices poses a challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have focused on producers, and on the energy efficiency of buildings, vehicles and other products. Behavioural changes related to climate change also impact 'in-use' emissions, and potentially, emissions both 'upstream' (including from imported goods) and 'downstream' (eg disposal). Consumption-oriented policies may provide avenues to additional and cost-effective emission reductions, but are less prevalent, in part because of political sensitivities around government efforts to shape individual-level mitigation behaviour. In this paper, we explore policy instruments for encouraging low carbon behaviour in the EU context. Drawing on a literature survey and interviews, as part of the EU Carbon-CAP project, we develop a list of 33 potential instruments, present a systematic methodology for assessing their potential impact and feasibility, and apply this to rank instruments of most interest. Most instruments involve a clear trade-off between their potential impact and feasibility; about half feature in the top three scoring categories, many being voluntary approaches, which may be easier to implement, but with limited or highly uncertain impact. However, we identify a handful of top-scoring instruments that deserve far more policy attention. The complexity of consumer and corporate motivations and behaviours suggests that instruments should be trialled and monitored (e.g. in regions / individual States) before widespread introduction. Most would also be most effective when nested within wider policy packages, to address the varied behavioural motivations and stages of supply chains. Key policy insights Influencing consumer behaviour has been little used in climate policy and is politically sensitive and complex, but can address emissions that have largely escaped influence to date. A few instruments stand out as particularly promising, including: technology lists; supply chain procurement by leading retail companies; a carbon-intensive materials consumption charge; and key infrastructure improvements. A common trade-off between potential impact and likely feasibility points to the importance of government-business collaboration to secure support and impact. More ambitious transformation would require a mix of production and consumption-oriented policy instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]