Search

The intention of this paper is to (i) introduce a multi-regional dynamic emissions trading model and (ii) examine the potential impact of an emissions trading scheme (ETS) on the long-term evolution of energy technologies from national and regional perspectives in China. The establishment of this model is a salutary attempt to Sinicize the global integrated assessment model that combines economy, energy, and environment systems. The simulation results indicate that: (1) for majority of regions, ETS is more effective in cutting CO2 emissions than a harmonized carbon tax (HCT), but this might not be true for the entire country, which means that these two options have little difference in overall carbon reduction; (2) carbon tax policy is a more cost-effective option in curbing CO2 with respect to ETS in the long run; (3) neither ETS nor pure carbon tax provide enough incentives for the breakthrough of carbon-free energy technologies, which illustrates that matching with some other support policies, such as subsidies and R&D investment, is essential to extend the niche market; and (4) In the context of ETS, the diffusion of non-fossil technologies in regions that act as sellers performs much better than this diffusion in the buyer regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emissions trading scheme has recently become an important emissions reduction mechanism in China. The initial quota allocation is one of the key points in its design, which includes the initial quota allocation criterion and allocation method. In this paper, we analyze the regional macroeconomic impacts of emissions trading in China under different quota allocation criteria and allocation methods using a multiregional computable general equilibrium (CGE) model. The results show that the Ability-to-Pay criterion is better than the other criteria, as it can lead to fewer macroeconomic costs and welfare losses; narrow the economic gap between the eastern, central and western regions; and guide investment into the western regions. Comparing free allocation and auction, it is determined that free allocation leads to lower macroeconomic costs, while auction is better at adjusting the industrial structure. This indicates that a hybrid allocation method is preferable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]