Showing papers by "Steve Sorrell published in 1999"
Posted Content•
[...]
TL;DR: Emissions trading has become a central feature of global efforts to control climate change and its inclusion in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change represents a victory for advocates of market-based instruments and builds upon twenty years of experience with trading schemes in the United States as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: Emissions trading has become a central feature of global efforts to control climate change. Its inclusion in the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change represents a victory for advocates of market-based instruments and builds upon twenty years of experience with trading schemes in the United States. However, the concept is controversial and attempts to introduce similar trading schemes in Europe have met with mixed results.
14 citations
TL;DR: The use of emissions trading for the control of sulphur emissions was first proposed by the UK government in 1992 as an attractive means to overcome problems with the existing regulatory framework (DoE, 1992). Despite repeated pronouncements in favour of ‘sulphur quota switching’ (as it was termed) and a strong commitment to economic instruments and deregulation, the idea was eventually dropped in 1996.
Abstract: The use of emissions trading for the control of sulphur emissions was first proposed by the UK government in 1992 as an attractive means to overcome problems with the existing regulatory framework (DoE, 1992). Despite repeated pronouncements in favour of ‘sulphur quota switching’ (as it was termed) and a strong commitment to economic instruments and deregulation, the idea was eventually dropped in 1996. This chapter explains why this occurred and draws some general lessons for the implementation of emissions trading in Europe. These lessons are particularly relevant to carbon trading after Kyoto. The various European regulations on sulphur emissions and the way these have been implemented within the UK. An account of the radical changes in UK energy markets over the last decade and the impact of these on sulphur emissions follows. The evolution of the debate on sulphur quota switching is then described, showing how the proposals faced a series of obstacles that ultimately proved insurmountable. Six reasons are proposed for the failure of the scheme, namely: independent developments in energy markets; a conflict of regulatory principles; a conflict of regulatory culture; a conflict over quota allocation; persistent regulatory uncertainty; and inadequate political support. The wider implications of these lessons are then considered.