<p>The European Union has initiated a scheme for trading with CO2 emission allowances as a measure to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels. Since January 2005 companies from certain energy demanding sectors, responsible for approximately 50 % of the total CO2 emissions in the EU, are participating in this scheme, the so called EU Emission Trading Scheme.</p><p>A trading scheme covering all sectors, i.e. all emissions in the EU would lead to the most cost efficient solution to reduce emissions by a certain amount. This means that the EU Emission Trading Scheme should be enlarged to cover also the transport sector, which is not participating today, but responsible for about 21 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU.</p><p>There are three ways to include the transport sector in the EU Emission Trading Scheme, i.e. to administrate the handling and trading of emission allowances in the transport sector. The first is a so called downstream approach, meaning that the actual emitter of the GHG, in this case a private person driving a car or a haulage contractor using trucks to transport goods, would be responsible for acquiring and trading emission allowances in accordance to the amount of greenhouse gases that he emits. The second way is a so called upstream approach, meaning that the owner of fuel depots would be responsible for acquiring and trading emission allowances corresponding to the amount of fossil fuel that he is selling, which is proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases that is emitted when using the fuel. The third solution is to lay the responsibility for acquiring and trading emission allowances on the companies that are ordering the transportation service, indirectly causing greenhouse gas emissions when their goods are being transported.</p><p>All three solutions have their advantages and disadvantages, but the benefits of using the upstream approach are the greatest. By allocating the responsibility for keeping and trading emission allowances at the fuel depots, an extensive part of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use, not only in the transport sector, could be covered by the EU Emission Trading Scheme to the lowest administrational cost possible.</p>

<p>Aviation industry has been developing throughout the last decades and is today an important part of the global economy. This constant growth makes it important to constrain the climate impacts derived from it. The IPCC report (1999), Aviation and the global atmosphere, lists four measures to reduce emissions and environmental impacts of aviation; Aircraft and engine technology options, fuel options, operational options and regulatory and economic options. The study aims to discuss the efficiency and implementation level of the measures. The theoretical frame for the research is based on literature studies whereas the empirical material is based on qualitative interviews of representatives of three key sectors; the authority, the service provider and the aircraft operator.</p><p>While analysing the theoretical and the empirical results, a certain emphasis on the regulatory and economical measures has been noticed. Moreover, following conclusions have been drawn;</p><p>(1) An emission trading with carbon dioxide would be an incentive to improve aircraft technology and flying procedures; (2) The best way of having international aviation included in the European emissions trading scheme (EU ETS) would be through an initial grandfathering distribution (costless distribution of permits according to historical emission and volume of fuel use) done according to a best-practise philosophy; (3) A robust instrument to measure emissions behaviour at different levels of the atmosphere is still missing. (4) The exclusion of the international aviation from the Kyoto Protocol negotiations makes it harder to include it in the existing EU ETS. Finally, all measures are needed and should be put into practise, but a trading with emissions would be the one to start the improving cycle leading to more sustainable results regarding time, environment and economy.</p>

The European Union has initiated a scheme for trading with CO2 emission allowances as a measure to reduce greenhouse gas emission levels. Since January 2005 companies from certain energy demanding sectors, responsible for approximately 50 % of the total CO2 emissions in the EU, are participating in this scheme, the so called EU Emission Trading Scheme. A trading scheme covering all sectors, i.e. all emissions in the EU would lead to the most cost efficient solution to reduce emissions by a certain amount. This means that the EU Emission Trading Scheme should be enlarged to cover also the transport sector, which is not participating today, but responsible for about 21 % of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. There are three ways to include the transport sector in the EU Emission Trading Scheme, i.e. to administrate the handling and trading of emission allowances in the transport sector. The first is a so called downstream approach, meaning that the actual emitter of the GHG, in this case a private person driving a car or a haulage contractor using trucks to transport goods, would be responsible for acquiring and trading emission allowances in accordance to the amount of greenhouse gases that he emits. The second way is a so called upstream approach, meaning that the owner of fuel depots would be responsible for acquiring and trading emission allowances corresponding to the amount of fossil fuel that he is selling, which is proportional to the amount of greenhouse gases that is emitted when using the fuel. The third solution is to lay the responsibility for acquiring and trading emission allowances on the companies that are ordering the transportation service, indirectly causing greenhouse gas emissions when their goods are being transported. All three solutions have their advantages and disadvantages, but the benefits of using the upstream approach are the greatest. By allocating the responsibility for keeping and trading emission allowances at the fuel depots, an extensive part of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use, not only in the transport sector, could be covered by the EU Emission Trading Scheme to the lowest administrational cost possible.

<p>The aim of this study is to clarify the Swedish government’s purpose of participating in the</p><p>European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Taking as its departure point state-centric</p><p>international political economy this study presents three plausible hypotheses on what the</p><p>purpose might be. Either it is to promote consumers interests, or to promote the Swedish</p><p>national climate goal “Reduced impact on climate”, or to promote the profit of Swedish</p><p>companies. The study sets out to test the hypotheses through four different methods in order</p><p>to disprove them. Through a text analysis of four different government proposals, through a</p><p>questionnaire sent out to 98 companies included in the Swedish National Allocation Plan,</p><p>through an interview with a ministerial civil servant and through a game theoretical matrix</p><p>based on the government’s own preferences.</p><p>The conclusion should be of interest to industry, environmentalists, politicians as well as to</p><p>journalists and scientists. From a theoretical point of view the conclusion explains the reason</p><p>for priorities and setting of rules by the government within energy politics as well as within</p><p>climate politics. The study concludes that the climate is priority number one and industry is</p><p>priority number two and this explains why, according to an industrial spokesperson, industrial</p><p>interests are not being met to a full extent. However the tide may turn in the future if the</p><p>government decides to include carbon dioxide sinks in the Emission Trading Scheme. The</p><p>government believes that storing carbon dioxide for a limited amount of time is worse than</p><p>reducing actual emissions.</p>

Compared to the relative wealth of information surrounding design in the context of system-of-systems there has been little research surrounding policy making in system-of-systems. While the adoption of a formal approach and lexicon for system-of-systems problems has been proposed by researchers, the specific inclusion of regulatory policies in system-of-systems is still largely absent or underdeveloped. Typically, there is no distinction between internal policies of an organization and exogenous policies coming through regulatory channels. Further, researchers have yet to formally employ a standardized framework to regulatory policy problems in the context of a system-of-systems. As international regulatory bodies are calling on world States to identify and select “baskets of measures” to address CO2 emissions from civil aviation, there is a growing recognition that doing so will require a framework for policy identification and selection. Despite this recognition, such a framework has yet to be established. This research develops a formal lexicon for public policy as a part of system-of-systems, and employs a formalized process to explore multiple established, planned, and potential policies in the context of the global civil aviation system. Existing architectures and lexicons will be expanded to include regulatory policies that have often been treated as exogenous forcing functions in system-of-systems problems. Ultimately, a process for informed quantitative decision making to support concurrent CO2 regulatory policy analysis and design in the civil aviation system-of-systems is established. The developed methodology will allow policy makers to systematically identify effective policy space, while maintaining the objectivity of the analyst.

We extend the dual sourcing model based on the newsvendor framework by considering the environmental impact of transport. In our context, dual sourcing means that a company, e.g. a retailer, uses an offshore and an onshore supplier. We include environmental regulations for transport in the model. Firstly, emission taxes for the transport from the offshore source are considered. It can be shown that with increasing emissions taxes the company sources less from offshore. This improves the environmental performance but the economic performance (expected profit) is severely harmed. Secondly, we propose that an emission trading scheme is valid for transport activities. In this case, the optimal policy turns out to be a two-sided control-limit policy. If the emission limit (expressed in product units) is set to the minimal offshore order quantity the environmental impact of transport can be reduced while the economic performance is nearly not affected. Thus, from managerial perspective emission trading is preferred to an emission tax on transport. Also from the perspective of policy-making emission trading is reasonable as it helps to limit the negative environmental impact of transport but does not strongly reduce the competitiveness of individual companies.

The graduation theses is focused on problems of reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which are contributing to acceleration of climate change. From 2005 the EU ETS cames into force, but many economics subjects, which yield to this system of regulation, have to pay environmental taxes as well, because individual member states have adopted own approaches to the problem of abatement emission. Economic subject then face to double burden and that is why they complains. Double steering and double burden should be avoided by reducing and removing the existing CO2 taxation schemes, because it brings inefficiency - like very high cots of abatement emission.

Responsible investing has become a trend throughout financial markets. As World’s economies pledge to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, environmental policies like carbon pricing (CP) are expected to be strengthened; the above is attributed to the effort of internalizing the environmental costs of the current economic system. In the same context where asset owners have been demanding to the private sector for greater coverage of Environmental Social Governance (ESG) issues, understanding exposure and risk to carbon taxation and emission trading schemes (ETS) could be a major driver for responsible investing. Nonetheless, it has been found that this environmental policy to price emissions, falls behind from a harmonized cost per emission across sectors and geographies. Defined and assessed through a quantitative scenario analysis on scope 1 emissions, all information on carbon pricing set the basis for the model. From an investing perspective, the results showed higher exposure for the electricity sector by 2030 and 2050; nonetheless, the riskiest sector to invest at, was shown as industry. The above is based on the current and expected carbon dependency, and the expected increase in coverage from carbon pricing mechanisms respectively. In addition, aviation, which is a sub-sector from offroad transportation, showed to be the main source for this sector´s exposure and risk. It is concluded that the research carried out is a first step from a complete analysis on CP, as scope 2 emissions need to be assessed. / Att investera ansvarsfullt är en trend som ökar stadigt genom finansmarknader i världen idag. Då flera ekonomier i världen utlovar att minska mängden utsläpp av växthusgaser i linje med vissa klimatscenarion, så förstärks miljöpolicys som koldioxidutsläppspriser i ett försök att internalisera externaliteter i dagens ekonomiska system. I kontexten av när ägare av tillgångar börjar kräva större täckning i miljö, socialt ansvar och ägarstyrning, kan exponering och risk i koldioxidutsläppsbeskattning och handel av utsläppsoptioner vara en drivande faktor i ansvarsfullt investerande. En utmaning i att prissätta utsläpp genom miljöpolicys ligger i hur separerade båda mekanismerna är från en harmoniserad kostnad per utsläpp genom olika sektorer och geografier. Definierad och utvärderad genom en kvantitativ scenarioanalys av Scope 1-utsläpp, verkade all information om koldioxidutläppspriser som grund till modellen. Från ett investeringsperspektiv visade resultaten en högre exponering för elkraftssektorn till 2030 och 2050. Emellertid påvisades även att industrisektorn har störst risk för investeringar. Detta är baserat på elkraftens nuvarande och förväntade koldioxidutsläppsberoende och den förväntade ökningen i täckning från koldioxidutsläppsprismekanismer i industrisektorn. Vidare påvisades flygindustrin, som är en sidosektor av offroad-transport, vara den huvudsakliga källan för denna sektors exponering och risk. Avslutningsvis fastställs det att denna undersökning endast är ett första steg i en komplett analys av koldioxidpriser, då Scope 2 utsläpp även bör undersökas.

No description available.

The thesis focuses on comparison of emission trading of the European Union (European Union Emission Trading Scheme) which trades with carbon dioxide allowances and emission trading of the United States of America (Acid Rain Program) which trade with sulphur dioxide allowances. Despite of using same mechanisms and principles, these systems brought diverse results -- mostly because of different implementation of key parameters. The thesis which concerns with both of these systems is trying to find the major reasons of unsuccessful implementation of the European Union trading and the most important reasons leading to successful performance of the U.S. program.