4.6 Article

Efficiency versus Equality: Comparing Design Options for Indirect Emissions Accounting in the Korean Emissions Trading Scheme

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 7, Issue 11, Pages 14982-15002

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su71114982

Keywords

emissions trading scheme; indirect emissions; computable general equilibrium; South Korea

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea Grant - Korean Government [NRF-2014S1A5A8014323]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2014S1A5A8014323] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Korean emissions trading scheme (ETS) has one special characteristic that makes it different from other schemes, such as the EU ETS. While the other schemes consider only direct emissions from fossil fuels, the Korean ETS also regulates indirect emissions arising from the consumption of electricity. The problem of double counting arises under this setting, in which emissions from the power sector can be accounted for twice, when electricity is produced and consumed. This study aims to compare design options on indirect emissions accounting for the Korean ETS using a computable general equilibrium model. Four scenarios are generated for options accounting for direct and/or indirect emissions and are evaluated in terms of efficiency and equality. The result shows that the ETS operates most efficiently when only direct emissions are considered. However, the option that includes both direct and indirect emissions produces a competent result in terms of equality by spreading the economic burden of emissions reduction among industries. We conclude that this option can be an alternative to meet the key purposes of the Korean ETS.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available