4.7 Article

Game analysis of carbon emission verification: A case study from Shenzhen's cap-and-trade system in China

期刊

ENERGY POLICY
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 418-428

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2019.04.024

关键词

Cap-and-trade; Carbon emission verification; Game analysis; Emission reduction policy

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71472126, 71402102, 71572114, 71402101, 71272089]
  2. Outstanding Young Teacher Cultivation Projects in Guangdong Province [YQ2014152]
  3. Key Project of Guangdong Province (Basic Research and Applied Research) (Social Science) [2016WZDXM005]
  4. China Scholarship Council [201808440655]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carbon emission verification is one of the key factors required for proper implementation of a cap-and-trade (C&T) system. However, to obtain more revenue, emission generating companies (GCs) may collude with third-party verifiers (3 PVs) and conceal real carbon emission data. Based on actual practice of Shenzhen's C&T system, a three-player game model has been devised in this paper to analyze the behaviors among GCs, 3 PVs and government. Given the government's current piecewise linear re-verification policy, the optimal reported carbon intensity for GCs has been provided. Our research reveals that if the actual carbon intensity is larger than historical carbon intensity GCs may report less carbon intensity and conceal actual carbon emission. To deal with this issue, a new exponential re-verification policy is proposed. Based on authentic data from Shenzhen's C&T system, the experimental results show that the government should devote more attention to GCs with a decreasing industrial product output value-added (IVA) than to those with high carbon emissions when selecting GCs for re-verification. Our experiments also illustrate that the new policy outperforms the current one on both total concealed amount of carbon emission and total re-verification cost if the initial re-verification probability is set within a specific range.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据