The Commission of the European Union wants to start a limited emission trading scheme by 2005 within the Community to enable “learning-by-doing” prior to the Kyoto Protocol. This is to accomplish the desired 8% target level for six different greenhouse gases. However, in the EU it is not clear whether all the six relevant greenhouse gases or only CO2 should be traded. What is the simplest and most practicable solution? We argue in favour of the latter option for three main reasons: the possible dominating global warming potential of CO2, expected future developments in CO2 emissions and the fact, that CO2 is the pollutant most easily monitored.
CEU (2000a): “Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading within the European Union.”Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 8.3.2000, COM (2000) 87 final.
3.
CEU (2000b): “European Climate Change Programme (ECCP).”Commission of the European Communities, Brussels (access date June 12, 2001).
CEU (1998): An Environmental Agreement with the European Automobile Industry, Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament. The European Commission.
6.
CEU (2001b), Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (presented by the Commission) Brussels, 23.10.2001, COM (2001) 581 final, 2001/0245 (COD) http://europa.eu.int/eurlex/en/com/pdf/2001/en_501PC0581.pdf (access date 12 December 2001).
7.
DaugbjergC.SvendsenG.T.: Green Taxation in Question. MacMillan (Palgrave), UK.
8.
ECOFYS (1998), Emission Reduction Potential and Costs for Methane and Nitrous Oxide in the EU-15, Interim Report by order of the DGXI, EC.
9.
FosterB. (2002): Critique of IPCC's TAR Summary for Policymakers. Energy and Environment, Vol. 13, no. 3, 333–36.
10.
Hj¿llundL.SvendsenG.T. (2001): ‘Why Green Taxation.’Energy & Environment, 12 (1), 29–38.
11.
IPCC1996: Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change
12.
LooseH. (2001): “Kyoto Protocol: Trade versus the Environment.”Energy & Environment, vol. 12, 1, 23–28.
13.
McKibbinW. (2001): “A Global Alternative to Kyoto.”Energy & Environment, vol. 12, 1, 1–6.
14.
SvendsenG.T.2003. Political Economy of the European Union: Institutions, Policy and Economic Growth. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. In press.
15.
SvendsenG.T. (1998): Public Choice and Environmental Regulation: Tradable Permit Systems in United States and CO2 Taxation in Europe. New Horizons in Environmental Economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
16.
VarmingS.EriksenP. B.GrohnheitP. E.NielsenL.SvendsenG. T.VesterdalM. (2000), CO2 permits in Danish and European energy policy. Risoe. R-1184(EN). Risoe National Laboratory, Roskilde, www.risoe.dk/rispubl/SYS/ris-r-1184.htm.
17.
The Shared Analysis Project (1999a): European Energy Outlook to 2020, Vol. 5, National Technical University of Athens (NTUA).
18.
The Shared Analysis Project (1999b): The Kyoto Target of the EU: The Implications of the Burden Sharing and the Greenhouse Gas Basket for CO2 Emissions in the Member States, Vol. 11, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovations Research (FhG-ISI).
19.
SugiyamaT. (2001): “Enforcement or Management? Two Schools of Thought in the Institutional Design of the Kyoto Regime.”Energy & Environment, vol. 12, 1, 7–22.
