As the European Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme (ETS) is emerging, it seems interesting to look back on previous experiments and to bring together a few elements of reflection about the pertinence of ETS as a new policy tool to regulate industrial pollution. So far, several regulatory tools have been used to decrease pollution. This article focuses on two of them, command-and-control (CAC) and ETS. There is no simple answer to which one is more efficient. It depends strongly on the context. Given a few elements outlined in this paper, the choice of an ETS to abate industrial emissions of greenhouse gases in the European Union (EU) can be considered pertinent. But, ultimately, what makes a scheme environmentally efficient is not the tool in itself (ETS or CAC) but the ambition of the target. Hence the design of the National Allocation Plans setting the emission caps are of paramount importance. They will make the EU ETS either a useless mess or an effective climate change mitigation policy tool.
[1]
Joseph Kruger,et al.
To Trade or Not To Trade? Criteria for Applying Cap and Trade
,
2001,
TheScientificWorldJournal.
[2]
William A. Pizer,et al.
The EU Emissions Trading Directive: Opportunities and Potential Pitfalls
,
2004
.
[3]
T. Tietenberg.
The Tradable Permits Approach to Protecting the Commons: What Have We Learned?
,
2002
.
[4]
Dallas Burtraw,et al.
The Paparazzi Take a Look at a Living Legend: The SO2 Cap-and-Trade Program for Power Plants in the United States
,
2003
.
[5]
Special Supplement on Defining and Trading Emission Targets
,
2003
.
[6]
E. Ostrom,et al.
The Drama of the Commons
,
2002
.