• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.45-60
• /
• 2011

An aim of this paper is to test four hypotheses on price volatility in the $CO_2$ emission markets focusing on European Climate Exchange(ECX) in the EU Emission Trading Schemes(EU ETS) and Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX). I expect that, due to an influx of market information, a differently designed exchange market would bring a different price volatility, and various types of emission permits in the same exchange market would result in the same effects on the price volatility. Major findings are that the price volatility is same regardless of the types of emission exchange markets and emission permits comparing the rate of returns. However, comparing the GARCH variance, the volatility between ECX EUAs and CCX-CFIs and the volatility between EUAs(CERs) futures and daily futures are different with the exception of the volatility between EUAs futures and CERs futures. In conclusion, the price volatility depends on the types of exchanges and the types of emission permits.

• Journal of Environmental Policy
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2009

Emission trading schemes, exemplified by the EU Emission Trading Scheme, have been playing active roles in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions since the Kyoto Protocol employed an emission trading as one of the cost-effective mechanisms. The objective of this study is to investigate potential integration of forestry offsets in designing an emission trading scheme in South Korea. First, the study found feasible scopes in which forestry sectors can take part by analyzing five emission trading schemes: EU Emission Trading Scheme, Chicago Climate Exchange, New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, New Zealand Emission Trading Scheme, and Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. The rationale of including forestry offsets in a domestic emission trading scheme was derived from the fact that forestry offset credits can provide cost-effective ways for market participants to commit their emission targets and expand abatement activities through reducing greenhouse gases in other geographical locations as well as other industrial sectors. Even though forestry offset credits have risks induced by their technical complexities in terms of accounting, additionality, and leakage, the integration of forestry offset credits into an emission trading scheme would be able to provide positive opportunities both to forestry sectors and other industrial sectors. In addition, there are technical questions which need to be answered in order to maintain these opportunities.