طرح انتشار تجاری گازهای گلخانه ای : یک ابزار جدید برای مجموعه تنظیم کننده زیست محیطی

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.

There is no simple answer to which regulatory tool is more efficient to decrease pollution, CAC or ETS. It depends strongly on the context. And, ultimately, what makes a scheme environmentally efficient is not the tool in itself (ETS, CAC, environmental tax, voluntary programme or whatever) but the ambition of the target. If the emissions do not decrease quickly enough, do not blame the ETS but the decision-makers who set too lenient an objective for the cap. Good workers have several tools in their kit and they decide which is the best depending on their needs and their means. If we want to abate emissions, we can make use of several tools. ETS is one of them. As such, it does not abate emissions by itself but, driven by a suitable political will, correctly designed and implemented, it can be the most cost effective one. Given the few elements we have just outlined, the choice of an ETS to abate industrial emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU can be considered as quite a pertinent choice: • Carbon dioxide has no toxic effects so there is no fear of toxic hot spots. • Carbon dioxide has not yet been as widely regulated as traditional air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides or sulphur oxides (in terms of compulsory emission limit values for instance). So the potential for developing and implementing new policies overlapping with existing regulations is slighter than for traditional pollutants. • The size of the potential market is very important. • Many stakeholders were very reluctant to accept another regulatory tool, CAC or tax, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (there has been a failed attempt to set a European energy tax). But this is not enough to make this scheme a success. Ultimately, it will be judged on its environmental achievement, that is on emission reductions. It is now up to the Member States to design ambitious National Allocation Plans, with stringent emission reductions. Only this way the ETS will be considered as a successful environmental policy tool.