Abatement and Allocation in the Pilot Phase of the EU ETS

233 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Did the EU ETS Make a Difference? An Empirical Assessment Using Lithuanian Firm-Level Data (2016, unknown): “Anderson and Di Maria (2011) improve on these results using more reﬁned data for 2005– 2007 and estimate overall abatement at 247 Mt of CO 2 during the ﬁrst phase.”
The impact of carbon disclosure mandates on emissions and financial operating performance (2020, background): “(2010), Anderson and Di Maria (2011), Bel and Joseph (2015), Murray and Maniloff (2015), and Martin, Muûls, and Wagner (2016).”
A literature-based multi-criteria evaluation of the EU ETS (2012, background): “Anderson and Di Maria [25] constructed a BAU counterfactual established using Eurostat aggregate emissions per sub-sector based on NACE classification codes that approximately match the ETS sector:”
The allowance mechanism of China’s carbon trading pilots: A comparative analysis with schemes in EU and California (2017, background): “For the decentralized National Allocation Plan (NAP) 34 approach in Phases 1 and 2 of EU ETS, free allocation methodologies under the NAPs were also found 35 to be poorly harmonized across EU due to the high degree of discretion exercised by its Member States 36 [6].”