Next Article in Journal
Effectiveness Evaluation for a Commercialized PV-Assisted Charging Station
Next Article in Special Issue
Rockets and Feathers: The Asymmetric Effect between China’s Refined Oil Prices and International Crude Oil Prices
Previous Article in Journal
The New Cooperative Medical Scheme and Self-Employment in Rural China
Previous Article in Special Issue
Does the Central Government’s Environmental Policy Work? Evidence from the Provincial-Level Environment Efficiency in China
Article Menu
Issue 2 (February) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Sustainability 2017, 9(2), 322;

How to Set the Allowance Benchmarking for Cement Industry in China’s Carbon Market: Marginal Analysis and the Case of the Hubei Emission Trading Pilot

2,3,* and 4,5
College of Environmental Science and Forestry, State University of New York, Syracuse, NY 13210, USA
Institute for International Studies, CICTSMR, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
Research Center for Climate Chang and Energy Economic (CCEE), Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
Research Center for Contemporary Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
State Grid Energy Research Institute, Beijing 102209, China
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editors: Liexun Yang, Peng Zhou and Ning Zhang
Received: 24 January 2017 / Revised: 16 February 2017 / Accepted: 17 February 2017 / Published: 22 February 2017
Full-Text   |   PDF [1451 KB, uploaded 22 February 2017]   |  


Greenhouse gas (GHG) benchmarking for allocation serves as rewards for early actions in mitigating GHG emissions by using more advanced technologies. China Hubei launched the carbon emission trading pilot in 2014, with the cement industry represented as a major contributor to the GHG emissions in Hubei. This article is set to establish a general benchmarking framework by describing and calculating the marginal abatement cost curve (MACC) and marginal revenue and then comparing the different GHG benchmarking approaches for the cement industry in the Hubei Emission Trading Pilot (Hubei ETS) case. Based on the comparison of three GHG benchmarking approaches, the Waxman-Markey standard, the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS) cement benchmarking, and the benchmarking approach applied in California Cap-and-Trade program, it is found that; (1) the Waxman-Markey benchmark is too loose to apply in Hubei as it provides little incentive for companies to mitigate; (2) the EU ETS benchmark approach fits the current cement industry in Hubei ETS; and (3) the GHG benchmarking standard in the California Cap-and-Trade Program is the most stringent standard and drives the direction of the future development for Hubei ETS. View Full-Text
Keywords: GHG; Cap-and-Trade program; benchmarking; cement industry; Hubei ETS GHG; Cap-and-Trade program; benchmarking; cement industry; Hubei ETS

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Dai, F.; Xiong, L.; Ma, D. How to Set the Allowance Benchmarking for Cement Industry in China’s Carbon Market: Marginal Analysis and the Case of the Hubei Emission Trading Pilot. Sustainability 2017, 9, 322.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Sustainability EISSN 2071-1050 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top