CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52Energy, Environment, and Transportation PoliciesClimate Change Policy and EconomicsEnergy, Environment, Economic Growth

Buffer effect and price effect of a personal carbon trading scheme

Fan, Jin, Wang, Shanyong, Wu, Yanrui, Li, Jun, Zhao, Dingtao·2015·Energy
DOI 10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.069
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.069

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Personal Carbon Trading (PCT) is often viewed as a relatively radical policy approach and faces considerable challenges in garnering public support and participation.

    “However, despite its conceptual appeal, PCT is often viewed as a relatively radical policy approach and faces considerable challenges in garnering public support and participation [7].”

    From The power of loss: message framing, climate anxiety, and engagement in personal carbon trading (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Introduction (p. 3) calls PCT a radical policy. The Introduction (p. 4) identifies public acceptability and implementation barriers as research topics and says participation costs may be higher, but it does not establish considerable difficulty garnering public support or participation; it also reports that consumers may prefer PCT to a carbon tax. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Absi N, Dauzère-Pérès S, Kedad-Sidhoum S, Penz, B, Rapine C. (). Lot sizing with carbon emission constraints. European Journal of Operational Research 2013; 227 (1),55-61.
  2. Benz E, Trück S. Modeling the price dynamics of CO2 emission allowances. Energy Economics 2009;31, 4-15.
  3. Bristow AL, Wardman M, Zanni AM, Chintakayala PK. Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax. Ecological Economics 2010; 69,1824-1837.
  4. Chen Y, Liu AL, Hobbs BF. Economic and Emissions Implications of Load-Based, Source-Based, and First-Seller Emissions Trading Programs Under California AB32. Operations Research 2011;59, 696-712.
  5. Cohen MJ. Is the UK preparing for 'war'? Military metaphors, personal carbon allowances, and consumption rationing in historical perspective. Climatic change 2011;104 (2), 199-222.
  6. Cowan S. Third-Degree price discrimination and consumer surplus. The Journal of Industrial Economics 2012;60(2), 333-345.
  7. Falkner R, Stephan H, Vogler J. International climate policy after Copenhagen: Towards a 'building blocks' approach. Global Policy 2010;1(3), 252-262.
  8. Fan J, Guo XM., Marinova D, Wu YR, Zhao, DT. Embedded carbon footprint of Chinese urban households: structure and changes. Journal of Cleaner Production 2012;33, 50-59.
  9. Fan J, Zhao DT, Wu YR, Wei JC.. Carbon pricing and electricity market reforms in China. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 2014;16(5),921-933.
  10. Fawcett T. Personal carbon trading: a policy ahead of its time? Energy Policy 2010,38, 6868-6876.
  11. Feng ZH, Zou LL, Wei YM. The impact of household consumption on energy use and CO2 emissions in China. Energy 2011;36, 656-670.
  12. Fleming D. Stopping the traffic. Country Life 1996;140, 62-65.
  13. Harwatt H. Reducing carbon emissions from personal road transport through the application of a tradable carbon permit scheme: empirical findings and policy implications from the UK. Proceedings Presented at the International Transport Forum, Leipzig; 2008.
  14. Harwatt H, Tight M, Bristow AL, Gühnemann A. Personal Carbon Trading and fuel price increases in the transport sector: an exploratory study of public response in the UK. European Transport\Trasporti Europei 2011;47, 47-70.
  15. Heffetz O. Cobb-Douglas utility with nonlinear Engel curves in a conspicuous consumption model. Available at SSRN 1004544; 2007.
  16. Hobbs BF, Bushnell J, Wolak FA. Upstream vs. downstream CO2 trading: A comparison for the electricity context. Energy Policy 2010;38, 3632-3643.
  17. Huang HL, Yan Z. Present situation and future prospect of hydropower in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2009;13, 1652-1656.
  18. Jaehn F, Letmathe P. The emissions trading paradox. European Journal of Operational Research 2010;202(1), 248-254.
  19. Jagers SC, Löfgren Å, Stripple J. Attitudes to personal carbon allowances: political trust, fairness and ideology. Climate Policy 2010;10(4), 410-431.
  20. Klein LR, Rubin H. A constant-utility index of the cost of living. The Review of Economic Studies 1947;15, 84-87.
  21. Liu W, Lund H, Mathiesen BV, Zhang XL. Potential of renewable energy systems in China. Applied Energy 2011;88, 518-525.
  22. Lockwood M. The economics of personal carbon trading. Climate Policy 2010;10(4), 447-461.
  23. Müller B, Höhne N, Ellermann C. Differentiating (historic) responsibilities for climate change. Climate Policy 2009;9(6), 593-611.
  24. National Bureau of Statistics of China (NBSC). China Statistical Yearbook 2013. China Statistics Press, Beijing (in Chinese); 2013.
  25. Neary JP, Roberts KWS. The theory of household behaviour under rationing. European Economic Review 1980;13, 25-42.
  26. Parag Y, Capstick S, Poortinga W. Policy attribute framing: a comparison between three policy instruments for personal emissions reduction. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2011;30, 889-905.
  27. Parag Y, Eyre N. Barriers to personal carbon trading in the policy arena. Climate Policy 2010;10(4), 353-368.
  28. Parsons JE, Ellerman DA, Feilhauer S. Designing a US market for CO2. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 2009;21, 79-86.
  29. Pezzey JCV. Emission taxes and tradable permits: a comparison of views on long run efficiency. Environmental and Resource Economics 2003;26, 329-342.
  30. Pizer WA. Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change. Journal of Public Economics 2002; 85: 409-434.
  31. Rosenzweig MR, Schultz TP. Estimating a household production function: Heterogeneity, the demand for health inputs, and their effects on birth weight. The Journal of Political Economy 1983;723-746.
  32. Rout,UK, Voβ A, Singh A, Fahl U, Blesl M, Gallachóira BPO. Energy and emissions forecast of China over a long-time horizon. Energy 2011;36, 1-11.
  33. Sorrell S, Sijm J. Carbon trading in the policy mix. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 2003;19(3), 420-437.
  34. Sorrell S. An upstream alternative to personal carbon trading. Climate Policy 2010;10(4), 481-486.
  35. Starkey R. Personal carbon trading: A critical survey Part 1: Equity. Ecological Economics 2012;73, 7-18.
  36. Stranlund JK, Ben-Haim Y. Price-based vs. quantity-based environmental regulation under Knightian uncertainty: An info-gap robust satisficing perspective. Journal of Environmental Management 2008;87,443-449.
  37. Varian HR. Microeconomics Analysis (3rd edition) Norton, New York; 1992.
  38. Wadud Z. Personal tradable carbon permits for road transport: heterogeneity of demand responses and distributional analysis (Doctoral dissertation, Imperial College London); 2007.
  39. Wadud Z. Personal tradable carbon permits for road transport: why, why not and who wins? Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2011;45, 1052-1065.
  40. Wallace AA, Irvine KN, Wright AJ. Public attitudes to personal carbon allowances: findings from a mixed-method study. Climate Policy 2010;10, 385-409.
  41. Weitzman ML. Prices vs. quantities. The Review of Economic Studies 1974; 41: 477-491.
  42. Journal of Economics 1973;87, 629-633.
  43. Yano M. The von Neumann-McKenzie facet and the Jones Duality theorem in two-sector optimal growth. International Journal of Economic Theory 2012;8, 213-226.
  44. Zhang J, Wang C. Co-benefits and additionality of the clean development mechanism: An empirical analysis. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 2011;62(2), 140-154.
  45. Zhao J, Hobbs BF, Pang JS. Long-run equilibrium modeling of emissions allowance allocation systems in electric power markets. Operations research 2010;58, 529-548.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fan, J., Wang, S., Wu, Y., Li, J., & Zhao, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • The University of Western Australia (AU)
Corresponding author
Wang, Shanyong
ORCID
Venue
Energy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-03
Volume
82
Pages
601-610
ISSN
0360-5442 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.energy.2015.01.069
OpenAlex
W2088059649
Cited by
52
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Energy (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • UWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (71301157, 71171183)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Energy › Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment › Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Energy, Environment, Economic Growth
Keywords
personal carbon trading, emissions trading, household carbon emissions, buffering effect, substitution effect, income effects, Cobb-Douglas utility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review