Energy is key to our modern lives. Until recently, energy was generated by centralized utilities. That, however, is changing. Fundamental shifts in the generation and consumption of electricity are underway. In the age of “distributed generation,�? when you and I can install solar panels on our roof and a battery in our garage, we are all part of the energy field. This Article argues that along with the blending of technological categories comes a shift in the legal categories as well. Energy law scholars have traditionally focused on the public law aspects of electricity production and consumption. This framework was indeed apt for the age of centralized energy. But in an era where electricity production is increasingly dispersed, looking at the energy field solely through the lens of public law misses the full picture. Focusing specifically on property law, the Article thus unearths the new property-energy connection that has emerged along with the rise of distributed generation. It then shows why policy-makers seeking to advance the adoption of distributed generation should pay attention, in addition to other things, to the underlying web of private law regimes.
{"title":"Private Energy","authors":"Yael R. Lifshitz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3414433","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3414433","url":null,"abstract":"Energy is key to our modern lives. Until recently, energy was generated by centralized utilities. That, however, is changing. Fundamental shifts in the generation and consumption of electricity are underway. In the age of “distributed generation,�? when you and I can install solar panels on our roof and a battery in our garage, we are all part of the energy field. This Article argues that along with the blending of technological categories comes a shift in the legal categories as well. Energy law scholars have traditionally focused on the public law aspects of electricity production and consumption. This framework was indeed apt for the age of centralized energy. But in an era where electricity production is increasingly dispersed, looking at the energy field solely through the lens of public law misses the full picture. Focusing specifically on property law, the Article thus unearths the new property-energy connection that has emerged along with the rise of distributed generation. It then shows why policy-makers seeking to advance the adoption of distributed generation should pay attention, in addition to other things, to the underlying web of private law regimes.","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126723295","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-31DOI: 10.18488/JOURNAL.8.2019.72.45.61
M. Usman, D. Siddiqui
This paper investigates the moderating impact of FDI & FPI in the association of macro-economic variables along with Oil prices & Index returns. Monthly data has been used from the period 2005 to 2018. Efficient unit root & breakpoint unit root tests results indicate that all variables are stationary at 1st difference. Co-integration test results signify the presence of long-run relationship in model. GARCH (1,1) model has been applied for analyzing the volatility in the data series. Furthermore, least square method is employed to check dependency & fitness level of model. In order to investigate the moderating impact, regression technique has been applied. Findings of LSM technique indicate that index returns aren?t significantly dependent on macro-economic variables on 1st difference of data series because variables predicting behavior has been changed with respect to stationarity of data. Exchange rate & interest rate have negative significant association with index returns. Oil prices & foreign direct investment have positive relationship with stock market return. FDI & FPI are unable to moderate significantly model dynamics. For estimating the panel regression model, 11 different sectors data is used and results show that exchange rate & oil prices have positive significant impact on sector wise price change but interest rate has significant negative association.
{"title":"The Effect of Oil Price on Stock Market Returns with Moderating Effect of Foreign Direct Investment & Foreign Portfolio Investment: Evidence from Pakistan Stock Market","authors":"M. Usman, D. Siddiqui","doi":"10.18488/JOURNAL.8.2019.72.45.61","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18488/JOURNAL.8.2019.72.45.61","url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the moderating impact of FDI & FPI in the association of macro-economic variables along with Oil prices & Index returns. Monthly data has been used from the period 2005 to 2018. Efficient unit root & breakpoint unit root tests results indicate that all variables are stationary at 1st difference. Co-integration test results signify the presence of long-run relationship in model. GARCH (1,1) model has been applied for analyzing the volatility in the data series. Furthermore, least square method is employed to check dependency & fitness level of model. In order to investigate the moderating impact, regression technique has been applied. Findings of LSM technique indicate that index returns aren?t significantly dependent on macro-economic variables on 1st difference of data series because variables predicting behavior has been changed with respect to stationarity of data. Exchange rate & interest rate have negative significant association with index returns. Oil prices & foreign direct investment have positive relationship with stock market return. FDI & FPI are unable to moderate significantly model dynamics. For estimating the panel regression model, 11 different sectors data is used and results show that exchange rate & oil prices have positive significant impact on sector wise price change but interest rate has significant negative association.","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131870175","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sandra Cortés Acosta, David A. Fleming, L. Henry, Edmund Y. Lou, S. Owen, B. Small
New Zealand scientists have suggested that multiple pastoral farming practices could reduce on-farm biological greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while maintaining (and in some circumstances even increasing) farm profits (e.g. de Klein and Dynes, 2017). However, these win–win practices (which we define as “no-cost” mitigation practices) are reported to be under-adopted in New Zealand (Reisinger et al. 2018). The focus of this paper is to identify barriers affecting the adoption or expansion of no-cost mitigation practices by farmers in New Zealand. We define and categorize barriers to adoption using a typology of barriers developed by Jaffe (2017). This typology provides a comprehensive list and precise/accurate description of multiple barriers that might be present in farming contexts. First, we confront the typology with empirical evidence in the literature studying the barriers to the adoptions of technologies and practices in the context of pastoral farming. Although the evidence on perceptions and adoption of GHG emissions mitigation options in New Zealand is very limited, several of the barriers in Jaffe’s typology have been evidenced by researchers as affecting the decisions to adopt different innovative technologies and practices on farms. To complement the literature review and, more importantly, focus on no-cost GHG mitigation practices, we conducted interviews with 14 farmers in different regions of the country. In these conversations we discussed different managerial and practical implications of five different no-cost farming practices, with the aim of identifying barriers that affect their adoption or expansion. We describe in the paper more than 40 quotes obtained from farmers, from which we identified the occurrence of 16 different barriers. Among these, the “Unsureness about practicality”, “risk and uncertainty” and “complex interactions” barriers showed as the most frequent barriers identified as causing under-adoption of the evaluated practices. In addition, different types of perceived costs (financial barriers), such as “modelling mismatch” and “learning and adjustment”, have been pointed out as a limitation for adoption (which are captured by barriers category “arguably efficient” in Jaffe’s typology). We also found that in some cases non-financial barriers seem to be interconnected – in especial the case when the interactions’ complexity increases the riskiness of the outcome (the “risk and uncertainty” barrier) and makes it difficult to see whether the mitigation option is practical (a barrier of “unsureness about practicality”).
新西兰科学家提出，多种畜牧耕作方式可以减少农场生物温室气体(GHG)排放，同时保持(在某些情况下甚至增加)农场利润(例如，de Klein和Dynes, 2017)。然而，据报道，这些双赢的做法(我们将其定义为“无成本”缓解做法)在新西兰没有得到充分采用(Reisinger et al. 2018)。本文的重点是确定影响新西兰农民采用或扩大无成本缓解做法的障碍。我们使用Jaffe(2017)开发的障碍类型来定义和分类采用障碍。这种类型提供了一个全面的列表，并精确/准确地描述了农业环境中可能存在的多种障碍。首先，我们用文献中的经验证据来面对类型学，这些文献研究了在畜牧农业背景下采用技术和实践的障碍。尽管关于新西兰对温室气体减排方案的认识和采用的证据非常有限，但研究人员已经证明，Jaffe类型中的一些障碍影响了在农场采用不同创新技术和做法的决定。为了补充文献综述，更重要的是，为了关注无成本的温室气体减排做法，我们对该国不同地区的14名农民进行了采访。在这些对话中，我们讨论了五种不同的无成本农业实践的不同管理和实践意义，目的是找出影响它们采用或扩展的障碍。我们在论文中描述了从农民那里获得的40多个引用，从中我们确定了16种不同障碍的发生。在这些障碍中，“关于实用性的不确定性”、“风险和不确定性”以及“复杂的相互作用”障碍被认为是导致评估实践未被充分采用的最常见的障碍。此外，不同类型的感知成本(财务障碍)，如“建模不匹配”和“学习和调整”，被指出是采用的限制(在Jaffe的类型中，这被障碍类别“可以说是有效的”所捕获)。我们还发现，在某些情况下，非金融障碍似乎是相互关联的——特别是当相互作用的复杂性增加了结果的风险("风险和不确定性"障碍)，并使人们难以看出缓解方案是否可行("不确定实用性"障碍)的情况下。
{"title":"Identifying Barriers to Adoption of ‘No-Cost’ Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Practices in Pastoral Systems","authors":"Sandra Cortés Acosta, David A. Fleming, L. Henry, Edmund Y. Lou, S. Owen, B. Small","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3477066","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3477066","url":null,"abstract":"New Zealand scientists have suggested that multiple pastoral farming practices could reduce on-farm biological greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while maintaining (and in some circumstances even increasing) farm profits (e.g. de Klein and Dynes, 2017). However, these win–win practices (which we define as “no-cost” mitigation practices) are reported to be under-adopted in New Zealand (Reisinger et al. 2018). The focus of this paper is to identify barriers affecting the adoption or expansion of no-cost mitigation practices by farmers in New Zealand. We define and categorize barriers to adoption using a typology of barriers developed by Jaffe (2017). This typology provides a comprehensive list and precise/accurate description of multiple barriers that might be present in farming contexts. First, we confront the typology with empirical evidence in the literature studying the barriers to the adoptions of technologies and practices in the context of pastoral farming. Although the evidence on perceptions and adoption of GHG emissions mitigation options in New Zealand is very limited, several of the barriers in Jaffe’s typology have been evidenced by researchers as affecting the decisions to adopt different innovative technologies and practices on farms. To complement the literature review and, more importantly, focus on no-cost GHG mitigation practices, we conducted interviews with 14 farmers in different regions of the country. In these conversations we discussed different managerial and practical implications of five different no-cost farming practices, with the aim of identifying barriers that affect their adoption or expansion. We describe in the paper more than 40 quotes obtained from farmers, from which we identified the occurrence of 16 different barriers. Among these, the “Unsureness about practicality”, “risk and uncertainty” and “complex interactions” barriers showed as the most frequent barriers identified as causing under-adoption of the evaluated practices. In addition, different types of perceived costs (financial barriers), such as “modelling mismatch” and “learning and adjustment”, have been pointed out as a limitation for adoption (which are captured by barriers category “arguably efficient” in Jaffe’s typology). We also found that in some cases non-financial barriers seem to be interconnected – in especial the case when the interactions’ complexity increases the riskiness of the outcome (the “risk and uncertainty” barrier) and makes it difficult to see whether the mitigation option is practical (a barrier of “unsureness about practicality”).","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134129204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The fundamental purpose of an emissions trading system (ETS) is to constrain emissions and enable the market to set an emissions price path that facilitates an effective transition to a low-emissions economy. In a conventional ETS, the emissions constraint is defined by a cap (a fixed limit) on tradable, government-issued emission units together with a quantity limit on any external units allowed in the system (e.g. via an offsets mechanism). Essentially, an ETS cap underpins the ambition, cost-effectiveness, distributional implications, and credibility of a jurisdiction’s approach to decarbonisation. From 2008 to mid-2015, the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) broke from convention by linking to the global Kyoto cap without its own limit on domestic emissions. NZ ETS participants met compliance obligations using unlimited overseas units at low prices and faced little incentive to reduce their own emissions. The NZ ETS delinked from the Kyoto market in mid-2015, creating uncertainty over the future of domestic unit supply and an efficient price path for domestic decarbonisation. This working paper, which evolved under Motu’s ETS Dialogue process from 2016 to 2018, explores key considerations for ETS cap setting and proposes the design for a cap on units auctioned and freely allocated in the NZ ETS. The recommendations focus on issues of cap architecture rather than ambition. The proposed cap is defined in tonnes of emissions per year, fixed for five years in advance, extended by one year each year, and guided by an indicative ten-year cap trajectory. The fixed cap and cap trajectory need to reflect consideration of New Zealand’s domestic decarbonisation objectives, international targets, mitigation potential and costs in both ETS and non-ETS sectors, and prospects for cost-effective investment in overseas emission reductions. Two companion working papers address how the choice of cap will interact with decisions on ETS price management mechanisms and linking to overseas markets. The three working papers elaborate on an integrated proposal for managing unit supply, prices, and linking in the NZ ETS that was presented in Kerr et al. (2017).
{"title":"Managing Scarcity and Ambition in the NZ ETS","authors":"Catherine Leining, Suzi Kerr","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3477060","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3477060","url":null,"abstract":"The fundamental purpose of an emissions trading system (ETS) is to constrain emissions and enable the market to set an emissions price path that facilitates an effective transition to a low-emissions economy. In a conventional ETS, the emissions constraint is defined by a cap (a fixed limit) on tradable, government-issued emission units together with a quantity limit on any external units allowed in the system (e.g. via an offsets mechanism). Essentially, an ETS cap underpins the ambition, cost-effectiveness, distributional implications, and credibility of a jurisdiction’s approach to decarbonisation. From 2008 to mid-2015, the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (NZ ETS) broke from convention by linking to the global Kyoto cap without its own limit on domestic emissions. NZ ETS participants met compliance obligations using unlimited overseas units at low prices and faced little incentive to reduce their own emissions. The NZ ETS delinked from the Kyoto market in mid-2015, creating uncertainty over the future of domestic unit supply and an efficient price path for domestic decarbonisation. This working paper, which evolved under Motu’s ETS Dialogue process from 2016 to 2018, explores key considerations for ETS cap setting and proposes the design for a cap on units auctioned and freely allocated in the NZ ETS. The recommendations focus on issues of cap architecture rather than ambition. The proposed cap is defined in tonnes of emissions per year, fixed for five years in advance, extended by one year each year, and guided by an indicative ten-year cap trajectory. The fixed cap and cap trajectory need to reflect consideration of New Zealand’s domestic decarbonisation objectives, international targets, mitigation potential and costs in both ETS and non-ETS sectors, and prospects for cost-effective investment in overseas emission reductions. Two companion working papers address how the choice of cap will interact with decisions on ETS price management mechanisms and linking to overseas markets. The three working papers elaborate on an integrated proposal for managing unit supply, prices, and linking in the NZ ETS that was presented in Kerr et al. (2017).","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125928848","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Climate-related criticism toward Bitcoin is primarily based on the network’s absolute carbon emissions without consideration of Bitcoin’s market value. Taking a relative emission perspective and utilizing the mean–variance portfolio optimization framework, we study the financial and carbon implications of Bitcoin investments. Our results show that adding Bitcoin to a diversified equity portfolio can enhance the risk–return relationship of the portfolio. Furthermore, we identify realistic scenarios for which the addition of Bitcoin to a diversified equity portfolio reduces the portfolio’s aggregate carbon emissions. This finding persists under various, conservative assumptions about Bitcoin prices, carbon emission estimates, and carbon prices.
{"title":"The (Un-)Sustainability of Bitcoin Investments","authors":"D. Baur, Josua Oll","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3365820","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3365820","url":null,"abstract":"Climate-related criticism toward Bitcoin is primarily based on the network’s absolute carbon emissions without consideration of Bitcoin’s market value. Taking a relative emission perspective and utilizing the mean–variance portfolio optimization framework, we study the financial and carbon implications of Bitcoin investments. Our results show that adding Bitcoin to a diversified equity portfolio can enhance the risk–return relationship of the portfolio. Furthermore, we identify realistic scenarios for which the addition of Bitcoin to a diversified equity portfolio reduces the portfolio’s aggregate carbon emissions. This finding persists under various, conservative assumptions about Bitcoin prices, carbon emission estimates, and carbon prices.","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"44 9","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132399119","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We propose a new model for the pricing of wind power futures written on the wind power production index. Our approach is based on an arithmetic multi-factor pure-jump Ornstein-Uhlenbeck setup with time-dependent coefficients. We express the wind power production index and the corresponding futures price in terms of Fourier integrals and derive the related time dynamics. We conclude the paper by an investigation of the so-called risk premium associated with our wind power model.
{"title":"A New Model for Pricing Wind Power Futures","authors":"M. Hess","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3364189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3364189","url":null,"abstract":"We propose a new model for the pricing of wind power futures written on the wind power production index. Our approach is based on an arithmetic multi-factor pure-jump Ornstein-Uhlenbeck setup with time-dependent coefficients. We express the wind power production index and the corresponding futures price in terms of Fourier integrals and derive the related time dynamics. We conclude the paper by an investigation of the so-called risk premium associated with our wind power model.","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"104 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130709133","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
I propose a ratio for assessing the climate change impact of an economic activity as a function of global greenhouse gas emissions and annual gross world product. To construct a simple example, I consider only CO2 emissions and use the purchase and combustion of gasoline. I show that it has a ratio of 8.82:1 in the United States as of March 6, 2019 at a national average price of $2.44 per gallon. This means that in consideration of the direct impacts of gasoline’s combustion alone, gasoline would have to cost $21.50 per gallon in order to achieve a 1:1 ratio. Other applications of the ratio and its impact are discussed.
{"title":"A Ratio for the Relative Climate Change Impact of an Economic Activity","authors":"Richard Thripp","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3348236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3348236","url":null,"abstract":"I propose a ratio for assessing the climate change impact of an economic activity as a function of global greenhouse gas emissions and annual gross world product. To construct a simple example, I consider only CO2 emissions and use the purchase and combustion of gasoline. I show that it has a ratio of 8.82:1 in the United States as of March 6, 2019 at a national average price of $2.44 per gallon. This means that in consideration of the direct impacts of gasoline’s combustion alone, gasoline would have to cost $21.50 per gallon in order to achieve a 1:1 ratio. Other applications of the ratio and its impact are discussed.","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"80 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127490809","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract. The growth of intermittent renewable power generation has been drawing attention to the design of balancing markets. Portugal is an interesting case study because wind generation already accounts for a high fraction of demand (23% in 2012–2016), but still there are no economic incentives for efficient wind forecasting (wind balancing costs are passed to end consumers). We analyze the evolution of the balancing market from 2012 to 2016. Using actual market data, we find wind balancing costs around 2 euros per MWh of generated energy. One main reason for these low costs is the existence of a robust transmission grid, which allows for the compensation of positive with negative wind imbalances across the system. Nevertheless, the results suggest that final consumers could save several million euros per year if wind generators were made responsible for the economic cost of their imbalances, in line with other European markets.
{"title":"Wind Balancing Costs in a Power System with High Wind Penetration – Evidence from Portugal","authors":"P. Frade, J. Pereira, J. Santana, J. Catalão","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3290577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3290577","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. The growth of intermittent renewable power generation has been drawing attention to the design of balancing markets. Portugal is an interesting case study because wind generation already accounts for a high fraction of demand (23% in 2012–2016), but still there are no economic incentives for efficient wind forecasting (wind balancing costs are passed to end consumers). We analyze the evolution of the balancing market from 2012 to 2016. Using actual market data, we find wind balancing costs around 2 euros per MWh of generated energy. One main reason for these low costs is the existence of a robust transmission grid, which allows for the compensation of positive with negative wind imbalances across the system. Nevertheless, the results suggest that final consumers could save several million euros per year if wind generators were made responsible for the economic cost of their imbalances, in line with other European markets.","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130149625","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-02-11DOI: 10.1163/18786561-00901002
Meinhard Doelle
Nationally Determined Contributions play a critical role in the architecture of the Paris Agreement. Parties are required to prepare and communicate their ndcs and to undertake domestic efforts to meet their mitigation commitments, facilitated in some cases by support and finance from other parties. The focus of this article is on key elements of the five-year cycle that deal with the content and process of ndcs, specifically the portion of the Paris Rulebook on the communication of ndcs and the accounting for their implementation. The article concludes that while the basics appear to be in place, there are a number of gaps and uncertainties that may result in implementation challenges.
{"title":"The Heart of the Paris Rulebook: Communicating NDCs and Accounting for Their Implementation","authors":"Meinhard Doelle","doi":"10.1163/18786561-00901002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/18786561-00901002","url":null,"abstract":"Nationally Determined Contributions play a critical role in the architecture of the Paris Agreement. Parties are required to prepare and communicate their ndcs and to undertake domestic efforts to meet their mitigation commitments, facilitated in some cases by support and finance from other parties. The focus of this article is on key elements of the five-year cycle that deal with the content and process of ndcs, specifically the portion of the Paris Rulebook on the communication of ndcs and the accounting for their implementation. The article concludes that while the basics appear to be in place, there are a number of gaps and uncertainties that may result in implementation challenges.","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132403977","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Does OPEC still matter? How do OPEC and non-OPEC oil production, global oil demand, and the role of oil as a financial asset influence the price of oil? What is the mechanism through which China affects the price of oil? These questions reveal the need for a better understanding of oil market dynamics. Building on EIA (2018a); Ratti and Vespignani (2015), and Kaufmann et al. (2004), we account for the prolonged oil price drop of 2014 and examine OPEC and non-OPEC production, the world’s and China’s demand for oil, and the role of oil as a financial asset by employing a vector autoregressive (VAR) model which accounts for cyclical movements. Using monthly data between 1997M01 and 2018M04, the model reveals: (a) OPEC significantly balances oil markets, implying that OPEC still matters; (b) the role of oil as a financial asset is integral in explaining oil price movements; (c) U.S. oil production affects oil prices, but the influence of other non-OPEC production should not be underestimated; (d) China’s demand for crude oil affects oil prices, but focusing on China rather than global demand overlooks other important market segments, as well as dynamics in the oil market and global economy; and (e) China’s impact on oil prices is driven by China’s exports of refined products and domestic demand.
{"title":"OPEC and Non-OPEC Production, Global Demand, and the Financialization of Oil","authors":"Noha H. A. Razek, Nyakundi M. Michieka","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3330931","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3330931","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Does OPEC still matter? How do OPEC and non-OPEC oil production, global oil demand, and the role of oil as a financial asset influence the price of oil? What is the mechanism through which China affects the price of oil? These questions reveal the need for a better understanding of oil market dynamics. Building on EIA (2018a); Ratti and Vespignani (2015), and Kaufmann et al. (2004), we account for the prolonged oil price drop of 2014 and examine OPEC and non-OPEC production, the world’s and China’s demand for oil, and the role of oil as a financial asset by employing a vector autoregressive (VAR) model which accounts for cyclical movements. Using monthly data between 1997M01 and 2018M04, the model reveals: (a) OPEC significantly balances oil markets, implying that OPEC still matters; (b) the role of oil as a financial asset is integral in explaining oil price movements; (c) U.S. oil production affects oil prices, but the influence of other non-OPEC production should not be underestimated; (d) China’s demand for crude oil affects oil prices, but focusing on China rather than global demand overlooks other important market segments, as well as dynamics in the oil market and global economy; and (e) China’s impact on oil prices is driven by China’s exports of refined products and domestic demand.","PeriodicalId":234456,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Energy eJournal","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123751926","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：