AVRUPA YEŞİL MUTABAKATI’NA UYUM ÇERÇEVESİNDE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ İŞLETMELERİN EMİSYON TİCARETİNE VERDİKLERİ DESTEĞİ ETKİLEYEN FAKTÖRLER

Yıl 2023, , 257 - 289, 21.07.2023

Ayşe Uyduranoğlu Zahide Eylem Gevrek Sevil Acar

https://doi.org/10.32450/aacd.1327099

Öz

Avrupa Birliği, iklim değişikliği ile mücadelede karbon kaçaklarını engellemek ve küresel düzeyde daha çok ülkenin bu mücadeleye katılmasını sağlamak için sınırda karbon düzenleme mekanizmasını uygulayacaktır. Avrupa Birliği ile ticaret ilişkisi olan ve karbon fiyatlandırma politikaları uygulamayan ülkeler bu düzenlemeye tabi olacaklardır. Bu ülkelerden biri olan Türkiye’de emisyon ticaret sisteminin kurulması için çalışmalar başlamıştır. Bu çalışmanın iki amacı vardır: Birincisi, enerji yoğun sektörlerde faaliyette bulunan ve emisyon ticaret sistemi tarafından regüle edilme olasılığı yüksek olan işletmelerin, ekolojik sürdürülebilirliği sağlamak için hangi yeşil pratikleri gerçekleştirdiklerini incelemektir. İkincisi, bu şirketlerin emisyon ticaret sistemine verdikleri desteğin hangi faktörlerden etkilendiğini araştırmaktır. Sonuçlarımız, işletmelerin yeşil uygulama pratiklerinin ve emisyon ticaret sistemini iklim değişikliği ile mücadele etkili bir araç olarak görmelerinin, emisyon ticaret sistemine verdikleri destek üzerinde olumlu etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İşletme Özellikleri, Yeşil Uygulamalar, Avrupa Yeşil Mutabakatı, Emisyon Ticaret Sistemi, Probit

Kaynakça

• Acar, Sevil, Aşıcı, Ahmet Atıl ve Yeldan, Erinç. “Potential Effects of the EU’s Border Carbon Adjustment Mechanism on the Turkish Economy”. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24, (2022) 8162–8194.
• Acemoglu, Daron, Aghion, Philippe, Bursztyn, Leonardo ve Hemous, David. “The Environment and Directed Technical Change”. The American Economic Review, 102(1), (2012), 131-166.
• Adaman, Fikret, Karali, Nihan, Kumbaroğlu, Gürkan, Or, Ilhan, Özkaynak, Begüm ve Zenginobuz, Unal. “What determines urban households' willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A Contingent valuation survey”. Energy Policy, 39(2), (2011), 689-698.
• Akın-Olcum, Gökçe ve Yeldan, Erinç. “Economic impact assessment of Turkey’s post-Kyoto vision on emission trading”. Energy Policy, 60, (2013), 764-774.
• Arı, İzzet. “İklim değişikliği ile mücadelede emisyon ticareti ve Türkiye uygulaması”. DPT Uzmanlık Tezi. (2010), Ankara.
• Arı, İzzet. “Voluntary emission trading potential of Turkey”. Energy Policy, 62, (2013), 910-919.
• Baranzini, Andrea, Goldemberg, Jose´ ve Speck, Stefan. “Survey: A Future for Carbon Taxes”. Ecological Economics, 32, (2000), 395-412.
• Brännlund, Runar ve Persson, Lars. “To tax, or not to tax: Preferences for Climate Policy Attributes”. Climate Policy, 12, (2012), 704-721.
• Bristow, Abigail L., Wardman, Mark, Zanni, Alberto M. ve Chintakayala, Phani K. “Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax”. Ecological Economics, 69, (2010), 1824-1837.
• Coase, Ronald. “The problem of social costs”. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, (1960), 1-44.
• Dales, John H. Pollution, Property and Prices. University of Toronto Press, Toronto (1968).
• Drews, Stefan ve van den Bergh, Jeroen. C. J. M. “What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies”. Climate Policy, 16(7), (2016) 855–876
• Eliasson, Jonas. “Lessons from the Stockholm congestion charging trial”. Transport Policy, 15(6), (2008). 395–404.
• Eliasson, Jonas ve Jonsson, Lina. “The unexpected ‘‘yes’’: Explanatory factors behind the positive attitudes to congestion charges in Stockholm”. Transport Policy, 18(4), (2011), 636–647.
• Ertör-Akyazı, Pınar, Adaman, Fikret, Özkaynak, Begüm ve Zenginobuz, Ünal. “Citizen's preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey”. Energy Policy, 47, (2012), 309-320.
• Garling, Tommy ve Schuitema, Geertje. “Travel demand management targeting reduced private cars use: Effectiveness, public acceptability and political feasibility”. Journal of Social Issues, 63(1), (2007), 139–153.
• Gevrek, Zahide Eylem ve Uyduranoglu, Ayse. “Public Prefences for Carbon Tax Attributes”. Ecological Economics, 118, (2015), 186-197.
• Hensher, David. A. ve Li, Zheng. “Referendum voting in road pricing reform: A review of the evidence”. Transport Policy, 25, (2013),186–197.
• Herber, Bernard P. ve Raga, Jose T. “An International Carbon Tax to Combat Global Warming: An Economic and Political Analysis of the European Union Proposal”. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 54(3), (1995), 257-267.
• Kemausuor, Francis, Dwamena, Ernest, Bart-Plange, Ato ve Kyei- Baffour, Nicholas. “Farmers’ perception of climate change in the Ejura-Sekyedumase District of Ghana”. ARPN Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, (10)6, (2011), 26-37.
• Liu, Xianbing, Liu, Beibei, Shishime, Tomohiro, Yu, Qinqin, Bi, Jun ve Fujitsuka, Tetsuro. “An empirical study on the driving mechanism of proactive corporate environmental management in China”. Journal of Environmental Management, 91, (2010), 1707–1717.
• Liu, Xianbing, Wang, Can, Niu, Dongjie, Suk, Sunhee ve Bao, Cunkuan. “An analysis of company choice preference to carbon tax policy in China”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, (2015), 393-400. Maestre-Andres, Sara, Drews, Stefan ve van den Bergh, Jeroen. “Perceived fairness and public acceptability of carbon pricing: A review of the literature”. Climate Policy, 19(9), (2019), 1186–1204.
• McKay, Stephen, Pearson, Mark Andrew ve Smith, Stephen. “Fiscal instruments in environmental policy”. Fiscal Studies, 11(4), (1990), 1-20.
• McKinsey Global Institute. Climate risk and response: Physical hazards and socioeconomic impacts. (2020) Erişim: https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/climate-risk-and-response-physical-hazards-and-socioeconomic-impacts. 12.12.2022.
• Meckling, Jonas. “Oppose, Support, or Hedge? Distributional Effects, Regulatory Pressure, and Business Strategy in Environmental Politics”. Global Environmental Politics,15(2), (2015),19–37.
• Pigou, Arthur Cecil. The economics of welfare. Macmillan and Co, London (1920).
• OECD. The Political Economy of Environmentally Related Taxes, Paris (2006).
• Saelen, Håkon ve Kallbekken, Steffen. “A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway”. Ecological Economics, 70, (2011), 2181-2190.
• Smith, Stephen. “Taxation and the environment: A survey”. Fiscal Studies, 13(4), (1992), 21-57.
• Stavins, Robert N. “Policy Instruments for Climate Change: How Can National Governments Address a Global Problem”. Discussion Paper 97-11. University of Chicago Law School (1997).
• Stern, Nicholas. The Economics of climate change: The Stern review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006).
• Sumner, Jenny, Bird, Lori ve Smith, Hillary. “Carbon taxes: A review of experience and policy design consideration”, Technical Report, NREL/TP-6A2-47312, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2009).
• Porter, Michael E. ve van der Linde, Claas. “Toward a new conception of the environmen-competitiveness relationship”. Journal of Environmental Perspectives, 9, (1995), 97-118.
• Telli, Cagatay, Voyvoda, Ebru ve Yeldan, Erinc. “Economics of environmental policy in Turkey: A General equilibrium investigation of the economic evaluation of sectoral emission reductions policies for climate change”. Journal of Economic Modelling, 30, (2008), 321-240.
• Uyduranoglu, Ayse ve Ozturk, Serda Selin. “Public Support for carbon taxation in Turkey: Drivers and barriers”. Climate Policy, 20(9), (2020), 1175-1191.
• Weitzman, Martin L. “Prices vs. quantities”. Review of Economic Studies, 41(4), (1974), 477–91.
• Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT Press, (2002).
• World Bank. States and Trends of Carbon Pricing. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/37455 Erişim tarihi: 12.11.2022.
• WWF. Understanding Water Risks: A premier on the consequences water scarcity for government and business (2009).
• WWF. Global Water Scarcity: Risk and challenges for business. (2010).
• WWF. Türkiye’nin Su Ayak İzi Raporu. (2014a).
• WWF. Türkiye’nin Su Riskleri Raporu. (2014b).
• Yang, Lin, Li, Fengyu ve Zhang, Xian. “Chinese companies’ awareness and perceptions of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS): Evidence from a national survey in China”. Energy Policy, 98, (2016), 254-265.
• Yeldan, Erinç, Aşıcı, Ahmet Atıl, Yılmaz, Ayşen, Özenç, Bengisu, Kat, Bora, Ünüvar, Burcu, Voyvoda, Ebru, Turhan, Ethemcan, Taşkın, Fatma, Demirer, Göksel N., Yücel, İsmail, Kurnaz, Levent, Çakmak, Ömer İlter, Berke, Mustafa Özgür, Balaban, Osman, İpek, Pınar, Sarı, Ramazan, Mazlum, Semra Cerit, Acar, Sevil, Soytaş, Uğur, Şahin, Ümit ve Kulaçoğlu, Vesile. Ekonomi Politikaları Perspektifinden İklim Değişikliği ile Mücadele. İstanbul: TÜSİAD, (2016).
• Zhao, Yibing, Wang, Can, Sun, Yuwei ve Liu, Xianbing. “Factors influencing companies' willingness to pay for carbon emissions: Emission trading schemes in China”. Energy Economics, 75, (2018), 357-367.