Extension usage examples:
Here's how our browser extension sees the article:
Elsevier Enhanced Reader
Source: reader.elsevier.com
Article summary:
1. This article investigates whether adjustable emissions caps and the price of pollution can be stabilized through policy design.
2. The article focuses on two classes of policies: price measures, which increase allowance supply when the price of allowances increases; and quantity measures, which reduce the supply of allowances when the surplus of unused allowances grows.
3. The article finds that price measures stabilize allowance prices, while quantity measures can be destabilizing.
Article analysis:
The article is written by Roweno J.R.K Heijmans from the Department of Economics at Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences and is published in February 8, 2023. The article is well-written and provides a comprehensive overview of adjustable emissions caps and their potential to stabilize the market for allowances. It also provides an analysis of two classes of policies – price measures and quantity measures – that are used in existing cap and trade schemes to adjust allowance supply in a dynamic cap and trade market.
The trustworthiness and reliability of this article can be assessed by looking at its potential biases, one-sided reporting, unsupported claims, missing points of consideration, missing evidence for the claims made, unexplored counterarguments, promotional content, partiality, whether possible risks are noted or not presenting both sides equally. In terms of bias, there does not appear to be any obvious bias in this article as it presents both sides fairly without favouring either side more than the other. Furthermore, there is no one-sided reporting as it provides an objective overview on both types of policies – price measures and quantity measures – without favouring either one over the other. Additionally, all claims made in this article are supported with evidence from existing policies such as California’s ETS (Borenstein et al., 2019).
In terms of missing points or considerations or unexplored counterarguments, there does not appear to be any major issues with this article as it covers all relevant points thoroughly without leaving out any important information or arguments that could have been explored further. Moreover, there is no promotional content present in this article as it does not attempt to promote either type of policy over another but rather presents an unbiased overview on both types with evidence from existing policies to back up its claims. Lastly, possible risks are noted throughout the paper as it mentions how quantity measures can be destabilizing compared to emissions trading under a fixed cap which could lead to negative consequences if implemented incorrectly or without proper oversight/regulation.
In conclusion, this article appears to be trustworthy and reliable due to its lack of bias/one-sidedness/promotional content/partiality as well as its inclusion of evidence from existing policies to support its claims along with noting possible risks associated with certain types of policies which makes it a reliable source for information on adjustable emissions caps and their potential effects on allowance prices in a dynamic cap and trade market