This paper examines the impact of the carbon emissions trading scheme (ETS) on directed technological change in the context of Chinese pilot schemes. We focus on firms’ heterogeneity in driving innovation and explore policy variations across pilots. Using a matched difference-in-differences design with a zero-inflated Poisson model, we find that the low-carbon innovation is driven by firms at the intensive margin. On average, a firm files 0.16 additional low-carbon patents annually at the intensive margin. In addition, when looking across pilots, the effect on low-carbon innovation is significant in two pilots, Beijing and Shanghai. We further find that, when looking at firms with different productivity levels measured by output per worker, the pilot ETS encourages low-carbon innovation at the intensive margin but reduces entry into low-carbon innovation at the extensive margin for the more productive firms. Our results suggest that innovation inertia matters, and future policies should encourage smaller firms covered by ETS to start innovation in low-carbon technologies.

Climate change has become mankind’s main challenge. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shipping are not irresponsible for this, representing 3% of the global total; an amount equal to that of Germany’s emissions. The Fourth Greenhouse Gas Study 2020 of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) predicts that the proportion of GHG emissions from shipping will rise further, as global trade continues to recover and grow, along with the economic development of India, China and Africa. China and the European Union have proposed to include shipping in their carbon emissions trading systems (ETS). As a result, the study of the relationship between the carbon finance market and the shipping industry, attempted here for the first time, is particularly important both for policymakers and shipowners. We use wavelet analysis and the spillover index methods to explore the dynamic dependence and information spillovers between the carbon finance market and shipping. We discover a long-term dependence and information linkages between the two markets, with the carbon finance market being the dominant one. Major events, such as the 2009 global financial crisis; Brexit in 2016; the 2018 China-US trade frictions; and COVID-19 are shown to strengthen the dependence of carbon finance and shipping. We find that the dependence is strongest between the EU carbon finance market and dry bulk shipping, while the link is weaker in the case of tanker shipping. Nonetheless, carbon finance and tanker shipping showed a relatively stronger dependence when OPEC refused to cut production in 2014, and when the China-US trade dispute led to the collapse of oil prices after 2018. We show that information spillovers between carbon finance and shipping are bidirectional and asymmetric. The carbon finance market is the principal transmitter of information. Our results and their interpretation provide guidance to governments on whether (and how) to include shipping in emissions trading schemes, supporting at the same time the environmental sustainability decisions of shipping companies.