Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cost containment in climate policy and incentives for technology development

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Safety valves, discretionary advisory boards, and other cost containment mechanisms enhance the political feasibility of stringent climate policy by limiting firms’ and households’ exposures to higher than anticipated costs associated with reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. However, cost containment comes at a price; it increases the risk of climate-related damages and simultaneously discourages investments to develop low-carbon technologies. A stylized model of the cost of climate policy is used to estimate that proposed cost containment mechanisms will increase emissions by 11–70% by 2030. Because these clauses limit the payoffs to innovation, they reduce our societal capacity to affordably mitigate climate change through technology improvement. If cost containment measures are to be employed at levels discussed in recent policy debates, then complementary policies to fund technology development will be needed; crucially, the two also need to be linked. One way to resolve the impasse between increased climatic damages and reduced incentives for innovation is to create a technology development fund with contributions indexed to the amount by which the market price for carbon exceeds the price cap.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson S, Newell R (2004) Prospects for carbon capture and storage technologies. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29(1):109–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennear LS, Stavins RN (2007) Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):111–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovenberg AL, Goulder LH, Gurney DJ (2005) Efficiency costs of meeting industry-distributional constraints under environmental permits and taxes. Rand J Econ 36(4):951–971

    Google Scholar 

  • Burtraw D, Palmer K, Kahn D (2009) A symmetric safety valve. Discussion paper RFF DP 09-06, Resources for the Future

  • Canadell JG, Le Quere C, Raupach MR, Field CB, Buitenhuis ET, Ciais P, Conway TJ, Gillett NP, Houghton RA, Marland G (2007) From the cover: contributions to accelerating atmospheric CO2 growth from economic activity, carbon intensity, and efficiency of natural sinks. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(47):18866–18870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edmonds J, Clarke J, Dooley J, Kim SH, Smith SJ (2004) Stabilization of CO2 in a B2 world: insights on the roles of carbon capture and disposal, hydrogen, and transportation technologies. Energy Econ 26(4):517–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EIA (2008) Energy market and economic impacts of S.1766, the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007. Report SR-OIAF/2007-06, Energy Information Administration

  • EPA (2008) EPA’s economic analysis of the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 (S. 1766). Report, Environmental Protection Agency

  • Felder S, Schleiniger R (2002) Environmental tax reform: efficiency and political feasibility. Ecol Econ 42(1–2):107–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fell H, Morgenstern RD (2009) Alternative approaches to cost containment in a cap-and-trade system. Technical report, Resources for the Future

  • Harvey H (2007) Climate change: one goal at a time. Science 317(5846):1866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houghton J, Ding Y et al (2001) IPCC third assessment report, climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hourcade JC, Ghersi F (2002) The economics of a lost deal: Kyoto–the Hague–Marrakesh. Energy J. 23(3):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007a) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007b) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby HD, Ellerman AD (20040 The safety valve and climate policy. Energy Policy 32(4):481–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr S (2007) Emissions trading in New Zealand: managing economic risk in the New Zealand emissions trading system. Motu working paper, New Zealand Climate Change Policy Dialogue

  • Knapp KE (1999) Exploring energy technology substitution for reducing atmospheric carbon emissions. Energy J 20(2):121–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupp F (2007) Climate change: don’t forfeit the game. Science 317(5846):1864c–1866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maslanik JA, Fowler C, Stroeve J, Drobot S, Zwally J, Yi D, Emery W (2007) A younger, thinner Arctic ice cover: increased potential for rapid, extensive sea-ice loss. Geophys Res Lett 34(24):L24501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf GE (2009a) Designing a carbon tax to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions. Rev Environ Econ Policy 3(1):63–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf GE (2009b) Market-based policy options to control US greenhouse gas emissions. J Econ Perspect 23(2):5–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery WD, Smith AE (2007) Price, quantity, and technology strategies for climate change policy. In: Schlesinger ME, Kheshgi HS, Smith J, Chesnaye FDL, Reilly JM, Kolstad C (eds) Human-induced climate change: an interdisciplinary assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Keith DW (1995) Subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ Sci Technol 29:A468–A476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemet GF (2009) Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Res Policy 38(5):700–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemet GF, Baker E (2009) Demand subsidies versus R&D: comparing the uncertain impacts of policy on a pre-commercial low-carbon energy technology. Energy J 30(4):49–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemet GF, Kammen DM (2007) US energy research and development: declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion. Energy Policy 35(1):746–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus W (2007) Critical assumptions in the Stern review on climate change. Science 317(5835):201–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunez F (2006) Assembly Bill 32: the California global warming solutions Act of 2006

  • O’Neill B, Grübler A, Nakicenovic N (2003) Letters to the editor: planning for future energy resources. Science 300:581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philibert C (2008) Price caps and price floors in climate policy: a quantitative assessment. Report, International Energy Agency

  • Pielke R, Wigley T, Green C (2008) Dangerous assumptions. Nature 452(7187):531–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizer WA (2002) Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change. J Public Econ 85(3):409–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins G, Rayner S (2007) Time to ditch Kyoto. Nature 449(7165):973–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raupach MR, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quere C, Canadell JG, Klepper G, Field CB (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(24):10288–10293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • RGGI (2007) Overview of RGGI CO2 budget trading program. Report, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)

  • Rubin ES, Chen C, Rao AB (2007) Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy 35(9):4444–4454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarzenegger A (2005) Executive order S-3-05 by the governor of the State of California.

  • Sheehan P (2008) The new global growth path: implications for climate change analysis and policy. Clim Change 91:211–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smil V (2009) US energy policy, the need for radical departures. Issues Sci Technol 25(4)

  • Victor DG, Cullenward D (2007) Making carbon markets work. Sci Am

  • Weitzman ML (1974) Prices vs quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41(4):477–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. La Follette School of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin—Madison, 1225 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Gregory F. Nemet

  2. Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE), University of Wisconsin—Madison, 1225 Observatory Drive, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Gregory F. Nemet

Authors
  1. Gregory F. Nemet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gregory F. Nemet.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM)

(PDF 75 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nemet, G.F. Cost containment in climate policy and incentives for technology development. Climatic Change 103, 423–443 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9779-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9779-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation