Climatic Change

, Volume 103, Issue 3–4, pp 423–443

Cost containment in climate policy and incentives for technology development

Article

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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Supplementary material

10584_2009_9779_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (74 kb)
Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM)(PDF 75 KB)

References

  1. Anderson S, Newell R (2004) Prospects for carbon capture and storage technologies. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29(1):109–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennear LS, Stavins RN (2007) Second-best theory and the use of multiple policy instruments. Environ Resour Econ 37(1):111–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovenberg AL, Goulder LH, Gurney DJ (2005) Efficiency costs of meeting industry-distributional constraints under environmental permits and taxes. Rand J Econ 36(4):951–971Google Scholar
  4. Burtraw D, Palmer K, Kahn D (2009) A symmetric safety valve. Discussion paper RFF DP 09-06, Resources for the FutureGoogle Scholar
  5. 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):18866–18870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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):517–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EIA (2008) Energy market and economic impacts of S.1766, the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007. Report SR-OIAF/2007-06, Energy Information AdministrationGoogle Scholar
  8. EPA (2008) EPA’s economic analysis of the Low Carbon Economy Act of 2007 (S. 1766). Report, Environmental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  9. Felder S, Schleiniger R (2002) Environmental tax reform: efficiency and political feasibility. Ecol Econ 42(1–2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fell H, Morgenstern RD (2009) Alternative approaches to cost containment in a cap-and-trade system. Technical report, Resources for the FutureGoogle Scholar
  11. Harvey H (2007) Climate change: one goal at a time. Science 317(5846):1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Houghton J, Ding Y et al (2001) IPCC third assessment report, climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Hourcade JC, Ghersi F (2002) The economics of a lost deal: Kyoto–the Hague–Marrakesh. Energy J. 23(3):1–26Google Scholar
  14. 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacoby HD, Ellerman AD (20040 The safety valve and climate policy. Energy Policy 32(4):481–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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 DialogueGoogle Scholar
  18. Knapp KE (1999) Exploring energy technology substitution for reducing atmospheric carbon emissions. Energy J 20(2):121–143Google Scholar
  19. Krupp F (2007) Climate change: don’t forfeit the game. Science 317(5846):1864c–1866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):L24501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Metcalf GE (2009a) Designing a carbon tax to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions. Rev Environ Econ Policy 3(1):63–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Metcalf GE (2009b) Market-based policy options to control US greenhouse gas emissions. J Econ Perspect 23(2):5–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Morgan MG, Keith DW (1995) Subjective judgments by climate experts. Environ Sci Technol 29:A468–A476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nemet GF (2009) Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. Res Policy 38(5):700–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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):49–80Google Scholar
  27. Nemet GF, Kammen DM (2007) US energy research and development: declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion. Energy Policy 35(1):746–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nordhaus W (2007) Critical assumptions in the Stern review on climate change. Science 317(5835):201–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nunez F (2006) Assembly Bill 32: the California global warming solutions Act of 2006Google Scholar
  30. O’Neill B, Grübler A, Nakicenovic N (2003) Letters to the editor: planning for future energy resources. Science 300:581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Philibert C (2008) Price caps and price floors in climate policy: a quantitative assessment. Report, International Energy AgencyGoogle Scholar
  32. Pielke R, Wigley T, Green C (2008) Dangerous assumptions. Nature 452(7187):531–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pizer WA (2002) Combining price and quantity controls to mitigate global climate change. J Public Econ 85(3):409–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prins G, Rayner S (2007) Time to ditch Kyoto. Nature 449(7165):973–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 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):10288–10293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. RGGI (2007) Overview of RGGI CO2 budget trading program. Report, Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)Google Scholar
  37. Rubin ES, Chen C, Rao AB (2007) Cost and performance of fossil fuel power plants with CO2 capture and storage. Energy Policy 35(9):4444–4454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwarzenegger A (2005) Executive order S-3-05 by the governor of the State of California.Google Scholar
  39. Sheehan P (2008) The new global growth path: implications for climate change analysis and policy. Clim Change 91:211–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Smil V (2009) US energy policy, the need for radical departures. Issues Sci Technol 25(4)Google Scholar
  41. Victor DG, Cullenward D (2007) Making carbon markets work. Sci AmGoogle Scholar
  42. Weitzman ML (1974) Prices vs quantities. Rev Econ Stud 41(4):477–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.La Follette School of Public AffairsUniversity of Wisconsin—MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Nelson Institute Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment (SAGE)University of Wisconsin—MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations