Climate 411

Blogging the science and policy of global warming

What is the "safety valve"?

Today's post is by Mark MacLeod, director of special projects for the national climate campaign at Environmental Defense.

Some people have proposed a "safety valve" to control the costs of a cap-and-trade policy to fight global warming. This post explains what a safety valve is, and why it provides only an illusion of cost management.

In a cap-and-trade program, companies can choose either to lower emissions below the cap, or buy extra allowances. Some worry that if many companies need to buy extra allowances, demand will drive up the price, placing an undue burden on businesses.

The "safety valve" or "escape hatch" is meant to address this. It specifies that when prices reach a predetermined dollar value, businesses no longer have to rely on the established supply of allowances available in the market. Instead, the federal government makes new allowances available for sale at a specified price - potentially in an unlimited quantity.

There are two problems with this approach:

  • A safety valve destroys the cap. The hard limit on emissions is the cornerstone of a cap-and-trade policy. Without a solid cap, we can't be sure our emissions will go down enough to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. A safety valve gives the illusion that we are controlling emissions while allowing more greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere.
  • A safety valve limits the economic opportunity of those who develop cleaner technology. Higher permit prices signal the market to invest more in innovative low-carbon technologies - happy news if you’re in the business of inventing and selling ways to cut pollution. A safety valve would sharply curtail incentive for innovation. This drives up costs in the long run, and discourages the development of the clean technology we need.

A safety valve seriously undermines the main advantages of a cap. Its ability to control costs is an illusion, it lets more pollution into the atmosphere, and discourages entrepreneurs from investing in pollution-cutting technology.

If you have any questions about the safety valve, please post them, and we'll do our best to answer.

2 Responses

Pingback from Climate 411 » Why a Bill in 2008: The World is Waiting - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund
March 19th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

[...] is this so? A firm cap with no "safety valve", as in the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008, informs the market of the size of [...]

Pingback from Climate 411 » Voinovich Bill: Detailed Prescription for Doing Nothing - Blogs & Podcasts - Environmental Defense Fund
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:33 pm

[...] at the whim of the federal government, and it would come with an absurdly low $5 per ton "safety valve" (an artificial price control on emissions [...]

Climate 411 is powered by WordPress.

RSS feeds are available for posts and comments.

About This Blog

Climate 411 is the voice of the experts at Environmental Defense Fund, providing plain-English explanations of climate change science, technology, policy, and news.

Our work on global warming »

Latest U.N. Climate Talks

Get in full: blogs, videos, key documents at EDF Talks Global Climate

Subscribe to This Blog

By RSS feed or email:

Need an Account?

Register now.

Login

Suggestion Box