评估美国气候政策选择Assessing U.S. Climate Policy options A report summarizing work at RFF as part of the inte

气候变化是一个世纪规模的全球挑战，需要全球响应。但是，领先国家的国家政策正在引起全球的回应。在美国，关于联邦立法的辩论越来越多，它将开始解决该问题而不会对经济造成严重损害或不公平地负担特定地区，行业和消费者的负担。制定此类法规需要对关键设计问题进行周到，客观的投入。为了满足这一需求，RFF在2006年5月组织了美国气候政策论坛。该论坛的目标是为立法者提供经过严格审查的详细政策选择；政策评估的重要标准；和明确表达的关注点（指明不同方法的优点和缺点）。本报告中收集的15个问题摘要由RFF研究人员撰写，并通过与来自美国经济各个领域的23家公司进行的坦率讨论得到了启发。他们试图共同提供一个共识，以制定有效的联邦政策。论坛并未寻求达成共识或倡导采取特定行动。 在随后的所有分析和讨论中，关键主题是需要制定政策，这些政策应将管理环境风险的长期策略与随时间推移适应新信息和新发展的能力相结合。解决气候变化也将需要大量资源，也许全球年产量的1％或更多用于稳定大气中的温室气体（GHG）浓度。 这两个观察结果激发了人们对政策的兴趣，这些政策是通过提高温室气体排放价格来实现的，附加有形的市场价值以避免或减少这些排放。依靠定价机制作为国内气候政策的核心要素，有望降低整体经济成本因为它会激励人们在任何地方都可以利用最便宜的减排方案。考虑到即使采取有效的政策也将需要大量资源来应对气候风险，因此避免通过不必要地限制灵活性来增加成本的策略的论点令人信服。依赖定价机制还可以随着时间的推移提供灵活性，因为将来可以通过更改一个主要参数（排放价格）相对容易地调整政策的积极性。在某些地区，尤其是在电力和运输领域，可能会实施其他政策来推广低碳技术。更广泛的能源政策决定，尤其是那些影响天然气供应，核废料，可再生能源项目的选址，电网基础设施和能源效率的决定，也将对减少温室气体排放的努力产生重要影响。这些政策可以作为对 价格政策，可能会降低实现特定排放目标的成本。但是，它们也可能会与原本有效的定价政策背道而驰-最多会提高成本，而最坏会产生相互矛盾的激励措施。 构成本报告的15个问题摘要旨在阐明立法者和监管者在寻求制定有效的应对政策以应对气候变化时面临的重要问题。他们的关键主题可以归纳为一系列问题，概述如下。在这些问题中，前五个问题涉及排放定价机制的核心设计，而后三个问题探讨了针对附加政策来应对关键行业中特定技术机遇（通常是独特功能）的基本原理： •目前，美国合适的总体温室气体排放目标是什么？回答这个问题的逻辑起点是权衡全球成本和稳定大气中GHG浓度水平的收益，制定国内政策目标的努力还必须面对资本，技术和体制上的限制，以及美国参与，协调和激励其他主要经济体的能力和排放国。 •单一排放定价政策应涵盖哪些经济领域，以及在能源供应链中应监管与能源相关的碳排放？•在确定未来温室气体排放的确定性与确定未来温室气体价格走势的确定性方面应给予多少重视？ •鉴于联邦温室气体定价政策的影响在地区，行业和消费者之间可能存在很大差异，应如何解决该政策的分配后果？具体来说，应如何将税收（在税收体系中）或排放配额所代表的资产价值（在限额与交易计划中）分配回社会？ •该政策将如何解决国际竞争力问题？ •国内气候政策应在多大程度上为加速技术开发和部署创造额外的要求和/或激励措施（超出温室气体价格信号）？ •附加政策在电力部门中扮演什么角色，包括绩效标准，可再生能源投资组合标准，能效计划以及二氧化碳（CO2）捕集和封存的激励措施-与CO2定价政策一起发挥作用吗？考虑到该国不同地区电力部门的各种形式的法规和燃料使用方式，如何以公平的方式分配排放配额或税收收入？鉴于要大幅减少交通运输部门对温室气体的贡献，将需要更高的标准排放价格和更长的交付时间，而不是其他部门实现类似的减排，车辆燃料经济标准，可再生或低碳燃料要求以及其他技术强制政策（与单一GHG一起或代替）的作用是什么？价格政策？如何以或多或少的成本效益方式设计这些策略？ 这些问题可以为从头开始制定气候政策提供框架，也可以帮助解开并阐明现有提案的核心要素。具体来说，它们可以帮助决策者和利益相关者了解给定的提案如何以及是否涵盖关键基础， 它可能会得到改进，以及其各种元素是否以合理的方式组合在一起。随着就联邦气候政策达成共识的努力不断加强，辩论的所有各方，包括更广泛的公众，都提出了这种批判性思维，这一点越来越重要。

Climate change is a century-scale, global challenge that will require a global response. A global response, however, emerges from national policies in leading countries. In the United States, there is a growing debate about federal legislation that would begin to tackle the problem without doing serious harm to the economy or unfairly burdening particular regions, industries, and consumers. Crafting such legislation requires thoughtful, objective input on critical design issues. To meet this need, RFF organized the U.S. Climate Policy Forum in May 2006. The Forum’s objective is to provide legislators with well-vetted, detailed policy options; important criteria for policy assessment; and well-articulated concerns (specifying the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches). The 15 issue briefs collected in this report were written by RFF researchers and informed by frank discussions with 23 companies drawn from across the broad spectrum of the U.S. economy. Collectively, they attempt to provide a foundation of common understanding from which effective federal policy might be crafted. The Forum has not sought to reach consensus or advocate a particular course of action.

Throughout the analyses and discussions that follow, a key theme has been the need for policies that combine a long-term strategy for managing environmental risk with the ability to adjust, over time, to new information and developments. Addressing climate change will also require significant resources, with perhaps 1 percent or more of annual global output devoted to stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs).

These two observations motivate current interest in policies that—by placing a rising price on GHG emissions—attach a tangible market value to avoiding or reducing those emissions. Reliance on a pricing mechanism as the core element of domestic climate policy promises lower overall costs to the economy

because it creates incentives to exploit the cheapest emissions-reduction options wherever they exist. Given that considerable resources will be required to address climate risks even with efficient policies, the arguments for avoiding strategies that add to cost by unnecessarily restricting flexibility are compelling. Reliance on a pricing mechanism also provides flexibility over time because the aggressiveness of the policy can be adjusted relatively easily in the future by changing a primary parameter: the emissions price.

In some areas—particularly in the electricity and transportation sectors—additional policies are likely to be implemented to promote lower-carbon technologies. Broader energy policy decisions—particularly those that affect natural gas supply, nuclear waste, the siting of renewable energy projects, electricity grid infrastructure, and energy efficiency— will also have important consequences for efforts to reduce GHG emissions. These policies can act as complements to

a pricing policy, possibly reducing the cost of achieving a particular emissions goal. However, they can also work against an otherwise efficient pricing policy—raising costs at best and creating conflicting incentives at worst.

The 15 issue briefs that comprise this report aim to elucidate the important questions that confront legislators and regulators as they seek to develop effective policy responses to address climate change. Their key themes can be framed as a series of questions, which are summarized below. Of these questions, the first five concern the core design of an emissions pricing mechanism, while the last three explore the rationale for additional policies to address specific technology opportunities (and often unique features) in key sectors:

• What is an appropriate, overall GHG emissions objective for the United States at this time? While a logical starting point for answering this question involves weighing the

global cost and benefit of stabilizing atmospheric GHG concentrations at different levels, efforts to define a goal for domestic policy must also confront capital, technological, and institutional constraints, along with the United States’ ability to engage, coordinate with, and motivate other major economies and emitting nations.

• What sectors of the economy should be covered by a single emissions pricing policy and where in the supply chain should energy-related carbon emissions be regulated?

• How much emphasis should be placed on providing certainty about future GHG emissions versus providing certainty about the trajectory of future GHG prices?

• Given that the impacts of a federal GHG pricing policy are likely to vary considerably across regions, industries, and consumers, how should the distributional consequences of such a policy be addressed? Specifically, how should revenues (in a tax system) or the asset value represented by emissions allowances (in a cap-and-trade program) be distributed back to society?

• How will the policy address international competitiveness concerns?

• To what extent should a domestic climate policy create additional requirements and/or incentives (beyond the GHG price signal) for accelerated technology development and deployment?

• What role do additional policies in the electricity sector— including performance standards, renewable energy

portfolio standards, energy efficiency programs, and incentives for carbon dioxide (CO₂) capture and storage— play alongside a CO₂ pricing policy? How can emissions allowances or tax revenues be allocated in an equitable fashion given the varied forms of regulation and patterns of fuel use that characterize the electricity sector in different regions of the country?

Given that significantly reducing the GHG contribution from the transportation sector will require much higher

emissions prices and longer lead times than achieving similar reductions from other sectors, what is the role for vehicle fuel-economy standards, renewable or low-carbon fuel requirements, and other technology-forcing policies— either alongside or in place of a single GHG-price policy? How might these policies be designed in more or less cost-effective ways?

These questions can provide a framework for devising a climate policy from scratch, or they can help to unpack and illuminate the core elements of existing proposals. Specifically, they can help policymakers and stakeholders understand how and whether a given proposal covers key bases, how

it might be improved, and whether its various elements fit together in a sensible way. As efforts to reach consensus on a federal climate policy intensify, this kind of critical thinking by all parties to the debate, including the broader public, is increasingly important.