Climatic Change

, Volume 78, Issue 1, pp 157–179 | Cite as

Optimal Technology R&D in the Face of Climate Uncertainty

  • Erin BakerEmail author
  • Leon Clarke
  • John Weyant


This paper explores optimal near-term technology R&D in the face of uncertain damages caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases. The paper puts particular emphasis on understanding how optimal near-term R&D expenditures might vary based on the technologies pursued in the R&D program. The exploration is conducted in the context of varying impacts from R&D on the global abatement cost function. The R&D planning problem is considered first within a theoretical framework and is then pursued in a stylized application using the DICE model. The paper provides intuition into the circumstances under which near-term technology R&D might increase or decrease under uncertainty, thereby serving as a hedge against climate uncertainty.


Emission Reduction Abatement Cost Optimal Technology Abatement Level Climate Damage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Athey, S.: 2000. Comparative Statics in Stochastic Problems with Applications. PhD Thesis Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, E.: 2002. Increasing Informativenss and Increasing Risk: Equivalence Theorems, PhD Thesis Department of Management Science and Engineering, Stanford University, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
  3. Baker, E.: 2005. “Uncertainty and Learning in a Strategic Environment: Global Climate Change.” Resource and Energy Economics 27, 19–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, E. & Shittu, E.: Forthcoming, “Profit-Maximizing R&D in Response to a Random Carbon Tax.” Resource and Energy Economics (See:
  5. Baker, E., Clarke, L. & Weyant, J.: 2003. “R&D as a Hedge Against Climate Damages.” University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  6. Baudry, M.: 2000. “Joint Management of Emission Abatement and Technological Innovation for Stock Externalities.” Environmental and Resource Economics 16, 161–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buonanno, P., Carraro, C. & Galeott, M.: 2003. “Endogenous Induced Technical Change and the Costs of Kyoto.” Resource and Energy Economics 25, 11–34.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, L. & Weyant, J.: 2002. Modeling Induced Technological Change: An Overview. In Technological Change and the Environment, ed. A. Grubler, N. Nakicenovic and W. Nordhaus. Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  9. Farzin, Y. H. & Kort, P.M.: 2000. “Pollution Abatement Investment When Environmental Regulation is Uncertain.” Journal of Public Economic Theory 2, 183–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gollier, C., Bruno, J. & Treich, N.: 2000. “Scientific Progress and Irreversibility: An Economic Interpretation of the ‘Precautionary Pricipal.’” Journal of Public Economics 75, 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goulder, L. & Mathai, K.: 2000. “Optimal CO 2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goulder, L. & Schneider, S.: 1999. “Induced Technological Change and the Attractiveness of CO 2 Abatement Policies.” Resource and Energy Economics 21, 211–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goulder, L.H., Parry, I., Williams, R.C. & Butraw, D.: 1999. “The Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Instruments for Environmental Protection in a Second-Best Setting.” Journal of Public Economics 72, 329–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaffe, A., Newell, R. & Stavins, R.: 2003. Technological Change and the Environment. In Handbook of Environmental Economics. Vol. 1 Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
  15. Keller, K., Bolker, B. & Bradford, D.: 2004. “Uncertain Climate Thresholds and Optimal Economic Growth.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48, 723–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kimball, M. S.: 1990. “Precautionary Savings in the Small and in the Large.” Econometrica 58, 53–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kolstad, C.: 1996. “Learning and Stock Effects in Environmental Regulation: the Case of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 31, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Manne, A. & Richels, R.: 2002. The Impact of Learning-by-Doing on the Timing and Cost of CO 2 Abatement. Technical Report Working Paper AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.Google Scholar
  19. Manne, Alan S.: 1996. “Hedging Strategies for Global Carbon Dioxide Abatement: A Summary of Poll Results – EMF 14 Subgroup Analysis for Decisions Under Uncertainty.” Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  20. Newell, R.: 1997. Environmental Policy and Technological Change: the Effects of Economic Incentives and Direct Regulation on Energy-Saving Regulation, Ph.d. Thesis Harvard University.Google Scholar
  21. Newell, R., Jaffe, A. & Stavins, R.: 1999. “The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(3), 941–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nordhaus, W. D.: 1994. “Expert Opinion on Climatic Change.” American Scientist 82, 45–51.Google Scholar
  23. Nordhaus, W. D.: 2002. Modeling Induced Innovation in Climate Change Policy. In Technological Change and the Environment, ed. Arnulf Grubler, Nebojsa Nakicenovic and William D. Nordhaus. Washington D.C. and Laxenburg, Austria: RFF and IIASA pp. 182–209.Google Scholar
  24. Nordhaus, W. D. & Joseph Boyer.: 2000. Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Pizer, W.: 1999. “The Optimal Choice of Climate Change Policy in the Presence of Uncertainty.” Resource and Energy Economics 21(3/4), 255–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Popp, D.: 2004. “ENTICE: Endognenous Technological Change in the DICE Model of Global Warming.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48, 742–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rothschild, M. & Stiglitz, J.: 1970. “Increasing Risk I: A Definition.” Journal of Economic Theory 2, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rothschild, M. & Stiglitz, J.: 1971. “Increasing Risk II: Its Economic Consequences.” Journal of Economic Theory 3, 66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schneider, S. & Goulder, L.: 1997. “Achieving Low-Cost Emissions Targets.” Nature 389(4), 13–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, J. E.: 1993. “Moment Methods for Decision Analysis.” Management Science 39, 340–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sue Wing, I.: 2003. Induced Technical Change and the Cost of Climate Policy. Technical Report 102 MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.Google Scholar
  32. Ulph, A. & Ulph, D.: 1997. “Global Warming, Irreversibility and Learning.” The Economic Journal 107, 636–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. van der Zwaan, B.C.C., Gerlagh, R., Klaassen, G. & Schrattenholzer, L.: 2002. “Endogenous Technological Change in Climate Change Modeling.” Energy Economics 24, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Webster, M.: 2002. “The Curious Role of “Learning” in Climate Policy: Should we Wait for More Data?” Energy Journal 23(2), 97–119.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MassachusettsAmherstUSA
  2. 2.Joint Global Change Research InstitutePacific Northwest National LaboratoryCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations