Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 114, Issue 1, pp 39–57 | Cite as

The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy

  • Massimo TavoniEmail author
  • Enrica De Cian
  • Gunnar Luderer
  • Jan Christoph Steckel
  • Henri Waisman
Article

Abstract

This paper assesses the economic value associated with the development of various low-carbon technologies in the context of climate stabilization. We analyze the impact of restrictions on the development of specific mitigation technologies, comparing three integrated assessment models used in the RECIPE comparison exercise. Our results indicate that the diversification of the carbon mitigation portfolio is an important determinant of the feasibility of climate policy. Foregoing specific low carbon technologies raises the cost of achieving the climate policy, though at different rates. CCS and renewables are shown to have the highest value, given their flexibility and wide coverage. The costs associated with technology failure are shown to be related to the role that each technology plays in the stabilization scenario, but also to the expectations about their technological progress. In particular, the costs of restriction of mature technologies can be partly compensated by more innovation and technological advancement.

Keywords

Climate Policy Abatement Cost Baseline Scenario Mitigation Option Breakthrough Technology 
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.

References

  1. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2006) WITCH: a World Induced Technical Change Hybrid Model. The Energy Journal. Special Issue on Hybrid Modeling of Energy-Environment Policies: Reconciling Bottom-up and Top-down: pp. 13–38Google Scholar
  2. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Duval R, Sgobbi A, Tavoni M (2009a) The role of R&D and technology diffusion in climate change mitigation: new perspectives using the WITCH model, OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 664, 2009Google Scholar
  3. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Tavoni M (2009b) Climate policy after 2012. Technology, timing, participation. CESifo Econ Stud 55(2/2009):235–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Duval R, Tavoni M (2010) What should we expect from innovation? A model-based assessment of the environmental and mitigation cost implications of climate-related R&D, mimeo FEEMGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke L, Edmonds J, Jacoby H, Pitcher H, Reilly J, Richels R (2007) Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, DC., USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke LE, Weyant J, Edmonds JA (2008) On the sources of technological change: what do the models assume. Energy Econ 30(2):409–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis G, Owens B (2003) Optimizing the level of renewable electric R&D expenditures using real options analysis. Energy Policy 31(15):1589–1608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edenhofer O, Lessmann K, Kemfert C, Grubb M, Köhler J (2006) Induced technological change: exploring its implications for the economics of athmospheric stabilization: synthesis report from innovation modeling comparison project. The Energy Journal, Special Issue 2006, 57–107Google Scholar
  9. Edenhofer O, Knopf B, Leimbach M, Bauer N (2010) (eds) The economics of low stabilization. Spec Issue Energy J Volume 31 (Special Issue 1). 2010, in pressGoogle Scholar
  10. Fisher BS, Nakicenovic N, Alfsen K, Corfee Morlot J, de la Chesnaye F, Hourcade J-Ch, Jiang K, Kainuma M, La Rovere E, Matysek A, Rana A, Riahi K, Richels R, Rose S, van Vuuren D, Warren R (2007) Issues related to mitigation in the long term context. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Climate change 2007: mitigation. Contribution of working group III to the fourth assessment report of the inter-governmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. IPCC (2007) In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  12. Kyle GP, Clarke LE, Pugh G, Wise MA, Calvin KV, Edmonds JA, Kim SH (2009) The value of advanced technology in meeting 2050 greenhouse gas emissions targets in the United States. Energy Econ 31(2):S254–S267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leimbach M, Bauer N, Baumstark L, Edenhofer O (2009) Costs in a globalized world: climate policy analysis with ReMIND-R. Environmental Modeling and Assessment. Accepted for PublicationGoogle Scholar
  14. McDonald A, Schrattenholzer L (2002) Learning curves and technology assessment. Int J Technol Manag 23:7–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nemet G, Kammen D (2007) U.S. energy research and development: declining investment, increasing need, and the feasibility of expansion. Energy Policy 35(1):746–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305:968–972Google Scholar
  17. Richels R, Blanford G (2008) The value of technological advance in decarbonizing the U.S. economy. Energy Econ 30(6):2930–2946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sassi O, Crassous R, Hourcade J-C, Gitz V, Waisman H, Guivarch C (2010) IMACLIM-R: a modelling framework to simulate sustainable development pathways. Int J Glob Environ Issues 10(1/2):5–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schock R et al (1999) How much is energy research & development worth as insurance? Annu Rev Energy Environ 24:487–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Weyant JP (2004) editor EMF 19: alternative technology strategies for climate change policy. Energy Econ Spec Issue Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 501–755, 2004Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Massimo Tavoni
    • 2
    • 4
    Email author
  • Enrica De Cian
    • 2
    • 4
  • Gunnar Luderer
    • 1
  • Jan Christoph Steckel
    • 1
  • Henri Waisman
    • 3
  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Euro-Mediterranean Centre for Climate ChangeVeniceItaly
  3. 3.Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environment et le DévelopmentParisFrance
  4. 4.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM)MilanItaly

Personalised recommendations