Climatic Change

, Volume 77, Issue 3–4, pp 311–341 | Cite as

R&D Subsidies and Climate Policy: Is There a “Free Lunch”?

  • David PoppEmail author
Open Access


Because of the long-term nature of the climate problem, technological advances are often seen as an important component of any solution. However, when considering the potential for technology to help solve the climate problem, two market failures exist which lead to underinvestment in climate-friendly R&D: environmental externalities and the public goods nature of new knowledge. As a result, government subsidies to climate-friendly R&D projects are often proposed as part of a policy solution. Using the ENTICE model, I analyze the effectiveness of such subsidies, both with and without other climate policies, such as a carbon tax. While R&D subsidies do lead to significant increases in climate-friendly R&D, this R&D has little impact on the climate itself. Subsidies address the problem of knowledge as a public good, but they do not address the environmental externality, and thus offer no additional incentive to adopt new technologies. Moreover, high opportunity costs to R&D limit the potential role that subsidies can play. While R&D subsidies can improve efficiency, policies that directly affect the environmental externality have a much larger impact on both atmospheric temperature and economic welfare.


Carbon Emission Climate Policy Market Failure Knowledge Spillover Welfare Gain 
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.


  1. Anderson, D.: 1997, “Renewable Energy Technology and Policy for Development”, Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 22, 187–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bazelon, C. and Smetters, K.: 1999, “Discounting inside the Washington beltway”, Journal of Economic Perspectives 13(4), 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buonanno, P., Carraro, C., and Galeotti, M.: 2003, “Endogenous Induced Technical Change and the Costs of Kyoto”, Resource and Energy Economics 25(1), 11–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldeira, K., Jain, A. K., and Hoffert, M. I.: 2003, “Climate Sensitivity Uncertainty and the Need for Energy Without CO$_2 Emission”, Science 299, 2052–2054.PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischer, C. and Newell, R.: 2004, “Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Change and Renewable Energy”, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 04–05.Google Scholar
  6. Gerlagh, R. and van der Zwaan, B.: 2003, “Gross World Product and Consumption in a Global Warming Model with Endogenous Technological Change”, Resource and Energy Economics 25(1), 35–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geroski, P.: 1995, “Markets for Technology: Knowledge, Innovation, and Appropriability”, in Stoneman, P. (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford UK, pp. 90–131.Google Scholar
  8. Goolsbee, A.: 1998, “Does government R&D policy mainly benefit scientists and engineers?” American Economic Review 88(2), 299–302.Google Scholar
  9. Goulder, L.H. and Mathai, K.: 2000, “Optimal CO$_2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(1), 1–38.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goulder, L.H. and Schneider, S.H.: 1999, “Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO$_2 emissions abatement”, Resource and Energy Economics 21(3–4), 211–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grübler, A. and Messner, S.: 1998, “Technological Change and the Timing of Mitigation Measures”, Energy Economics 20(5–6), 495–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hall, B.: 1996, “The Private and Social Returns to Research and Development”, in Smith, B. and Barfield, C. (eds.), Technology, R&D, and the Economy, Brookings, Washington, D.C., pp. 140–183.Google Scholar
  13. Hoffert, M.I., Caldeira, K.,Benford, G., Criswell, D. R., Green, C., Herzog, H., Jain, A.K., Kheshgi, H.S., Lackner, K.S., Lewis, J.S., Lightfoot, H.D., Manheimer, W., Mankins, J.C., Mauel, M.E., Perkins, L.J., Schlesinger, M.E., Volk, T., and Wigley, T.M.L.: 2002, “Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet”, Science 298(1), 981–986.PubMedCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  14. Jaffe, A.B.: 1986, “Technological Opportunity and Spillover of R&D: Evidence from Firms' Patents, Profits, and Market Value”, American Economic Review 76, 984–1001.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, C.I. and Williams, J.C.: 1998, “Measuring the Social Return to R&D”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(4), 1119–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karshenaas, M. and Stoneman, P.: 1995, “Technological Diffusion”, in Stoneman, P. (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, pp. 265–297.Google Scholar
  17. Kaufmann, R.K.: 1997, “Assessing the DICE model: Uncertainty Associated With the Emission and Retention of Greenhouse Gases”, Climatic Change 35(4), 435–448.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klaassen, G., Miketa, A., Larsen, K., and Sundqvist, T.: 2003, “Public R&D and Innovation: The Case of Wind Energy in Denmark, Germany, and the United Kingdom”, Interim Report IR-03-011, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.Google Scholar
  19. Kverndokk, S., Rosendahl, K.E., and Rutherford, T.F.: 2004, “Climate Policies and Induced Technological Change: Which to Choose, the Carrot or the Stick?” Environmental and Resource Economics 27(1), 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K. Nelson, R.R., and Winter, S.G.: 1987, “Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development”, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3, 783–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Manne, A.S. and Richels, R.G.: 2002, “The impact of learning-by-doing on the timing and costs of CO$_2 abatement”, Energy Economics 26(4), 603–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mansfield, E.: 1996, “Microeconomic Policy and Technological Change”, in Fuhrer, J.C. and Little, J.S. (eds.), Technology and Growth: Conference Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, pp. 183–200.Google Scholar
  23. Mansfield, E.: 1977, “Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial Innovations”, Quarterly Journal of Economics 91, 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Messner, S.: 1997, “Endogenized Technological Learning in an Energy Systems Model”, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 7(3), 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pakes, A.: 1985, “On Patents, R&D, and the Stock Market Rate of Return”, Journal of Political Economy 93, 390–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nordhaus, W.D.: 2002, “Modeling induced innovation in climate-change policy”, in: Grübler, A., Nakicenovic, N., and Nordhaus, W.D. (eds.), Technological Change and the Environment, Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 182–209.Google Scholar
  27. Nordhaus, W.D.: 1994, Managing the Global Commons: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  28. Nordhaus, W.D. and Boyer, J.: 2000, Warming the World: Economic Models of Global Warming, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  29. Popp, D.: forthcoming, “ENTICE-BR: The Effects of Backstop Technology R&D on Climate Policy Models”, forthcoming in Energy Economics.Google Scholar
  30. Popp, D.: 2005, “Lessons From Patents: Using Patents to Measure Technological Change in Environmental Models”, Ecological Economics 54(2–3), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Popp, D.: 2004, “ENTICE: Endogenous Technological Change in the DICE Model of Global Warming”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 48(1), 742–768.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Popp, D.: 2002, “Induced innovation and energy prices”, American Economic Review 92, 160–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Popp, D.: 2001, “The Effect of New Technology on Energy Consumption, Resource and Energy Economics 23(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schneider, S.H. and Goulder, L.H.: 1997, “Achieving low-cost emissions targets”, Nature 389, 13–14.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  35. Söderholm, P. and Klaassen, G.: 2003, “Wind Power in Europe: A Simultaneous Innovation-Diffusion Model”, paper presented at the 12th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, Bilbao, Spain, June 28–30, 2003.Google Scholar
  36. Söderholm, P. and Sundqvist, T.: 2003, “Learning Curve Analysis for Energy Technologies: Theoretical and Econometric Issues”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Energy Workshop (IEW), Laxenburg, Austria, June 2003.Google Scholar
  37. van der Zwaan, B.C.C., Gerlagh, R., Klaassen, G., and Schrattenholzer, L.: 2002, “Endogenous technological change in climate change modeling”, Energy Economics 24(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wigley, T.M., Richels, R.G., and Edmonds, J.A.: 1996, “Economic and Environmental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO$_2 concentrations”, Nature 379, 240–243.CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Public Administration, Center for Environmental Policy Administration, Center for Technology and Information Policy, The Maxwell SchoolSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  2. 2.National Bureau of Economic ResearchCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations