Advertisement

AMBIO

, Volume 41, Supplement 1, pp 33–45 | Cite as

How Should Support for Climate-Friendly Technologies Be Designed?

  • Carolyn Fischer
  • Asbjørn Torvanger
  • Manish Kumar Shrivastava
  • Thomas Sterner
  • Peter Stigson
Article

Abstract

Stabilizing global greenhouse gas concentrations at levels to avoid significant climate risks will require massive “decarbonization” of all the major economies over the next few decades, in addition to the reduced emissions from other GHGs and carbon sequestration. Achieving the necessary scale of emissions reductions will require a multifaceted policy effort to support a broad array of technological and behavioral changes. Change on this scale will require sound, well-thought-out strategies. In this article, we outline some core principles, drawn from recent social science research, for guiding the design of clean technology policies, with a focus on energy. The market should be encouraged to make good choices: pricing carbon emissions and other environmental damage, removing distorting subsidies and barriers to competition, and supporting RD&D broadly. More specific policies are required to address particular market failures and barriers. For those technologies identified as being particularly desirable, some narrower RD&D policies are available.

Keywords

Climate-friendly technologies Carbon pricing Technology policies Barriers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Mistra Foundation’s Climate Policy Research Program (Clipore). Thanks also to two anonymous referees for their valuable comments. This article expands upon an earlier issue brief, Fischer (2009).

References

  1. ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2009. Improving energy security and reducing carbon intensity in Asia and the Pacific. Manila: Asian Development Bank.Google Scholar
  2. Azar, C., and B.A. Sandén. 2011. The elusive quest for technology-neutral policies. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1: 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. de Coninck, H., C. Fischer, R.G. Newell, and T. Ueno. 2008. International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change. Energy Policy 36: 335–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fell, H., D. Burtraw, R. Morgenstern, K. Palmer, and L. Preonas. 2009. Soft and hard price collars in a cap-and-trade system. A comparative analysis. Discussion paper 10-27-REV. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  5. Fischer, C. 2008. Emissions pricing, spillovers, and public investment in environmentally friendly technologies. Energy Economics 30: 487–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fischer, C. 2009. The role of technology policies in climate mitigation. RFF issue brief 09–08. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  7. Fischer, C., and R. Newell. 2008. Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55: 142–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer, C., and L. Preonas. 2010. Combining policies for renewable energy: Is the whole less than the sum of its parts? International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics 4: 51–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fischer, C., and T. Sterner. forthcoming. Climate policy, uncertainty, and the role of technological innovation. Journal of Public Economic Theory.Google Scholar
  10. GCN (Global Climate Network). 2009. Breaking through on technology: Overcoming the barriers to the development and wide deployment of low-carbon technology. Global climate network discussion paper no. 2. Global climate network. http://www.globalclimatenetwork.info.
  11. GCN (Global Climate Network). 2010. Investing in clean energy: How can developed countries best help developing countries finance climate-friendly energy investments? Discussion paper 4. http://www.globalclimatenetwork.info/ecomm/files/Investing%20in%20Clean%20Energy%20Nov2010.pdf.
  12. Gerlagh, R., S. Kverndokk, and K.E. Rosendahl. 2008. Linking environmental and innovation policy. FEEM working paper no. 53. Milan: Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.Google Scholar
  13. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2002. Reforming energy subsidies. Paris: IEA and UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics.Google Scholar
  14. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2006. Carrots and sticks: Taxing and subsidising energy. Economic analysis division note on energy subsidies and taxes. Paris: IEA.Google Scholar
  15. Jones, C.I., and J.C. Williams. 1998. Measuring the social return to R&D. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 113: 1119–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lindman, Å., and P. Söderholm. 2011. Wind power learning rates: A conceptual review and meta-analysis. Energy Economics. doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2011.05.007.
  17. McDonald, A., and L. Schrattenholzer. 2002. Learning curves and technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Management 23: 718–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Newell, R.G., and N.E. Wilson. 2005. Technology prizes for climate change mitigation. Discussion paper 05-33. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
  19. Ockwell, D.G., J. Watson, G. MacKerron, P. Pal, and F. Yamin. 2008. Key policy considerations for facilitating low carbon technology transfer to developing countries. Energy Policy 36: 4104–4115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD and IEA (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy Agency). 2003. Technology innovation, development and diffusion. COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)4. Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
  21. OECD and IEA (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and International Energy Agency). 2008. CO 2 capture and storage—A key abatement technology: Energy technology analysis. Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
  22. Pacala, S., and R. Socolow. 2004. Stabilization wedges: Solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305: 968–972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Popp, D. 2011, Winter. International technology transfer for climate policy. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 5(1): 131–152.Google Scholar
  24. Requate, T. 2005. Dynamic incentives by environmental policy—A survey. Ecological Economics 54: 175–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rubin, E.S., S. Yeh, M. Antes, M. Berkenpas, and J. Davison. 2007. Use of experience curves to estimate the future cost of power plants with CO2 capture. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 1: 188–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shapira, P., and S. Rosenfeld. 1996. An overview of technology diffusion policies and programs to enhance the technological absorptive capabilities of small and medium enterprises. Background paper prepared for the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Paris. http://ciber.gatech.edu/papers/workingpaper/1997/shapira2.pdf.
  27. Shrivastava, M.K. 2008. Climate change and technology: Building capabilites. TERI viewpoint paper 1. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  28. Shrivastava, M.K. 2009. Towards a green techno-economic paradigm. Resources, Energy and Development 6: 67–80.Google Scholar
  29. Shrivastava, M.K., and H. Upadhyay. 2009. Climate change and technology: Perceptions from India. Discussion paper TERI/GCN-2009:1. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Stern, N. 2007. The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sterner, T. 2012. Fuel taxes and the poor: The distributional effects of gasoline taxation and their implications for climate policy. New York and London: RFF Press/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  32. Stigson, P., E. Dotzauer, and J. Yan. 2009. Improving policy making through government–industry policy learning: The case of a novel Swedish policy framework. Applied Energy 86: 399–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stigson, P., E. Dotzauer, and J. Yan. 2010. Voluntary agreements as a vehicle for policy learning. International Journal of Global Warming 2: 97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Taylor, A., M. Bramley, and M. Winfield. 2005. Government spending on Canadas oil and gas industry: Undermining Canadas Kyoto commitment. Pembina Institute Report. AB, Canada: Climate Action Network.Google Scholar
  35. Torvanger, A., and J. Meadowcroft. 2011. The political economy of technology support: Making decisions about CCS and low carbon energy technologies. Global Environmental Change 21: 303–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Unruh, G. 2000. Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28: 817–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhao, M. 2006. Conducting R&D with weak intellectual rights protection. Management Science 52(8): 1185–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn Fischer
    • 1
  • Asbjørn Torvanger
    • 2
  • Manish Kumar Shrivastava
    • 4
  • Thomas Sterner
    • 3
  • Peter Stigson
    • 5
  1. 1.Resources for the FutureWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.CICEROOsloNorway
  3. 3.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  4. 4.TERINew DelhiIndia
  5. 5.IVL Swedish Environmental Research InstituteStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations