Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Directed technical change and differentiation of climate policy

Contents:

Author Info

  • Otto, Vincent M.
  • Löschel, Andreas
  • Reilly, John

Abstract

This paper studies the cost effectiveness of climate policy if there are technology externalities. For this purpose, we develop a forward looking model that captures empirical links between CO2 emissions associated with energy use, directed technical change and the economy. We find our most cost effective climate policy to include a combination of R&D subsidies and CO2 emission constraints, although R&D subsidies raise the shadow value of the CO2 constraint (i.e. CO2 price) because of a strong rebound effect from stimulating innovation. Furthermore, we find that cost effectiveness of climate policy improves if it is differentiated between technologies. Even our rudimentary distinction between CO2 intensive technologies and non-CO2 intensive technologies lead to this result. Such differentiated climate policy encourages growth in the non-CO2 intensive sectors and discourages growth in CO2 intensive sectors by harnessing positive effects of technology externalities on total factor productivity in the former and letting the latter bear relatively more of the abatement burden. This result is robust to whether emission constraints, R&D subsidies or combinations of both are used as climate policy instruments.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V7G-4S3G3XN-1/2/331af26a0afbcd0688b5a4ed0d23a85b
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Energy Economics.

Volume (Year): 30 (2008)
Issue (Month): 6 (November)
Pages: 2855-2878

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:30:y:2008:i:6:p:2855-2878

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco

Related research

Keywords: Directed technical change Climate policy Computable general equilibrium model R&D;

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Acemoglu, Daron, 2002. "Directed Technical Change," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(4), pages 781-809, October.
  2. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2005. "A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2-3), pages 164-174, August.
  3. Otto, Vincent M. & Loschel, Andreas & Dellink, Rob, 2007. "Energy biased technical change: A CGE analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 137-158, May.
  4. Knut Einar Rosendahl, 2002. "Cost-effective environmental policy: Implications of induced technological change," Discussion Papers 314, Research Department of Statistics Norway.
  5. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "Issues in Assessing the Contribution of Research and Development to Productivity Growth," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 17-45 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  6. Hall, Robert E, 1988. "Intertemporal Substitution in Consumption," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(2), pages 339-57, April.
  7. Fischer, Carolyn & Newell, Richard, 2004. "Environmental and Technology Policies for Climate Mitigation," Discussion Papers dp-04-05, Resources For the Future.
  8. Dale W. Jorgenson & Kevin J. Stiroh, 2000. "Raising the Speed Limit: U.S. Economic Growth in the Information Age," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 31(1), pages 125-236.
  9. Romer, Paul M, 1986. "Increasing Returns and Long-run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(5), pages 1002-37, October.
  10. Lau, Morten I. & Pahlke, Andreas & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2002. "Approximating infinite-horizon models in a complementarity format: A primer in dynamic general equilibrium analysis," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 577-609, April.
  11. Bramoulle, Yann & Olson, Lars J., 2005. "Allocation of pollution abatement under learning by doing," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(9-10), pages 1935-1960, September.
  12. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Schneider, Stephen H., 1999. "Induced technological change and the attractiveness of CO2 abatement policies," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3-4), pages 211-253, August.
  13. Fischer, Carolyn, 2004. "Emissions Pricing, Spillovers, and Public Investment in Environmentally Friendly Technologies," Discussion Papers dp-04-02, Resources For the Future.
  14. Rutherford, Thomas F, 1999. "Applied General Equilibrium Modeling with MPSGE as a GAMS Subsystem: An Overview of the Modeling Framework and Syntax," Computational Economics, Society for Computational Economics, vol. 14(1-2), pages 1-46, October.
  15. Mansfield, Edwin, et al, 1977. "Social and Private Rates of Return from Industrial Innovations," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 91(2), pages 221-40, May.
  16. Rivera-Batiz, Luis A & Romer, Paul M, 1991. "Economic Integration and Endogenous Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 106(2), pages 531-55, May.
  17. Beaudry, Paul & van Wincoop, Eric, 1996. "The Intertemporal Elasticity of Substitution: An Exploration Using a US Panel of State Data," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 63(251), pages 495-512, August.
  18. Rutherford, Thomas F. & Böhringer, Christoph, 2002. "In Search of a Rationale for Differentiated Environmental Taxes," ZEW Discussion Papers 02-30, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  19. Adam Jaffe & Richard Newell & Robert Stavins, 2002. "Environmental Policy and Technological Change," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 22(1), pages 41-70, June.
  20. Ariel Pakes & Mark Schankerman, 1979. "The Rate of Obsolescence Of Knowledge, Research Gestation Lags, and the Private Rate of Return to Research Resources," NBER Working Papers 0346, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  21. Ferris, Michael C. & Munson, Todd S., 2000. "Complementarity problems in GAMS and the PATH solver," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 165-188, February.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Loisel, Rodica, 2009. "Environmental climate instruments in Romania: A comparative approach using dynamic CGE modelling," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2190-2204, June.
  2. David Popp & Nidhi Santen & Karen Fisher-Vanden & Mort Webster, 2012. "Technology Variation vs. R&D Uncertainty: What Matters Most for Energy Patent Success?," NBER Working Papers 17792, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  3. Enrica De Cian & Samuel Carrara & Massimo Tavoni, 2012. "Innovation Benefits from Nuclear Phase-out: Can they Compensate the Costs?," Working Papers 2012.96, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
  4. Rodica Loisel, 2009. "Environmental climate instruments in Romania: A comparative approach using dynamic CGE modelling," Post-Print halshs-00441491, HAL.
  5. Enrica Cian & Valentina Bosetti & Massimo Tavoni, 2012. "Technology innovation and diffusion in “less than ideal” climate policies: An assessment with the WITCH model," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 121-143, September.
  6. Brita Bye & Karl Jacobsen, 2009. "On general versus emission saving R&D support," Discussion Papers 584, Research Department of Statistics Norway.
  7. Orachos Napasintuwong Artachinda, 2011. "Modeling Directions of Technical Change in Agricultural Sector," Working Papers 201101, Kasetsart University, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
  8. Enrica Cian & Samuel Carrara & Massimo Tavoni, 2014. "Innovation benefits from nuclear phase-out: can they compensate the costs?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 123(3), pages 637-650, April.
  9. Flues, Florens & Löschel, Andreas & Lutz, Benjamin Johannes & Schenker, Oliver, 2013. "Ups and downs: How economic growth affects policy interactions," ZEW Discussion Papers 13-066, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  10. Alfred Endres & Bianca Rundshagen, 2013. "Incentives to Diffuse Advanced Abatement Technology Under the Formation of International Environmental Agreements," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(2), pages 177-210, October.
  11. Heggedal, Tom-Reiel & Jacobsen, Karl, 2011. "Timing of innovation policies when carbon emissions are restricted: An applied general equilibrium analysis," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 913-937.
  12. Hübler, Michael & Löschel, Andreas, 2012. "The EU decarbonisation roadmap 2050: What way to walk?," ZEW Discussion Papers 12-055, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
  13. Blyth, William & Bunn, Derek & Kettunen, Janne & Wilson, Tom, 2009. "Policy interactions, risk and price formation in carbon markets," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(12), pages 5192-5207, December.
  14. Wei Jin, 2012. "Can Technological Innovation Help China Take on Its Climate Responsibility? A Computable General Equilibrium Analysis," CAMA Working Papers 2012-51, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
  15. Popp, David & Santen, Nidhi & Fisher-Vanden, Karen & Webster, Mort, 2013. "Technology variation vs. R&D uncertainty: What matters most for energy patent success?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 505-533.
  16. Kurt Kratena & Michael Wüger, 2012. "Technological Change and Energy Demand in Europe," WIFO Working Papers 427, WIFO.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:30:y:2008:i:6:p:2855-2878. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.