Knowledge versus technique in SO2-saving technological change: A comparative test using quantile regression with implications for greenhouse gas compliance
Greenhouse gas emission limits are a major source of technical and policy uncertainty for electric power industry professionals. This paper tries to reduce some of this uncertainty by investigating the main forces that were responsible for the productivity gains made by the electric power sector with respect to SO2 emissions under the US SO2 cap and trade program. The SO2 cap and trade experience has important parallels with the GHG pollution problem, in both policy design and technical response. Linear and quantile regression are used to compare the effect of new technical knowledge (R&D) on SO2 productivity, against the effect of pre-existing techniques that did not involve very much new knowledge creation. Compliance techniques that involved little new technical knowledge and which were incremental and pragmatic played the most important role in SO2-saving technological change. Implications of this finding for electric power plantsï¿½ technical response to GHG pollution limits are elaborated.
|Date of creation:||Nov 2012|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: +44 (020) 7405 7686
Web page: http://www.lse.ac.uk/grantham.
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Arik Levinson, 2007.
"Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from U.S. Manufacturing,"
NBER Working Papers
13616, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Arik Levinson, 2009. "Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from US Manufacturing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 2177-92, December.
- Arik Levinson, 2007. "Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from U.S. Manufacturing," Working Papers gueconwpa~07-07-05, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
- Arik Levinson, 2008. "Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from U.S. Manufacturing," NCEE Working Paper Series 200802, National Center for Environmental Economics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, revised Feb 2008.
- Levinson, Arik, 2007. "Technology, International Trade, and Pollution from U.S. Manufacturing," Discussion Papers dp-07-40, Resources For the Future.
- Massimiliano Mazzanti & Anna Montini & Roberto Zoboli, 2007. "Economic Dynamics, Emission Trends and the EKC Hypothesis New Evidence Using NAMEA and Provincial Panel Data for Italy," Working Papers 2007.24, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
- William Brock & M. Taylor, 2010.
"The Green Solow model,"
Journal of Economic Growth,
Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 127-153, June.
- Joskow, Paul L & Schmalensee, Richard, 1998. "The Political Economy of Market-Based Environmental Policy: The U.S. Acid Rain Program," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 37-83, April.
- Sue Wing, Ian, 2008. "Explaining the declining energy intensity of the U.S. economy," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 21-49, January.
- Seskin, Eugene P. & Anderson, Robert Jr. & Reid, Robert O., 1983. "An empirical analysis of economic strategies for controlling air pollution," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 112-124, June.
- Richard G. Newell & Adam B. Jaffe & Robert N. Stavins, 1998.
"The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change,"
NBER Working Papers
6437, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 1998. "The Induced Innovation Hypothesis and Energy-Saving Technological Change," Discussion Papers dp-98-12-rev, Resources For the Future.
- Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516 Elsevier.
- Nadiri, M.I. & Prucha, I.R., 1993. "Estimation of the Depreciation Rate of Physical and R&D Capital in the U.S. Total Manufacturing Sector," Working Papers 93-47, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York University.
- Joshua Linn, 2008.
"Energy Prices and the Adoption of Energy-Saving Technology,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(533), pages 1986-2012, November.
- Joshua Linn, 2006. "Energy Prices and the Adoption of Energy-Saving Technology," Working Papers 0612, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
- Giovanni Peri, 2005. "Determinants of Knowledge Flows and Their Effect on Innovation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 87(2), pages 308-322, May.
- David Popp, 2010. "Exploring Links Between Innovation and Diffusion: Adoption of NO X Control Technologies at US Coal-fired Power Plants," Environmental & Resource Economics, European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 319-352, March.
- Popp, David C., 2001. "The effect of new technology on energy consumption," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 215-239, July.
- Popp, David, 2006. "International innovation and diffusion of air pollution control technologies: the effects of NOX and SO2 regulation in the US, Japan, and Germany," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 46-71, January.
- Stern, David I., 2002. "Explaining changes in global sulfur emissions: an econometric decomposition approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 201-220, August.
- Richard Schmalensee & Paul L. Joskow & A. Denny Ellerman & Juan Pablo Montero & Elizabeth M. Bailey, 1998. "An Interim Evaluation of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Trading," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 12(3), pages 53-68, Summer.
- Sue Wing, Ian, 2006. "Representing induced technological change in models for climate policy analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 539-562, November.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:lsg:lsgwps:wp99. 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: (The GRI Administration)
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.