IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sip/dpaper/15-003.html

Designing an Optimal 'Tech Fix' Path to Global Climate Stability: Integrated Dynamic Requirements Analysis for the 'Tech Fix'

Author

Listed:
  • Paul David

    (Stanford University)

  • Adriaan van Zon

    (SBE Maastricht University and United Nations University)

Abstract

This paper analyzes the requirements for a social welfare-optimized transition path toward a carbon-free economy, focusing particularly on the deployment of low-carbon technologies, and the roles of engineering upgrading of extant facilities, and directed R&D to enhancing their productivity. The goal in each case is to achieve timely supply-side transformations in the global production regime that will avert catastrophic climate instability, and do so in a manner that minimizes the social welfare costs of stabilizing the level of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHG). This "planning-model" approach departs from conventional IAM exercises by dispensing with the need to make (generally dubious) assumptions about the macro-level consequences of behaviors of economic and political actors in response to market incentives and specific public policy instruments, such as a carbon tax. It shifts attention instead to the need for empirical research on critical technical parameters, and problems of inter-temporal coordination of investment and capacity utilization that will be required to achieve a timely, welfare-optimizing transition. A suite of heuristic integrated models is described, in which global macroeconomic growth is constrained by geophysical system with climate feedbacks, including extreme weather damages from global warming driven by greenhouse gas emissions, and the threshold level GHG concentration beyond which the climate system will be "tipped into" catastrophic runaway warming. A variety of technological options are identified, each comprising an array of specific techniques that share a distinctive instrumental role in controlling the concentration level of atmospheric CO2. The development of low-carbon technologies through investment in R&D, and their deployment embodied in new physical capital formation, is explicitly modeled; as is the implementation of known engineering techniques to "upgrade" existing fossil-fueled production facilities. The social-welfare efficient exercise of the available technological options is shown to involve sequencing different investment and production activities in separate temporal "phases" that together form a transition path to a sustainable low-carbon economy— one in which gross CO2-emissions do not exceed the Earth's "natural" abatement capacity. Parametric variations of the "tipping point" constraint in these models will permit exploration of the corresponding modification in the required sequencing and durations of investment and production in the phases that form the optimal transition path. The preliminary solutions (using mufti-phase optimal control methods) expose important dynamic complementarities among technological options that are often presented as substitutes by current climate policy discussions.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul David & Adriaan van Zon, 2015. "Designing an Optimal 'Tech Fix' Path to Global Climate Stability: Integrated Dynamic Requirements Analysis for the 'Tech Fix'," Discussion Papers 15-003, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:sip:dpaper:15-003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/repec/sip/15-003.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hall, Darwin C. & Behl, Richard J., 2006. "Integrating economic analysis and the science of climate instability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 442-465, May.
    2. Joseph E. Aldy & Alan J. Krupnick & Richard G. Newell & Ian W. H. Parry & William A. Pizer, 2010. "Designing Climate Mitigation Policy," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(4), pages 903-934, December.
    3. Paul A. David & Adriaan van Zon, 2013. "Designing an Optimal 'Tech Fix' Path to Global Climate Stability: R&D in a Multi-Phase Climate Policy Framework," Discussion Papers 12-013, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    4. Jean-Charles Hourcade & Antonin Pottier & Etienne Espagne, 2011. "The Environment and Directed Technical Change: Comment," Working Papers 2011.95, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    5. Martin L. Weitzman, 2012. "GHG Targets as Insurance Against Catastrophic Climate Damages," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 14(2), pages 221-244, March.
    6. Richard S.J. Tol, 2011. "The Social Cost of Carbon," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 3(1), pages 419-443, October.
    7. Zon A.H. van & David P.A., 2013. "Designing an optimal 'tech fix' path to global climate stability : directed R&D and embodied technical change in a multi‐phase framework," MERIT Working Papers 2013-041, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    8. Tol, Richard S. J., 2008. "The Social Cost of Carbon: Trends, Outliers and Catastrophes," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 2, pages 1-22.
    9. Dowlatabadi, Hadi, 1995. "Integrated assessment models of climate change : An incomplete overview," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(4-5), pages 289-296.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Brock, W. A. & Xepapadeas, A., "undated". "Modeling Coupled Climate, Ecosystems, and Economic Systems," Climate Change and Sustainable Development 206837, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David, Paul & Van Zon, Adriaan, 2012. "Optimal multi-phase transition paths toward a stabilized global climate: Integrated dynamic requirements analysis for the 'tech fix'," MERIT Working Papers 2012-075, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    2. Lennox, James A. & Witajewski-Baltvilks, Jan, 2017. "Directed technical change with capital-embodied technologies: Implications for climate policy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 400-409.
    3. van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Botzen, W.J.W., 2015. "Monetary valuation of the social cost of CO2 emissions: A critical survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 33-46.
    4. Dietz, Simon, 2012. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US social cost of carbon for regulatory impact analysis," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 6, pages 1-12.
    5. Pezzey, John C.V. & Burke, Paul J., 2014. "Towards a more inclusive and precautionary indicator of global sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 141-154.
    6. Zhang, Hong & Jin, Gui & Zhang, Zhengyu, 2021. "Coupling system of carbon emission and social economy: A review," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    7. Venmans, Frank, 2012. "A literature-based multi-criteria evaluation of the EU ETS," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 16(8), pages 5493-5510.
    8. Havranek, Tomas & Irsova, Zuzana & Janda, Karel & Zilberman, David, 2015. "Selective reporting and the social cost of carbon," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 394-406.
    9. Wiser, Ryan & Bolinger, Mark & Heath, Garvin & Keyser, David & Lantz, Eric & Macknick, Jordan & Mai, Trieu & Millstein, Dev, 2016. "Long-term implications of sustained wind power growth in the United States: Potential benefits and secondary impacts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 146-158.
    10. Peter H. Howard & Thomas Sterner, 2017. "Few and Not So Far Between: A Meta-analysis of Climate Damage Estimates," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 197-225, September.
    11. Zimmer, Anne & Koch, Nicolas, 2017. "Fuel consumption dynamics in Europe: Tax reform implications for air pollution and carbon emissions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 22-50.
    12. Jenkins, Jesse D., 2014. "Political economy constraints on carbon pricing policies: What are the implications for economic efficiency, environmental efficacy, and climate policy design?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 467-477.
    13. Newbold, Stephen C. & Marten, Alex L., 2014. "The value of information for integrated assessment models of climate change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 111-123.
    14. Howard, Peter & Sterner, Thomas, "undated". "Loaded DICE: Refining the Meta-analysis Approach to Calibrating Climate Damage Functions," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 169952, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Barry Anderson & Emanuele Borgonovo & Marzio Galeotti & Roberto Roson, 2014. "Uncertainty in Climate Change Modeling: Can Global Sensitivity Analysis Be of Help?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 271-293, February.
    16. Derek Lemoine & Christian Traeger, 2014. "Watch Your Step: Optimal Policy in a Tipping Climate," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 137-166, February.
    17. Souleymane Diallo, 2023. "Natural resource wealth in sub-Saharan Africa: A boon for public investment in renewable energy?," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2023(2), pages 19-40.
    18. Benjamin Jones & Michael Keen & Jon Strand, 2013. "Fiscal implications of climate change," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 20(1), pages 29-70, February.
    19. Tol, Richard S.J., 2012. "A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 288-295.
    20. Simon Dietz, 2011. "The treatment of risk and uncertainty in the US Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis," GRI Working Papers 54, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters and their Management; Global Warming
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • O31 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Innovation and Invention: Processes and Incentives
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sip:dpaper:15-003. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Anne Shor The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask Anne Shor to update the entry or send us the correct address (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cestaus.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.