Stabilisation Targets, Technical Change and the Macroeconomic Costs of Climate Change Control

The issue of greenhouse gas (GHG) stabilization stands on three critical open questions. Namely, what are the impacts deriving from different levels of climate change and their distribution. What are the levels at which GHG concentration should be stabilized in order to avoid unacceptable impacts. And, finally, what are the costs and what are the instruments available to reach such stabilization targets. In the present paper, we address the latter question, in the specific attempt of shedding some light on the debated role of technological progress in lowering the costs of GHG stabilization. In particular, we use an optimal growth climate-economy model, where technical change is endogenously driven by learning by researching and learning by doing. In the model, when an ambitious stabilization target has to be reached, some additional technological innovation and diffusion is induced. The magnitude of this induced effect substantially affects the costs of stabilizing greenhouse gasses and may even make a well-designed climate policy a win-win strategy. A sensitivity analysis on the model crucial parameters is performed to account for structural and parametric uncertainties on learning effects, on the relationship between knowledge accumulation and the energy and carbon intensity of the economic system, and on the crowding out of investments in the energy sector R&D with respect to other research fields.

[1]  Michael Grubb,et al.  The Transition to Endogenous Technical Change in Climate-Economy Models: A Technical Overview to the Innovation Modeling Comparison Project , 2006 .

[2]  Michael Grubb,et al.  Induced Technological Change: Exploring its Implications for the Economics of Atmospheric Stabilization: Synthesis Report from the innovation Modeling Comparison Project , 2006 .

[3]  Claudia Kemfert,et al.  Induced Technological Change in a Multi-regional, Multi-sectoral Integrated Assessment Model (WIAGEM): Impact Assessment of Climate Policy Strategies , 2005 .

[4]  Raymond T. Pierrehumbert,et al.  Warming the world , 2004, Nature.

[5]  Marzio Galeotti,et al.  Does Endogenous Technical Change Make a Difference in Climate Policy Analysis? A Robustness Exercise with the Feem-Rice Model , 2004 .

[6]  Valentina Bosetti,et al.  How consistent are alternative short-term climate policies with long-term goals? , 2004 .

[7]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  Endogenizing R&D and Market Experience in the "Bottom-Up" Energy-Systems ERIS Model , 2004 .

[8]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  Learn-by-doing and carbon dioxide abatement , 2004 .

[9]  Bob van der Zwaan,et al.  A Sensitivity Analysis of Timing and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions , 2004 .

[10]  Marjan W. Hofkes,et al.  Impacts of CO2-Taxes in an Economy with Niche Markets and Learning-by-Doing , 2004 .

[11]  A. Manne,et al.  US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol: the impact on compliance costs and CO2 emissions , 2004 .

[12]  David Popp,et al.  Entice-Br: The Effects of Backstop Technology R&D on Climate Policy Models , 2004 .

[13]  Marzio Galeotti,et al.  Environment and Economic Growth: Is Technical Change the Key to Decoupling? , 2003 .

[14]  R. Gerlagh,et al.  Induced Technological Change Under Carbon Taxes , 2003 .

[15]  David Popp,et al.  Entice: Endogenous Technological Change in the Dice Model of Global Warming , 2003 .

[16]  C. Carraro,et al.  Traditional environmental instruments, Kyoto mechanisms and the role of technical change , 2003 .

[17]  Bob van der Zwaan,et al.  Gross world product and consumption in a global warming model with endogenous technological change , 2003 .

[18]  Marzio Galeotti,et al.  Learning by Doing Vs Learning by Researching in a Model of Climate Change Policy Analysis Learning by Doing Vs Learning by Researching in a Model of Climate Change Policy Analysis , 2003 .

[19]  Andreas Löschel,et al.  Technological Change in Economic Models of Environmental Policy: A Survey , 2002 .

[20]  Marzio Galeotti,et al.  Endogenous Induced Technical Change and the Costs of Kyoto , 2001 .

[21]  Alexei G. Sankovski,et al.  Special report on emissions scenarios , 2000 .

[22]  L. Goulder,et al.  Optimal Co2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change , 1998 .

[23]  S. Messner,et al.  Endogenized technological learning in an energy systems model , 1997 .

[24]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  A Regional Dynamic General-Equilibrium Model of Alternative Climate-Change Strategies , 1996 .

[25]  Stelios Kafandaris,et al.  Buying Greenhouse Insurance: The Economic Costs of CO2 Emission Limits , 1992 .

[26]  A. S. Manne ETA-MACRO: A user's guide , 1981 .

[27]  David Johnston,et al.  Free lunch : how the wealthiest Americans enrich themselves at government expense (and stick you with the bill) , 2007 .

[28]  J. Sijm INDUCED TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND SPILLOVERS IN CLIMATE POLICY MODELING , 2004 .

[29]  J. Pershing,et al.  A Long-Term Target: Framing The Climate Effort , 2004 .

[30]  C. Carraro,et al.  Firms, Governments and Climate Policy: Incentive-Based Policies for Long-Term Climate Change , 2003 .

[31]  William D. Nordhaus,et al.  Modeling Induced Innovation in Climate Change Policy , 2002 .

[32]  Socrates Kypreos,et al.  Multi-regional technological learning in the energysystems MARKAL model , 2002 .

[33]  C. Carraro,et al.  Efficiency and Equity of Emissions Trading with Endogenous Environmental Technical Change , 2000 .

[34]  L. Schrattenholzer,et al.  Endogenous technological change in climate change modelling , 1999 .

[35]  Leo Schrattenholzer,et al.  Endogenous Technological Change in Energy System Models , 1999 .

[36]  Leo Schrattenholzer,et al.  Endogenous Technological Change in Energy Systems Models: Synthesis of Experience with ERIS, MARKAL, and MESSAGE , 1998 .