The impact of technological change on climate protection and welfare: Insights from the model MIND

Abstract Avoiding dangerous climate change is likely to require policies to mitigate CO2 emissions that are substantially more ambitious than those currently being considered. For such policies, the issue of endogenous technological change becomes important, both to estimate the overall costs and to identify the intertemporally cost-effective combination of mitigation options. In this paper, we first discuss the recent literature that evaluates the potential for endogenous technological change to reduce mitigation costs, and the efforts to incorporate endogenous technological change into pre-existing integrated assessment models. Then we formulate our own integrated assessment model, the Model of INvestment and Technological Development (MIND), which allows analysis of the relationship between specific mitigation options and the costs of ambitious climate protection objectives. Our model reveals two important results. First, the incorporation of technological change in a portfolio of mitigation options can reduce the costs of climate policies substantially. Achieving the ambitious policy goals necessary to avoid dangerous climate change becomes feasible without significant welfare losses. Second, the different mitigation options are of different importance in achieving climate protection goals: improving energy efficiency becomes too costly as a major mitigation option in the long run. In the long run, fossil fuels have to be substituted by renewable energy sources because a backstop technology with the potential of learning-by-doing has the strongest impact on reducing the welfare losses due to climate protection. Furthermore, Carbon Capturing and Sequestration can allow for further reduction in the costs of climate protection and can postpone the need to transform the energy system from a fossil-fuel-based one to a renewables one.

[1]  James A. Roumasset,et al.  Endogenous Substitution among Energy Resources and Global Warming , 1997, Journal of Political Economy.

[2]  Hermann Held,et al.  A regulatory framework for carbon capturing and sequestration within the post-kyoto process , 2005 .

[3]  R. Robert Russell,et al.  Will the Real Elasticity of Substitution Please Stand Up? (A Comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima Elasticities) , 1989 .

[4]  C. Wene Experience Curves for Energy Technology Policy , 2000 .

[5]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence , 2007 .

[6]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate change 2001 : the scientific basis , 2001 .

[7]  Alan S. Manne,et al.  MERGE. A model for evaluating regional and global effects of GHG reduction policies , 1995 .

[8]  Elmar Kriegler,et al.  Uncertainty of the role of carbon capture and sequestration within climate change mitigation strategies , 2005 .

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

[10]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  An Assessment of Technological Change Across Selected Energy Scenarios , 2001 .

[11]  M. Collins,et al.  Projections of future climate change , 2002 .

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

[13]  Richard G. Richels,et al.  The Attached Material Is Posted on Regulation2point0.org with Permission. the Impact of Learning-by-doing on the Timing and Costs of Co 2 Abatement the Impact of Learning-by-doing on the Timing and Costs of Co 2 Abatement , 2022 .

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

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

[16]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  Technological change and the environment , 2002 .

[17]  H. Grassl,et al.  World in transition: towards sustainable energy systems , 2004 .

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

[19]  Zvi Griliches,et al.  R&D and Productivity: The Unfinished Business , 1998 .

[20]  Poul Erik Morthorst,et al.  Experience curves: A tool for energy policy assessment , 2003 .

[21]  J. Goldemberg World energy assessment : energy and the challenge of sustainability , 2000 .

[22]  P. Thompson,et al.  The Capital-Energy Substitutability Debate: A New Look , 1995 .

[23]  H. Rogner AN ASSESSMENT OF WORLD HYDROCARBON RESOURCES , 1997 .

[24]  T. Bruckner,et al.  Sensitivity Analysis of Emissions Corridors for the 21st Century , 2004 .

[25]  N. Kaldor Capital Accumulation and Economic Growth , 1961 .

[26]  M. Cimoli,et al.  Technology, growth and development , 2000 .

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

[28]  Thomas Bruckner,et al.  The Tolerable Windows Approach: Theoretical and Methodological Foundations , 1999 .

[29]  J. Boyd,et al.  Capital theory, equilibrium analysis, and recursive utility , 1997 .