New lessons for technology policy and climate change: investment for innovation

The direction of UK energy policy requires a renewed impetus if the goal of climate change stabilization is to be met. Cost is not the main issue: a transformation to a low-carbon energy system may be no more expensive than meeting future energy demands with fossil fuels. Institutional barriers are preventing the large-scale adoption of the necessary technologies. New institutions to promote low-carbon technologies have not yet led to investment on the necessary scale. Further changes to the operation of the UK electricity markets to create a ‘level playing field’ for small-scale and intermittent generation are necessary. UK policy can contribute to international agreements following on from the Kyoto Accord, which also need to address the institutional barriers to energy technology development and transfer.

[1]  R. Gross,et al.  UK innovation systems for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures , 2005 .

[2]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Modeling Technological Change: Implications for the Global Environment , 1999 .

[3]  Demosthenes P. Agoris.  New and Renewable Energy Technologies , 2004 .

[4]  Dennis Anderson,et al.  Induced Technical Change in Energy and Environmental Modeling: Analytic Approaches and Policy Implications , 2002 .

[5]  S Pacala,et al.  Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies , 2004, Science.

[6]  P. Devine‐Wright,et al.  Harnessing Community Energies: Explaining and Evaluating Community-Based Localism in Renewable Energy Policy in the UK , 2007, Global Environmental Politics.

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

[8]  Stephen J. DeCanio,et al.  Economic models of climate change : a critique , 2003 .

[9]  S. Abu-Sharkha,et al.  Can microgrids make a major contribution to UK energy supply ? , 2005 .

[10]  P Ekins,et al.  The Costs of Kyoto for the US Economy , 2004 .

[11]  Paul Ekins,et al.  The Announcement Effect and Environmental Taxation , 2004 .

[12]  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 .

[13]  Andrii Gritsevskyi,et al.  Modeling uncertainty of induced technological change , 2000 .

[14]  Tom Sir Blundell,et al.  Energy: the changing climate , 2001 .

[15]  Edward S. Rubin,et al.  U.S. TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION POLICIES: LESSONS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE , 2003 .

[16]  Paul Komor,et al.  Renewable Energy Policy , 2004 .

[17]  Jonathan Köhler,et al.  Decarbonizing the Global Economy with Induced Technological Change: Scenarios to 2100 using E3MG , 2006 .

[18]  Paul Dewick,et al.  Globalisation and the Environment: the long-term effects of technology on the international division of labour and energy demand , 2003 .

[19]  Catherine Mitchell,et al.  Renewable energy policy in the UK 1990-2003 , 2004 .

[20]  Peter J. G. Pearson,et al.  Towards improved policy processes for promoting innovation in renewable electricity technologies in the UK , 2007 .

[21]  A. Jaffe,et al.  A tale of two market failures: Technology and environmental policy , 2005 .