nach oben

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change

Erschienen in:

01.08.2013 | Original Article

Can strategic technology development improve climate cooperation? A game-theoretic analysis

verfasst von: Johannes Urpelainen

Erschienen in: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change | Ausgabe 6/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Clean technology has figured prominently in recent debates on international climate policy. This article offers a game-theoretic investigation of the possibility and effectiveness of strategic technology development: environmental leaders setting policies that reduce the global cost of clean technology. The game-theoretic model combines technology development and adoption with pollution abatement, and it allows technology costs to differ across countries. The key theoretical findings are as follows. First, free riding is an obstacle to technology development in two ways: countries fail to fully internalize the beneficial effect of technology development on (i) global pollution abatement and (ii) the reduced cost of technology adoption in outsider countries. Second, strategic technology development can be effective when (i) a key group of frontrunner countries prefers to invest in research and development and (ii) many other countries are willing to adopt the new technology. The findings suggest that strategic technology deployment by a group of frontrunners can enable more effective climate cooperation in the future.

Vorheriger Artikel The gap between global issues and personal behaviors: pro-environmental behaviors of citizens toward climate change in Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Nächster Artikel Co-benefits of post-2012 global climate mitigation policies

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

In this article, “technology development” refers to measures intended to significantly reduce the cost of using an immature technology, such as solar photovoltaics or offshore wind. “Strategic technology development” refers to public policies that countries enact to promote the diffusion of clean technology, and thus achieve more global mitigation.

Here, “frontrunner countries” refers to countries that are interested in climate mitigation and capable of developing advanced energy technologies.

According to Dechezleprêtre et al. (2011), who study invention and adoption of thirteen climate technologies, two-thirds of all innovation have been concentrated in three countries: Germany, Japan, and the United States. Interestingly, three emerging markets—China, Russia, and South Korea—are also now major innovation centers. See also Victor (2011, 154–164).

This assumption implies that the model is based on complete information. For the implications of relaxing the assumption, refer to the conclusion.

In the implementation of such a scheme, it would also be important to heed to the problem of measuring clean technology innovation and its effects on climate mitigation.

Asheim GB, Froyn CB, Hovi J, Menz FC (2006) Regional versus global cooperation for climate control. J Environ Econ Manage 51(1):93–109CrossRef

Axelrod R, Keohane RO (1985) Achieving cooperation under anarchy: strategies and institutions. World Polit 38(1):226–254CrossRef

Barrett S (1994) Self-enforcing international environmental agreements. Oxf Econ Papers 46(Supplement):878–894

Barrett S (2003) Environment and statecraft: the strategy of environmental treaty-making. University Press, Oxford

Barrett S (2006) Climate treaties and ‘breakthrough’ technologies. Am Econ Rev 96(2):22–25CrossRef

Barrett S (2009) The coming global climate-technology revolution. J Econ Perspect 23(2):53–75CrossRef

Barton JH (2007) Intellectual property and access to clean energy technologies in developing countries: an analysis of solar photovoltaic, biofuel and wind technologies. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper 2

Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Sandén BA (2008) ‘Legitimation’ and ‘development of positive externalities’: two key processes in the formation phase of technological innovation Systems. Tech Anal Strategic Manage 20(5):575–592CrossRef

Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1993) Strategies for the international protection of the environment. J Public Econ 52(3):309–328CrossRef

Carraro C, Siniscalco D (1995) R&D cooperation and the stability of international environmental agreements. CEPR Discussion Paper 1154

Charnovitz S (2001) Rethinking WTO trade sanctions. Am J Int Law 95(4):792–832CrossRef

de Coninck H, Fischer C, Newell RG, Ueno T (2008) International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change. Energ Policy 36(1):335–356CrossRef

Dechezleprêtre A, Glachant M, Hascic I, Johnstone N, Ménière Y (2011) Invention and transfer of climate change-mitigation technologies: a global analysis. Rev Environ Econ Policy 5(1):109–130CrossRef

Dechezleprêtre A, Glachant M, Ménière Y (2008) The clean development mechanism and the international diffusion of technologies: an empirical study. Energ Policy 3736(4):1273–1283CrossRef

Depledge J (2006) The opposite of learning: ossification in the climate change regime. Global Environ Politics 6(1):1–22CrossRef

Egenhofer C, Fujiwara N (2008) Global sectoral industry approaches to climate change: the way forward. Center for European Policy Studies, Brussels

Fearon JD (1998) Bargaining, enforcement, and international cooperation. Int Organ 52(2):269–305CrossRef

Figueres C, Streck C (2009) The evolution of the CDM in a post-2012 climate agreement. J Environ Dev 18(3):227–247CrossRef

Finus M, Rundshagen B (1998) Toward a positive theory of coalition formation and endogenous instrumental choice in global pollution control. Public Choice 96(1–2):145–186CrossRef

Fischer C, Newell RG (2008) Environmental and technology policies for climate mitigation. J Environ Econ Manage 55(2):142–162CrossRef

Furman JL, Porter ME, Stern S (2002) The determinants of national innovative capacity. Res Policy 31(6):899–933CrossRef

Grübler A, Nakićenović N, Victor DG (1999) Dynamics of energy technologies and global change. Energ Policy 27(5):247–280CrossRef

Guzman AT (2008) How international law works: a rational choice theory. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRef

Hoel M, de Zeeuw A (2010) Can a focus on breakthrough technologies improve the performance of international environmental agreements? Environ Resour Econs 47(3):395–406CrossRef

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000) Methodological and technological issues in technology transfer. Cambridge University Press, New York

International Energy Agency (2009) World energy outlook. International Energy Agency, Paris

Jacobsson S, Lauber V (2006) The politics and policy of energy system transformation: explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology. Energ Policy 34(3):256–276CrossRef

Keohane RO, Victor DG (2011) The regime complex for climate change. Perspect Polit 9(1):7–23CrossRef

Kulovesi K, Keinänen K (2006) Long-term climate policy: international legal aspects of sector-based approaches. Clim Policy 6(3):313–325CrossRef

Kydland F, Prescott E (1977) Rules rather than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal plans. J Polit Econ 85(3):473–490CrossRef

Limão N (2005) Trade policy, cross-border externalities and lobbies: do linked agreements enforce more cooperative outcomes? J Int Econ 67(1):175–199CrossRef

Ockwell DG, Watson J, MacKerron G, Pal P, Yamin F (2008) Key policy considerations for facilitating low carbon technology transfer to developing countries. Energ Policy 36(11):4104–4115CrossRef

Ockwell DG, Haum R, Mallett A, Watson J (2010) Intellectual property rights and low carbon technology transfer: conflicting discourses of diffusion and development. Global Environ Chang 20(4):729–739CrossRef

Reichman J, Rai AK, Newell RG, Wiener JB (2008) Intellectual property and alternatives: strategies for green innovation. Chatham House

Steenblik (2005) Liberalisation of trade in renewable-energy products and associated goods: charcoal, solar photovoltaic systems, and wind pumps and turbines. OECD Trade and Environment Working Paper 2005-07

Sugiyama T, Sinton J (2005) Orchestra of treaties: a future climate regime scenario with multiple treaties among like-minded countries. Int Environ Agreem 5(1):65–88CrossRef

Urpelainen J (2009) Explaining the Schwarzenegger phenomenon: local frontrunners in climate policy. Global Environ Politics 9(3):82–105CrossRef

Urpelainen J (2012) The strategic design of technology funds for climate cooperation: generating joint gains. Environ Sci Policy 15(1):92–105CrossRef

Victor DG (2011) Global warming gridlock: creating more effective strategies for protecting the planet. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRef

Weyant, JP, Olavson T (1999) Issues in modeling induced technological change in energy, environmental, and climate policy. Environ Model Assess 4(2–3):67–85CrossRef

Titel: Can strategic technology development improve climate cooperation? A game-theoretic analysis
verfasst von: Johannes Urpelainen
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change / Ausgabe 6/2013
Print ISSN: 1381-2386
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1596
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9388-0

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2013

Modeling of freshwater wetland management strategies for building the public awareness at local level in Bangladesh

Co-benefits of post-2012 global climate mitigation policies

Interactive analysis and environmental policy for mitigating the consumption of potent greenhouse gases in Taiwan

Adapting to droughts in Yuanyang Terrace of SW China: insight from disaster risk reduction

The gap between global issues and personal behaviors: pro-environmental behaviors of citizens toward climate change in Kaohsiung, Taiwan

Adaptation to climate change: changes in farmland use and stocking rate in the U.S.