Search

Byline: Robert Gross, Tim Foxon This paper presents the case for direct policy support for environmental innovation, aimed at improving resource productivity, as a complement to standard regulatory or market-based instruments of environmental policy. This case is that investments in environmental innovation create options, reduce uncertainties and give rise to positive externalities, i.e. wider benefits to society and future generations, thus reducing the long-term costs of tackling environmental problems. It is argued that these policy instruments can be classified according to how they: support basic R&D; help to develop markets for innovative new products or processes; or provide financial incentives for the development or deployment of cleaner technologies. The paper argues that more widespread adoption of such policy instruments is needed, together with systematic analysis and assessment of their effectiveness in stimulating environmental innovation in different industries and at different stages of the innovation cycle.

Achieving a successful transition to a low carbon economy, in the UK and other countries, will require sufficient people with appropriate qualifications and skills to manufacture, install, and operate the low carbon technologies and approaches. The actual numbers and types of skills required are uncertain and will depend on the speed and direction of the transition pathways, but there are reasons to doubt that market mechanisms will deliver the necessary skilled workers in a timely manner. The range of market, government, and governance failures relating to the provision of low carbon skills are examined, particularly for their potential to cause a slower, costlier, and less employment-intensive transition. The potential policy responses to these failures are considered, including standardization of funding for training; formalization of transferable qualifications; legally binding targets for carbon emissions reductions and low carbon technology deployment; framework contracts and agreements between actors in key sectors; licensing and accreditation schemes for key technology sectors; government support for skills academies and training centres; support for first movers in niches; increasing mobility of workers; and providing a clear long-term cross-sectoral framework for a low carbon transition, including skills training. Policy relevance The article argues for the importance of skills issues for a successful transition to a low carbon economy. It outlines the potential causes of skills shortages, both generic and those specific to low carbon, as well as the probable impact of these types of shortages. By changing existing sectoral and occupational patterns, the transition will disrupt the existing market and government mechanisms to identify and remedy skills shortages in specific sectors. The nature and required pace of the low carbon transition also means that there are pressures that could induce greater skills shortages. These shortages, in turn, could critically delay elements of the transition and increase its cost and duration. The article outlines approaches taken to address these causes of skills shortages, drawing on examples from UK low carbon policy. The article ends with an argument that skills issues need to be more central to transitions debates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Under the Japan-UK research project `Low-Carbon Society (LCS) Scenarios Towards 2050', an international modelling comparison was undertaken by nine national teams, with a strong developing-country focus. Core model runs were a Base case, a Carbon price case (rising to $100/tCO2 by 2050) and a Carbon-plus case to investigate an LCS scenario with a 50% reduction in global CO2 emissions by 2050. The comparison emphasis was to focus on individual model strengths (notably technological change, international emissions trading, non-price (sustainable development) mechanisms and behavioural change) rather than a common integrated assumption set. A complex picture of long-term LCS scenarios comes from the range of model types and geographical scale (global vs. national); however, common themes for policy makers do emerge. A core finding is that LCS scenarios are technologically feasible. However, preferred pathways require clear and early target setting and incprporation of emissions targets across all economic activities. This will probably entail significant socio-economic changes. To realize major LCS transitions requires sustained progress in R&D and deployment of a broad range of technologies, with carbon capture and storage (CCS) a key technology in most low-carbon portfolios. Developing countries, in particular, face an immense challenge to achieve LCS in light of their economic growth requirements. As such, international cooperation is required in iterative and flexible burden sharing under international emissions trading regimes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Climate Policy (Earthscan) is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Climate Policy (Earthscan) is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: This paper examines two paths by which the work of Herbert Simon has influenced the development of ecological and evolutionary economics: bounded rationality and hierarchical complexity. It argues that there is scope for further consideration of the implications of these ideas, particularly their inter-relation. This is illustrated through some recent ideas on the co-evolution of technologies and institutions. This is related to understanding transitions of technological systems, and how these might be steered or modulated towards greater sustainability. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

A preface for the Volume 8 issue of the journal "Climate Policy" is presented.