IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eneeco/v34y2012i6p2081-2088.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards a low-carbon economy: Coping with technological bifurcations with a carbon tax

Author

Listed:
  • Chi, Chunjie
  • Ma, Tieju
  • Zhu, Bing

Abstract

Technological learning is understood as an endogenous mechanism for the diffusion of advanced clean energy technologies. Technological learning is quite uncertain. Previous research showed that an optimization model with uncertain technological learning could generate technological bifurcations: various local optimal solutions of technology development strategies with very similar total costs but different environmental impacts. With a simplified energy system optimization model, this paper explores technological bifurcations and the effect of a carbon tax on the development and diffusion of new energy technologies. With a three-stage analysis, the main findings of this paper are (1) that technological learning, instead of its uncertainty, is an essential mechanism for technological bifurcations, and (2) a carbon tax can reduce carbon emission but not necessarily technological bifurcations. An implication from these findings is that with a carbon tax, there still could be potential for other policy interventions to reduce carbon emissions without much additional cost.

Suggested Citation

  • Chi, Chunjie & Ma, Tieju & Zhu, Bing, 2012. "Towards a low-carbon economy: Coping with technological bifurcations with a carbon tax," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 2081-2088.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:34:y:2012:i:6:p:2081-2088
    DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2012.02.011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988312000394
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.02.011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nordhaus, William D, 1991. "To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(407), pages 920-937, July.
    2. Messner, S. & Golodnikov, A. & Gritsevskii, A., 1996. "A stochastic version of the dynamic linear programming model MESSAGE III," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 21(9), pages 775-784.
    3. McDonald, Alan & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2001. "Learning rates for energy technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 255-261, March.
    4. John P. Weyant, 1993. "Costs of Reducing Global Carbon Emissions," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 27-46, Fall.
    5. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    6. Manne, Alan S. & Richels, Richard G., 1993. "The EC proposal for combining carbon and energy taxes The implications for future CO2 emissions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 5-12, January.
    7. Anderson, Kevin & Bows, Alice & Mander, Sarah, 2008. "From long-term targets to cumulative emission pathways: Reframing UK climate policy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 3714-3722, October.
    8. Tol, Richard S. J., 1996. "The damage costs of climate change towards a dynamic representation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 67-90, October.
    9. Grubler, Arnulf & Messner, Sabine, 1998. "Technological change and the timing of mitigation measures," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 495-512, December.
    10. Miketa, Asami & Schrattenholzer, Leo, 2004. "Experiments with a methodology to model the role of R&D expenditures in energy technology learning processes; first results," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(15), pages 1679-1692, October.
    11. Dorothee Boccanfuso & Antonio Estache & Luc Savard, 2011. "The Intra-country Distributional Impact of Policies to Fight Climate Change: A Survey," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 97-117.
    12. K. J. Arrow, 1971. "The Economic Implications of Learning by Doing," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: F. H. Hahn (ed.), Readings in the Theory of Growth, chapter 11, pages 131-149, Palgrave Macmillan.
    13. Ma, T. & Grubler, A. & Nakamori, Y., 2009. "Modeling technology adoptions for sustainable development under increasing returns, uncertainty, and heterogeneous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(1), pages 296-306, May.
    14. Tieju Ma, 2010. "Coping with Uncertainties in Technological Learning," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(1), pages 192-201, January.
    15. Goulder, Lawrence H. & Mathai, Koshy, 2000. "Optimal CO2 Abatement in the Presence of Induced Technological Change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 1-38, January.
    16. Manne, Alan & Richels, Richard, 2004. "The impact of learning-by-doing on the timing and costs of CO2 abatement," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 603-619, July.
    17. Manne, Alan S. & Barreto, Leonardo, 2004. "Learn-by-doing and carbon dioxide abatement," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 621-633, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2021. "Technology adoption and carbon emissions with dynamic trading among heterogeneous agents," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    2. Zeng, Yongchao & Shi, Yingying & Shahbaz, Muhammad & Liu, Qin, 2024. "Scenario-based policy representative exploration: A novel approach to analyzing policy portfolios and its application to low-carbon energy diffusion," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 296(C).
    3. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2017. "Optimizing systematic technology adoption with heterogeneous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 287-296.
    4. Li, Jun & Hamdi-Cherif, Meriem & Cassen, Christophe, 2017. "Aligning domestic policies with international coordination in a post-Paris global climate regime: A case for China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 258-274.
    5. Ma, Tieju & Chen, Huayi, 2015. "Adoption of an emerging infrastructure with uncertain technological learning and spatial reconfiguration," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(3), pages 995-1003.
    6. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2014. "Technology adoption with limited foresight and uncertain technological learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(1), pages 266-275.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chen, Huayi & Zhou, P., 2019. "Modeling systematic technology adoption: Can one calibrated representative agent represent heterogeneous agents?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 257-270.
    2. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2017. "Optimizing systematic technology adoption with heterogeneous agents," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 287-296.
    3. Loschel, Andreas, 2002. "Technological change in economic models of environmental policy: a survey," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2-3), pages 105-126, December.
    4. Ma, Tieju & Chen, Huayi, 2015. "Adoption of an emerging infrastructure with uncertain technological learning and spatial reconfiguration," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(3), pages 995-1003.
    5. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2014. "Technology adoption with limited foresight and uncertain technological learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(1), pages 266-275.
    6. Kverndokk, Snorre & Rosendahl, Knut Einar & Rutherford, Thomas F., 2004. "Climate policies and induced technological change: Impacts and timing of technology subsidies," Memorandum 05/2004, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    7. Berglund, Christer & Soderholm, Patrik, 2006. "Modeling technical change in energy system analysis: analyzing the introduction of learning-by-doing in bottom-up energy models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 1344-1356, August.
    8. Gillingham, Kenneth & Newell, Richard G. & Pizer, William A., 2008. "Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 2734-2753, November.
    9. Rubin, Edward S. & Azevedo, Inês M.L. & Jaramillo, Paulina & Yeh, Sonia, 2015. "A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 198-218.
    10. Lindman, Åsa & Söderholm, Patrik, 2012. "Wind power learning rates: A conceptual review and meta-analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 754-761.
    11. Sue Wing, Ian, 2006. "Representing induced technological change in models for climate policy analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(5-6), pages 539-562, November.
    12. Kahouli-Brahmi, Sondes, 2008. "Technological learning in energy-environment-economy modelling: A survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 138-162, January.
    13. Stavins, Robert & Jaffe, Adam & Newell, Richard, 2000. "Technological Change and the Environment," Working Paper Series rwp00-002, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    14. Chenhao Fang & Tieju Ma, 2021. "Technology adoption with carbon emission trading mechanism: modeling with heterogeneous agents and uncertain carbon price," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 300(2), pages 577-600, May.
    15. Chen, Huayi & Ma, Tieju, 2021. "Technology adoption and carbon emissions with dynamic trading among heterogeneous agents," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    16. Jouvet, Pierre-André & Schumacher, Ingmar, 2012. "Learning-by-doing and the costs of a backstop for energy transition and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 122-132.
    17. Muller-Furstenberger, Georg & Stephan, Gunter, 2007. "Integrated assessment of global climate change with learning-by-doing and energy-related research and development," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 5298-5309, November.
    18. Kalkuhl, Matthias & Edenhofer, Ottmar & Lessmann, Kai, 2012. "Learning or lock-in: Optimal technology policies to support mitigation," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 1-23.
    19. Anna Creti & Alena Kotelnikova & Guy Meunier & Jean-Pierre Ponssard, 2018. "Defining the Abatement Cost in Presence of Learning-by-Doing: Application to the Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(3), pages 777-800, November.
    20. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Technological learning; Uncertainty; Optimization model; Carbon tax; Technological bifurcation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q43 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Energy and the Macroeconomy
    • O33 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Technological Change: Choices and Consequences; Diffusion Processes
    • Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eneeco:v:34:y:2012:i:6:p:2081-2088. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eneco .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.