International technology-oriented agreements to address climate change

Energy Policy

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 335-356

  de Coninck, Heleen ^b   Fischer, Carolyn ^c   Newell, Richard G ^a   Ueno, Takahiro ^d  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b TNO   (Netherlands)

^c RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE   (United States)

^d CENTRAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRY   (Japan)

Author keywords

Climate; Policy; Technology

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; COST EFFECTIVENESS; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

TECHNOLOGY-ORIENTED AGREEMENTS;

ENERGY POLICY;

CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

EID: 36549048821     PISSN: 03014215     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2007.09.030     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Aldy J.E., Barrett S., and Stavins R.N. Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global climate policy architectures. Climate Policy 3 (2003) 373-397
2. Asia-Pacific Partnership, 2006. Charter of the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate 〈http://www.asiapacificpartnership.org〉, accessed December 20, 2006.
3. Arrow K.J., Parikh J., Pillet G., et al. Decision-making frameworks for addressing climate change. In: Bruce J.P., Lee H., and Haites E.F. (Eds). Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change (1996), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 53-77
4. van Asselt H.J.M., and Gupta J. Advancing the climate agenda: exploiting material and institutional linkages to develop a menu of policy options. RECIEL 14 3 (2005) 255-264
5. Barrett S. Environment and Statecraft (2003), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
6. Benedick R.E. Striking a new deal on climate change. Issues in Science and Technology Online (2001)
7. Berk M.M., van Minnen J.G., Metz B., Moomaw W., den Elzen M.G.J., van Vuuren D.P., and Gupta J. Climate Options for the Long term (COOL): Global Dialogue Synthesis. RIVM Report 490200003 2001/2002 (2002), RIVM, Bilthoven, Netherlands
8. Berkhout, F., Smith, A., Stirling, A., 2003. Socio-technological regimes and transition contexts. SPRU Electronic Working Papers, no. 106. University of Sussex, Sussex, UK.
9. Bernard A., Fischer C., and Fox A. Is there a rationale for output-based rebating of environmental levies? Resource & Energy Economics 29 2 (2007) 83-101
10. In: Bijker W., Hughes T., and Pinch T. (Eds). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New dIrections in the Sociology and History of Technology (1987), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
11. Blok K., Höhne N., Torvanger A., and Janzic R. Towards a Post-2012 Climate Change Regime. Final Report to the European Commission, Brussels (2005), European Commission, Brussels
12. Bodansky, D., 2004. International Climate Efforts Beyond 2012: A Survey of Approaches. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Washington, DC (with contributions from Chou, S. and Jorge-Tresolini, C.)
13. Bohm P., and Russell C.S. Comparative analysis of alternative policy instruments. In: Kneese A.V., and Sweeney J.L. (Eds). Handbook of Natural Resource and Energy Economics vol. 1 (1985), North-Holland, Amsterdam 395-460
14. Buchner B., and Carraro C. Economic and environmental effectiveness of a technology-based climate protocol. Climate Policy 4 3 (2005) 229-248
15. CERN, 2006. Annual report 2005. 〈www.cern.ch〉, accessed December 20, 2006.
16. Charnovitz S. Free trade, fair trade, green trade: defogging the debate. Cornell International Law Journal 27 (1994) 459-525
17. Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. Charter of the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (2003), US Department of Energy, Washington, DC
18. Den Elzen M.G.J. Exploring climate regimes for differentiation of future commitments to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations. Integrated Assessment 3 4 (2002) 343-359
19. DeSombre E.R., and Kauffman J. The Montreal Protocol multilateral fund: partial success story. In: Keohane R.O., and Levy M.A. (Eds). Institutions for Environmental Aid (1996), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
20. Edmonds J., and Wise M. Building Backstop Technologies and Policies to Implement the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1998), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Washington, DC
21. Fischer C. Combining rate-based and cap-and-trade emissions policies. Climate Policy 3S2 (2003) S89-S109
22. Fischer, C., 2004. Emissions pricing, spillovers, and public investment in environmentally friendly technologies. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 04-02. Washington, DC.
23. Fischer, C., Fox, A.K., in press. Output-based allocation of emissions permits for mitigating tax and trade interactions. Land Economics.
24. Fischer C., Hoffmann S., and Yoshino Y. Multilateral trade agreements and market-based environmental policies. In: Milne J., Deketelaere K., Kreiser L., and Ashiabor H. (Eds). Critical Issues in Environmental Taxation: International and Comparative Perspectives vol. 1 (2004), Richmond Law and Tax Ltd., Richmond, UK 363-384
25. Fischer, C., Jacoby, H., Morgenstern, R., 2005. Comparing national commitments in a fragmented policy world: a draft research outline. Paper prepared for the Climate Policy Network Meeting, September 12-14, 2005, Sardinia, Italy.
26. Fischer, C., Newell, R., in press. Environmental and technology policies for climate change. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management.
27. Geels F. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy 33 (2004) 897-920
28. Global Environment Facility. GEF Annual Performance Report 2004 (2005), GEF Secretariat, Washington, DC
29. Global Environmental Facility. OPS3: Progressing Toward Environmental Results, Third Overall Performance Study of the Global Environmental Facility (2005), Global Environmental Facility, Washington, DC
30. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. GATT Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (1994), World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
31. Groenenberg, H., 2002. A global triptych. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
32. Haas E. Why collaborate?: issue-linkage and international regimes. World Politics 32 3 (1980) 357-405
33. Höhne, N., 2005. What is next after the Kyoto Protocol? Assessment of options for international climate policy post 2012. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands, ISBN:90-739-5893-8.
34. International Energy Agency (IEA). International Energy Technology Collaboration: Benefits and Achievements (1996), IEA, Paris, France
35. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2003. Energy and Environmental Technology Information Centres Annual Report. IEA, Paris, France.
36. International Energy Agency (IEA), 2006. Bioenergy Implementing Agreement. Annual Report of 2005, Paris, France.
37. International Panel on Climate Change, 2001. Mitigation of climate change: Working Group III's contribution to the IPCC Third Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
38. International Platform on the Hydrogen Economy. Charter of the International Platform on the Hydrogen Economy (2003), US Department of Energy, Washington, DC
39. ITER, 2006. Detailed Procurement Sharing 〈http://www.iter.org/sharing_details.htm〉, accessed December 20, 2006.
40. Jaffe A.B., Newell R.G., and Stavins R.N. Technological change and the environment. In: Mäler K.-G., and Vincent J. (Eds). Handbook of Environmental Economics vol. 1 (2003), Elsevier, Amsterdam, North-Holland 461-516
41. Jaffe A.B., Newell R.G., and Stavins R.N. A tale of two market failures-technology and environmental policy. Ecological Economics 54 (2005) 164-174
42. Koremenos B., Lipson C., and Snidal D. The rational design of international institutions. International Organization 55 4 (2001) 761-799
43. Lauber V. REFIT and RPS: options for a harmonized community framework. Energy Policy 32 (2004) 1405-1414
44. Van der Linden, N.H., Uyterlinde, M.A., Vrolijk, C., Ericsson, K., Khan, J., Nilsson, L.J., Astrand, K., Wiser, R., 2005. Review of international experience with renewable energy obligation support mechanisms. ECN-C--05-025. ECN, Petten, The Netherlands.
45. Martin L. Interests, power, and multilateralism. International Organization 46 4 (1992) 765-792
46. Meier, A., 2003. The future of Energy Star and other voluntary energy efficiency programmes. IEA/EET Working Paper, EET/2003/02. IEA, Paris, France.
47. Mendelsohn R., Dinar A., and Williams L. The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries. Environment and Development Economics 11 (2006) 159-178
48. Methane to Markets, 2004. Terms of Reference http://www.methanetomarkets.org〈www.methanetomarkets.org〉, accessed December 20, 2006.
49. Metz, B., Davidson, O.R., Martens, J-W., van Rooijen, S.N.M., Van Wie McGrory, L., 2000. Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer-A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
50. Michaelowa, A., 2004. The German wind energy lobby-how to successfully promote costly technological change. HWWA Discussion Paper 296. HWWA, Hamburg, Germany.
51. Mitchell R.B. Intentional Oil Pollution at Sea: Environmental Policy and Treaty Compliance (1994), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
52. Montgomery D.W., and Smith A.E. Price, Quantity and Technology Strategies for Climate Change Policy (2005), CRA International, Washington, DC
53. Murphy D.D. The business dynamics of global regulatory competition. In: Vogel D., and Kagan R.A.. (Eds). Dynamics of Regulatory Change-How Globalization Affects National Regulatory Policies (2004), University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA
54. National Academy of Sciences. Energy Research at DOE-Was It Worth It? Energy Efficiency and Fossil Fuel Research 1978 to 2000 (2001), The National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
55. Nature News. CERN Management faulted over sudden budget crisis. Nature 413 (2001) 557
56. Newell R.G. Climate Technology Research, Development, and Demonstration: Funding Sources, Institutions, and Instruments (2007), Resources for the Future, Washington, DC
57. Newell, R.G., Wilson, N.E., 2005. Technology prizes for climate change mitigation. RFF Discussion Paper 05-33. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
58. Office of Technology Assessment. International Partnerships in Large Science Projects, OTA-BP-ETI-150 (1995), US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
59. Pacala S., and Socolow R. Stabilisation wedges: solving the climate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies. Science 305 (2004) 968-972
60. Philibert, C., 2003. Technology innovation, development and diffusion. OECD and IEA Information Paper: COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)4. IEA, Paris, France.
61. Philibert C. Lessons from the Kyoto Protocol: implications for the future. International Review for Environmental Strategies 5 1 (2004) 311-322
62. Philibert C., and Pershing J. Considering the options: climate targets for all countries. Climate Policy 1 (2001) 211-227
63. Raustiala K., and Victor D. The regime complex for plant genetic resources. International Organisation 58 2 (2004) 277-309
64. Raven, R.P.J.M., 2005. Strategic niche management for biomass: a comparative study on the experimental introduction of bioenergy technologies in the Netherlands and Denmark. Ph.D. Thesis, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
65. REN21, 2006. Interim Report on the Implementation of the International Action Programme of the International Conference on Renewables 〈www.ren21.net〉, accessed December 20, 2006.
66. Rowlands I.H. The European directive on renewable electricity: conflicts and compromises. Energy Policy 33 (2005) 965-974
67. Sandén, B., Jonasson, K.M., 2005. Variety creation, growth and selection dynamics in the early phase of a technological transition-the development of alternative transport fuels in Sweden 1974-2004. ESA-Report 2005:13. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
68. Sandén B., and Azar C. Near-term technology policies for long-term climate targets-economy wide versus technology specific approaches. Energy Policy 33 (2005) 1557-1576
69. Scott, R., 1995. The History of the International Energy Agency, vol. II: Major Policies and Actions of the IEA, OECD/IEA. Paris, France.
70. Sebenius J. Negotiation arithmetic: adding and subtracting issues and parties. International Organizations 37 2 (1983) 281-316
71. Sijm J.P.M., Jansen J.C., and Torvanger A. Differentiation of mitigation commitments: the multi-sector convergence approach. Climate Policy 1 (2001) 481-497
72. Stein S. Why Nations Cooperate-Circumstance and Choice in International Relations (1990), Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
73. Sugiyama T., and Ohshita S. (2006), International Institute for Sustainable Development, Manitoba, Canada
74. Sugiyama T., and Sinton J. Orchestra of treaties. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 5 1 (2005) 65-88
75. Sugiyama T., Ueno T., and Sinton J. The "coalition for climate technology" scenario. In: Sugiyama T. (Ed). Governing Climate-The Struggle for a Global Framework Beyond Kyoto (2005), International Institute for Sustainable Development, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 35-59
76. Tan A.K.-J. Vessel-Source Marine Pollution-The Law and Politics of International Regulation (2006), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
77. Tinbergen J. Economic Policy: Principles and Design (1956), North-Holland, Amsterdam
78. Torvanger, A., Twena, M., Vevatne, J., 2004. Climate policy beyond 2012: a survey of long-term targets and future frameworks. CICERO Report 2004:02, Oslo, Norway.
79. Ueno, T., 2006. Reengineering the climate regime: design and process principles of International Technology Cooperation for Climate Change Mitigation. Discussion paper 06-48. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
80. US Department of Energy. US Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan (2006), US Department of Energy, Washington, DC
81. United Nations Environmental Programme, 2005. Multilateral fund for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Policies, procedures, guidelines and criteria, as of December 2005. Secretariat of the Multilateral Fund, Quebec, Canada.
82. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Change for the Better-Energy Star and Other Voluntary Programs 2002 Annual Report, EPA 430-R-03-009 (2003), US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
83. Victor D.G. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming (2001), Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
84. Wara, M., 2006. Measuring the clean development mechanism's performance and potential, program on energy and sustainable development. Working Paper #56. Stanford University, Stanford, CA.