Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets

By G. Iyer, N. Hultman, Jiyong Eom, H. Mcjeon, Pralit Patel, Leon Clarke. 2015

165 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Environmental Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b348170471de7001d75d29e702e8416067fe50d7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Charlie Wilson
2. Felix Creutzig
3. Pete Smith
4. D. V. van Vuuren
5. Gregory F. Nemet
6. Bas J. van Ruijven
7. Elmar Kriegler
8. Volker Krey

In Environmental Engineering

1. Pete Smith
2. Felix Creutzig
3. D. V. van Vuuren
4. Volker Krey
5. E. Thompson
6. N. Strachan
7. Gregory F. Nemet
8. Céline Guivarch

Citations in the corpus

• Evaluating process-based integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation (2017, methodology): “Whether a model has a ‘good-enough’ representation of the modelled system can be effectively tested through stripped-down versions designed to capture only the fundamental drivers of change (Jakeman et al. 2006).”
• Technological Forecasting & Social Change (2014, methodology): “The dynamics of low-carbon technology diffusion under different assumptions about policy timing and the existence of technology constraints is examined by Iyer et al., 2014-in this issue based on the GCAM model results.”
• Making or breaking climate targets: : The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy (2015, unknown): “The GCAM model shows the largest overshoot because even in the immediate action cases, it mitigates little in the near term due to the large-scale deployment of bio-CCS in the longer term [61].”
• When starting with the most expensive option makes sense: Optimal timing, cost and sectoral allocation of abatement investment (2018, background): “…emission reduction action with long-term emission reduction targets: given the limited ability of economies to switch overnight to low-carbon technologies, if short-term efforts are too modest, subsequent efforts will need to be much higher (Iyer et al., 2014; Riahi et al., 2015; IPCC, 2014b).”
• Mobilizing private finance for low-carbon innovation – A systematic review of barriers and solutions (2017, unknown): “Beginning with the demonstration phase, stakeholders perceive technological risks and complexity associated with new clean technologies such as long-term performance [49,86] and adverse salient effects on the socio-economic and natural environments [23,87,88].”
• A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS (2019, background): “, [64,65]), to more fully understand its potential role in energy system transformation pathways.”
• Negative emissions—Part 3: Innovation and upscaling (2018, background): “The emergence of a new technology to replace others, a technological transition, involves institutions, financing mechanisms and niche formation (Rotmans et al 2001, Geels 2002, Jacobsson and Jacobsson 2014).”