Modeling endogenous technological change for climate policy analysis

By Kenneth T. Gillingham, Richard G. Newell, William A. Pizer. 2008

318 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e76c63920a287d76ca4089430cfe87af6da4425a

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

In Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment

Citations in the corpus

Innovation and Climate Policy (2010, background): “3 For recent reviews of the growing literature on the macroeconmic effects of endogenous technological change for climate policy, see Köhler et al (2006) and Gillingham et al. (2008).”
Path dependence, innovation and the economics of climate change (2014, background): “A number of climate economic models have attempted to incorporate innovation (see, for example, Popp (2004) and Bosetti et al. (2006), as well as a summary by Gillingham et al. (2008).”
Environmental policy without costs? : A review of the Porter hypothesis (2009, background): “For general discussions and reviews on environmental policy and endogenous technical change from a national level perspective see, e.g., Goulder and Schneider (1999), Jaffe et al. (2002), Gillingham et al (2007), or Peretto (2008). technology with a production function.”
Energy, Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability: Five Propositions (2010, background): “Once this is controlled for, Kaufmann finds no statistically significant evidence for the ―energy saving technical change‖ that is traditionally assumed in energy-economic models [44,45].”
Innovation and Climate Change Policy (2012, unknown): “See the surveys by Gillingham, Newell and Pizer (2008) and Pizer and Popp (2008).”
A review of learning rates for electricity supply technologies (2015, background): “…one-factor experience curves often show benefits from the early adoption of a new technology because early adoption stimulates larger cost reduction over the longer term (Mattsson and Wene, 1997; Goulder and Mathai, 2000; van der Zwaan et al., 2002; Manne and Richels, 2004; Nordhaus, 2009).”
Climate policy modeling: An online SCI-E and SSCI based literature review (2015, methodology): “ICAM-3 Simulation [85] Source: Adapted from [19, 86].”
Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence? (2013, background): “Model outputs are highly sensitive to the parameterization and endogenous representation of technological change (Gillingham et al. 2008).”
Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions (2016, unknown): “Deep structures operate ‘behind the backs’ of actors, shaping their beliefs and preferences. nature of technological change” and “struggle with an inherent lack of empirical data to calibrate model parameters” 64 .”
Designing Climate Mitigation Policy (2010, unknown): “Several studies have demonstrated the central role that the availability and cost of advanced energy technologies play in determining the future costs of GHG emissions targets (e.g., Clarke et al. 2006; Edmonds et al. 2000; Gillingham et al. 2008).”