The international economics of resources and resource ... - Index of

More documents

Recommendations

Info

270 P. Ekins Factors: Knowledge implemented: Performance: Economic, Cultural, Institutional and Policy Incentives for Eco-Innovation: Supply Push Demand Pull Propositional Knowledge Prescriptive Knowledge Applied Eco- Innovation Eco-Innovation Performance Fig. 2 Knowledge creation and eco-innovation performance. Source: Huppes et al. 2008, p.23 whether or not eco-innovation has taken place can only be judged on the basis of improved economic and environmental performance. This is illustrated in Fig. 1. Innovation (compared to the reference technology R, which defines the current economy-environment trade-off along the curved line) that improves the environment, (environmental innovation) is to the right of the vertical line through R and the curved line. The lighter shaded area shows where improved environmental performance has been accompanied by deteriorating economic performance. Similarly, economic innovation is above the horizontal line through R and above the curved line. The lighter shaded area in this case shows where improved economic performance has been accompanied by environmental deterioration. Eco-innovation is the darker shaded area where performance along both axes has improved. Figure 2 relates this conception to the two kinds of knowledge— propositional and prescriptive—identified by Mokyr (2002), illustrating how this knowledge is pushed and pulled through to eco-innovation performance by the economic, cultural, institutional and policy incentives supplied by markets and governments. Another approach to conceptualising eco-innovation was taken by the so-called MEI European Framework 6 research project. 4 This adopted a different definition of eco-innovation from the ECODRIVE project, defining it as “the production, application or exploitation of a good, service, production process, organisational structure, or management or business method that is novel to the firm or user and which results, throughout its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution and the negative impacts of resources use (including energy use) compared to relevant alternatives.” (Kemp and Foxon 2007, p.4). Close inspection of this definition reveals that the only difference between this and the ECODRIVE definition is that it does not insist on improved economic as well as improved environmental performance. In other words, it is what is called above ‘environmental innovation’, the light as well as the darker shaded areas in Fig. 1 to the right of the vertical line through R and the curved line (the ‘relevant alternative’). Both ECODRIVE and MEI identify that a requisite of eco-innovation is improved environmental performance or results. For the concepts to be operational, it is necessary to be able to measure the extent to which eco- or environmental innovation are being achieved. 4 See http://www.merit.unu.edu/MEI/.
Eco-innovation for environmental sustainability 271 3 Measuring eco-innovation There are now well developed frameworks for the measurement of innovation in general, such as the European Innovation Scoreboard, 5 which is reported on an annual basis. The same is not true for environmental or eco-innovation, although the OECD now has in hand a programme of work in this area, described in OECD (2009), which seeks to develop “indicators of innovation and transfer in environmentally sound technologies (EST)”, and concludes that the most promising approach in both areas is the use of suitably selected and structured patent data. Some of its early work on patents as an indicator of environmental innovation is reported in OECD (2008). The MEI project derived a list of possible indicators of eco-innovation (using the MEI terminology), which cover a wide area, including products, firms, skills, attitudes, costs and policies (Kemp and Pearson 2008, pp.14–15). However, the proposed indicators actually focus on the predisposing conditions for environmental improvement rather than on whether the environmental improvement has actually taken place. There are no indicators of environmental performance per se. There is presumably an assumption that the areas covered are likely to have a positive relationship with environmental performance. Many of the areas derive from or are closely related to measures of environmental policy, the implications of which for eco-innovation are discussed in Section 4. In line with MEI’s exclusively environmental definition of eco-innovation, its list of proposed indicators gives no attention to economic performance or results at all. As noted above, the ECODRIVE project proceeded in contrast from the perception that eco-innovation needs to deliver improvements in both economic and environmental performance and therefore sought to determine how this joint outcome could be indicated. The project came up with numerous suggestions for how economic and environmental performance could be measured, at different economic and spatial levels. In principle, the methodologies for the measurement of environmental performance are now quite well developed, and were discussed in detail in Huppes et al. (2008, pp.64ff.) and will not be further considered here. Economic performance, however, is another matter. The purpose of economic activity is to deliver functionalities that meet human needs and wants, at a cost consumers (which may be individuals or businesses) are prepared to pay. In Fig. 3 the functionalities are delivered by processes and products (including services) produced by firms, which may be classified as belonging to economic sectors, and which have supply chains consisting of firms which may belong to different sectors. The sectors will belong to a national economy. The most basic measure of improved economic performance for products and processes is therefore one which can show that greater functionality is being delivered for the same cost, or the same functionality is being delivered for reduced cost. The basic measure is therefore Functionality/Cost, where functionality may be measured in a wide variety of different ways, depending on the product or process under consideration. 5 See http://www.proinno-europe.eu/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.display&topicID=5&parentID=51.
Page 1 and 2:
Int Econ Econ Policy (2010) 7:147-1
Page 3 and 4:
The international economics of reso
Page 5 and 6:
The international economics of reso
Page 7 and 8:
154 P.J.J. Welfens et al. Keywords
Page 9 and 10:
156 P.J.J. Welfens et al. developme
Page 11 and 12:
158 P.J.J. Welfens et al. In the su
Page 13 and 14:
160 P.J.J. Welfens et al. genuine s
Page 15 and 16:
162 P.J.J. Welfens et al. pt p0 1 p
Page 17 and 18:
164 P.J.J. Welfens et al. A synthet
Page 19 and 20:
166 P.J.J. Welfens et al. ecologica
Page 21 and 22:
168 P.J.J. Welfens et al. 1 0,8 0,6
Page 23 and 24:
170 P.J.J. Welfens et al. In additi
Page 25 and 26:
172 P.J.J. Welfens et al. Fig. 5 Pa
Page 27 and 28:
174 P.J.J. Welfens et al. 1.0 0.5 0
Page 29 and 30:
176 P.J.J. Welfens et al. 2007: 1.0
Page 31 and 32:
178 P.J.J. Welfens et al. weak in t
Page 33 and 34:
180 P.J.J. Welfens et al. Fig. 10 T
Page 35 and 36:
182 P.J.J. Welfens et al. pessimist
Page 37 and 38:
184 P.J.J. Welfens et al. Reference
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Sustainability economics, resource
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
The U.S. proposed carbon tariffs, W
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70: The U.S. proposed carbon tariffs, W
Page 79 and 80: 228 R. Bleischwitz economics and po
Page 81 and 82: 230 R. Bleischwitz Fig. 1 Global re
Page 83 and 84: 232 R. Bleischwitz demand is estima
Page 85 and 86: 234 R. Bleischwitz the ‘socio-ind
Page 87 and 88: 236 R. Bleischwitz Fig. 4 Productiv
Page 89 and 90: 238 R. Bleischwitz 5 Resource produ
Page 91 and 92: 240 R. Bleischwitz The vast majorit
Page 93 and 94: 242 R. Bleischwitz Fig. 6 Resource
Page 95 and 96: 244 R. Bleischwitz Ericsson M (2009
Page 97 and 98: 246 R. Walz 1 Introduction Competen
Page 99 and 100: 248 R. Walz Based on the pollution
Page 101 and 102: 250 R. Walz procedures. However, ev
Page 103 and 104: 252 R. Walz In addition to exports,
Page 105 and 106: 254 R. Walz 4 Technological capabil
Page 107 and 108: 256 R. Walz 4.2 Analysis of patents
Page 109 and 110: 258 R. Walz recycling (e.g. shiftab
Page 111 and 112: 260 R. Walz Fig. 10 Specialization
Page 113 and 114: 262 R. Walz Table 1 Overview of ind
Page 115 and 116: 264 R. Walz questions alone. Clearl
Page 117 and 118: Int Econ Econ Policy (2010) 7:267-2
Page 119: Eco-innovation for environmental su
Page 123 and 124: Eco-innovation for environmental su
Page 143 and 144: The Dutch energy transition approac
Page 169 and 170: Multi-agent modeling of economic in
Page 171 and 172:
Multi-agent modeling of economic in
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
344 C. Lutz 1 Introduction This cha
Page 195 and 196:
346 C. Lutz The scenario analysis a
Page 197 and 198:
348 C. Lutz is designed to reduce g
Page 199 and 200:
350 C. Lutz 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 C
Page 201 and 202:
352 C. Lutz Table 2 EU27 productivi
Page 203 and 204:
354 C. Lutz material-intensive to l
Page 205 and 206:
356 C. Lutz Giljum S, Behrens A, Hi
Page 207 and 208:
358 T. Machiba While industries are
Page 209 and 210:
360 T. Machiba Field Target Technol
Page 211 and 212:
362 T. Machiba 3 Understanding sust
Page 213 and 214:
364 T. Machiba The automotive and t
Page 215 and 216:
366 T. Machiba Air conditioners fun
Page 217 and 218:
368 T. Machiba Table 2 Application
Page 219:
370 T. Machiba Charter M, Clark T (
show all

The international economics of resources and resource ... - Index of

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?