The desire to understand and shape the processes that underpin economic progress & competitiveness in a market economy has driven much of the research into innovation and technological change. As a result, there is a large literature examining the many facets of creative & the factor that contribute to it ranging from individual and organizational behavior to the role & effectiveness of govt policies aimed at spurring creative in specific sectors of the economy and targeted areas of technology like computers, aircraft, or agriculture—largely contributed by social scientists.
The use of technology innovation to address societal issues like air and water pollutions is relatively new concept. Most environmental technologies which reduce or eliminate pollutant outflow to the environment have no “natural” market, unlike innovation in industry like pharmaceuticals and electronics, which results in new product that consumers need (such as more effective & lesser medicines, cell phones, & internet services). Would you spend a extra $1,000 to have air pollutions emission control installed on your car if it was up to the individual consumer? Most people would not do so because they understand that their action would be ineffective unless all driver were obliged to take same action.
In situations like this, government laws and regulations play a significant role, because most environmental issues need collective action to successfully address them. Similarly, the nature and scope of innovations that reduce the cost and/or increase the efficiency of surroundings regulations are highly influenced by government activities at all levels.
Technological Change Is Required
To accomplish significant reduction in global GHG emissions, major technological change will be required. Figure 5 shows the four broad tactics that can be used to reform a country’s or region’s energy system: 1. reduce energy demand in all major sectors of economy (buildings, transportation, & industry), resulting in lower CO2 emissions; 2. improve energy utilization efficiency, resulting in less fossil fuel being required to meet “end use” energy demands, resulting in reduced CO2 emissions; 3. replace high-carbon fossil fuel like coal & oil with lower-carbon or zero-carbon alternative such as natural gas, nuclear, & renewable energy sources including such solar and wind.
All four options are required to reduce emission at the lowest cost, as shown in Figure 5 (an 80% decrease below 1990 emission by 2050). All but one of the 5 models demonstrate that reductions in energy needs, which include the effect of better efficiency, are the most important factor. In all scenarios, uncontrolled coal combustion is eliminated or severely limited, and direct consumption of oil and natural gas is significantly reduced compared to year 2000 reference case. In these scenarios, however, the utilization of nuclear, biomass, power, & non-biomass renewables (mostly wind) increases dramatically. Using carbon capture & storage has the same effect (CCS). CO2 from power stations and other significant industrial sources might be captured and sequestered in deep geologic formation and depleted oil & gas reservoirs using this technology. This alternative has gotten a lot of attention on recent years, and there are presently initiatives ongoing to develop and show CCS’s suitability for mitigating climate change.