Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
5b technologypolicy
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

5b technologypolicy

213
views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
213
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Technology PolicyCFCs and the ZEV mandateInternational Conference onTechnology Policy & Innovation,Lodz, July 2005Karel MulderJanuary 7, 2010 1TPM, T&DO
  • 2. Why do Governments Intervene?Always limited appropriation Total benefits always larger than investors benefitsJanuary 7, 2010 2
  • 3. Why do Governments Intervene?Undesired results of free market Pollution Privacy Threats to the individual (prisoners dilemmas) Inequity (medicine, etc.)January 7, 2010 3
  • 4. Prisoner’s dilemma Prisoner B Stays silent Confesses Stays silent 1 year for A 10 years for A 1 year for B No jail for BPrisoner A Confesses No jail for A 5 years for A 10 years for B 5 years for BExamples: Not driving during SMOG alarms, Buying environmentallysound products, Driving your child to school January 7, 2010 4
  • 5. Why do Governments Intervene?• Structure of sector (R&D needs minimum scale, cf. agriculture)January 7, 2010 5
  • 6. January 7, 2010 6
  • 7. Example Ozone/cfc gameJanuary 7, 2010 7
  • 8. Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons 1928 Synthesis by Thomas Midgley 1930 Refrigerant 1932 Airconditioners 1949 spray can 1961 Gaseous insulators & Foams~1965 degreaser micro-electronics January 7, 2010 8
  • 9. 1970 Lovelock traces CFC’s in wind at Western Ireland1974 F. Sherwood Rowland (UC-Irvine), Mario MolinaJanuary 7, 2010 9
  • 10. Reactions to Rowland/Molina paperWorld wide media attentionMarket demand for spray cans diminishes (25 %)EPA could take drastic measures1978: USA, Canada, Norway and Sweden prohibit non-essential use spray cansJanuary 7, 2010 10
  • 11. Innovation in Spray cansCO2, airDi-methyl-ether and Propane/Butane unsafenot in kind: different packagingCFCs disappeared from spray cans in the 80sJanuary 7, 2010 11
  • 12. Reluctance1981 EPA: relation CFC-ozone layer ‘highly controversial’ Models predicted less harm to ozone layer No empirical confirmation of ozone destruction Less media attention Industry does not react CFC market still grows January 7, 2010 12
  • 13. Policy Development1974-’85 Precautionary Principle?May 1985 Discovery ‘hole’ January 7, 2010 13
  • 14. 1987: The Montreal Protocol1999 Reduction by 50%FlexibilityUNEP: Technical Options CommitteesDiffusion of expertise by reports, symposia etc.1987-90 Further proof regarding role CFCs in Antarctic Ozone holeLondon/Copenhagen protocol: phase out in 1995, 3rd world in 2005January 7, 2010 14
  • 15. Technological Innovation due to theMontreal Protocol Refrigerators• pressure Greenpeace, public: Foron Greenfreeze: propane/butaneJanuary 7, 2010 15
  • 16. Micro ElectronicsCFCs to degrease printed circuit boards1988 Industry: “There is no alternative”Industry Cooperative for Ozone Layer ProtectionR&D Exchange January 7, 2010 16
  • 17. Innovation in Micro-electronicsNo cleanWater and dryerFord saved $18 million annually by not using CFCs but needed change teams to convince its own engineersJanuary 7, 2010 17
  • 18. ‘What I liked was that it wasn’t the autocratic “I’m the government and if you guys don’t play ball” approach’ (Jay Baker, Ford Motor company) The most successful innovations were produced in strongly interactive environments (ICOLP, Greenpeace/Foron)January 7, 2010 18
  • 19. Conclusion CFC replacement has been more successful than could initially be expected Reagan/Bush sr. anti-regulation policy blessing in disguise? International obligations increased the credibility of government measures Paralyzing legal actions were absentJanuary 7, 2010 19