Jump to content
Main menu
Main menu
move to sidebar
hide
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
ClimateKG
Search
Search
English
Appearance
Create account
Log in
Personal tools
Create account
Log in
Pages for logged out editors
learn more
Contributions
Talk
Editing
IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-16
(section)
IPCC
Discussion
English
Read
Edit source
View history
Tools
Tools
move to sidebar
hide
Actions
Read
Edit source
View history
General
What links here
Related changes
Page information
In other projects
Appearance
move to sidebar
hide
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==== 16.4.4.7 Summary of the Size and Direction of the Evidence of All Policy Instrument Types on Innovation Outcomes ==== <div id="h3-22-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div> Positive impacts have been identified more frequently in some policies than in others. There is also a lot of variation in the density of the literature. Developing countries are severely underrepresented in the decarbonisation policy instrument evaluation literature aiming to understand the impact on innovation. ( ''high evidence, h'' ''igh agreement).'' Figure 16.2 below indicates the extent to which some decarbonisation policy instruments have been more or less investigated in terms of their impact on innovation outcomes (as described in Table 16.9). For example, it indicates the extent to which there has been a greater focus of evaluations of the impact of R&D investments, emissions trading schemes and voluntary approaches on innovation. It also shows a limited amount of evidence on procurement, efficiency obligations with tradeable green certificates (TGCs), building codes and auctions. <div id="_idContainer032" class="_idGenObjectStyleOverride-1"></div> [[File:8237535ad81f439c1f729fef6626ab77 IPCC_AR6_WGIII_Figure_16_2.png]] '''Figure 16.2 | Number of evaluations available for each policy instrument type covered regarding their impact on innovation and direction of the assessment.''' The vertical axis displays the number of evaluations claiming to isolate the impact of each policy instrument type on innovation outcomes as listed in Table 16.9. The colour indicates whether each evaluation identified a positive impact on the innovation outcome (blue), the existence of a negative impact (in red), and no impact (in grey). It builds on [[#Grubb--2021|Grubb et al. (2021)]] , [[#Lilliestam--2021|Lilliestam et al. (2021)]] and [[#Peñasco--2021|Peñasco et al. (2021)]] , and additional studies identified as part of these reviews. TGC stands for tradeable green certificates. TWC stands for tradeable white certificates. <div id="Box 16.5 | Green Public Procurement in " class="h2-container"></div> <span id="box-16.5-green-public-procurement-in-the-netherlands"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details).
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Search
Search
Editing
IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-16
(section)
Add languages
Add topic