Editing IPCC:AR6/WGIII/Chapter-4 (section)

==== 4.4.1.6 Fostering Technological Innovation ====

<div id="h3-43-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

As outlined in [[#4.2.5|Section 4.2.5]] , rapid, large-scale deployment of improved low-carbon technology is a critical component of accelerated mitigation pathways. As part of its key role in technological change, R&amp;D can make a crucial contribution to accelerated mitigation up to 2030 and beyond, among other things by focusing on closing technology gaps that stand in the way of decarbonising today’s high emitting sectors. Such sectors include shipping, trucking, aviation and heavy industries like steel, cement and chemicals. More broadly, it is increasingly clear that digital changes are becoming a key driving force in societal transformation ( [[#Tegmark--2017|Tegmark 2017]] ). Digitalisation is not only an ‘instrument’ for resolving sustainability challenges, it is also a fundamental driver of disruptive, multiscalar change ( [[#Sachs--2019|Sachs et al. 2019]] ) that amounts to a shift in development pathway. Information and communication technologies, artificial intelligence, the internet of things, nanotechnologies, biotechnologies, robotics, are not usually categorised as climate technologies, but have a potential impact on GHG emissions ( [[#OECD--2017b|OECD 2017b]] ) (Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 16).

The direction of innovation matters ( ''robust evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). The research community has called for more ‘responsible innovation’ ( [[#Pandza--2013|Pandza and Ellwood 2013]] ), ‘open innovation’ ( [[#Rauter--2019|Rauter et al. 2019]] ), ‘mission-oriented’ innovation ( [[#Mazzucato--2017|Mazzucato and Semieniuk 2017]] ), ‘holistic innovation’ ( [[#Chen--2018b|Chen et al. 2018b]] ), ‘next-generation innovation policy’ ( [[#Kuhlmann--2018|Kuhlmann and Rip 2018]] ) or ‘transformative innovation’ ( [[#Schot--2018|Schot and Steinmueller 2018]] ) so that innovation patterns and processes are commensurate to our growing sustainability challenges. There is a growing recognition that new forms of innovation can be harnessed and coupled to climate objectives ( [[#Fagerberg--2016|Fagerberg et al. 2016]] ; [[#Wang--2018|Wang et al. 2018]] ). As such, innovation and socio-technical change can be channelled to intensify mitigation via ‘deliberate acceleration’ ( [[#Roberts--2018a|Roberts et al. 2018a]] ) and ‘coalition building’ ( [[#Hess--2018|Hess 2018]] ).

Innovation goes beyond technology. For example, decarbonisation in sectors with long lived capital stock (such as heavy industry, buildings, transport infrastructure) entail technology, policy and financing innovations (Bataille 2020). Similarly, expanding the deployment of photovoltaics can draw upon policies that support specific technical innovations (e.g., to improve photovoltaics efficiency), or innovations in regulatory and market regimes (e.g., net-metering), to innovations in social organisation (e.g., community-ownership). System innovation is a core focus of the transitions literature ( [[#Grin--2010|Grin et al. 2010]] ; [[#Markard--2012|Markard et al. 2012]] ; [[#Geels--2017|Geels et al. 2017]] ). Accelerating low-carbon transitions not only involves a shift of system elements but also underlying routines and rules, and hence transitions shift the directionality of innovation. They hence concern the development of a new paradigm or regime that is more focused on solving sustainability challenges that cannot be solved within the dominant regime they substitute (Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 16).

Several studies have pointed at the important possible contributions of grassroots innovators for the start-up of sustainability transitions ( [[#Seyfang--2007|Seyfang and Smith 2007]] ; [[#Seyfang--2014|Seyfang et al. 2014]] ; [[#Smith--2016|Smith et al. 2016]] ). In particular, a range of studies have shown that users can play a variety of roles in promoting system innovation: shielding, nurturing (including learning, networking and visioning) and empowering the niches in relation to the dominant system and regime ( [[#Schot--2016|Schot et al. 2016]] ; [[#Randelli--2017|Randelli and Rocchi 2017]] ; [[#Meelen--2019|Meelen et al. 2019]] ). More fundamentally, innovation regimes can be led and guided by markets driven by monetisable profits (as much of private sector led technological innovation of patentable intellectual property), or prioritise social returns (e.g., innovation structures such as innovation prizes, public sector innovation, investments in human capital, and socially-beneficial intellectual property regimes). In both cases, public policies can play a key role by providing resources and favourable incentives ( [[#IEA--2020|IEA 2020]] ). [[IPCC:Wg3:Chapter:Chapter-16|Chapter 16]] provides more details on ways to foster innovation.

<div id="4.4.1.7" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="example-structural-change-provides-a-way-to-keep-jobs-and-mitigate"></span>