Climate Policy Spurs Innovation

EDF has been saying for years that the best way to invent new, greener energy technology is to put a cap on carbon pollution. That approach worked to combat acid rain in the 1990s, and a new study provides the best evidence yet that it’s working for climate policy, too.

The study compared countries that ratified the Kyoto Protocol and ones that didn’t, and guess which group had more new green tech patents?

Chart comparing patents in countries that did and did not ratify the Kyoto Protocal.

I posted an overview of the findings, including a couple more charts and additional analysis I got from the authors, over at Environmental Economics.

This entry was posted in Economics, Policy. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. remsie1
    Posted February 9, 2009 at 8:28 pm | Permalink

    Typical EDF- your solution is to privatize the sky (when you are not busy privatizing the ocean, fisheries and everything else) and give it to the people who got us in this mess. When are you going to stop pretending to be interested in the environment and just admit that you’re the queens of greenwashing!

    Save the scam and tell everyone that you are in the pay of dirty self serving corporations that want to own everything and care about nothing. Why don’t you report that the daughter of your founder joined in a climate direct action protest on your DC headquarters in December stating that she is ashamed of what you have done on climate policy – readers please look at for common sense solutions and tell EDF to desist greenwashing! Not signing Kyoto was not a good idea – Australia has just gone up in smoke thanks to climate change……..

  2. remsie1
    Posted February 9, 2009 at 8:31 pm | Permalink

    correction –

  3. Dr. James Singmaster
    Posted February 10, 2009 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Don’t fool yourself about any real innovation being undertaken so far. Until people realize that we have an overload of GHGs already in our biosphere that has to be reduced, all we are doing is spinning our wheels getting in deeper as we do not a recognize a major resource in the battle to control GW and more. Unfortunatley no one at ED can see through the emissions from vehicles and power plants to see that more is involved.
    I keep e-mailing ED Staff and writing on its blogs that the ever-expanding messes of organic wastes and sewage as presently handled are major emitters of GHGs that could be controlled by a pyrolysis process to also destroy germs, toxics and drugs that are polluting our water systems. Now a major scientist in England, Dr. J. Lovelock, in an interview in New Scientist, Jan. 23 online in Environment Section, indicated that he thought the only to overcome GW was by taking farm plant residues and pyrolyzing them. On Jan 28 same online source had report on major paper about geoengineering for cooling and perhaps GW control indicating that the author, Prof. T. Lenton at the Un. of East Anglica, concluded that the perhaps best and least disruptive action is pyrolyzing farm plant residues. For some reason, no one registered to the messes of organic wastes and sewage as being a resource for getting some control of unneeded GHG emissions.
    I am curious to know if anyone is reading this and agrees perhaps enough to prod inert ED into action. Dr. J. Singmaster

  4. grrranny
    Posted February 17, 2009 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    Dr. Singmaster, I am very interested in looking over more of your material. I would appreciate a couple of links to relevant materials and/or web sites. My concern is that, while everyone is talking about this science and planning, I am afraid none of it is going to actually be applied. Therefore, my interest is in how local communities and individuals can begin applying some of the science and technology to their own activities in an effective manner, so that somebody is actually DOING something, while all this is being sorted out. Itching for action in Ithaca, NY