> The problem is that if anyone spends billions developing an
> alternative that is profitable at $40/barrel equivalent
They might not benefit from it even with oil prices at 200 Dollars per
barrel, because other people might make use of the technology
development without having to pay a cent. Intellectual property is
supposed to deal with this market failure, but there are limits to
this, especially when it's not about specific, patentable inventions.
For private investors to be interested out of profit motives, they
need to be able to capture the benefits of their investment. I am
quite convinved that for much energy and CO2 related technology we
need direct government led investment, such as for example feed-in
tariffs or ethanol blending mandates.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
