nt decisions, using metrics such as the social cost of carbon.
A technology-inclusive approach applies performance standards that are flexible, tradable, and can be met through a range of approaches, rather than limited to only a subset of technologies. Automobile fuel economy and appliance efficiency standards are two examples that require companies to meet certain benchmarks of performance for the products they sell. And increased interest in low-carbon alternatives is emerging for a range of products—from fuels to concrete to food—and coming from both producers and consumers.
Companies themselves are seeing value in achieving higher performance in the products they manufacture and buy than may be required by policy. Take, for example, the wide range of companies that have committed to using 100 percent clean power, or have set ambitious goals for decarbonizing their business.
In the United States, there is substantial interest in the possibility of Clean Energy Standards for electricity, through which a range of technologies—from renewables and nuclear to natural gas and carbon capture and storage—could make the power sector 100 percent clean (net-zero emissions) over time. For liquid fuels, California’s low-carbon fuel standard includes a broad set of pathways for lowering carbon content, from biofuels and electric vehicles to emission offsets through direct air capture.
And, crucially, a technology-inclusive approach means investing heavily in developing new innovations; seeking the approaches that are the most effective, scalable, and cost efficient; and ultimately deploying the most promising technologies to address the multitude of emissions sources across the globe. This approach is a humble one; it acknowledges that governments do not—and cannot—predict the future of technological development. Nor can any of us. Instead, the approach leverages a confidence that human ingenuity will surprise us all, as it has many times in the past.
If we want these new technologies to move from the lab or the pilot stage to widespread deployment, we should remember that innovation accelerates where a vibrant private sector and competition flourish. Governments certainly have a role in funding research, development, and demonstration of technologies, and policy can play a role in supporting early deployment of these technologies, as they enter into commerce. At the mass commercialization stage, a diverse and competitive marketplace—guided by the right market and policy signals to demand improved performance—can work wonders in incentivizing the best mix of approaches to achieve emissions reduction goals.
At Resources for the Future (RFF), many individuals are working today on policy approaches that can enable this type of technology-inclusive approach, including research and policy engagement in the energy and power sector, new initiatives to address industrial emissions, carbon in forests and other land uses, and more. We’re also looking at how communities that have historically depended on the production and transformation of fossil fuels can become more economically resilient while taking advantage of the potential that a wide range of new technologies can offer to create economic and job opportunities, while reducing emissions.
Setting the Pace to the Finish Line
This technology-inclusive approach allows for ambitious clean energy and climate goals, but it doesn’t make any particular technology a prerequisite for climate action. It engages more stakeholders, making climate action more accessible, more feasible, more globally impactful, and cheaper. It asks governments to use policy instruments to price carbon, set market-based performance standards that target net emissions, and invest in new innovations. And it welcomes a wide range of technologies in the solution set, whether they facilitate an expansion of renewables, nuclear, carbon capture, synthetic fuels, or any other climate-friendly solution. A technology-inclusive approach will likely require all of the above.
We have an enormous challenge ahead of us. But instead 