[[!redirects Do governments have the right mix in their energy R&D portfolios]] ## Idea ## * Arnulf Grubler, Keywan Riahi, [Do governments have the right mix in their energy R&D portfolios?](http://www.future-science.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.10.16), _[Carbon Management](http://www.future-science.com/doi/pdf/10.4155/cmt.10.16)_, **1** (October 2010), 79-87. For a popular summary of this article, see: * International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria, [Changes in energy R&D needed to combat climate change](http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-10/iifa-cie102510.php), 25 October 2010. Quoting (emphasis added): > A new assessment of future scenarios that limit the extent of global warming cautions that unless current imbalances in R&D portfolios for the development of new, efficient, and clean energy technologies are redressed, greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets are unlikely to be met, or met only at considerable costs. > The study identifies energy efficiency as the single most important option for achieving significant and long-term reductions in GHG emissions, accounting for **up to 50 percent** of the reduction potential across the wide range of scenarios analyzed. However, investment in energy efficiency R&D has typically been **less than 10 percent** of the overall public sector R&D budget in the countries of the International Energy Agency (IEA). Conversely, although nuclear energy accounts for **less than 10 percent** of the GHG emission reduction potentials across all scenarios, it has received some **50 percent** of the total public investment in energy technology R&D. A chart from Grubler and Riahi's paper: <div align = "center"> <img src = "http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/grubler_riahi.jpg"> </div> category:action