In this article, we analyze R&D portfolios in environmentally friendly automotive propulsion including alternative fuel options. We argue that at the current stage of development, substitution of conventional car technology by a new automotive propulsion technology may lead to premature lock-in of suboptimal technology. To avoid such lock-in, one should value the variety of current R&D activity that enables organizations to learn from multiple options and to create spillovers between options. We further argue that the existence of technological variety is not a sufficient condition to avoid lock-in. Organizational variety is also required to sustain competition and avoid the dominance of few firms that possibly enforce a suboptimal technology within the sector. To assess whether recent developments in R&D have led to both technological variety and organizational competition, we analyze United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patents in low-emission vehicles (LEVs) during the period 1980-2001 using entropy statistics. Results show that both technological variety and organizational competition have increased steadily since the early nineties, suggesting that premature lock-in is unlikely to occur. From an

During 2006, a survey was conducted of European energy stakeholders (industry, government, environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), researchers and academicians and parliamentarians). A total of 512 responses was received from 28 countries as follows: industry (28%), research (34%), government (13%), NGOs (5%) and parliamentarians (4%). Three-quarters of the sample thought that widespread use of CO 2 capture and storage (CCS) was 'definitely' or 'probably necessary' to achieve deep reductions in CO 2 emissions between now and 2050 in their own country. Only one in eight considered that CCS was 'probably' or 'definitely not necessary'. For a range of 12 identified risks, 20-40% thought that they would be 'moderate' or 'very serious', whilst 60-80% thought that there would be no risks or that the risks would be 'minimal'. A particular risk identified by nearly half the sample is the additional use of fossil fuels due to the 'energy penalty' incurred by CCS. Further concerns are that development of CCS would detract from investment in renewable energy technologies. Half of the respondents thought that incentives for CCS should be set either at the same level as those for renewables or at a higher level. Environmental NGOs were consistently less enthusiastic about CCS than the energy industry. r