In this article, Professor Andrew Hargadon argues that the selection of policy analogues (old bottles) into which we fit our (still hotly contested) climate change policy objectives (new wine) asks a particularly and immediately appropriate set of questions.

Climate change and energy security issues are pushing government spending on new energy technologies towards $70 billion. Which historical referents we use to frame decisions over how much to invest, in which energy technologies, and towards what end (research, development, demonstration, or deployment) become critical. Investments at this level not only threaten wasteful spending, they also might deter private sector investments and, by picking technological “winners” prematurely, raise the risks of significant opportunity costs.