@article{LilliestamPattBersalli2022,
  author    = {Lilliestam, Johan and Patt, Anthony and Bersalli, Germ{\´a}n},
  title     = {On the quality of emission reductions},
  series = {Environmental and Resource Economics},
  volume    = {83},
  journal   = {Environmental and Resource Economics},
  number    = {3},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {0924-6460},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10640-022-00708-8},
  pages     = {733 -- 758},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {To meet the Paris Agreement targets, carbon emissions from the energy system must be eliminated by mid-century, implying vast investment and systemic change challenges ahead. In an article in WIREs Climate Change, we reviewed the empirical evidence for effects of carbon pricing systems on technological change towards full decarbonisation, finding weak or no effects. In response, van den Bergh and Savin (2021) criticised our review in an article in this journal, claiming that it is "unfair", incomplete and flawed in various ways. Here, we respond to this critique by elaborating on the conceptual roots of our argumentation based on the importance of short-term emission reductions and longer-term technological change, and by expanding the review. This verifies our original findings: existing carbon pricing schemes have sometimes reduced emissions, mainly through switching to lower-carbon fossil fuels and efficiency increases, and have triggered weak innovation increases. There is no evidence that carbon pricing systems have triggered zero-carbon investments, and scarce but consistent evidence that they have not. Our findings highlight the importance of adapting and improving climate policy assessment metrics beyond short-term emissions by also assessing the quality of emission reductions and the progress of underlying technological change.},
  language  = {en}
}
@misc{MielkeVermassenEllenbecketal.2016,
  author    = {Mielke, Jahel and Vermassen, Hannah and Ellenbeck, Saskia and Milan, Blanca Fernandez and Jaeger, Carlo},
  title     = {Stakeholder involvement in sustainability science-A critical view},
  series = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {Global biogeochemical cycles},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Amsterdam},
  issn      = {2214-6296},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.erss.2016.04.001},
  pages     = {71 -- 81},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {Discussions about the opening of science to society have led to the emergence of new fields such as sustainability science and transformative science. At the same time, the megatrend of stakeholder participation reached the academic world and thus scientific research processes. This challenges the way science is conducted and the tools, methods and theories perceived appropriate. Although researchers involve stakeholders, the scientific community still lacks comprehensive theoretical analysis of the practical processes behind their integration - for example what kind of perceptions scientists have about their roles, their objectives, the knowledge to gather, their understanding of science or the science-policy interface. Our paper addresses this research gap by developing four ideal types of stakeholder involvement in science - the technocratic, the functionalist, the neoliberal-rational and the democratic type. In applying the typology, which is based on literature review, interviews and practical experiences, we identify and discuss three major criticisms raised towards stakeholder involvement in science: the legitimacy of stakeholder claims, the question whether bargaining or deliberation are part of the stakeholder involvement process and the question of the autonomy of science. Thus, the typology helps scientists to better understand the major critical questions that stakeholder involvement raises and enables them to position themselves when conducting their research. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}