@misc{ThonigDelRioKieferetal.2020,
  author    = {Thonig, Richard and Del Rio, Pablo and Kiefer, Christoph and Lazaro Touza, Lara and Escribano, Gonzalo and Lechon, Yolanda and Spaeth, Leonhard and Wolf, Ingo and Lilliestam, Johan},
  title     = {Does ideology influence the ambition level of climate and renewable energy policy?},
  series = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  journal   = {Zweitver{\"o}ffentlichungen der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Reihe},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {1867-5808},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-57798},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-577981},
  pages     = {19},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {We investigate whether political ideology has an observable effect on decarbonization ambition, renewable power aims, and preferences for power system balancing technologies in four European countries. Based on the Energy Logics framework, we identify ideologically different transition strategies (state-centered, market-centered, grassroots-centered) contained in government policies and opposition party programs valid in 2019. We compare these policies and programs with citizen poll data. We find that ideology has a small effect: governments and political parties across the spectrum have similar, and relatively ambitious, decarbonization and renewables targets. This mirrors citizens' strong support for ambitious action regardless of their ideological self-description. However, whereas political positions on phasing out fossil fuel power are clear across the policy space, positions on phasing in new flexibility options to balance intermittent renewables are vague or non-existent. As parties and citizens agree on strong climate and renewable power aims, the policy ambition is likely to remain high, even if governments change.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{ThonigDelRioKieferetal.2020,
  author    = {Thonig, Richard and Del Rio, Pablo and Kiefer, Christoph and Lazaro Touza, Lara and Escribano, Gonzalo and Lechon, Yolanda and Spaeth, Leonhard and Wolf, Ingo and Lilliestam, Johan},
  title     = {Does ideology influence the ambition level of climate and renewable energy policy?},
  series = {Energy sources, part B: economics, planning, and policy},
  volume    = {16},
  journal   = {Energy sources, part B: economics, planning, and policy},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Taylor \& Francis Group},
  address   = {Philadelphia},
  issn      = {1556-7249},
  doi       = {10.1080/15567249.2020.1811806},
  pages     = {4 -- 22},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {We investigate whether political ideology has an observable effect on decarbonization ambition, renewable power aims, and preferences for power system balancing technologies in four European countries. Based on the Energy Logics framework, we identify ideologically different transition strategies (state-centered, market-centered, grassroots-centered) contained in government policies and opposition party programs valid in 2019. We compare these policies and programs with citizen poll data. We find that ideology has a small effect: governments and political parties across the spectrum have similar, and relatively ambitious, decarbonization and renewables targets. This mirrors citizens' strong support for ambitious action regardless of their ideological self-description. However, whereas political positions on phasing out fossil fuel power are clear across the policy space, positions on phasing in new flexibility options to balance intermittent renewables are vague or non-existent. As parties and citizens agree on strong climate and renewable power aims, the policy ambition is likely to remain high, even if governments change.},
  language  = {en}
}
@techreport{HaenselFranksKalkuhletal.2021,
  type      = {Working Paper},
  author    = {H{\"a}nsel, Martin C. and Franks, Max and Kalkuhl, Matthias and Edenhofer, Ottmar},
  title     = {Optimal carbon taxation and horizontal equity},
  series = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  journal   = {CEPA Discussion Papers},
  number    = {28},
  issn      = {2628-653X},
  doi       = {10.25932/publishup-49812},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-498128},
  pages     = {51},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {We develop a model of optimal carbon taxation and redistribution taking into account horizontal equity concerns by considering heterogeneous energy efficiencies. By deriving first- and second-best rules for policy instruments including carbon taxes, transfers and energy subsidies, we then investigate analytically how horizontal equity is considered in the social welfare maximizing tax structure. We calibrate the model to German household data and a 30 percent emission reduction goal. Our results show that energy-intensive households should receive more redistributive resources than energy-efficient households if and only if social inequality aversion is sufficiently high. We further find that redistribution of carbon tax revenue via household-specific transfers is the first-best policy. Equal per-capita transfers do not suffer from informational problems, but increase mitigation costs by around 15 percent compared to the first- best for unity inequality aversion. Adding renewable energy subsidies or non-linear energy subsidies, reduces mitigation costs further without relying on observability of households' energy efficiency.},
  language  = {en}
}