@article{LilliestamPattBersalli2020,
  author    = {Lilliestam, Johan and Patt, Anthony and Bersalli, German},
  title     = {The effect of carbon pricing on technological change for full energy decarbonization},
  series = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change},
  volume    = {12},
  journal   = {Wiley interdisciplinary reviews : Climate change},
  number    = {1},
  publisher = {Wiley},
  address   = {Hoboken},
  issn      = {1757-7780},
  doi       = {10.1002/wcc.681},
  pages     = {21},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {In order to achieve the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement, the world must reach net-zero carbon emissions around mid-century, which calls for an entirely new energy system. Carbon pricing, in the shape of taxes or emissions trading schemes, is often seen as the main, or only, necessary climate policy instrument, based on theoretical expectations that this would promote innovation and diffusion of the new technologies necessary for full decarbonization. Here, we review the empirical knowledge available in academic ex-post analyses of the effectiveness of existing, comparatively high-price carbon pricing schemes in the European Union, New Zealand, British Columbia, and the Nordic countries. Some articles find short-term operational effects, especially fuel switching in existing assets, but no article finds mentionable effects on technological change. Critically, all articles examining the effects on zero-carbon investment found that existing carbon pricing scheme have had no effect at all. We conclude that the effectiveness of carbon pricing in stimulating innovation and zero-carbon investment remains a theoretical argument. So far, there is no empirical evidence of its effectiveness in promoting the technological change necessary for full decarbonization. This article is categorized under: Climate Economics > Economics of Mitigation},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{OllierMelligerLilliestam2020,
  author    = {Ollier, Lana and Melliger, Marc Andr{\´e} and Lilliestam, Johan},
  title     = {Friends or foes?},
  series = {Energies : open-access journal of related scientific research, technology development and studies in policy and management},
  volume    = {13},
  journal   = {Energies : open-access journal of related scientific research, technology development and studies in policy and management},
  number    = {23},
  publisher = {MDPI},
  address   = {Basel},
  issn      = {1996-1073},
  doi       = {10.3390/en13236339},
  pages     = {23},
  year      = {2020},
  abstract  = {Energy efficiency measures and the deployment of renewable energy are commonly presented as two sides of the same coin-as necessary and synergistic measures to decarbonize energy systems and reach the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement. Here, we quantitatively investigate the policies and performances of the EU Member States to see whether renewables and energy efficiency policies are politically synergistic or if they rather compete for political attention and resources. We find that Member States, especially the ones perceived as climate leaders, tend to prioritize renewables over energy efficiency in target setting. Further, almost every country performs well in either renewable energy or energy efficiency, but rarely performs well in both. We find no support for the assertion that the policies are synergistic, but some evidence that they compete. However, multi-linear regression models for performance show that performance, especially in energy efficiency, is also strongly associated with general economic growth cycles, and not only efficiency policy as such. We conclude that renewable energy and energy efficiency are not synergistic policies, and that there is some competition between them.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{PickeringSkovgaardKimetal.2015,
  author    = {Pickering, Jonathan and Skovgaard, Jakob and Kim, Soyeun and Roberts, J. Timmons and Rossati, David and Stadelmann, Martin and Reich, Hendrikje},
  title     = {Acting on Climate Finance Pledges: Inter-Agency Dynamics and Relationships with Aid in Contributor States},
  series = {World development},
  volume    = {68},
  journal   = {World development},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0305-750X},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.10.033},
  pages     = {149 -- 162},
  year      = {2015},
  abstract  = {Developed countries have relied heavily on aid budgets to fulfill their pledges to boost funding for addressing climate change in developing countries. However, little is known about how interaction between aid and other ministries has shaped contributors' diverse approaches to climate finance. This paper investigates intra-governmental dynamics in decision-making on climate finance in seven contributor countries (Australia, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Switzerland, the UK, and the US). While aid agencies retained considerable control over implementation, environment and finance ministries have played an influential and often contrasting role on key policy issues, including distribution between mitigation and adaptation and among geographical regions. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SprinzdeMesquitaKallbekkenetal.2016,
  author    = {Sprinz, Detlef F. and de Mesquita, Bruce Bueno and Kallbekken, Steffen and Stokman, Frans and Saelen, Hakon and Thomson, Robert},
  title     = {Predicting Paris: Multi-Method Approaches to Forecast the Outcomes of Global Climate Negotiations},
  series = {Politics and Governance},
  volume    = {4},
  journal   = {Politics and Governance},
  publisher = {Cogitatio Press},
  address   = {Lisbon},
  issn      = {2183-2463},
  doi       = {10.17645/pag.v4i3.654},
  pages     = {172 -- 187},
  year      = {2016},
  abstract  = {We examine the negotiations held under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change in Paris, December 2015. Prior to these negotiations, there was considerable uncertainty about whether an agreement would be reached, particularly given that the world's leaders failed to do so in the 2009 negotiations held in Copenhagen. Amid this uncertainty, we applied three different methods to predict the outcomes: an expert survey and two negotiation simulation models, namely the Exchange Model and the Predictioneer's Game. After the event, these predictions were assessed against the coded texts that were agreed in Paris. The evidence suggests that combining experts' predictions to reach a collective expert prediction makes for significantly more accurate predictions than individual experts' predictions. The differences in the performance between the two different negotiation simulation models were not statistically significant.},
  language  = {en}
}