References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 September 2020
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Durable by Design?Policy Feedback in a Changing Climate, pp. 245 - 271Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Ackrill, R. and Kay, A. (2014). The Growth of Biofuels in the 21st Century: Policy Drivers and Market Challenges. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Action Aid, Birdlife Europe, European Environmental Bureau et al. (2013). Biofuels: EU energy ministers must choose right path for our world’s climate and food security. NGO Media Advisory, 9 December.Google Scholar
Adam, C., Hurka, S. and Knill, C. (2019). Policy Accumulation and the Democratic Responsiveness Trap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Afionis, S. and Stringer, L. C. (2012). European Union leadership in biofuels regulation: Europe as a normative power? Journal of Cleaner Production, 32, 114–123.Google Scholar
Agra CEAS Consulting (2013). EU Biofuels Investment Development. Wye, UK: Agra CEAS Consulting.Google Scholar
Ala-Kurikka, S. (2015a). EU Parliament backs faster CO2 market boost. ENDS Europe, 24 February.Google Scholar
Ala-Kurikka, S. (2015b). Latvia seeks compromise on early ETS reform. ENDS Europe, 6 March.Google Scholar
Ala-Kurikka, S. (2016a). Winter Package: renewables proposals cap food-based biofuels at 3.8%. ENDS Europe, 30 November.Google Scholar
Ala-Kurikka, S. (2016b). MEPs clinch ETS reform deal in time for Thursday vote. ENDS Europe, 14 December.Google Scholar
Ala-Kurikka, S. (2016c). MEPs vote for higher emissions cuts in ETS reform. ENDS Europe, 15 December.Google Scholar
Ala-Kurikka, S. (2016d). Council pushes for February deal on ETS position. ENDS Europe, 19 December.Google Scholar
Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries (AEII) (2005). The Impact of EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) on Power Prices: Remedial Action Urgently Needed 10 Months After Start of ETS. Brussels: AEII.Google Scholar
Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries (AEII) (2012). Position of the Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries on the Commission Proposal to Back-load (set-aside) EU ETS Allowances. Brussels: AEII.Google Scholar
Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries, Cefic, and the International Federation of Industrial Energy Consumers (2007). Contribution Paper for the EU ETS Review: Alliance of Energy Intensive Industries + CEFIC / IFIEC. Brussels: AEII.Google Scholar
Amenta, E. (2003). What we know about the development of social policy: comparative and historical research in comparative and historical perspective. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D.. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 91–130.Google Scholar
Anderson, C. W. (1971). Comparative policy analysis: the design of measures. Comparative Politics, 4(1), 117–131.Google Scholar
Andersen, M. S. (2019). The politics of carbon taxation: how varieties of policy style matter. Environmental Politics, 28(6), 1084–1104.Google Scholar
Anderton, K. and Palmer, J. R. (2015). Evidence-based policy as iterative learning: the case of EU biofuels targets. Contemporary Social Science, 10(2), 138–147.Google Scholar
Andlovic, M. and Lehmann, W. (2014). Interest group influence and inter-institutional power allocation in early second-reading agreements: a re-examination of aviation emissions trading. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(6), 802–821.Google Scholar
Anger, N., Asane-Otoo, E., Böhringer, C. and Oberndorfer, U. (2016). Public interest versus interest groups: a political economy analysis of allowance allocation under the EU emissions trading scheme. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(5), 621–638.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns and lock in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131.Google Scholar
Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Auld, G., Mallett, A., Burlica, B., Nolan-Poupart, F. and Slater, R. (2014). Evaluating the effects of policy innovations: lessons from a systematic review of policies promoting low-carbon technology. Global Environmental Change, 29, 444–458.Google Scholar
Averchenkova, A., Fankhauser, S. and Nachmany, M. (eds.). (2017). Trends in Climate Change Legislation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Azar, C. (2011). Biomass for energy: a dream come true … or a nightmare? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(3), 309–323.Google Scholar
Bäckstrand, K. and Elgström, O. (2013). The EU’s role in climate change negotiations: from leader to ‘leadiator’. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(10), 1369–1386.Google Scholar
Baekgaard, M., Larsen, S. K. and Mortensen, P. B. (2019). Negative feedback, political attention, and public policy. European Journal of Political Research, 97(1), 210–225.Google Scholar
Bailey, I. (2010). The EU emissions trading scheme. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 144–153.Google Scholar
Baldwin, R. (2008). Regulation Lite: The Rise of Emissions Trading. LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 3/2008. London: LSE.Google Scholar
Bardach, E. (1977). The Implementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes a Law. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bardach, E. (2006). Policy dynamics. In The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, eds. Moran, M., Rein, M. and Goodwin, R. E.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 336–366.Google Scholar
Bardach, E. (2007). Why deregulation succeeds or fails. In Creating Competitive Markets: The Politics of Regulatory Reform, eds. Landy, M., Levin, M. and Shapiro, M.. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 331–342.Google Scholar
Barroso, J. M. D. (2008). European Council Press conference. SPEECH/08/711, 12 December.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (2002). Positive and negative feedback in politics. In Policy Dynamics, eds. Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–28.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Beach, D. and Pedersen, R. B. (2013). Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Béland, D. (2007). Ideas and institutional change in Social Security: conversion, layering and policy drift. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 20–38.Google Scholar
Béland, D. (2010). Reconsidering policy feedback: how policies affect politics. Administration and Society, 42(5), 568–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, D. and Schlager, E. (2019). Varieties of policy feedback research: looking backward, moving forward. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 184–205.Google Scholar
Bemelmans-Videc, M.-L., Rist, R. C. and Vedung, E. (eds.). (1998). Carrots, Sticks and Sermons: Policy Instruments and Their Evaluation. London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. and Checkel, J. T. (eds.). (2015). Process Tracing: From Metaphor to Analytic Tool. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006a). Complex causal relations and case study methods: the example of path dependence. Political Analysis, 14(3), 250–267.Google Scholar
Bennett, A. and Elman, C. (2006b). Qualitative research: recent developments in case study methods. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkhout, F. and Gouldson, A. (2003). Inducing, shaping, modulating: perspectives on technology and environmental policy. In Negotiating Environmental Change: New Perspectives from Social Science, eds. Berkhout, F., Leach, M. and Scoones, I.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 231–260.Google Scholar
Bernauer, T. (2013). Climate change politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 16, 13.1–13.28.Google Scholar
Bertoldi, P. and Rezessy, S. (2007). Voluntary agreements for energy efficiency: review and results of European experiences. Energy & Environment, 18(1), 37–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, E. (2013). Cultivating a green political landscape: lessons for climate change policy from the defeat of California’s Proposition 23. Vanderbilt Law Review, 66(2), 399–462.Google Scholar
Biber, E., Kelsey, N. and Meckling, J. (2017). The political economy of decarbonisation: a research agenda. Brooklyn Law Review, 82(2), 605–643.Google Scholar
Biofuels Barometer (2015). Biofuels Barometer – 2015. Available at: www.eurobserv-er.org/biofuels-barometer-2015/Google Scholar
Biofuels Barometer (2017). Biofuels Barometer – 2017. Available at: www.eurobserv-er.org/biofuels-barometer-2017/Google Scholar
Birdlife International et al. (2016). Bioenergy Laid Bare: Fuelling Climate Change, Fuelling Hunger. Brussels: Birdlife International.Google Scholar
Blom-Hansen, J. (2011). The EU comitology system: taking stock before the new Lisbon regime. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(4), 607–617.Google Scholar
Boasson, E. L. and Wettestad, J. (2013). EU Climate Policy: Industry, Policy Interaction and External Environment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bobrow, D. (2005). Policy design: ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In Handbook of Public Policy, eds. Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J.. London: Sage, pp. 75–95.Google Scholar
Bocquillon, P. and Dobbels, M. (2014). An elephant on the 13th floor of the Berlaymont? European Council and Commission relations in legislative agenda setting. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(1), 20–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bocquillon, P. and Maltby, T. (2017). The more the merrier? Assessing the impact of enlargement on EU performance in energy and climate change policies. East European Politics, 33(1), 88–105.Google Scholar
Bongaerts, J. (1999). Carbon dioxide emissions and cars: an environmental agreement at EU level. European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 8(4), 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bongaerts, J. (1999). Carbon dioxide emissions and the ACEA agreement. European Energy and Environmental Law Review, 8(4), 101–104.Google Scholar
Börkey, P. and Lévêque, F. (1998). Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Protection in the EU. ENV/EPOC/GEEI (98) 29/final. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.Google Scholar
Bouthillier, Y., Cowie, A., Martin, P. and McLeod-Kilmurray, H. (2016). Introduction. In The Law and Policy of Biofuels, eds. Bouthillier, Y., Cowie, A., Martin, P. and McLeod-Kilmurray, H.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. xxi–xxviiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branger, F., Lecuyer, O. and Quirion, P. (2015). The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: should we throw the flagship out with the bathwater? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(1), 9–16.Google Scholar
Braun, M. (2009). The evolution of emissions trading in the European Union – the role of policy networks, knowledge and policy entrepreneurs. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34, 469–487.Google Scholar
Braun, M. (2019). The Czech Republic’s approach to the EU 2030 climate and energy framework. Environmental Politics, 28(6), 1105–1123.Google Scholar
Bretherton, C. and Vogler, J. (2006). The European Union as a Global Actor. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brunner, S., Flachsland, C. and Marschinski, R. (2012). Credible commitment in climate policy. Climate Policy, 12(2), 255–271.Google Scholar
Bryant, G. (2016). Creating a level playing field? The concentration and centralisation of emissions in the European Union Emissions Trading System. Energy Policy, 99, 308–318.Google Scholar
Buchan, D. (2009). Energy and Climate Change: Europe at the Crossroads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bulleid, R. (2011). Accounting rules agreed for car eco-innovations. ENDS Europe, 25 July.Google Scholar
Bulleid, R. (2012a). Poland pushes for ETS changes at council meeting. ENDS Europe, 18 April.Google Scholar
Bulleid, R. (2012b). EU official urges caution on ETS floor price option. ENDS Europe, 31 May.Google Scholar
Bürgin, A. (2015). National binding renewable energy targets for 2020, but not for 2030: why the European Commission developed from a supporter to a brakeman. Journal of European Public Policy, 22(5), 690–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, C. (2013). Consensus and compromise becomes ordinary – but at what cost? A critical analysis of the impact of the changing norms of codecision upon European Parliament committees. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(7), 988–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, C., Carter, N., Davies, G. A. M. and Worsfold, N. (2013). Still saving the earth? The European Parliament’s environmental record. Environmental Politics, 22(6), 935–954.Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (2003). How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. (2012). Policy makes mass politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15, 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, A. (2015). The durability of Pierson’s theory about the durability of the welfare state. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(2), 284–288.Google Scholar
Campbell, P. (2017). Carmakers on course for CO2 fines as diesel wanes. Financial Times, 23–24 September.Google Scholar
Capano, G. and Howlett, M. (2019). Causal logics and mechanisms in policy design: how and why adopting a mechanistic perspective can improve policy design. Public Policy and Administration (online version).Google Scholar
Capano, G., Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Virani, A. (2019). Making Policies Work: First- and Second-Order Mechanisms in Policy Design. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capoor, K. and Ambrosi, P. (2009). State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2009. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar
Carlson, A. E. and Fri, R. W. (2013). Designing a durable energy policy. Daedalus, 142(1), 119–128.Google Scholar
Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) (1999). Design of a Practical Approach to Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Combined with Policies and Measures in the EC. Washington, DC: CCAP.Google Scholar
Charles, M. B., Ryan, R., Ryan, N. and Oloruntoba, R. (2007). Public policy and biofuels: the way forward? Energy Policy, 35(11), 5737–5746.Google Scholar
Chattopadhyay, J. (2015). Are press depictions of Affordable Care Act beneficiaries favorable to policy durability? Politics and the Life Sciences, 34(2), 7–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Y., Sijm, J., Hobbs, B. F. and Lise, W. (2008). Implications of CO2 emissions trading for short-run electricity market outcomes in northwest Europe. Journal of Regulatory Economics, 34(3), 251–281.Google Scholar
Christiansen, A. C. and Wettestad, J. (2003). The EU as a frontrunner on greenhouse gas emissions trading: how did it happen and will the EU succeed? Climate Policy, 3(1), 3–18.Google Scholar
Clemens, E. S. and Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and institutionalism: explaining durability and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 441–466.Google Scholar
Climate Action Network Europe (2012). Contribution to the European Commission’s Public Consultation on Review of the Auction Time Profile for the EU Emissions Trading System. Brussels: CAN Europe.Google Scholar
Climate Network Europe (2000). Emissions Trading in the EU. Brussels: Climate Network Europe.Google Scholar
COCERAL, Copa-Cogeca, EBB et al. (2012). About-turn by EU Commission on Biofuels Policy Set to Decimate Biofuels Industry in the Midst of the European Economic Crisis. 17 October.Google Scholar
Cointe, B. (2015). From a promise to a problem: the political economy of solar photovoltaics in France. Energy Research and Social Science, 8, 151–161.Google Scholar
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (2017). Report on Interinstitutional File: 2014/0011 (COD). Document Number A8–0003/2017. Strasbourg; Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
Compston, H. and Bailey, I. (2008). Political strategy and climate change. In Turning Down the Heat: The Politics of Climate Policy in Affluent Democracies, eds. Compston, H. and Bailey, I.. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) (2000). CEPI’s Views on the Emission Trading – Responses to the Commission’s Green Paper on Emission Trading. Brussels: CEPI.Google Scholar
Convery, F. J. (2008). Reflections – the emerging literature on emissions trading in Europe. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 3(1), 121–137.Google Scholar
Corporate Europe Observatory, AITEC, Northern Alliance for Sustainability et al. (2013). It is Time to Scrap the ETS! Civil Society Organisations Demand That the EU Scrap Its Emissions Trading Scheme. Brussels: Corporate Europe Observatory.Google Scholar
Costa, O. (2008). Is climate change changing the EU? The second image reversed in climate politics. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(4), 527–44.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2002). Interinstitutional File: 2001/0245 (COD) – Progress report. Document Number 10002/02, 19 June 2002. Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2014). Interinstitutional File: 2014/0011 (COD). Information note from the Presidency on the state of play. Document Number 16360/14, 5 December 2014. Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2018). Interinstitutional File: 2017/0293(COD) – General Approach. Document Number 12903/18. 10 October 2018. Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
Council of the European Union (2019). Interinstitutional File: 2017/0293(COD) − Analysis of the Final Compromise Text with a View to Agreement. Document Number 5091/19. 17 January 2019. Brussels: Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (2016). Case C-5/16: Action Brought on 4 January 2016 – Republic of Poland v European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Luxembourg: CJEU.Google Scholar
Cowie, A., Cowie, A. Soimakallio, S. and Brandáo, M. (2016). Environmental risks and opportunities of biofuels. In The Law and Policy of Biofuels, eds. Bouthillier, Y., Cowie, A., Martin, P. and McLeod-Kilmurray, H.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 3–29.Google Scholar
Dahlmann, F., Kolk, A., & Lindeque, J. (2017). Emerging energy geographies: scaling and spatial divergence in European electricity generation capacity. European Urban and Regional Studies, 24(4), 381–404.Google Scholar
Dales, J. H. (1968). Pollution, Property, and Prices. Toronto: Toronto University Press.Google Scholar
Damro, C. and Méndez, P. L. (2003). Emissions trading at Kyoto: from EU resistance to Union innovation. Environmental Politics, 12(2), 71–94.Google Scholar
Daugbjerg, C. (2003). Policy feedback and paradigm shift in EU agricultural policy: the effects of the MacSharry reform on future reform. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(3), 421–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugbjerg, C. (2009). Sequencing in public policy: the evolution of the CAP over a decade. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(3), 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daugbjerg, C. and Sondeskov, K. M. (2012). Environmental policy performance revisited: designing effective policies for green markets. Political Studies, 60(2), 399–433.Google Scholar
de Bruyn, S., Schep, E. and Cherif, S. (2016). Calculation of Additional Profits of Sectors and Firms from the EU ETS. Delft: CE Delft.Google Scholar
de Wilde, H. P. J. and Kroon, P. (2013). Policy Options to Reduce Passenger Cars CO2 Emissions after 2020. Amsterdam: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Dehue, B., Meyer, S. and Hettinga, W. (2008). Review of EU’s Impact Assessment of 10% Biofuels on Land Use Change. Utrecht: Ecofys.Google Scholar
Del Guayo, I. (2008). Biofuels: EU law and policy. In Beyond the Carbon Economy: Energy Law in Transition, eds. Zilman, D. N., Redgwell, C. and Barrera-Hernandez, L. K.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 265–286.Google Scholar
Delbeke, J. and Vis, P. (eds.). (2015). EU Climate Policy Explained. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Delbeke, J., Hartridge, O., Lefevere, J. G., et al. (eds.). (2006). EU Energy Law: The EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme. Deventer, the Netherlands: Claeys & Casteels.Google Scholar
Demailly, D. and Quirion, P. (2006). CO2 abatement, competitiveness and leakage in the European cement industry under the EU ETS: grandfathering versus output-based allocation. Climate Policy, 6(1), 93–113.Google Scholar
Demirbas, A. (2009). Political, economic and environmental impacts of biofuel: a review. Applied Energy, 86, S108–S117.Google Scholar
Di Lucia, L. and Kronsell, A. (2010). The willing, the unwilling and the unable – explaining implementation of the EU Biofuels Directive. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(4), 545–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Lucia, L. and Nilsson, L. (2007). Transport biofuels in the European Union: the state of play. Transport Policy, 14, 533–543.Google Scholar
Dimitrov, R. S. (2010). Inside Copenhagen: the state of climate governance. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), 18–24.Google Scholar
Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA) (2011). CO2 Emissions from New Cars Down by Almost 4% in 2010. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA) (2013). Review of the Auction Time Profile for the EU Emissions Trading System. Summary of the Public Consultation, 25 July 2012–16 October 2012. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG CLIMA) 2016). EU ETS Handbook. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Directorate-General for the Environment, McKinsey & Company and Ecofys (2006). Review of EU Emissions Trading Scheme: Survey Results. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Doornbosch, R. and Steenblik, R. (2007). Biofuels: Is the Cure Worse Than the Disease? Report SG/SD/RT (2007) 3/REV1. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Downie, C. (2017). Business actors, political resistance, and strategies for policymakers. Energy Policy, 108, 583–592.Google Scholar
Dreger, J. (2014). The European Commission’s Energy and Climate Policy: A Climate for Expertise? Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Dryzek, J. (1983). Don’t toss coins in garbage cans: a prologue to policy design. Journal of Public Policy, 3(4), 345–367.Google Scholar
Duit, A. and Galaz, V. (2008). Governance and complexity: emerging issues for governance theory. Governance, 21(3), 311–335Google Scholar
Dunlop, C. (2010). The temporal dimension of knowledge and the limits of policy appraisal. Policy Sciences, 43(4), 343–363.Google Scholar
Eberlein, B. and Radaelli, C. (2010). Mechanisms of conflict management in EU regulatory policy. Public Administration, 88(3), 782–799.Google Scholar
Edmondson, D. L., Kern, F. and Rogge, K. S. (2018). The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Research Policy (online version).Google Scholar
Egelund Olsen., B and Ronne, A. (2016). The EU legal regime for biofuels. In The Law and Policy of Biofuels, eds. Bouthillier, Y., Cowie, A., Martin, P. and McLeod-Kilmurray, H.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 164–190.Google Scholar
Eikeland, P. O. (2016). Electric power industry. In Corporate Responses to EU Emissions Trading: Resistance, Innovation or Responsibility? Eds. Skjærseth, J. B. and Eikeland, P. O.. London: Routledge, pp. 45–98.Google Scholar
Ellerman, A. D. and Buchner, B. K. (2007). The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: origins, allocation, and early results. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 1(1), 66–87.Google Scholar
Ellerman, A. D., Convery, F. J. and de Perthuis, C. (2010). Pricing Carbon: The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ellerman, A. D., Mercantonini, C. and Zaklan, A. (2016). The European Union Emissions Trading System: ten years and counting. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 10(1), Winter 2016, 89–107.Google Scholar
ENDS Report (1992a). Competing options for EC curbs on CO2 emissions from cars. 31 March.Google Scholar
ENDS Report (1995). German industries follow Dutch in volunteering CO2 reductions. 30 April.Google Scholar
ENDS Report (2001). Commission backs biofuels despite doubts over environmental benefits. 1 November.Google Scholar
ENDS Report (2012b). Latest draft suggests major shift in EU biofuel policy. 25 September.Google Scholar
ENDS Report (2012c). Commission opts for middle ground on EU ETS set-aside. 13 November.Google Scholar
Energy Intensive Industries (2002). Energy Intensive Industries’ Concerns Regarding the Proposed Emissions Trading Directive. Brussels: Energy Intensive Industries.Google Scholar
Energy Intensive Industries (2003). Energy Intensive Industries’ Position on the Amendments Voted by the EP’s Environment Committee on 11 June. 16 June. Brussels: Energy Intensive Industries.Google Scholar
Energy Intensive Industries (2004). Energy Intensive Industries Call Upon EU Decision-Makers to Pay More Attention to the Impact of Emissions Trading Upon Their Competitiveness. Brussels: Energy Intensive Industries.Google Scholar
Environment Council (1996). Conclusions of the 1939th Environment Council, Meeting 25–6 June. Brussels: Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
Environmental Audit Committee (2008). Are Biofuels Sustainable? First Report of Session 2007–8, Vol. 1. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Eskridge, W. N. and Ferejohn, J. (2001). Super-statutes. Duke Law Journal, 50, 1215–1275.Google Scholar
Euractiv (2001). Industry and environmentalists oppose EU biofuel plans. 20 September.Google Scholar
Eurelectric (2000). EURELECTRIC Position Paper on the Commission’s Green Paper on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading within the EU (COM 87/2000). Brussels: Eurelectric.Google Scholar
Eurelectric (2007). Position Paper: Review of the EU Emissions Trading Directive (2003/87/EC) and the Linking Directive (2004/101/EC). Brussels: Eurelectric.Google Scholar
European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) (2008). Tough CO2 legislation must be matched by support for the automotive industry. ACEA Press Release, 17 December.Google Scholar
European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA) (2017). The Automobile Industry Pocket Book. Brussels: ACEA.Google Scholar
European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (2006). EBB Comments to the Commission Consultation on the Revision of the EU Biofuels Directive.Google Scholar
European Biodiesel Board (EBB) (2019). Previous Production Statistics: The EU Biodiesel Industry.Google Scholar
European Bioethanol Fuel Association (eBIO) (2009). 2008 Fuel Ethanol Production in the EU. Brussels: eBIO.Google Scholar
European Ceramic Industry Association (Cerame-Unie) (2000). Comments on the Green Paper on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading within the European Union COM (2000)87. Brussels: Cerame-Unie.Google Scholar
European Commission (2000). European Climate Change Programme, Chairman’s Background Document 2: Allocation Methodologies and Recognition of Early Action. 7 December. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2001a). Final Report: ECCP Working Group 1 ‘Flexible Mechanisms’. 2 May. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2001b). Green Paper on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Within the European Union: Summary of Submissions. 14 May. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2001c). List of Comments Sent for Green Paper on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Within the European Union. Brussels: European Commission. 14 May.Google Scholar
European Commission (2001d). Commission Proposes Ratification of Kyoto Protocol and Emissions Trading System. Press Release. 23 October. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2005). Energy, Environment, Competitiveness: Commission Launches High Level Group – IP/06/226. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2007a). List of Participants, ECCP Working Group on EU ETS Review: The Scope of the Directive, 8–9 March 2007. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2007b). Final Report of the 3rd Meeting of the ECCP Working Group on Emissions Trading: The Review of the EU ETS. Further Harmonisation and Increased Predictability, 21–22 May 2007. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2010). Commission Creates Two New Directorates-General for Energy and Climate Action. Press Release IP/10/164. 17 February. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2013). Green Paper 2030: Main Outcomes of the Public Consultation. Commission Services Non Paper. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2015). European Commission Fact Sheet: Questions and Answers on the Proposal to Revise the EU ETS. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission (2017). New and Improved Car Emissions Test Become Mandatory on 1 September. Press Release, 31 August. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries (Eurofer) (2000). Eurofer View on Emissions Trading – Comments to the Green Paper COM (2000) 87. Brussels: Eurofer.Google Scholar
European Council (2007). Brussels European Council, 8–9 March 2007 – Presidency Conclusions. Brussels: European Council.Google Scholar
European Council (2014). Presidency Conclusions of the European Council – 23/24 October 2014. Brussels: European Council.Google Scholar
European Court of Auditors (2018). Ex-Post Review of EU Legislation: A Well-Established System, but Incomplete. Special Report 16/2018. Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2006). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trends and Projections in Europe 2006. EEA Report 9/2006. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2008). Suspend 10 Percent Biofuels Target, Says EEA's Scientific Advisory Body. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2011a). SC Opinion on Greenhouse Gas Accounting in Relation to Bioenergy. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2011b). EUA Future Prices 2005–2011. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2011c). Laying the Foundations for Greener Transport: TERM 2011 Report. EEA Report 7/2011. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2012). EUA Future Prices 2008–2012. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2013). A Closer Look at Urban Transport: TERM 2013 Report. EEA Report 11/2013. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2015a). Evaluating 15 Years of Transport and Environmental Policy Integration. EEA Report 7/2015. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2015b). Trends and Projections in the EU ETS in 2015. EEA Technical Report 14/2015. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2016). Explaining Road Transport Emissions. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2017). Trends and Projections in Europe 2017: Tracking Progress towards Europe’s Climate and Energy Targets. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2018a). Trends and Projections in the EU ETS in 2018: The EU Emissions Trading System in Numbers. EEA Report No 14/2018. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2018b). Progress of EU Transport Sector towards Its Environment and Climate Objectives. EEA Briefing 15/2018. Copenhagen: EEA.Google Scholar
European Environment Agency (EEA) (2019). EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Data Viewer. Accessed 13 June 2019.Google Scholar
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (2001). Press Release: EEB Asks Commission to Scrap Biofuels Proposal. 18 September. Brussels: EEB.Google Scholar
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (2002a). Biofuels: Not as Green as They Sound. May. Brussels: EEB.Google Scholar
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) (2002b). Press Release: EEB Urges ECOFIN Meeting to Reject Current Biofuels Proposal. 17 June. Brussels: EEB.Google Scholar
European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Transport & Environment (T&E) (2004). Input to Environment Council Debate on Sustainable Road Transport. Position Paper, 11 October.Google Scholar
European Lime Association (EuLA) (2000). The Green Paper on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading within the European Union: Updated EuLA Position Paper. Brussels: EuLA.Google Scholar
European Parliament (1998). Resolution on Climate Change in the Run-Up to Buenos Aires (November 1998). Document B4–0802/98. Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2002). European Parliament Legislative Resolution on the Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Directive Establishing a Scheme for Greenhouse Gas Emission Allowance Trading Within the Community and Amending Council Directive 96/61/EC. Strasbourg; Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2017). Report on the Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector (2016/2215(INI). Committee of Inquiry into Emission Measurements in the Automotive Sector, A-0049/2017, 2 March. Strasbourg; Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2018a). Draft Report on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Setting Emission Performance Standards for New Passenger Cars and for New Light Commercial Vehicles as Part of the Union's Integrated Approach to Reduce CO2 Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles and Amending Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 (recast). Committee for Environment Public Health and Food Safety, PE619.135v01–00. Strasbourg; Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
European Parliament (2018b). Result of roll-call votes of 10.09.2018. Committee on Environment, Food Safety and Public Health. Strasbourg; Brussels: European Parliament.Google Scholar
European Union (2016). Official Directory of the European Union: European Commission. Brussels: European Union.Google Scholar
European Voice (2012). Barroso II closes its eyes to the evidence: The Commission reveals its true colours on climate change. 17 October.Google Scholar
Eurostat (2017). Share of Transport Fuel from Renewable Energy Sources. 14 March. Brussels: Eurostat.Google Scholar
Ewing, J. (2017). Faster, Higher, Further: The Inside Story of the VW Scandal. London: Bantam Press.Google Scholar
Fahey, B. K. and Pralle, S. B. (2016). Governing complexity: recent developments in environmental politics and policy. Policy Studies Journal, 44(S1), S28–S49.Google Scholar
Falleti, T. G. and Lynch, J. F. (2009). Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42(9), 1143–1166.Google Scholar
Fankhauser, S., Gennaioli, C. and Collins, M. (2015). The political economy of passing climate change legislation: evidence from a survey. Global Environmental Change, 35, 52–61.Google Scholar
Fearon, J. D. (1991). Counterfactuals and hypothesis testing in political science. World Politics, 43(2), 169–195.Google Scholar
Fitch-Roy, O. and Fairbrass, J. (2018). Negotiating the EU’s 2030 Climate and Energy Framework: Agendas, Ideas and European Interest Groups. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Flach, B., Lieberz, S., Rondon, M., Williams, B. and Teiken, C. (2015). EU-28 Biofuels Annual. GAINS Report NL5028. Washington, DC: USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.Google Scholar
Flanagan, K., Uyarra, E. and Laranja, M. (2011). Reconceptualising the ‘policy mix’ for innovation. Research Policy, 40(5), 702–713.Google Scholar
Flynn, V. (2013a). CO2 price slumps as MEPs oppose backloading. ENDS Europe, 24 January.Google Scholar
Flynn, V. (2013b). ILUC proposal criticised by EU energy ministers. ENDS Europe, 22 February.Google Scholar
Flynn, V. (2013c). EU member states divided on post-2020 targets. ENDS Europe, 3 September.Google Scholar
Flynn, V. (2013d). Expert talks home in on ETS reform option. ENDS Europe, 25 September.Google Scholar
Flynn, V. (2013e). Lawmakers agree to water down car CO2 deal. ENDS Europe, 27 November.Google Scholar
Flynn, V. (2015a). Lead MEP calls for stronger biofuel reform. ENDS Europe, 5 January.Google Scholar
Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD) (2000). Designing Options for Implementing an Emissions Trading Regime for Greenhouse Gases in the EC. Final Report to the European Commission, DG Environment (Contract B4–3040/98/000795/MAR/B1). London: FIELD.Google Scholar
Friedrich, A., Tappe, M. and Wurzel, R. K. (2000). A new approach to EU environmental policy making? the Auto-Oil I Programme. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(4), 593–612.Google Scholar
Geels, F. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495–510.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. and Goodin, R. E. (1999). The veil of vagueness. In Organizing Political Institutions: Essays for Johan P. Olsen, eds. Egeberg, M. and P. Lægreid, . Oslo: Scandinavia University Press, pp. 357–385.Google Scholar
Gibson, G. Kollmthodi, S., Kirsch, F. et al. (2015). Evaluation of Regulations 443/2009 and 510/2011 on CO2 Emissions from Light-duty Vehicles. Ricardo-AEA and TEPR. 8 April. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (2015). The politics of climate change. Policy & Politics, 43(2), 155–162.Google Scholar
Giljam, R. A. (2016). Towards a holistic approach in EU biomass regulation. Journal of Environmental Law, 28(1), 95–123.Google Scholar
Glazer, A. and Rothenberg, L. (2005). Why Government Succeeds and Why It Fails. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goldthau, A., Westphal, K., Bazilian, M. and Bradshaw, M. (2019). How the energy transition will reshape geopolitics. Nature, 569(7754), 29–31.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. (1996). Institutions and their design. In The Theory of Institutional Design, ed. Goodin, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–53.Google Scholar
Graichen, V., Cludius, J. and Gores, S. (2017). Estimate of 2005–2012 Emissions for Stationary Installations to Reflect the Current Scope (2013–2020) of the EU ETS. ETC/ACM Technical Paper 2017/11. Bilthoven: European Topic Centre on Air Pollution and Climate Change Mitigation.Google Scholar
Gravey, V. and Jordan, A. J. (2016). Does the European Union have a reverse gear? Policy dismantling in a hyperconsensual polity. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(8), 1180–1198.Google Scholar
Gravey, V. and Jordan, A. J. (2019). Policy dismantling at EU level: reaching the limits of ‘an ever-closer ecological union’? Public Administration (online version).Google Scholar
Green Growth Group (2014). Green Growth Group Ministers' statement on climate and energy framework for 2030.Google Scholar
Greeuw, S. C. H., van Asselt, M. B. A., Grosskurth, J. et al. (2000). Cloudy Crystal Balls: An Assessment of Recent European and Global Scenario Studies and Methods. Environmental Issue Report 17/2000. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency.Google Scholar
Greif, A. and Laitin, D. (2004). A theory of endogenous institutional change. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 633–652.Google Scholar
Grzymala-Busse, A. (2011). Time will tell? Temporality and the analysis of causal mechanisms and processes. Comparative Political Studies, 44(9), 1267–1297.Google Scholar
Gulbrandsen, L. and Christensen, A. R. (2014). EU legislation to reduce carbon emissions from cars. Review of Policy Research, 31(6), 503–528.Google Scholar
Gunningham, N., Grabosky, P. and Sinclair, D. (1998). Smart Regulation: Designing Environmental Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gürtler, K., Postpischil, R., and Quitzow, R. (2019). The dismantling of renewable energy policies: the cases of Spain and the Czech Republic. Energy Policy, 133, 110881, 1–11.Google Scholar
Gyekye, L. (2018a). Biofuels industry gives thumbs up to EP’s RED vote. ENDS Europe, 18 JanuaryGoogle Scholar
Gyekye, L. (2018b). MEPs back 45% CO2 cut for cars and vans. ENDS Europe, 11 September.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. (1998). The historical logic of national health insurance: structure and sequence in the development of British, Canadian, and US medical policy. Studies in American Political Development, 12(1), 57–130.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. (2002). The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. (2004). Privatising risk without privatising the welfare state: the hidden politics of social policy retrenchment in the United States. American Political Science Review, 98(2), 243–260.Google Scholar
Hacker, J. and Pierson, P. (2014). After the ‘master theory’: Downs, Schattschneider, and the rebirth of policy-focused analysis. Perspectives of Politics, 12(3), 643–662.Google Scholar
Hacker, J., Pierson, P. and Thelen, K. A. (2015). Drift and conversion: hidden faces of institutional change. In Advances in Comparative-Historical Analysis, eds. Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. A.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 180–208.Google Scholar
Haigh, N. (1996). Climate change policies and politics in the EC. In Politics of Climate Change: A European Perspective, eds. O’Riordan, T. and Jäger, J.. London: Routledge, pp. 155–185.Google Scholar
Haigh, N. (2009). Manual of Environmental Policy: The EU and Britain. Leeds: Maney Publishing.Google Scholar
Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning and the state: the case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275–296.Google Scholar
Hansjürgens, B. (2011). Markets for SO2 and NOX – what can we learn for carbon trading? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(4), 635–646.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. (1974). Social Policy in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Heidenheimer, A., Heclo, H. and Adam, C. (1990). Comparative Public Policy. 3rd ed. New York: St Martin’s Press: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Hepburn, C., Grubb, M., Neuhoff, K., Matthes, F. and Tse, M. (2006). Auctioning of EU ETS Phase II allowances: how and why? Climate Policy, 6(1), 137–160.Google Scholar
Heritier, A. (1999). Policy Making and Diversity in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hess, D. (2014). Sustainability transitions: a political coalition perspective. Research Policy, 43(2), 278–283.Google Scholar
Hey, C. (2010). The German paradox: climate leader and green car laggard. In The New Climate Policies of the European Union, eds. Oberthur, S. and Pallemaerts, M.. Brussels: VUB Press, pp. 211–230.Google Scholar
High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE). (2013). Biofuels and Food Security. HLPE Report 5. Rome: Committee on Word Food Security.Google Scholar
Hilden, M., Jordan, A. J. and Rayner, T. (2014). Climate policy innovation: developing an evaluation perspective. Environmental Politics 23(5), 884–905Google Scholar
Hix, S. (2007) The European Union as a polity (I). In The Sage Handbook of European Union Politics, eds. Joergensen, K., Pollack, M. and Rosamond, B.. London: Sage, pp. 141–158.Google Scholar
HM Government (2013). Driving Success: UK Automotive Strategy for Growth and Sustainability. London: HM Government.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. (2017a). MEPs adopt tighter rules on crop-based biofuels. ENDS Europe, 24 October.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. (2017b). ‘Clean mobility’ package calls for 30% car emissions cut. ENDS Europe, 8 November.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. (2017c). Coal support set to continue under EU ETS reform deal. ENDS Europe, 9 November.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. (2017d). EU governments settle for 27% renewables target. ENDS Europe, 19 December.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. (2018a). Governments deeply divided over EU car emission limits. ENDS Europe, 25 June.Google Scholar
Hodgson, R. (2018b). Parliament demands 40% cut in car CO2 emissions. ENDS Europe, 3 October.Google Scholar
Holzinger, K., Knill, C. and Schäfer, A. (2006). Rhetoric or reality? ‘New Governance’ in EU environmental policy. European Law Journal, 12(3), 403–420.Google Scholar
Hooghe, L. and Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.Google Scholar
Hovi, J., Sprinz, D. F. and Underdal, A. (2009). Implementing long-term climate policy: time inconsistency, domestic politics, international anarchy. Global Environmental Politics, 9(3), 20–39.Google Scholar
Howes, T. (2010). The EU’s new renewable energy directive. In The New Climate Policies of the European Union: Internal Legislation and Climate Diplomacy, eds. Oberthür, S. and Pallemaerts, M.. Brussels: VUB Press, pp. 117–150.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2009a). Process sequencing policy dynamics: beyond homeostasis and path dependency. Journal of Public Policy, 29(3), 241–262.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2009b). Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: a multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design. Policy Sciences, 42(1), 73–89.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2011). Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2014). From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sciences, 47(3), 187–207.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. (2019). The Policy Design Primer: Choosing the Right Tools for the Job. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. and Cashore, B. (2009). The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1), 33–46.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. and del Rio, P. (2015). The parameters of policy portfolios: verticality and horizontality in design spaces and their consequences for policy mix formulation. Environment and Planning C, 33(5), 1233–1245.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. and Lejano, R. (2013). Tales from the crypt: the rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design. Administration and Society, 45(3), 357–381.Google Scholar
Howlett, M. and Rayner, J. (2013). Patching vs packaging in policy formulation: assessing policy portfolio design. Politics and Governance, 1(2), 170–182.Google Scholar
Howlett, M., Mukherjee, I. and Rayner, J. (2017). The elements of effective program design: a two-level analysis. In Handbook of Policy Formulation, eds. Howlett, M. and Mukherjee, I.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 129–146.Google Scholar
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. P. (2009). Studying Public Policy. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huberty, M. and Zysman, J. (2013). Preface. In Can Green Sustain Growth? From the Religion to the Reality of Sustainable Prosperity, eds. Zysman, J. and Huberty, M.. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. xi–xiv.Google Scholar
Huberty, M., Kelsey, N. and Zysman, J. (2013). Can ‘green’ sustain growth? In Can Green Sustain Growth? From the Religion to the Reality of Sustainable Prosperity, eds. Zysman, J. and Huberty, M.. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 247–256.Google Scholar
Huitema, D., Jordan, A., Massey, E. et al. (2011). The evaluation of climate policy: theory and emerging practice in Europe. Policy Sciences, 44(2), 179–198.Google Scholar
Iacobuta, G., Dubash, N. K., Upadyaya, P. et al. (2018). National climate change mitigation legislation, strategy and targets: a global update. Climate Policy, 18(9), 1114–1132.Google Scholar
Ingram, H. and Schneider, A. (1990). Improving implementation through framing smarter statutes. Journal of Public Policy, 10(1), 67–88.Google Scholar
Institute for European Environmental Policy (2014). Re-examining EU Biofuels Policy. London: IEEP.Google Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2018). Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C approved by governments. IPCC Press Release 2018/24/PR, 8 October 2018.Google Scholar
International Carbon Action Partnership (2019). Emissions Trading Worldwide: Status Report 2019. Berlin: ICAP.Google Scholar
International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) (2012). Options to Reform the EU ETS: An Analysis by IETA. Brussels: IETA.Google Scholar
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011). Technology Roadmap: Biofuels for Transport. Paris: IEA.Google Scholar
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2017). Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2017. Paris: IEA.Google Scholar
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2019). Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2019. Paris: IEA.Google Scholar
International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) (2008). Biofuels: At What Cost? Geneva: IISD.Google Scholar
Jackson, T., Begg, K. and Parkinson, S. (eds.). (2000). Flexibility in Global Climate Policy: Beyond Joint Implementation. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. (2009). Policymaking as political constraint: institutional development in the U.S. Social Security Program. In Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, eds. Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 94–131.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. M. (2011). Governing for the Long Term: Democracy and the Politics of Investment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A. M. and Weaver, R. K. (2015). When policies undo themselves: self‐undermining feedback as a source of policy change. Governance, 28(4), 441–57.Google Scholar
Jacobs, L. and Mettler, S. (2018). When and how new policy creates new politics: examining the feedback effects of the Affordable Care Act on public opinion. Perspectives on Politics, 16(2), 345–363.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J. A. and Patashnik, E. M. (2012). Living legislation and American politics. In Living Legislation: Durability, Change, and the Politics of American Lawmaking, eds. Jenkins, J. A. and Patashnik, E. M.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 3–19.Google Scholar
Jervis, R. (1997). System Effects: Complexity in Political and Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, F. X. (2011). Regional-global linkages in the energy-climate-development policy nexus: the case of biofuels in the EU Renewable Energy Directive. Renewable Energy Law and Policy Review, 2(2), 91–106.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. and Adelle, C. (2013). EU environmental policy at 40. In Environmental Policy in the EU: Actors, Institutions and Processes, eds. Jordan, A. and Adelle, C.. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, pp. 369–386.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. and Adelle, C. (eds.). (2013). Environmental Policy in the EU: Actors, Institutions and Processes. 3rd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. and Matt, E. (2014). Designing policies that intentionally stick: policy feedback in a changing climate. Policy Sciences, 47, 227–247.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Rayner, T., Schroeder, H. et al. (2013) Going beyond two degrees? The risks and opportunities of alternative options. Climate Policy 13(6), 738–750.Google Scholar
Jordan, A. and Turnpenny, J. R. (eds.). (2015). The Tools of Policy Formulation: Actors, Capacities, Venues and Effects. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. and Zito, A. (2003). ‘New’ instruments of environmental governance: patterns and pathways of change. Environmental Politics, 12(1), 3–24.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. and Zito, A. (2005). The rise of ‘new’ policy instruments in comparative perspective: has governance eclipsed government? Political Studies, 53(3), 477–496.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Benson, D., Wurzel, R. and Zito, A. (2012). Environmental policy. In Constructing a Policy-Making State? Policy Dynamics in the EU, ed. Richardson, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 104–124.Google Scholar
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., van Asselt, H. et al. (eds.). (2010). Climate Change Policy in the European Union: Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, H. (1976). Are Government Organisations Immortal? Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Kay, A. (2005). A critique of the use of path dependency in policy studies. Public Administration, 83(3), 553–571Google Scholar
Kay, A. (2012). Policy trajectories and legacies: path dependency revisited. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, ed. Araral, E. et al. London: Routledge, pp. 462–472.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2012a). Germany fights against Italy over car emissions. European Voice, 27 June.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2012b) Commission proposes vehicle emissions limits for 2020. European Voice, 11 July.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2012c). On the right road? Commission pushes for lower CO2 emissions. European Voice, 19 July.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2012d). Commission compromise on biofuel impact. European Voice, 11 September.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2013a). MEPs on collision course over emissions. European Voice, 30 April.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2013c). MEPs back biofuel cap, but fail to secure a mandate for talks. European Voice, 11 September.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2013d). Car CO2 showdown at environment council. European Voice, 9 October.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2013e). Member states assess German damage to institutional trust. European Voice, 16 October.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2013f). Lithuania seeks deal on car emissions. European Voice, 30 October.Google Scholar
Keating, D. (2015). Lawmakers gear up for battle on ETS reform. ENDS Europe, 18 September.Google Scholar
Keay-Bright, S. (2000). A Critical Analysis of the Voluntary Fuel Economy Agreements Established between the Automobile Industry and the European Commission. Brussels: European Environmental Bureau.Google Scholar
Kelsey, N. (2018). Industry type and environmental policy: industry characteristics shape the potential for policy making success in energy and the environment. Business and Politics, 20(4), 615–642.Google Scholar
Kelsey, N. and Zysman, J. (2013). The green spiral. In Can Green Sustain Growth? From the Religion to the Reality of Sustainable Prosperity, eds. Zysman, J. and Huberty, M.. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
Kemp, R. and Potoglio, S. (2011). The innovation effects of environmental policy instruments – a typical case of the blind men and the elephant? Ecological Economics, 72(C), 28–36.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. (2015). The global politics of climate change: challenge for political science. PS: Political Science and Politics, 48(1), 19–26.Google Scholar
Keohane, R. O. and Victor, D. G. (2011). The regime complex for climate change. Perspectives on Politics, 9(1), 7–23.Google Scholar
Keppler, J. H. and Cruciani, M. (2010). Rents in the European power sector due to carbon trading. Energy Policy, 38(8), 4280–4290.Google Scholar
Keyes, J. M. (1996). Power tools: the form and function of legal instruments for government action. Canadian Journal of Administrative Law and Practice, 10, 133–174.Google Scholar
Kleine, M., and Pollack, M. (2018). Liberal Intergovernmentalism and its critics. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(7), 1493–1509.Google Scholar
Kline, D. (2001). Positive feedback, lock in and environmental policy. Policy Sciences, 34, 95–107.Google Scholar
Knothe, G. (2001). Historical perspectives on vegetable oil-based diesel fuels. Inform, 12, 1103–1107.Google Scholar
Kość, W. (2014). Member states split on ETS reform start date. ENDS Europe, 29 September.Google Scholar
Krasner, S. (1988). Sovereignty: an institutional perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 21(1), 66–94.Google Scholar
Kumlin, S. and Stadelmann-Steffen, I. (eds.). (2014). How Welfare States Shape the Democratic Public: Policy Feedback, Participation, Voting, and Attitudes. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Laing, T., Sato, M., Grubb, M. and Comberti, C. (2014). The effects and side-effects of the EU emissions trading scheme. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(4), 509–519.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. (2009). Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Review, 94, 1153–1234.Google Scholar
Le Goff, F. (2011). EU faces uphill battle to cut transport emissions. ENDS Europe, 10 November.Google Scholar
Lenschow, A. and Rottmann, K. (2005). Privatising EU Governance: Emergence and Characteristics of Voluntary Agreements in European Environmental Policy. Paper presented at ‘Soft Modes of Governance and the Private Sector’ CONNEX workshop, 1–3 December.Google Scholar
Levidow, L. and Papaioannou, T. (2014). UK biofuel policy. Environment and Planning A, 46(2), 280–298.Google Scholar
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S. and Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45, 123–152.Google Scholar
Liang, J. and Fiorino, D. (2013). The implications of policy stability for renewable energy innovation in the United States, 1974–2009. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 97–118.Google Scholar
Lise, W., Sijm, J. and Hobbs, B. F. (2010). The impact of the EU ETS on prices, profits and emissions in the power sector: simulation results with the COMPETES EU20 model. Environmental and Resource Economics, 47(1), 23–44.Google Scholar
Londo, H. M., Deurwaarder, E. P. and van Thuijl, E. (2006). Review of EU Biofuels Directive Public Consultation Exercise. Amsterdam: ECN.Google Scholar
Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership (2005). Coalition Launches Biofuels Declaration to Boost to Biofuels. 15 June.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics and choice. Public Administration Review, 32, July/August, 298–310.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2000). Path dependence in historical sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. (2015). Process tracing and historical explanation. Security Studies, 24(2), 200–218.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (2009). A theory of gradual institutional change. In Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power, eds. Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Thelen, K. (eds.). (2010). Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Majone, G. (1994). The rise of the regulatory state in Europe. West European Politics, 17(3), 77–101.Google Scholar
Marcu, A., Alberola, E. Caneill, J.-V. et al. (2019). 2019 State of the EU ETS Report. Paris: Institute for Climate Economics.Google Scholar
Marier, P. (2012). Policy feedback and learning. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, ed. Araral, E. et al. London: Routledge, pp. 401–414.Google Scholar
Marshall, A. (2014). UK wins as EU plumps for 40% carbon target for 2030. The ENDS Report, 28 January.Google Scholar
Matt, E. (2012). The Political Economy of EU Environmental Governance: The Case of the Voluntary Agreement to Reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions from New Cars. PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich.Google Scholar
May, P. and Jochim, A. (2013). Policy regime perspectives: policies, politics, and governing. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 426–452.Google Scholar
McGee, P. (2017). How VW’s cheating on emission was exposed. Financial Times, 11 January.Google Scholar
Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42, 323–340.Google Scholar
Meadowcroft, J. (2011). Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 70–75.Google Scholar
Meckling, J. (2011a). The globalization of carbon trading: transnational business coalitions in climate politics. Global Environmental Politics, 11(2), 26–50.Google Scholar
Meckling, J. (2011b). Carbon Coalitions: Business, Climate Politics, and the Rise of Emissions Trading. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meckling, J. (2019). Governing renewables: policy feedback in a global energy transition. Environment and Planning C, 37(2), 317–338.Google Scholar
Meckling, J. and Nahm, J. (2018). The power of process: state capacity and climate policy. Governance, 31(4), 741–757.Google Scholar
Meckling, J., Sterner, T. and Wagner, G. (2017). Policy sequencing toward decarbonisation. Nature Energy, 2, 918–922.Google Scholar
Meckling, J., Kelsey, N., Biber, E., and Zysman, J. (2015). Winning coalitions for climate policy. Science, 349(6253), 1170–1171.Google Scholar
Mettler, S. (2011). The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mettler, S. (2015). Twenty years on: Paul Pierson’s Dismantling the Welfare State? PS: Political Science and Politics, 48(2), 270–273.Google Scholar
Mettler, S. and SoRelle, M. (2014). Policy feedback theory. In Theories of the Policy Process, eds. Sabatier, P. and Weible, C.. 3rd ed. New York: Westview Press, pp. 151–181.Google Scholar
Mettler, S. and Soss, J. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2(1), 55–73.Google Scholar
Michaelowa, A., Allen, M. and Sha, F. (2018). Policy instruments for limiting global temperature rise to 1.5°C – can humanity rise to the challenge? Climate Policy, 18(3), 275–286.Google Scholar
Mickwitz, P., Hyvättinen, H. and Kivimaa, P. (2008). The role of policy instruments in the innovation and diffusion of environmentally friendly technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1) S1, S162–S170.Google Scholar
Mol, A. (2006) Environmental governance in the Information Age: the emergence of informational governance. Environment and Planning C, 24(4), 497–514.Google Scholar
Moore, B. (2018). The Political Effects of Climate Policy: Policy Feedback from the European Union Emissions Trading System. PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, I. and Giest, S. (2019) Designing policies in uncertain contexts: entrepreneurial capacity and the case of the European Emission Trading Scheme. Public Policy and Administration, 34(3), 262–286.Google Scholar
Müller, P. and Slominski, P. (2013). Agree now – pay later: escaping the joint decision trap in the evolution of the EU emission trading system. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(10), 1425–1442.Google Scholar
North, D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H. (1994). Time: The Modern and Postmodern Experience. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Ntziachristos, L. and Dilara, P. (2012). Sustainability Assessment of Road Transport Technologies. Ispra: European Commission Joint Research Centre.Google Scholar
Oberlander, J. and Weaver, R. K. (2015). Unravelling from within? The Affordable Care Act and self-undermining policy feedbacks. The Forum, 13(1), 37–62.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. and Dupont, C. (eds.). (2015). Decarbonization in the European Union: Internal Policies and External Strategies. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. and Ott, H. (eds.). (1999). The Kyoto Protocol: International Climate Policy for the 21st Century. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. and Pallemaerts, M. (2010). The EU’s external and internal climate policies. In The New Climate Policies of the European Union: Internal Legislation and Climate Diplomacy, eds. Oberthür, S. and Pallemaerts, M.. Brussels: VUB Press, pp. 27–64.Google Scholar
Oberthür, S. and Roche Kelly, C. (2008). EU leadership in international climate policy: achievements and challenges. The International Spectator, 43(3), 35–50.Google Scholar
Oosterhuis, F. (2006). Innovation Dynamics Induced by Environmental Policy. Amsterdam: IVM, Vrije University.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1980). Pollution Charges in Practice. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1994). Managing the Environment: The Role of Economic Instruments. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Orren, K. and Skowronek, S. (2002). The study of American Political Development. In Political Science: State of the Discipline, eds. Katznelson, I. and Milner, H.. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 722–754.Google Scholar
Pahl, S., Sheppard, S., Boomsma, C. and Groves, C. (2014). Perceptions of time in relation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 375–388.Google Scholar
Pahle, M. Burtraw, D., Flachsland, C. et al. (2018). Sequencing to ratchet up climate policy stringency. Nature Climate Change, 8, 861–867.Google Scholar
Pallemaerts, M. and Williams, R. (2006). Climate change: the international and European policy framework. In EU Climate Change Policy: The Challenge of New Regulatory Initiatives, eds. Peeters, M. and Deketelaere, K.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 22–50.Google Scholar
Palmer, J. R. (2014). Biofuels and the politics of land-use change: tracing the interactions of discourse and place in European policy making. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 46(2), 337–352.Google Scholar
Palmer, J. R. (2015). How do policy entrepreneurs influence policy change? Framing and boundary work in EU transport biofuels policy. Environmental Politics, 24(2), 270–287.Google Scholar
Parson, E. A. and Karwat, D. (2011). Sequential climate change policy. WIREs Climate Change, 2(5), 744–756.Google Scholar
Patashnik, E. M. (2000). Putting Trust in the Federal Budget. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patashnik, E. M. (2003). After the public interest prevails: the political sustainability of policy reform. Governance, 16(2), 203–234.Google Scholar
Patashnik, E. M. (2008). Reforms at Risk: What Happens after Major Policy Changes Are Enacted. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Patashnik, E. M. and Zelizer, J. (2010). When policy does not remake politics: the limits of policy feedback. Paper presented at the Republic of Statutes Conference, Yale Law School, 10–11 December 2010.Google Scholar
Patashnik, E. M. and Zelizer, J. (2013). The struggle to remake politics: liberal reform and the limits of policy feedback in the contemporary American state. Perspectives on Politics, 11(4), 1071–1087.Google Scholar
Patt, A. G. and Weber, E. U. (2014). Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(2), 219–232.Google Scholar
Pearse, R. (2017). Pricing Carbon in Australia: Contestation, the State and Market Failure. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pechmann, P. (2018). Architectural Policy Design: How Policy Makers Try to Shape Policy Feedback Effects When Designing Policies. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Aarhus University, Denmark.Google Scholar
Peters, B. G., Pierre, J. and King, D. S. (2005). The politics of path dependency: political conflict in historical institutionalism. The Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1275–1300.Google Scholar
Peters, D., Alberici, S., Passmore, J. and Malins, C. (2015). How to Advance Cellulosic Biofuels: Assessment of Costs, Investment Options and Policy Support. Utrecht: Ecofys and the Passmore Group.Google Scholar
Pickstone, S. (2019). European leaders fail to endorse net-zero climate goal. ENDS Europe, 22 March.Google Scholar
Pierre, J. and Peters, B. G. (2005). Governing Complex Societies: Trajectories and Scenarios. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(4), 595–628.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1996). The path to European integration: a historical institutionalist analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), 123–163.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000a). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000b). The limits of design: explaining institutional origins and change. Governance, 13(4), 475–499Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2005). The study of policy development. The Journal of Policy History, 17(1), 34–51.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2006). Public policies as institutions. In Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, eds. Shapiro, S., Skowronek, S. and Galvin, D.. New York: New York University Press, pp. 114–134.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2015). Reflections of the evolution of a research program. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(2), 292–294.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. and Skocpol, T. (2002). Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. In Political Science: State of the Discipline, eds. Katznelson, I. and Milner, H.. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 693–721.Google Scholar
Ponte, S. and Daugbjerg, C. (2015). Biofuel sustainability and the formation of transnational hybrid governance. Environmental Politics, 24(1), 96–114.Google Scholar
Princen, T. (2009). Long-term decision-making: biological and psychological evidence. Global Environmental Politics, 9(3), 9–19.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games. International Organisation, 42(3), 427–60.Google Scholar
Rabe, B. G. (2016). The durability of carbon cap-and-trade policy. Governance, 29(1), 103–119.Google Scholar
Raval, A. (2019). Oil majors work to carve out a greater role for greener biofuels. Financial Times, 12 March.Google Scholar
Rennings, K., Brockmann, K. L. and Bergmann, H. (1997). Voluntary agreements in environmental protection: experiences in Germany and future perspectives. Business Strategy and the Environment, 6(5), 245–263.Google Scholar
Richardson, G. (1991). Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory. Philadelphia: University Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Rietig, K. (2018). The links among contested knowledge, beliefs, and learning in European climate governance: from consensus to conflict in reforming biofuels policy. Policy Studies Journal, 46(1), 137–159.Google Scholar
Rietig, K. and Laing, T. (2017). Policy stability in climate governance: the case of the United Kingdom. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(6), 575–587.Google Scholar
Rip, A. and Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In Human Choice and Climate Change, Vol. II (Resources and Technology), eds. Rayner, S. and Malone, E.. Columbus, OH: Battelle Press, pp. 327–367.Google Scholar
Roberts, C. , Geels, F. W., Lockwood, M. et al. (2018). The politics of accelerating low-carbon transitions: towards a new research agenda. Energy Research and Social Science, 44, 304–311.Google Scholar
Rojo, J. (2017b). France to ban sales of petrol and diesel cars by 2040. ENDS Europe, 7 July.Google Scholar
Rose, R. (1990). Inheritance before choice in public policy. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(3), 263–291.Google Scholar
Rosenbloom, D., Meadowcroft, J. and Cashore, B. (2019). Stability and climate policy? Harnessing insights on path dependence, policy feedback, and transition pathways. Energy Research & Social Science, 50, 168–178.Google Scholar
Ross, F. (2000). Beyond left and right: the new partisan politics of welfare. Governance, 13(2), 155–183.Google Scholar
Roth, R., Clark, J. and Kelkar, A. (2001). Automobile bodies: can aluminium be an economical alternative to steel? JOM, 53(8), 28–32.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. (1992). Labor-market institutions and working-class strength. In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, eds. Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., and Longstreth, F.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33–56.Google Scholar
Royal Academy of Engineering (2017). Sustainability of Liquid Biofuels. London: Royal Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, P. A.. 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 117–168.Google Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (2002). The new governance and the tools of public action. In The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, ed. Salamon, L. M.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–47.Google Scholar
Salvidge, R. (2012). Carmakers on track to hit CO2 targets for 2020. ENDS Europe, 5 December.Google Scholar
Sandbag (2019). Carbon Price Viewer. Available at: https://sandbag.org.uk/carbon-price-viewer/ [Accessed 23 August 2019]Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. (1935). Politics, Pressures and the Tariff: A Study of Free Private Enterprise in Pressure Politics, as Shown in the 1929–1930 Revision of the Tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T. S. and Sewerin, S. (2017). Technology as a driver of climate and energy politics. Nature Energy, 2(6), 17084.Google Scholar
Schmidt, T. S. and Sewerin, S. (2018). Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes. Research Policy (online version).Google Scholar
Schmidt, T., Sewerin, S. and Bateson, B. (2018). Does policy design predict a policy mix’s future? Paper presented at the IWPPP1 workshops (Policy Feedback and Policy Dynamics, Topic 1, Workshop 8), Pittsburgh, 26–28 June.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. L. (2013). Policy design and transfer. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, ed. Araral, E. et al. London: Routledge, pp. 217–228.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. L. and Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. L. and Ingram, H. M. (2019). Social constructions, anticipatory feedback strategies, and deceptive public policy. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 206–236.Google Scholar
Schneider, A. L. and Sidney, M. (2009). What is next for policy design and social construction theory? Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 103–119.Google Scholar
Schreurs, M. A. and Tiberghien, Y. (2007). Multi-level reinforcement: explaining European Union leadership in climate change mitigation. Global Environmental Politics, 7(4), 19–46.Google Scholar
Scott, J. (2011). The multi-level governance of climate change. In The Evolution of EU Law, eds. Craig, P. and de Burca, G.. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 805–836.Google Scholar
Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A. et al. (2008). Use of U.S. croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science, 319(5867), 1238–1240.Google Scholar
Seto, K. C., Davis, S. J., Mitchell, R. B. et al. (2016). Carbon lock-in: types, causes and policy implications. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 41, 425–452.Google Scholar
Sharham, A. (2015). European car sales on growth road for first time since crisis. Financial Times, 17–18 January.Google Scholar
Sharman, A. and Holmes, J. (2010). Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% target. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(5), 309–321.Google Scholar
Sheingate, A. D. (2003). Political entrepreneurship, institutional change, and American political development. Studies in American Political Development, 17(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
Sidney, M. S. (2005). Policy formulation: design and tools. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods, eds. Fischer, F., Miller, G. J. and Sidney, M. S.. London: CRC Press, pp. 79–87.Google Scholar
Sijm, J., Neuhoff, K. and Chen, Y. (2006). CO2 cost pass-through and windfall profits in the power sector. Climate Policy, 6(1), 49–72.Google Scholar
Simkins, G. (2013). EP committee calls for 2025 CO2 target for cars. ENDS Europe, 24 April.Google Scholar
Simkins, G. and Roach, S. (2015). VW emissions scandal raises prospect of tighter regulation. ENDS Report, 26 October.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. (1994). The climate policy of the EC: too hot to handle? Journal of Common Market Studies, 32(1), 25–45.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. (2010). EU emissions trading: legitimacy and stringency. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(5), 295–308.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. (2013). Governance by EU emissions trading: resistance or innovation in the oil industry? International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(1), 31–48.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. (2015). EU climate and energy policy: demanded or supplied? In The Domestic Politics of Climate Change: Key Actors in International Climate Cooperation, eds. Bang, G., Underdal, A., and Andresen, S.. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 71–94.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. (2016). Linking EU climate and energy policies: policy-making, implementation and reform. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 16(4), 509–523.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. (2018). Implementing EU climate and energy policies in Poland: policy feedback and reform. Environmental Politics, 27(3), 498–518.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. and Wettestad, J. (2008). EU Emissions Trading: Initiation, Decision-Making and Implementation. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. and Wettestad, J. (2009). The origin, evolution and consequences of the EU Emissions Trading System. Global Environmental Politics, 9(2), 101–122.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. and Wettestad, J. (2010a). Fixing the EU Emissions Trading System? Understanding the post-2012 changes. Global Environmental Politics, 10(4), 101–123.Google Scholar
Skjærseth, J. B. and Wettestad, J. (2010b). The EU Emissions Trading System revised. In The New Climate Policies of the European Union: Internal Legislation and Climate Diplomacy, eds. Oberthür, S. and Pallemaerts, M.. Brussels: VUB Press, pp. 65–92.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T. (1992). Protecting Soldiers and Mothers: The Political Origins of Social Policy in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, T. (2013). Naming the Problem: What It Will Take to Counter Extremism and Engage Americans in the Fight against Global Warming. Paper prepared for the symposium on The Politics of America’s Fight against Global Warming, 4 February.Google Scholar
Skodvin, T., Gullberg, A. T. and Aakre, S. (2010). Target-group influence and political feasibility: the case of climate policy design in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 854–873.Google Scholar
Skogstad, G. (2017). Policy feedback and self-reinforcing and self-undermining processes in EU biofuels policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 24(1), 21–41.Google Scholar
Skovgaard, J. (2013). The limits of entrapment: the negotiations on EU reduction targets, 2007–11. Journal of Common Market Studies, 51(6), 1141–1157.Google Scholar
Skovgaard, J. (2014). EU climate policy after the crisis. Environmental Politics, 23(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Skovgaard, J. (2017). The role of finance ministries in environmental policy making: the case of European Union Emissions Trading System reform in Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. Environmental Policy and Governance, 27(4), 351–364.Google Scholar
Skovgaard, J. and van Asselt, H. (eds.). (2018). The Politics of Fossil Fuel Subsidies and Their Reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, A., Voss, J.-P. and Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 39(4), 435–448.Google Scholar
Solmeyer, A. R. and Constance, N. (2015). Unpacking the ‘black box’ of social programs and policies: introduction. American Journal of Evaluation, 36(4), 470–474.Google Scholar
Soss, J. and Schram, S. F. (2007). A public transformed? Welfare reform as policy feedback. American Political Science Review, 101(1), 111–127.Google Scholar
Stern, N. (2006). The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stern, N. (2015). Why Are We Waiting? The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of Tackling Climate Change. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stokes, L. C. and Breetz, H. L. (2018). Politics in the U.S. energy transition: case studies of solar, wind, biofuels and electric vehicles policy. Energy Policy, 113, 76–86.Google Scholar
Taminiau, Y., Molenkamp, G. and Tashchilova, S. (2006). The pendulum: The Auto-Oil Programmes revisited. Energy and Environment, 17(2), 243–262.Google Scholar
Taschner, T. (1998). Environmental management systems: the European regulation. In New Instruments for Environmental Policy in the EU, ed. Golub, J.. London: Routledge, pp. 215–241.Google Scholar
Taylor, C., Pollard, S., Rocks, S. and Angus, A. (2012). Selecting policy instruments for better environmental regulation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 22(4), 268–92.Google Scholar
ten Brink, P. (2010). Mitigating CO2 emissions from cars in the EU. In The New Climate Policies of the European Union eds. Oberthur, S. and Pallemaerts, M.. Brussels: VUB Press, pp. 179–210.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. and Belkin, A. (eds.). (1996). Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 369–404.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve. In Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences, eds. Mahoney, J. and Rueschemeyer, D.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 208–240.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. (2006). Institutions and social change. In Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, eds. Shapiro, S., Skowronek, S. and Galvin, D.. New York: New York University Press, pp. 135–170.Google Scholar
Thompson, F. (2012). Medicaid Politics: Federalism, Policy Durability, and Health Reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, G., Joseph, S., Juniper, T. et al. (2004). Brown should stand firm on rising fuel prices. The Guardian, 4 June.Google Scholar
Timilsina, G. (2014). Biofuels in the long-run global energy supply mix for transportation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 372, 1–19.Google Scholar
Toplensky, R. and McGee, P. (2018). EU launches probe into BMW, Daimler and VW over cartel claims. Financial Times, 18 September.Google Scholar
Transport & Environment (T&E) (2012). How Clean Are Europe’s Cars? An Analysis of Carmaker Progress towards EU CO2 targets in 2011. Brussels: European Federation for Transport and the Environment.Google Scholar
Transport & Environment (T&E) (2013). Germany and its luxury carmakers force drivers to spend more on fuel. T&E press release, 29 November.Google Scholar
True, J., Jones, B. and Baumgartner, F. (2007). Punctuated equilibrium theory. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, P. A.. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, pp. 155–188.Google Scholar
UK Government (2014). UK Analysis: Impacts of the Market Stability Reserve on the EU ETS. London: UK Government.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2015). Emissions Gap Report 2015: A UN Synthesis Report. Nairobi: UNEP.Google Scholar
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2018). Emissions Gap Report 2018. Nairobi: UNEP.Google Scholar
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2012). Decision 1/CP.17: Establishment of an Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. Bonn: UNFCCC.Google Scholar
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2015). Decision 1/CP.21: Adoption of the Paris Agreement. Bonn: UNFCCC.Google Scholar
United States Department of Agriculture (2018). EU Biofuels Annual 2018. Global Agricultural Information Network Report NL8027. Washington, DC: USDA.Google Scholar
Unruh, G. C. and Carrillo-Hermosilla, J. (2006). Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 34(10), 1185–1197.Google Scholar
van Apeldoorn, B. (2002). Transnational Capitalism and the Struggle over European integration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
van Asselt, H. (2010). Emissions trading: the enthusiastic adoption of an ‘alien’ instrument. In Climate Change Policy in the European Union: Confronting the Dilemmas of Mitigation and Adaptation? eds. Jordan, A. et al. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 125–144.Google Scholar
van der Heijden, J. (2011). Institutional layering: a review of the use of the concept. Politics, 31(1), 9–18.Google Scholar
van Noorden, R. (2013). EU debates U-turn on biofuels policy. Nature, 499(7456), 13–14.Google Scholar
van Renssen, S. (2012). Commission aims to fix EU ETS by year-end. ENDS Europe, 19 April 2012.Google Scholar
van Renssen, S. (2018). The inconvenient truth of failed climate policies. Nature Climate Change, 8, 355–358.Google Scholar
Vereinigung Deutscher Elektrizitätswerke (VDEW) (2000). VDEW Comments on ‘Green Paper on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading in the European Union’ (in German). Brussels: VDEW.Google Scholar
Victor, D. (2011). Global Warming Gridlock: Creating More Effective Strategies for Protecting the Planet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vis, P. (2006). The first allocation round: a brief history. In EU Energy Law: The EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme, eds. Delbeke, J., Hartridge, O., Lefevere, J. G. et al. Deventer, Netherlands: Claeys & Casteels, pp. 187–212.Google Scholar
Volpi, G. and Singer, S. (2002). EU level agreements: a successful tool? Lessons from the agreement with the automotive industry. In Voluntary Environmental Agreements: Process, Practice and Future Use, ed. ten Brink, P.. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing, pp. 142–154.Google Scholar
Voss, J.-P. (2007). Innovation processes in governance: the development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329–343.Google Scholar
Voss, J.-P. and Simons, A. (2014). Instrument constituencies and the supply side of policy innovation. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 735–754.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (1983). The origins and maintenance of interest groups in the USA. American Political Science Review, 77(2), 390–406.Google Scholar
Ward, A. and Toplensky, R. (2017). EU emissions reforms send a strong smoke signal. Financial Times, 17 November.Google Scholar
Weale, A., Pridham, W., Cini, M. et al. (2000). Environmental Governance in Europe: An Ever Closer Ecological Union? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. (1988). Automatic Government: The Politics of Indexation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. (2006). Government institutions, policy cartels and policy change. In Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, eds. Shapiro, S., Skowronek, S. and Galvin, D.. New York: New York University Press, pp. 216–237.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. (2010). Paths and forks or chutes and ladders? Negative feedbacks and policy regime change. Journal of Public Policy, 30(2), 137–162.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. and Rockman, B. (eds.). (1993). Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Webster, M. (2008). Incorporating path dependency into decision analytic methods. Decision Analysis, 5(2), 60–75.Google Scholar
Weir, M. (2006). When does politics create policy? The organizational politics of change. In Rethinking Political Institutions: The Art of the State, eds. Shapiro, S., Skowronek, S. and Galvin, D.. New York: New York University Press, pp. 171–186.Google Scholar
Wells, P. (2010). The Automotive Industry in an Era of Eco-austerity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Wettestad, J. (2000). The complicated development of EU climate policy. In Climate Change and European Leadership, eds. Grubb, M. and Gupta, J.. Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 25–47.Google Scholar
Wettestad, J. (2005). The making of the 2003 EU Emissions Trading Directive: an ultra-quick process due to entrepreneurial proficiency? Global Environmental Politics, 5(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Wettestad, J. (2009a). European climate policy: toward centralized governance? Review of Policy Research, 26(3), 311–328.Google Scholar
Wettestad, J. (2009b). EU energy-intensive industries and emission trading: losers becoming winners? Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(5), 309–320.Google Scholar
Wettestad, J. (2014). Rescuing EU emissions trading: mission impossible? Global Environmental Change, 14(2), 64–81.Google Scholar
Wettestad, J. and Jevnaker, T. (2016). Rescuing EU Emissions Trading: The Climate Policy Flagship. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Wettestad, J. and Jevnaker, T. (2019). Smokescreen politics? Ratcheting up EU emissions trading in 2017. Review of Policy Research, 1–25 (online version).Google Scholar
Wettestad, J., Eikeland, P. O. and Nilsson, M. (2012). EU climate and energy policy: a hesitant supranational turn? Global Environmental Politics, 12(2), 67–86.Google Scholar
Williams, S. (2014). Last ditch protest against ‘weak’ biofuel reform. ENDS Europe, 9 December.Google Scholar
Williams, S. (2015). Unused allowances ‘will thwart ETS reform’. ENDS Europe, 17 February.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. (1980). The politics of regulation. In The Politics of Regulation, ed. Wilson, J. Q.. New York: Basic Books, pp. 357–394.Google Scholar
Woerdman, E., Roggenkamp, M. and Holwerda, M. (2015). Essential EU Climate Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Wurzel, R. K. (2002). Environmental Policy Making in Britain, Germany and the EU. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Wurzel, R. K., Zito, A. R. and Jordan, A. J. (2013). Environmental Governance in Europe: A Comparative Analysis of New Environmental Policy Instruments. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Wynne, B. (1993). Implementation of greenhouse gas emissions reduction in the EC. Global Environmental Change, 3(1), 101–128.Google Scholar
Zysman, J. and Huberty, M. (eds.). (2013). Can Green Sustain Growth? From the Religion to the Reality of Sustainable Prosperity. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar