Book

(2018). Escaping the Energy Poverty Trap: When and How Governments Power the Lives of the Poor. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA. [Buy].

Book chapter

(2023). The Politics of Sustainability: Energy Efficiency, Carbon Pricing, and the Circular Economy. Handbook on the Geopolitics of the Energy Transition. Daniel Scholten (ed), Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. [Buy].

Publications

(2024). Government Participation in Virtual Negotiations: Evidence from IPCC Approval Sessions. Climatic Change 177: 132. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2020). The European Union Emissions Trading System Reduced CO2 Emissions Despite Low Prices. Proceedings of the National Academcy of the Sciences 117(16): 8804-8812. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2020). The Need for Impact Evaluation in Electricity Access Research. Energy Policy 137: 111099. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2019). Shades of Darkness or Light? A Systematic Review of Geographic Bias in Impact Evaluations of Electricity Access. Energy Research & Social Science 58: 101236. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2019). Many Voices in the Room: A National Survey Experiment on How Framing Changes Views Toward Fracking in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science 56: 101213. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2018). Economics of Household Technology Adoption in Developing Countries: Evidence from Solar Technology Adoption in Rural India. Energy Economics 72:35-46. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2017). Does Basic Energy Access Generate Socioeconomic Benefits? A Field Experiment with Off-grid Solar Power in India. Science Advances 3(5):e1602153. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2016). It Is All about Political Incentives: Democracy and the Renewable Feed-in Tariff. Journal of Politics 78(2):603-619. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2016). Explaining Differences in Sub-national Patterns of Clean Technology Transfer to China and India. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law, and Economics 16(2):261-283. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2015). The Political Economy of Energy Access: Survey Evidence from India on State Intervention and Public Opinion. Energy Research & Social Science 94:28-36. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2015). When International Organizations Bargain: Evidence from the Global Environment Facility. Journal of Conflict Resolution 59(6):1074-1100. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2015). Small and Beautiful? The Programme of Activities and the Least Developed Countries. Climate and Development 7(2):153-164. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2015). Quantifying Slum Electrification in India and Explaining Local Variation.. Energy 80:203-212. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2014). Choosing International Organizations: When Do States and the World Bank Collaborate on Environmental Projects?. Review of International Organizations 9(4):413-440. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2014). Laissez Faire and the Clean Development Mechanism: Determinants of Project Implementation in Indian states, 2003–2011. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy 16:1687-1701. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2014). Information and Energy Policy Preferences: A Survey Experiment on Public Opinion about Electricity Pricing Reform in Rural India. Economics of Governance 15(4):305-327. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2014). Does It Pay to Play? How Bargaining Shapes Donor Participation in the Funding of Environmental Protection. Strategic Behavior and the Environment 4(3):263-290. [PDF] [Proofs].

(2014). Who Blames Corruption for the Poor Enforcement of Environmental Laws? Survey Evidence from Brazil. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies 16(3):241-262. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2013). Leveraging Private Capital for Climate Mitigation: Evidence from the Clean Development Mechanism. Ecological Economics 96:14-24. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2013). Understanding Environmental Policy Preferences: New Evidence from Brazil. Ecological Economics 94:28-36. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2013). Global Patterns of Renewable Energy Innovation, 1990–2009. Energy for Sustainable Development 17(3):288-295. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2013). Who Uses the Clean Development Mechanism? An Empirical Analysis of Projects in Chinese Provinces. Global Environmental Change 23(2):512-521. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2013). External Sources of Clean Technology: Evidence from the Clean Development Mechanism. Review of International Organizations 8(1):81-109. [PDF] [Data and code].

(2013). Funding Global Public Goods: The Dark Side of Multilateralism. Review of Policy Research 30(2):160-189. [PDF].

Data

European Union Sectoral Emissions Data (EUSED)

EUSED provides CO2 emissions for 33 countries (EU ETS member countries plus Switzerland and Turkey), disaggregated into 7 sectors which are matched between UNFCCC sectors (CRF) and EU ETS activities, 1990-2016. The data is available from Harvard Dataverse or can be downloaded here. Please read the codebook before using the data and cite the two following sources:

(1) Bayer, Patrick. 2019. “European Union Sectoral Emissions Data (EUSED).” Available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataverse/eused.

(2) Bayer, Patrick and Michaël Aklin. 2020. “The European Union Emissions Trading System Reduced CO2 Emissions Despite Low Prices.” Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences. 117(16): 8804-8812.

Acknowledgments: I gratefully acknowledge funding by the British Academy/Leverhulme Small Grant (SG171349, 1 January 2018 to 30 May 2019). Constantin Brod offered excellent research assistance.