Abstract
The chapter “Allocative Challenges of Bioenergy Use” conducts an economic analysis of the problems that arise when allocation decisions are coordinated by market forces alone, and the challenges that apply to regulative interventions in the market mechanism. As central normative criteria, the requirements of efficiency and sustainability are discussed. It is shown that when allocative problems such as the steering of biomass flows and technology choices, the setting of innovation incentives, and the steering of location and sourcing decisions are solved by the market mechanism alone, the outcome will not be efficient. Several market failures are identified which distort allocation decisions, namely environmental externalities, security of supply externalities, knowledge and learning externalities, the occurrence of market power in the energy sector, and dynamic market failures that inhibit market adjustment processes. Moreover, interactions between market actors are subject to information problems and transaction costs, and even if the market outcome was efficient, it need not be sustainable. Regulative interventions, on the other hand, are complicated by conflicting aims, information problems and transaction costs, the multi-level governance nature of the regulative problem, and conflicts between political and economic rationality considerations. For assessing policy interventions, requirements for a rational bioenergy policy are defined, which take the constraints imposed by imperfect information and political feasibility into account. However, the analysis demonstrates that the multiplicity of relevant, interacting market failures and sources of potential government failures makes compliance not only with sustainability and efficiency criteria, but also with rational bioenergy policy requirements, a challenging task.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
If all such reallocations were undertaken, the outcome would be Pareto efficient, making the Kaldor-Hicks criterion a necessary condition for Pareto optimality (Stavins et al. 2003; Common and Stagl 2005: 311). However, the criterion’s focus on potential compensations which need not actually occur is subject to criticism, particularly in an intergenerational setting (Woodward and Bishop 1995; Azar 2000; Padilla 2002).
- 2.
However, apart from perfect substitutability of the resources in question, the Hartwick rule requires that several other far-reaching assumptions hold, such as constant population, technology and preferences, and an intertemporally optimal allocation of resources which requires perfect foresight (Howarth 1997).
- 3.
Moreover, it can be argued that bioenergy use always implies trade-offs with other forms of natural capital formation—a hectare of land used for energetic biomass production may contribute to the substitution of fossil fuels and GHG mitigation, and may possibly even enhance agricultural biodiversity, yet environmental benefits associated with a renaturation of the same area are foregone [cf. Jakubowski et al. (1997: 18), who find that, under scarcity, any form of environmental conservation is associated with environmental costs, if only in the form of opportunity costs].
- 4.
Given that sustainability implies a “macro-perspective” (Woodward and Bishop 1995), it can be argued that sustainable bioenergy use is of limited usefulness, if the overall sustainability of the agricultural land use system is not ensured (for sustainability risks of agricultural production in general, see e.g. Henle et al. 2008; Hirschfeld et al. 2008; Oppermann et al. 2009). However, public incentives for bioenergy use add to existing sustainability problems, so that a “micro-perspective” can be justified, at least in the shorter term.
- 5.
Jakubowski et al. (1997: 51) name “elasticity” as a third economic requirement, which calls for an elastic design of decisions about aims and their incremental implementation, in order to reflect uncertainty and the risk of incurring irreversibilities. However, elasticity entails trade-offs with the creation of constant framework conditions and planning security for economic actors, which shall be discussed in more detail in Chap. 3. For this reason, the requirement is neglected in the overview.
- 6.
Employing the following assumptions (Fritsch 2011: 26): (i) The set of resources is given; (ii) No process and product innovation; (iii) Preferences are given and unchanging; (iv) Producers and consumers are free to choose between alternatives; (v) Products are homogeneous; (vi) Numerous buyers and sellers with small market shares; (vii) Perfect information and market transparency; (viii) Unlimited mobility of input factors and goods; (ix) Unlimited divisibility of input factors and goods; (x) Adjustment is infinitely quick; and (xi) No externalities, i.e. private costs equal social costs.
- 7.
Strictly speaking, innovation is not considered in the perfect competition model’s static perspective—with perfect information and infinite adjustment speed, innovations would be taken up instantaneously by competitors, resulting in few incentives to invest in them (Mansfield 1994: 536f.).
- 8.
Externalities arise when an actor engages in an activity that influences the well-being of a bystander and yet neither pays nor receives any compensation for that effect (cf. Baumol and Oates 1988: 17f.). Externalities cause private costs which determine private allocation decisions to deviate from social costs: In the presence of negative externalities, more of a good is produced than is socially optimal, while with positive externalities, too little is produced. Public goods, which are characterised by non-rivalry in consumption and/or non-excludability of potential consumers (Head 1962), are closely connected to externalities, in that many externalities arise from the public character of goods (e.g. investments in public goods knowledge or biodiversity produce external benefits) (Bator 1958: 18f.; Baumol and Oates 1988). Consequently, market failures arising from externalities and public goods are treated jointly here.
- 9.
Moreover, “carbon neutrality” succumbs to a baseline error, in that the carbon sequestration that would occur if plants were not harvested and continued to absorb carbon from the air is neglected (Haberl et al. 2012).
- 10.
In industrialised countries, where agricultural systems are already highly intensified and the agriculturally used area cannot easily be extended, additional biomass demand can primarily be met through the reactivation of fallow land, conversion of extensively used grassland, and productivity increases. In developing countries, where capital for an intensification of agricultural production is scarce relative to natural land availability, it is more likely that additional demand is met by expanding the agricultural area (FAO 2008; Kampman et al. 2010; Meyer et al. 2010).
- 11.
The divergence between marginal social and private rates of return on R&D investments can be significant—typical estimates of marginal social rates of return range from 30 to 50 %, while private marginal rates of return on investments in physical capital typically lie between 7 and 15 % [see Pizer and Popp (2008) for an overview of studies].
- 12.
Moreover, gas and electricity grids constitute classic natural monopolies; market failures arising from, for example, limited access and uncompetitive transmission prices shall be neglected here, given that natural monopolies are typically heavily regulated (cf. Bundeskartellamt and Bundesnetzagentur 2013).
- 13.
In the German electricity sector, for example, large-scale fossil fuel and nuclear plants are traditionally the domain of four major electricity generating companies with a high combined market share (E.ON, RWE, Vattenfall, and EnBW), a structure going back to before the liberalisation of the electricity market. However, regulatory interventions, the expansion of renewable energies and the decommissioning of eight nuclear plants in 2011 have caused the market share of these companies to decline significantly in recent years (Bundeskartellamt and Bundesnetzagentur 2013: 19).
- 14.
Inter alia, this can be due to a normative value being assigned to the maintenance of existing agricultural structures (cf. Gawel 2009: 547).
- 15.
Of course, current levels of bioenergy use are determined by policy interventions, which distort resource allocation between food and energetic uses; nonetheless, if future fossil fuel price developments were to endow energetic uses with a higher ability to pay than food-related uses (following e.g. a comprehensive internalisation of external costs), the consequences for food security would be problematic.
- 16.
Dynamic efficiency is a prerequisite for sustainability, in as far as that it ensures that the highest feasible constant level of utility is realised over time (Stavins et al. 2003).
- 17.
For a more detailed analysis of relevant aims in the German and European case, see Sect. 4.1.1.
- 18.
Uncertainties in climate models, for example, arise mainly from natural climate variability, an incomplete understanding of earth system processes and imperfections in their modelling representation, and uncertainty about future levels of anthropogenic GHG emissions (Jenkins et al. 2009: 14ff.).
- 19.
Some parts of this section have been used in Purkus et al. (2015).
- 20.
Especially important for net land use change results are assumptions concerning the crop mix used to produce biofuels and the integration of co-products, yield growth, the allocation of production changes to region and land type, and consumption changes in response to changes in relative prices (Keeney and Hertel 2009; Edwards et al. 2010; Laborde 2011; Broch et al. 2013).
- 21.
Political transaction costs also encompass the costs of establishing, operating and changing the order of the political system itself, for example, through constitutional reforms and the creation of new administrative bodies (cf. Richter and Furubotn 2003: 63). As the political system can be assumed as given in the bioenergy context, these shall be neglected here.
- 22.
In allocating responsibilities for environmental policy, the EU has adopted the principle of the appropriate level of action and the subsidiarity principle (Knill and Tosun 2008: 152). Nonetheless, in applying these principles to actual problems, considerable room remains for interpretation (Benz 2009: 27).
- 23.
The spatial governance of the energy transition in Germany’s federal system provides another example of trade-offs between centralised and decentralised forms of governance (cf. Klagge 2013).
References
Abbott M (2001) Is the security of electricity supply a public good? Electr J 14(7):31–33
Adams P, Bows A, Gilbert P, Hammond J, Howard D, Lee R et al (2013) Understanding greenhouse gas balances of bioenergy systems. Supergen Bioenergy Hub, Manchester
Akerlof GA (1970) The market for “Lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q J Econ 84(3):488–500
Ammermann K, Mengel A (2011) Energetischer Biomasseanbau im Kontext von Naturschutz, Biodiversität, Kulturlandschaftsentwicklung. Informationen zur Raumentwicklung 2011(5/6):323–337
Arnold K, Baur F, Beckert S, Bemmann A, Brotsack R, Dotzauer M et al (2015) Stellungnahme zum Grünbuch “Ein Strommarkt für die Energiewende” des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie. Perspektiven der Biomasseverstromung aus Sicht des Förderprogramms “Energetische Biomassenutzung”. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Leipzig
Arrow KJ (2008) The economic implications of learning by doing. In: Link AN (ed) The economic theory of invention and innovation. Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 157–175
Arthur BW (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99(394):116–131
Arthur BW (1994) Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Ashworth K, Wild O, Hewitt CN (2013) Impacts of biofuel cultivation on mortality and crop yields. Nat Clim Chang 3(5):492–496
Azar C (2000) Economics and distribution in the greenhouse. Clim Chang 47(3):233–238
Bartkowski B, Lienhoop N, Hansjürgens B (2015) Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: a critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity. Ecol Econ 113:1–14
Bator FM (1958) The anatomy of market failure. Q J Econ 72:351–379
Bauen A, Berndes G, Junginger M, Londo M, Vuille F, Ball R et al (2009) Bioenergy—a sustainable and reliable energy source. A review of status and prospects. IEA Bioenergy, Rotorua
Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1971) The use of standards and prices for protection of the environment. Swed J Econ 73(1):42–54
Baumol WJ, Oates WE (1988) The theory of environmental policy, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Beall E, Rossi A (eds) (2011) Good socio-economic practices in modern bioenergy production. Minimizing risks and increasing opportunities for food security. Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators Project, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome
Becker GS (1983) A theory of competition among pressure groups for political influence. Q J Econ 98(3):371–400
Bento N (2010) Is carbon lock-in blocking investments in the hydrogen economy? A survey of actors’ strategies. Energy Policy 38(11):7189–7199
Benz A (2009) Politik in Mehrebenensystemen. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Berg H, Cassel D (1992) Theorie der Wirtschaftspolitik. In: Bender D, Berg H, Cassel D, Gabisch G, Grossekettler H, Hartwig K-H et al (eds) Vahlens Kompendium der Wirtschaftstheorie und Wirtschaftspolitik. Band 2, 5th edn. Verlag Vahlen, Munich, pp 163–238
Berndes G, Hansson J (2007) Bioenergy expansion in the EU: cost-effective climate change mitigation, employment creation and reduced dependency on imported fuels. Energy Policy 35(12):5965–5979
BMELV, BMBF, BMU, BMWi (eds) (2012) Biorefineries Roadmap as part of the German Federal Government action plans for the material and energetic utilisation of renewable raw materials. Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), Berlin
BMU, BMELV (2009a) National biomass action plan for Germany. Biomass and sustainable energy supply. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), Berlin
BMU, BMELV (2009b) Nationaler Biomasseaktionsplan für Deutschland. Beitrag der Biomasse für eine nachhaltige Energieversorgung. Anhang. Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (BMELV), Berlin
BMWi (2014) Ein Strommarkt für die Energiewende. Diskussionspapier des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft und Energie (Grünbuch). Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi), Berlin
BMWi, BMU (2010) Energiekonzept für eine umweltschonende, zuverlässige und bezahlbare Energieversorgung. Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology (BMWi), Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Berlin
Bofinger S, Braun M, Costa Gomez C, Daniel-Gromke J, Gerhardt N, Hartmann K et al (2010) Die Rolle des Stromes aus Biogas in zukünftigen Energieversorgungsstrukturen. Fraunhofer-Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik (IWES), Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Fachverband Biogas e.V., Hanau, Leipzig, Freising
Brand F (2009) Critical natural capital revisited: ecological resilience and sustainable development. Ecol Econ 68(3):605–612
Breitschopf B, Klobasa M, Sensfuß F, Steinbach J, Ragwitz M, Lehr U et al (2011) Einzel- und gesamtwirtschaftliche Analyse von Kosten- und Nutzenwirkungen des Ausbaus Erneuerbarer Energien im deutschen Strom- und Wärmemarkt Update der quantifizierten Kosten- und Nutzenwirkungen für 2010. Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI), Gesellschaft für Wirtschaftliche Strukturforschung mbH (GWS), Institut für ZukunftsEnergieSysteme (IZES), Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Karlsruhe, Osnabrück, Saarbrücken, Berlin
Broch A, Hoekman SK, Unnasch S (2013) A review of variability in indirect land use change assessment and modeling in biofuel policy. Environ Sci Pol 29:147–157
Bundeskartellamt (2011) Sektoruntersuchung Kraftstoffe. Bundeskartellamt, Bonn
Bundeskartellamt, Bundesnetzagentur (2013) Monitoringreport 2012. Bundesnetzagentur, Bundeskartellamt, Bonn
Carriquiry MA, Du X, Timilsina GR (2011) Second generation biofuels: economics and policies. Energy Policy 39(7):4222–4234
Cherubini F (2010a) The biorefinery concept: using biomass instead of oil for producing energy and chemicals. Energy Convers Manag 51(7):1412–1421
Cherubini F (2010b) GHG balances of bioenergy systems—overview of key steps in the production chain and methodological concerns. Renew Energy 35(7):1565–1573
Cherubini F, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle assessment of bioenergy systems: state of the art and future challenges. Bioresour Technol 102(2):437–451
Chum H, Faaij A, Moreira J, Berndes G, Dhamija P, Dong H et al (2011) Bioenergy. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Seyboth K, Matschoss P, Kadner S et al (eds) IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 209–332
Coase RH (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4(16):386–405
COM (2005) Biomass action plan. COM(2005) 628 final. European Commission, Brussels
COM (2009) Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources and amending and subsequently repealing Directives 2001/77/EC and 2003/30/EC. Off J Eur Union L 140(5.6.2009):16–62
COM (2012) Innovating for sustainable growth. A bioeconomy for Europe. European Commission, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, Brussels
Common M, Stagl S (2005) Ecological economics—an introduction. Cambridge University Press, New York
Conzelmann T (2008) An new mode of governing? Multi-level governance between cooperation and conflict. In: Conzelmann T, Smith R (eds) Multi-level governance in the European Union: taking stock and looking ahead. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 11–30
Costanza R, Cornwell L (1992) The 4P approach to dealing with scientific uncertainty. Environment 34(9):12–20
Costanza R, Daly HE (1992) Natural capital and sustainable development. Conserv Biol 6(1):37–46
Costanza R, Patten BC (1995) Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecol Econ 15(3):193–196
Costanza R, Cumberland J, Daly H, Goodland R, Norgaard R (2001) Einführung in die Ökologische Ökonomik. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart
Cramton P, Ockenfels A (2012) Economics and design of capacity markets for the power sector. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft 36(2):113–134
Crutzen PJ, Mosier AR, Smith KA, Winiwarter W (2008) N2O release from agro-biofuel production negates global warming reduction by replacing fossil fuels. Atmos Chem Phys 8(2):389–395
Dahlman CJ (1979) The problem of externality. J Law Econ 22(1):141–162
Dallinger D, Doll C, Gnann T, Held M, Kley F, Lerch C et al (2011) Gesellschaftspolitische Fragestellungen der Elektromobilität. Fraunhofer-Institut für System- und Innovationsforschung (ISI), Karlsruhe
Daly HE (1992) Allocation, distribution, and scale: towards an economics that is efficient, just, and sustainable. Ecol Econ 6(3):185–193
De Groot R, Van der Perk J, Chiesura A, van Vliet A (2003) Importance and threat as determining factors for criticality of natural capital. Ecol Econ 44(2–3):187–204
de Wit M, Junginger M, Lensink S, Londo M, Faaij A (2010) Competition between biofuels: modeling technological learning and cost reductions over time. Biomass Bioenergy 34(2):203–217
de Wit M, Junginger M, Faaij A (2013) Learning in dedicated wood production systems: past trends, future outlook and implications for bioenergy. Renew Sust Energy Rev 19:417–432
Demsetz H (1969) Information and efficiency: another viewpoint. J Law Econ 12(1):1–22
DG CLIMA (2014) The EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS). Directorate-General for Climate Action, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm. Accessed 08 Aug 2014
DG Energy (2010) The impact of land use change on greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels and bioliquids: literature review. Directorate-General for Energy, Brussels
Di Lucia L (2010) External governance and the EU policy for sustainable biofuels, the case of Mozambique. Energy Policy 38(11):7395–7403
Di Lucia L, Ahlgren S, Ericsson K (2012) The dilemma of indirect land-use changes in EU biofuel policy—an empirical study of policy-making in the context of scientific uncertainty. Environ Sci Pol 16:9–19
Dixit AK (1996) The making of economic policy: a transaction-cost politics perspective. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Dovers SR, Norton TW, Handmer JW (2001) Ignorance, uncertainty and ecology: key themes. In: Handmer JW, Norton TW, Dovers SR (eds) Ecology, uncertainty and policy. Managing ecosystems for sustainability. Pearson Education, Harlow, pp 1–25
Edwards R, Mulligan D, Marelli L (2010) Indirect land use change from increased biofuels demand: comparison of models and results for marginal biofuels production from different feedstocks. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. European Union, Luxembourg
Eggertsson T (1991) Economic behavior and institutions. Reprinted. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Eggertsson T (1997) The old theory of economic policy and the new institutionalism. World Dev 25(8):1187–1203
Ekins P (2003) Identifying critical natural capital: conclusions about critical natural capital. Ecol Econ 44(2–3):277–292
Ekins P, Simon S, Deutsch L, Folke C, De Groot R (2003) A framework for the practical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sustainability. Ecol Econ 44(2–3):165–185
Endres A (2013) Umweltökonomie, 4th edn. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart
Endres A, Finus M (1996) Umweltpolitische Zielbestimmung im Spannungsfeld gesellschaftlicher Interessensgruppen. Ökonomische Theorie und Empirie. In: Siebert H (ed) Elemente einer rationalen Umweltpolitik. Expertisen zur umweltpolitischen Neuordnung. J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tübingen, pp 35–133
Endres A, Radke V (2012) Economics for environmental studies. A strategic guide to micro- and macroeconomics. Springer, Berlin
Enserink B, Kwakkel JH, Veenman S (2013) Coping with uncertainty in climate policy making: (mis)understanding scenario studies. Futures 53:1–12
Erdmann G (2010) Energieökonomik: Theorie und Anwendungen, 2nd edn. Springer, Heidelberg
Ericson S-O (2009) Synergies and competition in bioenergy systems: summary and conclusions. In: IEA Bioenergy (ed) Synergies and competition in bioenergy systems. IEA Bioenergy, Dublin, pp 1–8
Erlei M, Leschke M, Sauerland D (1999) Neue Institutionenökonomik. Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart
FAO (2008) The state of food and agriculture. Biofuels: prospects, risks and opportunites. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome
Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(5867):1235–1238
Federal Government of Germany (2013) Deutschlands Zukunft gestalten. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD, 18. Legislaturperiode. Federal Government of Germany, Berlin
Finon D, Perez Y (2007) The social efficiency of instruments of promotion of renewable energies: a transaction-cost perspective. Ecol Econ 62(1):77–92
Fletcher RJ, Robertson BA, Evans JM, Doran P, Alavalapati JRR, Schemske D (2011) Biodiversity conservation in the era of biofuels: risks and opportunities. Front Ecol Environ 9(3):161–168
FNR (2012) Bioenergy in Germany: facts and figures. January 2012. Solid fuels, biofuels, biogas. Fachagentur Nachwachsende Rohstoffe e.V. (FNR), Gülzow
Foxon TJ, Pearson PJG (2007) Towards improved policy processes for promoting innovation in renewable electricity technologies in the UK. Energy Policy 35(3):1539–1550
Frank S, Böttcher H, Havlík P, Valin H, Mosnier A, Obersteiner M et al (2013) How effective are the sustainability criteria accompanying the European Union 2020 biofuel targets? GCB Bioenergy 5(3):306–314
French S (2003) Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: the roles of sensitivity analysis. TOP 11(2):229–251
Fritsch M (2011) Marktversagen und Wirtschaftspolitik. Mikroökonomische Grundlagen staatlichen Handelns, 8th edn. Verlag Franz Vahlen, Munich
Frondel M, Peters J (2007) Biodiesel: a new Oildorado? Energy Policy 35(3):1675–1684
Fujiwara N, Núñez Ferrer J, Egenhofer C (2006) The political economy of environmental taxation in European countries. CEPS Working Document No. 245. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, Amsterdam
Gabrielle B, Bamière L, Caldes N, De Cara S, Decocq G, Ferchaud F et al (2014) Paving the way for sustainable bioenergy in Europe: technological options and research avenues for large-scale biomass feedstock supply. Renew Sust Energy Rev 33:11–25
Gallagher E (2008) The Gallagher Review of the indirect effects of biofuels production. The Renewable Fuels Agency, St Leonards-on-Sea
Gawel E (1995) Zur Politischen Ökonomie von Umweltabgaben. Walter Eucken Institut Vorträge und Aufsätze 146. Mohr, Tübingen
Gawel E (1999) Umweltordnungsrecht—ökonomisch irrational? Die ökonomische Sicht. In: Gawel E, Lübbe-Wolff G (eds) Rationale Umweltpolitik—Rationales Umweltrecht: Konzepte, Kriterien und Grenzen rationaler Steuerung im Umweltschutz, 1st edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 237–322
Gawel E (2009) Grundzüge der mikroökonomischen Theorie, 1st edn. Eul, Lohmar
Gawel E (2011) Stoffstromanalyse und Stoffstromsteuerung im Bereich der Bioenergie. In: Beckenbach F, Urban AI (eds) Methoden der Stoffstromanalyse. Konzepte, agentenbasierte Modellierung und Ökobilanz. Interdisziplinäre Stoffstromforschung, Bd. 1. Metropolis, Marburg, pp 255–283
Gawel E, Lehmann P (2011) Macht der Emissionshandel die Förderung erneuerbarer Energien überflüssig? Energiewirtschaftliche Tagesfragen 61(3):24–28
Gawel E, Lübbe-Wolff G (1999) Rationale Umweltpolitik—Rationales Umweltrecht. Ein Editorial. In: Gawel E, Lübbe-Wolff G (eds) Rationale Umweltpolitik—Rationales Umweltrecht: Konzepte, Kriterien und Grenzen rationaler Steuerung im Umweltschutz, 1st edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 3–12
Gawel E, Ludwig G (2011) The iLUC dilemma: how to deal with indirect land use changes when governing energy crops? Land Use Policy 28(4):846–856
Gawel E, Purkus A (2012) Ökonomische Aspekte der Bioenergiepolitik. Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht (ZfU) 2012(1):29–59
Gawel E, Purkus A (2015) The role of energy and electricity taxation in the context of the German energy transition. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft 39(2):77–103
Gawel E, Strunz S, Lehmann P (2014) A public choice view on the climate and energy policy mix in the EU—how do emissions trading scheme and support for renewable energies interact? Energy Policy 64:175–182
GBEP (2007) A review of the current state of bioenergy development in G8 + 5 countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), Rome
GBEP (2011) The global bioenergy partnership sustainability indicators for bioenergy, 1st edn. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Global Bioenergy Partnership (GBEP), Rome
Gibbs HK, Johnston M, Foley JA, Holloway T, Monfreda C, Ramankutty N et al (2008) Carbon payback times for crop-based biofuel expansion in the tropics: the effects of changing yield and technology. Environ Res Lett 3(3):034001. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/3/034001
Gibbs P, Hanlon M, Hardaker P, Hawkins E, MacDonald A, Maskell K et al (2012) Making sense of uncertainty. Why uncertainty is part of science. Sense about Science (SAS), London
Gillingham K, Sweeney J (2010) Market failure and the structure of externalities. In: Padilla J, Schmalensee R, Moselle B (eds) Harnessing renewable energy in electric power systems. Theory, practice, policy. Resources for the Future Press, Washington, DC, pp 69–92
Goodwin P, Wright G (2001) Enhancing strategy evaluation in scenario planning: a role for decision analysis. J Manag Stud 38(1):1–16
Haberl H, Sprinz D, Bonazountas M, Cocco P, Desaubies Y, Henze M et al (2012) Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy. Energy Policy 45:18–23
Häder M (1997) Umweltpolitische Instrumente und neue Institutionenökonomik. Gabler Verlag, Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden
Hartwick JM (1977) Intergenerational equity and the investing of rents from exhaustible resources. Am Econ Rev 67(5):972–974
Hattam C, Böhnke-Henrichs A, Börger T, Burdon D, Hadjimichael M, Delaney A et al (2015) Integrating methods for ecosystem service assessment and valuation: mixed methods or mixed messages? Ecol Econ 120:126–138
Hayek FA (1945) The use of knowledge in society. Am Econ Rev 35(4): 519–530
Hayek FA (1945/2005) The road to serfdom. The condensed version as it appeared in the April 1945 edition of Reader’s Digest. The Institute of Economic Affairs, London
Head JG (1962) Public goods and public policy. Public Financ 17(3):197–219
Heal GM (1998) Interpreting sustainability. In: Chichilnisky G, Heal GM, Vercelli A (eds) Sustainability: dynamics and uncertainty. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 3–22
Heinelt H (2008) How to achieve governability in multi-level policymaking: lessons from the EU structural funds and EU environmental policy. In: Conzelmann T, Smith R (eds) Multi-level governance in the European Union: taking stock and looking ahead. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 53–72
Helm D (2008) Climate-change policy: why has so little been achieved? Oxf Rev Econ Policy 24(2):211–238
Helm D (2010) Government failure, rent-seeking, and capture: the design of climate change policy. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 26(2):182–196
Henke JM, Klepper G (2006) Biokraftstoffe: Königsweg für Klimaschutz, profitable Landwirtschaft und sichere Energieversorgung? Kieler Diskussionsbeiträge 427. Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel (IfW), Kiel
Henle K, Alard D, Clitherow J, Cobb P, Firbank L, Kull T et al (2008) Identifying and managing the conflicts between agriculture and biodiversity conservation in Europe—a review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 124(1–2):60–71
Hennig C, Gawor M (2012) Bioenergy production and use: comparative analysis of the economic and environmental effects. Energy Convers Manag 63:130–137
Henrichsmeyer W, Witzke HP (1991) Agrarpolitik Band 1: Agrarökonomische Grundlagen. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart
Henrichsmeyer W, Witzke HP (1994) Agrarpolitik Band 2: Bewertung und Willensbildung. Eugen Ulmer, Stuttgart
Hermeling C, Wölfing N (2011) Energiepolitische Aspekte der Bioenergienutzung: Nutzungskonkurrenz, Klimaschutz, politische Förderung. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung (ZEW), Mannheim
Hirschfeld J, Weiß J, Preidl M, Korbun T (2008) Klimawirkungen der Landwirtschaft in Deutschland. Diskussionspapier des IÖW 66/06. Institut für ökologische Wirtschaftsforschung (IÖW), Berlin
Howarth RB (1997) Defining sustainability: an overview. Land Econ 73(4):445–447
IPCC (2013) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Isermeyer F, Zimmer Y (2006) Thesen zur Bioenergie-Politik in Deutschland. Arbeitsberichte des Bereichs Agrarökonomie 02/2006. Bundesforschungsanstalt für Landwirtschaft (FAL), Institut für Betriebswirtschaft, Braunschweig
Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54(2–3):164–174
Jakubowski P, Tegner H, Kotte S (1997) Strategien umweltpolitischer Zielfindung: Eine ökonomische Perspektive. LIT, Münster
Jamasb T (2007) Technical change theory and learning curves: patterns of progress in electricity generation technologies. Energy J 28(3):51–71
Jansen JC, Bakker SJA (2006) Social cost-benefit analysis of climate change mitigation options in a European context. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), Petten
Jenkins G, Murphy J, Sexton D, Lowe J, Jones P, Kilsby C (2009) UK climate projections: briefing report. Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter
JRC-IET (2011) 2011 Technology map of the European Strategic Energy Technology Plan (SET-Plan). Technology descriptions. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. Publications Office of the European Union, European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Energy and Transport (JRC-IET), Luxembourg
Junginger M, de Visser E, Hjort-Gregersen K, Koornneef J, Raven R, Faaij A et al (2006) Technological learning in bioenergy systems. Energy Policy 34(18):4024–4041
Junginger M, van Dam J, Zarrilli S, Ali Mohamed F, Marchal D, Faaij A (2011) Opportunities and barriers for international bioenergy trade. Energy Policy 39(4):2028–2042
Kampman B, Fritsche U, Molenaar JW, Slingerland S, Bergsma G, Henneberg K et al (2010) BUBE: Better Use of Biomass for Energy. Background report to the position paper of IEA RETD and IEA Bioenergy. CE Delft, Öko-Institut, Delft, Darmstadt
Kay A, Ackrill R (2012) Governing the transition to a biofuels economy in the US and EU: accommodating value conflicts, implementing uncertainty. Policy Soc 31(4):295–306
Keeney R, Hertel TW (2009) The indirect land use impacts of United States biofuel policies: the importance of acreage, yield, and bilateral trade responses. Am J Agric Econ 91(4):895–909
Klagge B (2013) Governance-Prozesse für erneuerbare Energien—Akteure, Koordinations- und Steuerungsstrukturen. In: Klagge B, Arbach C (eds) Governance-Prozesse für erneuerbare Energien. Akademie für Raumforschung und Landesplanung, Hanover, pp 7–16
Knight F (1921) Risk, uncertainty, and profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
Knill C, Tosun J (2008) Emerging patterns of multi-level governance in EU environmental policy. In: Conzelmann T, Smith R (eds) Multi-level governance in the European Union: taking stock and looking ahead. Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp 145–162
Köder L, Burger A, Eckermann F (2014) Umweltschädliche Subventionen in Deutschland 2014. Aktualisierte Ausgabe 2014. Umweltbundesamt, Dessau
König A (2011) Cost efficient utilisation of biomass in the German energy system in the context of energy and environmental policies. Energy Policy 39(2):628–636
Kopmann A, Kretschmer B, Lange M (2009) Effiziente Nutzung von Biomasse durch einen globalen Kohlenstoffpreis. Empfehlungen für eine koordinierte Bioenergiepolitik. Kiel Policy Brief Nr. 14. Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel (IfW), Kiel
Krampe L, Peter F (2014) Letztverbrauch 2019. Planungsprämissen für die Berechnung der EEG-Umlage. Dokumentation—Endbericht für die Übertragungsnetzbetreiber. Prognos, Berlin
Krewitt W, Schlomann B (2006) Externe Kosten der Stromerzeugung aus erneuerbaren Energien im Vergleich zur Stromerzeugung aus fossilen Energieträgern. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Innovationsforschung (ISI), Stuttgart, Karlsruhe
Krutilla K, Krause R (2011) Transaction costs and environmental policy: an assessment framework and literature review. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 4(3–4):261–354
Krysiak FC (2009) Sustainability and its relation to efficiency under uncertainty. Economic Theory 41(2):297–315
Laborde D (2011) Assessing the land use change consequences of European biofuel policies. Final report for the Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission. International Food Policy Institute (IFPRI), Washington, DC
Langniß O, Diekmann J, Lehr U, Heer K, Klink J, Kratzat M (2007) Die Förderung Erneuerbarer Energien als Regulierungsaufgabe. Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Württemberg (ZSW), Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Stuttgart, Berlin
Lehmann P, Gawel E (2013) Why should support schemes for renewable electricity complement the EU emissions trading scheme? Energy Policy 52:597–607
Leprich U, Hauser E, Grashof K, Grote L, Luxenburger M, Sabatier M et al (2012) Kompassstudie Marktdesign. Leitideen für ein Design eines Stromsystems mit hohem Anteil fluktuierender Erneuerbarer Energien. Ein Projekt der BEE-Plattform Systemtransformation. Ponte Press, Bochum
Linhart E, Dhungel A-K (2013) Das Thema Vermaisung im öffentlichen Diskurs. Berichte über Landwirtschaft 91(2):1–24
Liu TT, McConkey BG, Ma ZY, Liu ZG, Li X, Cheng LL (2011) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats analysis of bioenergy production on marginal land. Energy Procedia 5:2378–2386
Londo M, Deurwaarder E (2007) Developments in EU biofuels policy related to sustainability issues: overview and outlook. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 1(4):292–302
Luckenbach H (2000) Theoretische Grundlagen der Wirtschaftspolitik, 2nd edn. Vahlen, Munich
Majer S, Stecher K, Adler P, Thrän D, Müller-Langer F (2013) Biomassepotenziale und Nutzungskonkurrenzen. Kurzstudie im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung, Unterstützung und Beratung des BMVBS in den Bereichen Verkehr und Mobilität mit besonderem Fokus auf Kraftstoffen und Antriebstechnologien sowie Energie und Klima. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Leipzig
Mäler K-G (2000) Development, ecological resources and their management: a study of complex dynamic systems. Eur Econ Rev 44(4–6):645–665
Mansfield E (1994) Microeconomics. Theory/Applications, 8th edn. Norton, New York
McCormick RE, Tollison RD (1981) Politicians, legislation and the economy: an inquiry into the interest-group theory of government. Martinus-Nijhoff, Boston
McKone TE, Nazaroff WW, Berck P, Auffhammer M, Lipman T, Torn MS et al (2011) Grand challenges for life-cycle assessment of biofuels. Environ Sci Technol 45(5):1751–1756
Meijer ISM, Hekkert MP, Koppenjan JFM (2007) The influence of perceived uncertainty on entrepreneurial action in emerging renewable energy technology; biomass gasification projects in the Netherlands. Energy Policy 35(11):5836–5854
Menanteau P, Finon D, Lamy ML (2003) Prices versus quantities: choosing policies for promoting the development of renewable energy. Energy Policy 31(8):799–812
Meyer R, Rösch C, Sauter A (2010) Chancen und Herausforderungen neuer Energiepflanzen. Endbericht zum TA-Projekt. Arbeitsbericht Nr. 136. Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag, Berlin
Meyerhoff J, Ohl C, Hartje V (2010) Landscape externalities from onshore wind power. Energy Policy 38(1):82–92
Michaelis P (1996) Ökonomische Instrumente in der Umweltpolitik. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung. Physika-Verlag, Heidelberg
Neuhoff K, Küchler S, Rieseberg S, Wörlen C, Heldwein C, Karch A, Ismer R (2013) Vorschlag für die zukünftige Ausgestaltung der Ausnahmen für die Industrie bei der EEG-Umlage. DIW Berlin: Politikberatung kompakt 75. Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW), Berlin
Neumayer E (2003) Weak versus strong sustainability. Exploring the limits of two opposing paradigms, 2nd edn. Elgar, Cheltenham
Newell RG (2010) The role of markets and policies in delivering innovation for climate change mitigation. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 26(2):253–269
Newell RG, Pizer WA (2003) Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty. J Environ Econ Manag 45(2):416–432
Nitsch J, Krewitt W, Nast M, Viebahn P, Gärtner S, Pehnt M et al (2004) Ökologisch optimierter Ausbau der Nutzung erneuerbarer Energien in Deutschland. Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung (ifeu), Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt und Energie, Stuttgart, Heidelberg, Wuppertal
Norgaard RB (1992) Sustainability as intergenerational equity: economic theory and environmental planning. Environ Impact Assess Rev 12(1–2):85–124
North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
North DC (2005) Understanding the process of economic change. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2011) Biofuels: ethical issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London
Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Oppermann R, Brunk I, Helmecke A, Blew J, Kollmar P, Beil M et al (2009) Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik: Cross Compliance und Auswirkungen auf die Biodiversität. Ergebnisse eines Forschungsprojektes und Empfehlungen zur Weiterentwicklung der Agrarpolitik. Institut für Agrarökologie und Biodiversität (IFAB), Institut für Ökologie und Naturschutz (IFÖN), Michael-Otto-Institut im NABU, BioConsult SH, Lehrstuhl Prof. Dr. Poschlod Universität Regensburg, Mannheim
Orchard L, Stretton H (1997) Critical survey: public choice. Camb J Econ 21:409–430
Owen AD (2006) Renewable energy: externality costs as market barriers. Energy Policy 34(5):632–642
Ozkaynak B, Devine P, Rigby D (2004) Operationalising strong sustainability: definitions, methodologies and outcomes. Environ Values 13(3):279–303
Pacini H, Assunção L, van Dam J, Toneto R Jr (2013) The price for biofuels sustainability. Energy Policy 59:898–903
Padilla E (2002) Intergenerational equity and sustainability. Ecol Econ 41(1):69–83
Pappenheim R (2001) Neue Institutionenökonomik und politische Institutionen. Europäischer Verlag der Wissenschaften, Frankfurt am Main
Perman R, Ma Y, McGilvray J (eds) (2003) Natural resource and environmental economics. Pearson, Harlow
Pizer WA (1999) The optimal choice of climate change policy in the presence of uncertainty. Resour Energy Econ 21(3–4):255–287
Pizer WA, Popp D (2008) Endogenizing technological change: matching empirical evidence to modeling needs. Energy Econ 30(6):2754–2770
Poocharoen O, Sovacool BK (2012) Exploring the challenges of energy and resources network governance. Energy Econ 42:409–418
Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Leimbach M, Knopf B, Beringer T, Bauer N et al (2011) On sustainability of bioenergy production: integrating co-emissions from agricultural intensification. Biomass Bioenergy 12(35):4770–4780
Porter ME (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. Free Press, New York
Purkus A, Gawel E, Thrän D (2012) Bioenergy governance between market and government failures: a new institutional economics perspective. UFZ-Discussion Papers 13/2012. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research GmbH—UFZ, Leipzig
Purkus A, Röder M, Gawel E, Thrän D, Thornley P (2015) Handling uncertainty in bioenergy policy design—a case study analysis of UK and German bioelectricity policy instruments. Biomass Bioenergy 79:64–79
Rader NA, Norgaard RB (1996) Efficiency and sustainability in restructured electricity markets: the renewables portfolio standard. Electr J 9(6):37–49
Reap J, Roman F, Duncan S, Bras B (2008) A survey of unresolved problems in life cycle assessment—part 1: goal and scope and inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(4):290–300
Richter R, Furubotn EG (2003) Neue Institutionenökonomik. Eine Einführung und kritische Würdigung, 3rd edn. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Rohrig K, Lehnert W, Rehfeldt K, Diekmann J, Hofmann L, Hochloff P et al (2011) Flexible Stromproduktion aus Biogas und Biomethan. Die Einführung einer Kapazitätskomponente als Förderinstrument. Bericht zum Projekt “Weiterentwicklung und wissenschaftliche Begleitung der Umsetzung des Integrations-Bonus nach § 64 Abs. 1.6 EEG” im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMU). Fraunhofer Institut für Windenergie und Energiesystemtechnik (IWES), Becker Büttner Held (BBH), Deutsche Windguard, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), Leibniz Universität Hannover, Kassel, Bremerhaven, Berlin, Varel, Hanover
Rossi A (ed) (2012) Good environmental practices in bioenergy feedstock production. Making bioenergy work for climate and food security. Bioenergy and Food Security Criteria and Indicators Project, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome
Rowe R, Whitaker J, Freer-Smith PH, Chapman J, Ryder S, Ludley KE et al (2011) Counting the cost of carbon in bioenergy systems: sources of variation and hidden pitfalls when comparing life cycle assessments. Biofuels 2(6):693–707
RSB (2013) Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB). http://rsb.org/. Accessed 14 Sept 2013
RSPO (2013) Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. http://www.rspo.org/. Accessed 14 Sept 2013
Scarlat N, Dallemand J-F (2011) Recent developments of biofuels/bioenergy sustainability certification: a global overview. Energy Econ 39(3):1630–1646
Schubert R, Blasch J (2010) Sustainability standards for bioenergy: a means to reduce climate change risks? Energy Econ 38(6):2797–2805
Searchinger T (2009) Evaluating biofuels—the consequences of using land to make fuel. Brussels Forum Paper Series. The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Washington, DC
Sijm J, Lehmann P, Gawel E, Chewpreecha U, Pollit H, Strunz S (2014) EU climate and energy policy in 2030: how many targets and instruments are necessary? UFZ Discussion Papers 3/2014. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig
Simon HA (1955) A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ 69(1):99–118
Smithson M (1989) Ignorance and uncertainty: emerging paradigms. Springer, New York
Söderholm P (2008) Harmonization of renewable electricity feed-in laws: a comment. Energy Econ 36:946–953
Solow RM (1974) Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Rev Econ Stud 41:29–45
Springmann J-P (2005) Die Förderung erneuerbarer Energien in der Stromerzeugung auf dem ordnungspolitischen Prüfstand. TUC Working Papers Nr. 03. Department of Economics, Technical University Clausthal, Clausthal
SRU (2007) Climate change mitigation by biomass. Special report. German Advisory Council on the Environment (SRU), Berlin
Stavins RN, Wagner AF, Wagner G (2003) Interpreting sustainability in economic terms: dynamic efficiency plus intergenerational equity. Econ Lett 79(3):339–343
Stehfest E, Ros J, Bouwman L (2010) Indirect effects of biofuels: intensification of agricultural production. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Bilthoven
Sterner M, Fritsche U (2011) Greenhouse gas balances and mitigation costs of 70 modern Germany-focused and 4 traditional biomass pathways including land-use change effects. Biomass Bioenergy 35(12):4797–4814
Stewart TJ, French S, Rios J (2013) Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—review and extension. Omega 41(4):679–688
Stirling A, Mayer S (2004) Confronting risk with precaution: a multi-criteria mapping of genetically modified crops. In: Getzner M, Spash C, Stagl S (eds) Alternatives for valuing nature. Routledge, London, pp 159–184
Streit ME (2005) Theorie der Wirtschaftspolitik, 6th edn. Lucius & Lucius, Stuttgart
Streit ME, Wohlgemuth M (2000) Walter Eucken und Friedrich A. von Hayek: Initiatoren der Ordnungsökonomik. In: Külp B, Vanberg V (eds) Freiheit und Wettbewerbliche Ordnung. Haufe Verlag, Freiburg, pp 461–498
Strunz S, Gawel E, Lehmann P (2014a) On the alleged need to strictly “Europeanize” the German Energiewende. Intereconomics 49(5):244–250
Strunz S, Gawel E, Lehmann P (2014b) Towards a general “Europeanization” of EU Member States’ energy policies? UFZ Discussion Paper 17/2014. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ, Leipzig
Tänzler D, Luhmann H-J, Supersberger N, Fischdick M, Maas A, Carius A (2007) Die sicherheitspolitische Bedeutung erneuerbarer Energien. Im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt. Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. Endbericht. Adelphi Consult, Wuppertal Institut für Klima, Umwelt und Energie, Berlin, Wuppertal
Thacher D, Rein M (2004) Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance 17(4):457–486
Thornley P, Gilbert P (2013) Biofuels: balancing risks and rewards. Interface Focus 3(1):1–9
Thornley P, Gilbert P, Shackley S, Hammond J (2015) Maximizing the greenhouse gas reductions from biomass: the role of life cycle assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 81:35–43
Thrän D, Pfeiffer D (eds) (2015) Meilensteine 2030. Elemente und Meilensteine für die Entwicklung einer tragfähigen und nachhaltigen Bioenergiestrategie. Schriftenreihe des Förderprogramms “Energetische Biomassenutzung” Band 18. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Leipzig
Thrän D, Leible L, Simon S, Pütz S, Kälber S, Geiss C et al (2010a) Bioenergie und nachhaltige Landnutzung. Technikfolgenabschätzung—Theorie und Praxis 19(3):65–74
Thrän D, Seidenberger T, Zeddies J, Offermann R (2010b) Global biomass potentials—resources, drivers and scenario results. Energy Sustain Dev 14(3):200–205
Thrän D, Edel M, Pfeifer J, Ponitka J, Rode M, Knispel S (2011a) DBFZ Report Nr 4: Identifizierung strategischer Hemmnisse und Entwicklung von Lösungsansätzen zur Reduzierung der Nutzungskonkurrenzen beim weiteren Ausbau der Biomassenutzung. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Leipzig
Thrän D, Scholwin F, Witt J, Krautz A, Bienert K, Hennig C et al (2011b) Vorbereitung und Begleitung der Erstellung des Erfahrungsberichtes 2011 gemäß § 65 EEG im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit. Vorhaben IIa Endbericht. Deutsches Biomasseforschungszentrum (DBFZ), Leipzig
Tullock G (2008) Public choice. In: Durlauf SN (ed) The new Palgrave dictionary of economics, vol 6, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp 722–727
UNDP (2004) World energy assessment. Overview: 2004 update. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York
Unruh GC (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Econ 28(12):817–830
Unruh GC (2002) Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Econ 30(4):317–325
Unteutsch M, Lindenberger D (2014) Promotion of electricity from renewable energy in Europe post 2020—the economic benefits of cooperation. Zeitschrift für Energiewirtschaft 38(1):47–64
Upham P, Riesch H, Tomei J, Thornley P (2011) The sustainability of forestry biomass supply for EU bioenergy: a post-normal approach to environmental risk and uncertainty. Environ Sci Pol 14(5):510–518
van Dam J, Junginger M, Faaij A (2010) From the global efforts on certification of bioenergy towards an integrated approach based on sustainable land use planning. Renew Sust Energ Rev 14(9):2445–2472
van den Wall Bake JD, Junginger M, Faaij A, Poot T, Walter A (2009) Explaining the experience curve: cost reductions of Brazilian ethanol from sugarcane. Biomass Bioenergy 33(4):644–658
van der Horst D (2005) UK biomass energy since 1990: the mismatch between project types and policy objectives. Energy Policy 33(5):705–716
van Stappen F, Brose I, Schenkel Y (2011) Direct and indirect land use changes issues in European sustainability initiatives: state-of-the-art, open issues and future developments. Biomass Bioenergy 35(12):4824–4834
Voigt S (2002) Institutionenökonomik. Wilhelm Fink Verlag, Munich
Volkery A, Ribeiro T (2009) Scenario planning in public policy: understanding use, impacts and the role of institutional context factors. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 76(9):1198–1207
von Mises L (1929) Kritik des Interventionismus. Untersuchungen zur Wirtschaftspolitik und Wirtschaftsideologie der Gegenwart. Fischer, Jena
WBA (2007) Nutzung von Biomasse zur Energiegewinnung—Empfehlungen an die Politik. Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Agrarpolitik beim Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz (WBA), Berlin
WBA (2011) Promotion of biogas production through the Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG). Statement on the planned amendment of the Renewable Energy Sources Act. Scientific Advisory Board on Agricultural Policy at the Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection (WBA), Berlin
WBGU (2008) Future bioenergy and sustainable land use. German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), Berlin
Webb A, Coates D (2012) Biofuels and biodiversity. CBD technical series no. 65. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal
Welfens PJJ (2013) Grundlagen der Wirtschaftspolitik. Institutionen—Makroökonomik—Politikkonzepte, 5th edn. Springer Gabler, Berlin
Wesseler J, Weikard H-P, Weaver RD (2003) Introduction: approaches to risk and uncertainty in environmental and resource economics. In: Wesseler J, Weikard H-P, Weaver RD (eds) Risk and uncertainty in environmental and natural resource economics. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 1–8
Whitaker J, Ludley KE, Rowe R, Taylor G, Howard DC (2010) Sources of variability in greenhouse gas and energy balances for biofuel production: a systematic review. GCB Bioenergy 2(3):99–112
Wieliczko B (2012) Future CAP—food security and safety are the key. Paper presented at New challenges for EU agricultural sector and rural areas. Which role for public policy? 126th EAAE Seminar. 27–29 June 2012, Capri
Williamson OE (1996) The mechanisms of governance. Oxford University Press, New York
Woodward RT, Bishop RC (1995) Efficiency, sustainability and global warming. Ecol Econ 14(2):101–111
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, New York
Wynne B (1992) Uncertainty and environmental learning: reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Glob Environ Chang 2(2):111–127
Young RA (2001) Uncertainty and the environment. Implications for decision making and environmental policy. Elgar, Cheltenham
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Purkus, A. (2016). Allocative Challenges of Bioenergy Use. In: Concepts and Instruments for a Rational Bioenergy Policy. Lecture Notes in Energy, vol 55. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31135-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31135-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31134-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31135-7
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)