BlanfordGeoffMerrickJamesYoungDavid (2014). “Economic and Environmental Impacts of a Clean Energy Standard in the United State.” The Energy Journal (this volume).
2.
BohringerCBalistreriF.RutherfordT. (2012). “The Role Of Border Carbon Adjustment in Unilateral Climate Policy: Overview of an Energy Modeling Forum study (EMF 29).” Energy Economics34: S97-S110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2012.10.003.
3.
CalvinK.V.ClarkeL.E.KreyV., editors (2012). “The Asia Modeling Exercise: Exploring the Role of Asia in Mitigating Climate Change.” Special Issue of Energy Economics 34, Sup 3: S251-S512 (December).
4.
ClarkeL.E.EdmondsJ.JacobH.PitcherH.ReillyJ.RichelsR. (2007). “Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations.” Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, DC., USA, 154 pp.
5.
ClarkeLEBohringerC.Rutherfordand T.F., editors (2009). “International, U.S. and E.U. Climate Change Control Scenarios: Results from EMF 22.” Energy Economics31: Sup 2: S63-S306 (December).
6.
ClarkeLeon.C.FawcettAllen.A.WeyantJohn P.McFarlandJamesChaturvediVaibhavZhouYuyu (2014). “Technology and U.S. Emissions Reductions Goals: Results of the EMF 24 Modeling Exercise.” The Energy Journal (this volume)
7.
de la ChesnayeFP. WeyantJ., editors (2006). “Multi-Greenhouse Gas Mitigation and Climate Policy.” Special Issue of the The Energy Journal, 524 p (December).
8.
EdenhoferO.CarraroC. CKohlerJ.GrubbM. (2006). “Endogenous Technological Change and The Economics Of Atmospheric Stabilisation.” Special Issue of The Energy Journal (March).
9.
EdenhoferO.KnopfB.BarkerT.BaumstarkL.BellevratE.ChateauB.CriquiP.IsaacM.KitousA.KypreosS.LeimbachM.LessmannK.MagneB.ScrieciuS.TurtonH.Van VuurenD. (2010). “The Economics of Low Stabilization: Model Comparison of Mitigation Strategies and Costs.” Special Issue of the Energy Journal (December).
10.
Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 12, 1993). Report 12: “Carbon Emission Reduction Scenarios.” Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
11.
Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 14, 1996). Report 14: “Integrated Assessment of Climate Change.” Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
12.
Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 16, 1999). Report 16: “The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol.” Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
13.
Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 18, 2002). Report 18: “International Trade Dimensions Of Climate Policies.” Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
14.
Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 19, 2004). Report 19: “Climate Change: Technology Strategies and International Trade.” Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
15.
Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 21, 2006) Report 21: “Multi-Gas Mitigation and Climate Change, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
16.
Energy Modeling Forum (EMF 22, 2009), Report 22: “Climate Change Transition Scenarios.” Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
17.
FawcettACalvinK.de la ChesnayK, F.ReillyJ.WeyantJ. (2009). “Overview Of EMF 22 U.S. Transition Scenarios.” Energy Economics31, Sup 2: S198-S211 (December).
18.
FawcettA.ClarkeL.RauschS.Weyantand J., 2014, Overview off the EMF 24 Policy Scenarios. The Energy Journal (this volume).
19.
GaskinsD.W.WeyantJ.P. (1993). “Model Comparisons Of The Costs Of Reducing CO2 Emissions.” American Economic Revue83(2): 318-323 (May).
20.
HaitesE.BashmakovI.McKibbinW.ShuklaP. (1997). “The Economic Impacts Of Annex I Actions On All Countries.” Report on an IPCC Workshop held in Oslo, Norway, 18-20 August.
JaccardMarkGoldbergSuzanne (2014). “Technology Assumptions and Climate Policy: The interrelated effects of U.S. Electricity-Transport policy in EMF24 using CIMS-US.” The Energy Journal (this volume).
23.
KrieglerE.PetermannN.KreyV.SchwanitzJ.LudererG.AshinaS.BosettiV.KitousA.MejeanA.ParoussosL.SanoF.TurtonH.WilsonC.Van VuurenD. (2013a). “Diagnostic Indicators For Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Policies.” Accepted for publication in Technological forecasting and social change.
24.
KrieglerE.RiahiK.BauerN.SchanitzJ.PetermannN.BosettiV.MarcucciA.OttoS.ParoussosL. (2014). “Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy.” Accepted for publication in Technological Forecasting And Social Change.
25.
KrieglerE.WeyantJ. P., (2013b). “The Role of Technology for Achieving Climate Policy Objectives: Overview of the EMF 27 Study on Global Technology and Climate Policy. Climatic Change. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0953–7.
26.
KrieglerE.TavoniM.AboumahboubT.LudererG.CalvinK.DeMaereG.KreyV.RiahiK.RoslerH.SchaefferM.Van VuurenD. (2014b). “Can we still meet 2°C with a climate agreement in force by 2020? The LIMITS study on implications of Durban Action Platform.” Accepted for Publication in Climate Change Economics.
27.
LudererG.BertramC.CalvinK.De CianE.Kriegler EE. (2014). “Implications Of Weak Near-Term Climate Policies On Long-Term Climate Mitigation Pathways.” Climatic Change, in press
28.
RauschSebastianKarplusValerie (2014). “Market vs. Regulation: The Efficiency and Distributional Impacts of US Climate Policy Proposals.” The Energy Journal (this volume).
29.
RichelsR.G.EdmondsJ.GruenspechtH.WigleyT. (1996). “The Berlin Mandate: The Design Of Cost-Effective Mitigation Strategies. Working Paper WP 14.3, Energy Modeling Forum, Stanford University, Stanford, California, February.
30.
RossMartin T.SullivanPatrick T.FawcettAllen A.DeproBrooks M. (2014). Investigating Technology Options For Climate Policies: Differentiated Roles In ADAGE.” The Energy Journal (this volume).
31.
SandsRonSchumacherKatjaFosterHannahBeckmanJayson (2014). “U.S. CO2 Mitigation Scenarios in a Global Context: Welfare, Trade, and Land Use.” The Energy Journal (this volume).
32.
SullivanPatrick T.UriarteCarolineShortWalter (2014). “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Options In The U.S. Electric Sector; A ReEDS Analysis.” The Energy Journal (this volume)
33.
TavoniM.KrieglerE.AboumahboubT.CalvinK.DeMaereG.KoberT.JewellJ.LucasP.LudererG.McCollumD. (2014). “The Distribution of the Major Economies’ Effort In The Durban Platform Scenarios.” Acceptedforpublication in Climate Change Economics, In press.
34.
TuladharSugandha DMankowskiSebastianBernsteinPaul (2014). “Interaction Effects of Market Based Policies and Command-and-Control Polices.” The Energy Journal (this volume).
35.
Van VuurenD. P.den ElzenM.G.LucasP.EickhoutB.StrengersB.B.Van RuijvenB.WoninkS.R. Van HoudtR. (2007). “Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations At Low Levels: An Assessment Of Reduction Strategies And Costs.” Climatic Change, 81(2): 119-159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9172-9.
36.
WeyantJ.P. (1993). “Costs Of Reducing Global Carbon Emissions.” Journal of Economic Perspectives7 (4): 27-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.7.4.27.
37.
WeyantJ.P.DavidsonO.DowlatabadiH.EdmondsJ.GrubbM.ParsonE.RichelsR.RotmansJ.ShuklaP.TolR. (1996). “Integrated Assessment of Climate Change: An Overview and Comparison of Approaches and Results,” Chapter 10 in Climate Change1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press.
38.
WeyantJ.P., editor (1999). “The Costs Of The Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation.” The Energy Journal, Special Issue.
39.
WeyantJ. P. editor (2004). “EMF 19: Alternative Technology Strategies for Climate Change Policy.” Energy Economics, Special Issue, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 501-755, 2004.
40.
WeyantJ. P.de la ChesnayeFrancisco C.BlanfordGeoff J. (2006). Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy, in Special Issue of The Energy Journal, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye and John P. Weyant, December, pp. 1-32.
41.
WiseMarshall A.McJeonHaewon C.CalvinKatherine V.ClarkeLeon E.KylePage (2014). “Assessing the Interactions Among U.S. Climate Policy, Biomass Energy And Agricultural Trade.” The Energy Journal (this volume).
42.
ZhuYunfaGhoshMadanmohan (2014). “Impacts of Technology uncertainty on Energy Use, Emission and Abatement Cost in USA: Simulation results from Environment Canada’s Integrated Assessment Model.” The Energy Journal (this volume).