As of 2017, the sale and use of the refrigerants most commonly used in automotive cooling systems - hydrofluorocarbons - are entirely banned in all new vehicles placed on the market in the European Union. These refrigerants have been recognised as potent greenhouse gases and, therefore, direct contributors to climate change. It is within this regulation-driven market that the technologies for a sustainable solution have been developed. However, this paper argues that the market for automotive cooling systems has been 'locked-in', which means that competing technologies, operating under dynamic increasing returns, will allow for one - potentially inferior technology - to dominate the market. Whilst such a situation is not uncommon, this paper discusses the way that regulation has reinforced a patented monopoly in 'picking winners': to the advantage of a synthetic chemical, R-1234yf, as opposed to the natural solution, which is CO. By developing a generic conceptual framework of path dependence and lock-in, the presented evidence seeks to show how a snowballing effect has led to the intensification of differences in market share. We also argue that the automotive industry is potentially promoting short-term fixes, rather than long-term, sustainable and economically viable solutions.

No abstract

No abstract

In 2023, the European Union will vote on the reauthorization of glyphosate use, renewed in 2017 despite concern on impacts on the environment and public health. A ban is supported by several Member States but rejected by most farmers. What are citizens’ preferences to phase out glyphosate? To assess whether taxation could be an alternative to a ban, we conducted a discrete choice experiment in five European countries. Our results reveal that the general public is strongly willing to pay for a reduction in glyphosate use. However, while 75.5% of respondents stated to support a ban in the pre-experimental survey, experimental results reveal that in 73.35% of cases, earmarked taxation schemes are preferred when they lead to a strong reduction in glyphosate use for an increase in food price lower than that induced by a ban. When glyphosate reduction is balanced against its costs, a tax may be preferred.