We investigate the effects of three events withmajor importance for climate policy on energy sector stocks: the ParisAgreement, the Trump election and presidency, and the Biden election. Bycombining event studies with impulse indicator saturation methods, we show thatthe Paris Agreement and the election of Mr. Biden benefited renewableindustries, while the election of Mr. Trump had negative effects. For fossilfuel industries, the effects were largely the opposite. Despite Trump's effortsto eliminate environmental regulations, his presidency did however witness adecrease in both US coal production and consumption, while natural gas and oilconsumption increased.

The submitted files include a Mathematica-file, which makes it easy to replicate all the simulation results, together with a corresponding README-file.

Review of Economics and Statistics: Forthcoming.

This paper investigate the effects of three events with major importance for climate policy on energy sector stocks: the Paris Agreement, the Trump election and presidency, and the Biden election. By combining event studies with impulse-indicator saturation methods, we show that the Paris Agreement and the election of Mr. Biden benefited renewable industries, while the election of Mr. Trump had negative effects. For fossil fuel industries, the effects were largely the opposite. For the US coal industry, though Trump did his best to eliminate environmental regulations, the natural gas and oil industries benefited more than coal. Coal production and consumption in the United States actually decreased during Trump’s presidency, while natural gas and oil consumption increased.

This paper investigate the effects of three events with major importance for climate policy on energy sector stocks: the Paris Agreement, the Trump election and presidency, and the Biden election. By combining event studies with impulse-indicator saturation methods, we show that the Paris Agreement and the election of Mr. Biden benefited renewable industries, while the election of Mr. Trump had negative effects. For fossil fuel industries, the effects were largely the opposite. For the US coal industry, though Trump did his best to eliminate environmental regulations, the natural gas and oil industries benefited more than coal. Coal production and consumption in the United States actually decreased during Trump’s presidency, while natural gas and oil consumption increased.

This paper investigate the effects of three events with major importance for climate policy on energy sector stocks: the Paris Agreement, the Trump election and presidency, and the Biden election. By combining event studies with impulse-indicator saturation methods, we show that the Paris Agreement and the election of Mr. Biden benefited renewable industries, while the election of Mr. Trump had negative effects. For fossil fuel industries, the effects were largely the opposite. For the US coal industry, though Trump did his best to eliminate environmental regulations, the natural gas and oil industries benefited more than coal. Coal production and consumption in the United States actually decreased during Trump’s presidency, while natural gas and oil consumption increased.

The purpose of this study is to analyse the role of risk perceptions and exposure for protective behaviour against tick bites and the related diseases Lyme borreliosis (LB) and tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), both of which are growing health concerns. We use data from a national survey in Sweden with respondents in geographical areas with substantial differences in both abundance of ticks and incidence of LB and TBE. We find that the share of respondents who frequently use protective clothing (64%), perform tick checks (63%) or avoid tall grass while in areas with ticks (48%) is relatively high. However, the use of protective measures is uneven and a considerably lower share tuck their trousers into their socks (18%), use repellent against ticks (16%) or use a combination of protective measures. Thirty-one per cent of the respondents report one or more tick bites in the last year and 68% report one or more lifetime tick bites, indicating that it is difficult to protect oneself from tick bites. There is a strong positive association between exposure and checking the skin for ticks, but exposure is only weakly associated with other protective measures. Tick bites are perceived as a serious health risk by as many as 43% of the respondents. The perception that a single tick bite is serious is negatively associated with actual exposure to ticks, while the opposite is true for the perception that tick bites constitute a serious lifetime health risk. This indicates a learning effect in relation to risk perceptions and the performance of tick checks, but not in relation to other protective measures. Recommendations include informing people of the risks associated with tick bites, the efficacy of various protective measures and the importance of combining multiple types of protection. Given the high exposure to tick bites, the growing incidence of TBE and LB, and the difficulties in preventing tick bites, other preventive measures should be further discussed, including vaccination programmes.Purpose:To analyse the role of risk perceptions and exposure for five protective measures against tick bites and the related diseases tick-borne encehalitis (TBE) and Lyme borreliosis (LB).The dataset contains the variables used in the study "Learning to Live with Ticks? The Role of Exposure and Risk Perceptions in Protective Behavior Against Tick-Borne Diseases", by Slunge and Boman. The questionnaire about Ticks, TBE and Borrelia contains additional questions that are not included in this material. Data is available for download in SPSS and STATA format.

The purpose of this study is to analyse the role of risk perceptions and exposure for protective behaviour against tick bites and the related diseases Lyme borreliosis (LB) and tick-borne encephalitis (TBE), both of which are growing health concerns. We use data from a national survey in Sweden with respondents in geographical areas with substantial differences in both abundance of ticks and incidence of LB and TBE. We find that the share of respondents who frequently use protective clothing (64%), perform tick checks (63%) or avoid tall grass while in areas with ticks (48%) is relatively high. However, the use of protective measures is uneven and a considerably lower share tuck their trousers into their socks (18%), use repellent against ticks (16%) or use a combination of protective measures. Thirty-one per cent of the respondents report one or more tick bites in the last year and 68% report one or more lifetime tick bites, indicating that it is difficult to protect oneself from tick bites. There is a strong positive association between exposure and checking the skin for ticks, but exposure is only weakly associated with other protective measures. Tick bites are perceived as a serious health risk by as many as 43% of the respondents. The perception that a single tick bite is serious is negatively associated with actual exposure to ticks, while the opposite is true for the perception that tick bites constitute a serious lifetime health risk. This indicates a learning effect in relation to risk perceptions and the performance of tick checks, but not in relation to other protective measures. Recommendations include informing people of the risks associated with tick bites, the efficacy of various protective measures and the importance of combining multiple types of protection. Given the high exposure to tick bites, the growing incidence of TBE and LB, and the difficulties in preventing tick bites, other preventive measures should be further discussed, including vaccination programmes.Purpose:To analyse the role of risk perceptions and exposure for five protective measures against tick bites and the related diseases tick-borne encehalitis (TBE) and Lyme borreliosis (LB).The dataset contains the variables used in the study "Learning to Live with Ticks? The Role of Exposure and Risk Perceptions in Protective Behavior Against Tick-Borne Diseases", by Slunge and Boman. The questionnaire about Ticks, TBE and Borrelia contains additional questions that are not included in this material. Data is available for download in SPSS and STATA format.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures.The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967.If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986.Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets.Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview.The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income.In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience.With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts:1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys.Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992.The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995.The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.

The Household Market and Nonmarket Activities (HUS) project started as a joint research project between the Industrial Institute for Economic and Social Research (IUI) and Göteborg University in 1980. The ambition was to build a consistent longitudinal micro data base on the use of time, money and public services of households. The first main survey was carried out in 1984. In addition to a contact interview with the selected individuals, all designated individuals participated in a personal interview and two telephone interviews. All respondents were asked about their family background, education, marital status, labor market experience, and employment. In addition, questions about the household were asked of the head of household, concerning family composition, child care, health status, housing, possession of vacation homes, cars, boats and other consumption durables. At the end of the personal interview the household head had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about financing of current home, construction costs for building a house, house value and loans, imputation of property values and loans, additions/renovations 1983, maintenance and repairs, leasing, sale of previous home, assets and liabilities, and non-taxable benefits. All the respondents had to fill out a questionnaire including questions about tax-return information 1983, employment income, and taxes and support payments. Two telephone interviews were used primarily to collect data on the household´s time use and consumption expenditures.The 1986 HUS-survey included both a follow-up of the 1984 sample (panel study) and a supplementary sample. The 1986 sample included1) all respondents participating in the 1984 survey, 2) the household heads, partners and third persons who should have participated in 1984 but did not (1984 nonresponse), 3) those individuals who started living together after the 1984 interview with an selected individual who participated or was supposed to participate in 1984, 4) members of the 1984 household born in 1966 or 1967.If entering a new household, for example because of leaving their parental home, the household head and his/her partner were also interviewed. Respondents participating in the 1984 survey were interviewed by telephone in 1986.Questions dealt with changes in family composition, housing, employment, wages and child care, and it was not only recorded whether a change had occurred, and what sort of change, but also when it occurred. The respondents also received a questionnaire by mail with questions mainly concerning income and assets.Respondents not participating in the earlier survey were interviewed in person and were asked approximately the same questions as in the 1984 personal interview.The 1988 HUS-survey was considerably smaller than the previous ones. It was addressed exclusively to participants in the 1986 survey, and consisted of a self-enumerated questionnaire with a nonrespondent follow-up by telephone. The questions dealt with changes in housing conditions, employment and household composition. The questionnaire also contained some questions on household income.In many respect the 1991 HUS-survey replicated the 1988 survey. The questions were basically the same in content and range, and the survey was conducted as a self-enamurated questionnaire sent out by mail. This time, however, in contrast to the 1988 survey, an attempt was made to include in the survey the new household members who had moved into sample households since 1986, as well as young people who turned 18 after the 1986 survey. Earlier respondents received a questionnaire by mail containing questions about their home, their primary occupation and weekly work hours since May 1988 (event-history data), earnings in 1989, 1990 and 1991, household composition and any changes in it that might have occurred since 1988, child care and some questions on income. New respondents were also asked about their education and labor-market experience.With respect to its design and question wording, the 1993 survey is a new version of the 1986 survey. The survey is made up of four parts:1) the panel survey, which was addressed mainly to respondents in the 1991 survey, with certain additions; 2) the so-called supplementary survey, which focused on a new random sample of individuals; 3) the so-called nonresponse survey, which encompassed respondents who had participated in at least one of the earlier surveys but had since dropped out; 4) the time-use survey, which included the same sample of respondents as those in the panel and supplementary surveys.Individuals in the nonresponse group were not included in the time-use survey. Most of the questions in the first three surveys were the same, but certain questions sequences were targeted to the respondents in a specific survey. Thus certain retrospective questions were asked of the nonresponse group, while specific questions on social background, labor market experience etc. were addressed to new respondents. In the case of respondents who had already participated in the panel, a combined contact and main interview was conducted by telephone, after which a self-enumerated questionnaire was sent out to each respondent by mail. The panel sample also included young people in panel households who were born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members who had not previously been interviewed. These individuals, like new respondents, were not interviewed by telephone until they had been interviewed personally. Thus technically they were treated in the same manner as individuals in the supplementary sample. The new supplementary sample was first contacted by telephone and then given a fairly lengthy personal interview, at the conclusion of which each respondent was asked to fill out a written questionnaire. In this respect the survey design for the nonresponse sample was the same as for the supplementary sample. The nonresponse sample also included young people born in 1973 or 1974 as well as certain new household members. The time-use interviews were conducted by telephone. For each respondent two days were chosen at random from the period from February 15, 1993 to February 14, 1994 and the respondents were interviewed about their time use during those two days. If possible, the time-use interviews were preceded by the other parts of the survey, but this was not always feasible. In each household the household head and spouse/partner were interviewed, as well as an additional person in certain households. Questions regarding the household as a whole were asked of only one person in the household, preferably the household head. As in earlier surveys, data from the interviews was subsequently supplemented by registry data, but only for those respondents who had given their express consent. There is registry information for 75-80 percent of the sample. The telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; and cars and boats. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1992.The 1996 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and environment. The questionnaire was divided into twelve sections: sale of previous home; acquisition of current home; construction costs for building a home; house value and loans; repairs; insurance; home-related expenses; sale of previous home; assets; household income; taxes; and respondent income 1995.The 1998 telephone interview is divided into following sections: administrative data; labor market experience; employment; job-seekers; not in labor force; education; family composition; child care; health status; other household members; housing conditions; vacation homes; cars and boats; and municipal service. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: sale of previous home; house value and loans; insurance; home-related expenses; assets; household income; inheritances and gifts; black-market work; and respondent income 1997.