6 results
Summary for Policy Makers
-
- By Thomas B. Johansson, Lund University, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Vienna University of Technology, Anand Patwardhan, Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay), Luis Gomez-Echeverri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Rangan Banerjee, Indian Institute of Technology, Sally M. Benson, Stanford University, Daniel H. Bouille, Bariloche Foundation, Abeeku Brew-Hammond, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Aleh Cherp, Central European University, Suani T. Coelho, National Reference Center on Biomass, University of São Paulo, Lisa Emberson, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Maria Josefina Figueroa, Technical University, Arnulf Grubler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria and Yale University, Kebin He, Tsinghua University, Mark Jaccard, Simon Fraser University, Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Stephen Karekezi, AFREPREN/FWD, Eric D. Larson, Princeton University and Climate Central, Zheng Li, Tsinghua University, Susan McDade, United Nations Development Programme), Lynn K. Mytelka, United Nations University-MERIT, Shonali Pachauri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Keywan Riahi, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Johan Rockström, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm University, Hans-Holger Rogner, International Atomic Energy Agency, Joyashree Roy, Jadavpur University, Robert N. Schock, World Energy Council, UK and Center for Global Security Research, Ralph Sims, Massey University, Kirk R. Smith, University of California, Wim C. Turkenburg, Utrecht University, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Central European University, Frank von Hippel, Princeton University, Kurt Yeager, Electric Power Research Institute and Galvin Electricity Initiative
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 3-30
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Energy is essential for human development and energy systems are a crucial entry point for addressing the most pressing global challenges of the 21st century, including sustainable economic and social development, poverty eradication, adequate food production and food security, health for all, climate protection, conservation of ecosystems, peace and security. Yet, more than a decade into the 21st century, current energy systems do not meet these challenges.
A major transformation is therefore required to address these challenges and to avoid potentially catastrophic future consequences for human and planetary systems. The Global Energy Assessment (GEA) demonstrates that energy system change is the key for addressing and resolving these challenges. The GEA identifies strategies that could help resolve the multiple challenges simultaneously and bring multiple benefits. Their successful implementation requires determined, sustained and immediate action.
Transformative change in the energy system may not be internally generated; due to institutional inertia, incumbency and lack of capacity and agility of existing organizations to respond effectively to changing conditions. In such situations clear and consistent external policy signals may be required to initiate and sustain the transformative change needed to meet the sustainability challenges of the 21st century.
The industrial revolution catapulted humanity onto an explosive development path, whereby, reliance on muscle power and traditional biomass was replaced mostly by fossil fuels. In 2005, some 78% of global energy was based on fossil energy sources that provided abundant and ever cheaper energy services to more than half the people in the world.
Technical Summary
-
- By Thomas B. Johansson, Lund University, Nebojsa Nakicenovic, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and Vienna University of Technology, Anand Patwardhan, Indian Institute of Technology, Luis Gomez-Echeverri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Doug J. Arent, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Rangan Banerjee, Indian Institute of Technology, Sally M. Benson, Stanford University, Daniel H. Bouille, Bariloche Foundation, Abeeku Brew-Hammond, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Aleh Cherp, Central European University, Suani T. Coelho, National Reference Center on Biomass, University of São Paulo, Lisa Emberson, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Maria Josefina Figueroa, Technical University, Arnulf Grubler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria and Yale University, Kebin He, Tsinghua University, Mark Jaccard, Simon Fraser University, Suzana Kahn Ribeiro, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Stephen Karekezi, AFREPREN/FWD, Eric D. Larson, Princeton University and Climate Central, Zheng Li, Tsinghua University, Susan McDade, United Nations Development Programme, Lynn K. Mytelka, United Nations University-MERIT, Shonali Pachauri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Keywan Riahi, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Johan Rockström, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm University, Hans-Holger Rogner, International Atomic Energy Agency, Joyashree Roy, Jadavpur University, Robert N. Schock, World Energy Council, UK and Center for Global Security Research, Ralph Sims, Massey University, Kirk R. Smith, University of California, Wim C. Turkenburg, Utrecht University, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Central European University, Frank von Hippel, Princeton University, Kurt Yeager, Electric Power Research Institute and Galvin Electricity Initiative
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 31-94
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Energy is essential for human development and energy systems are a crucial entry point for addressing the most pressing global challenges of the 21st century, including sustainable economic, and social development, poverty eradication, adequate food production and food security, health for all, climate protection, conservation of ecosystems, peace, and security. Yet, more than a decade into the 21st century, current energy systems do not meet these challenges.
In this context, two considerations are important. The first is the capacity and agility of the players within the energy system to seize opportunities in response to these challenges. The second is the response capacity of the energy system itself, as the investments are long-term and tend to follow standard financial patterns, mainly avoiding risks and price instabilities. This traditional approach does not embrace the transformation needed to respond properly to the economic, environmental, and social sustainability challenges of the 21st century.
A major transformation is required to address these challenges and to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences for human and planetary systems. The GEA identifies strategies that could help resolve the multiple challenges simultaneously and bring multiple benefits. Their successful implementation requires determined, sustained, and immediate action.
The industrial revolution catapulted humanity onto an explosive development path, whereby reliance on muscle power and traditional biomass was replaced mostly by fossil fuels. In 2005, approximately 78% of global energy was based on fossil energy sources that provided abundant and ever cheaper energy services to more than half the world's population.
The relationship between diet, the copper and sulphur content of wool, and fibre characteristics
- U. R. Kapoor, O. N. Agarwala, V. C. Pachauri, K. Nath, S. Narayan
-
- Journal:
- The Journal of Agricultural Science / Volume 79 / Issue 1 / August 1972
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 27 March 2009, pp. 109-114
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Thirty-six rams of Chokla breed of about 1–1½12 years of age were randomly divided into six groups and were fed for 4 months on a basal ration of Cynodon dactylon grass or its hay ad libitum. One group acted as the control, while the rations of the remaining groups were respectively supplemented with 250 g of a concentrate mixture, 250 g of lucerne hay, mg CoCl2.6H2O, 10 mg CuSO4.5H2O and 1 mg CoCl2. 6H2O plus 10 mg CuSO4. 5H2O per animal per day. The mean copper, sulphur and cobalt ingestion in the different groups respectively ranged from.1 to 9·7, 475 to 2030 and 0·10 to 0·53 mg per animal per day. The copper, sulphur, fibre diameter, staple length, medullation percentage, crimp per cm and staining grade were not significantly (P > 0·05) affected by the different dietary treatments. The wool copper was strongly correlated with wool sulphur (r = + 0·79) and both were inversely correlated with fibre diameter and medullation percentage. Wool sulphur, but not wool copper, was inversely correlated with staple length. Wool copper, but not wool sulphur, was inversely correlated with the staining grade of canary coloured wool. Staining grade was inversely correlated with fibre diameter as well as crimps per cm. The results suggest that copper plays an intrinsic role in the marshalling of the sulphur component of wool and in the synthetic mechanism of the wool fibre. A suggestion has been made that copper may be playing a biochemical part in the physiological processes causing canary coloration in Indian wools.
9 - Enhancing Energy Security in Asia: The Role of Governments
-
- By R. K. Pachauri, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI)
-
- Book:
- Singapore Energy Conference 2006
- Published by:
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Published online:
- 21 October 2015
- Print publication:
- 05 December 2006, pp 61-66
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The contemporary politics of energy have witnessed the foregrounding of governments as central actors in efforts to secure national and global energy security priorities. Governments are not only engaged in securing energy resources including the demand-supply dynamics, but are also expanding their efforts at developing alternative renewable sources including the enabling technologies. Dr R.K. Pachauri's presentation highlighted ways by which governments in Asia could enhance energy security in a holistic manner.
Energy Demand and Supply Challenges in the Future
The speaker noted that an analysis of current global energy demand and supply dynamics indicate some crucial trends. Rapidly growing economies of China and India have resulted in a significant increase in the global energy demand and this would have to be supported by OPEC that will play a crucial role and may even have to double their current oil production. This raises the issue of the ability of the Middle East region to raise its production levels in such short time, especially in light of discussions on peak oil production.
Dr Pachauri highlighted the current global nature of petroleum consumption currently pegged at nearly 80 million barrels per day (MBD), of which two-thirds (53 MBD) is used by the transport sector alone. He argued that any major plans to change future energy consumption would have to be predicated on substantial changes to the transport sector.
The Role of Governments
Dr Pachauri elaborated on the ways by which governments in Asia could enhance their energy security policies. These were discussed under three broad rubrics.
Preparation of a Level Playing Field: It was argued that governments have a crucial role in creating appropriate market mechanisms by following rational energy pricing, creating appropriate financial frameworks for energy investments, and by specifying clear legal and contractual terms for private sector participation. Further, governments must seek to diversify their energy supplies by reaching out to a wider geography, tapping new sources and by integrating markets and electricity grids on a regional basis. Importantly, they could reduce the risk of disruption by creating adequate strategic reserve capacity and by providing security to their supply lines.[…]
Global climate change: science and sustainable policies
- R. K. PACHAURI
-
- Journal:
- Environment and Development Economics / Volume 3 / Issue 3 / July 1998
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 April 2001, pp. 347-409
-
- Article
- Export citation
16 - “Wait and See” versus “No Regrets”: Comparing the Costs of Economic Strategies
- Edited by Irving M. Mintzer, Stockholm Environment Institute
-
- Book:
- Confronting Climate Change
- Published online:
- 06 January 2010
- Print publication:
- 11 June 1992, pp 237-252
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Editor's Introduction
The international debate on policy responses to the risks of rapid climate change is moving toward a climax. In the process, scientists, economists, environmentalists and decision- makers have sorted themselves loosely into two camps. One group, while cognizant of the remaining uncertainties in the science of climate change, sees critical relationships and synergisms linking this problem to other aspects of the environment/development challenge. This group sees the risks as sufficiently urgent, and the synergisms sufficiently beneficial to argue for bold initiatives now — especially those that sustain or enhance the prospects for economic development while limiting the dangers of environmental damage. This group advocates a policy strategy based on the principle of “No Regrets” — taking steps now that will pay dividends in the future, whether or not the world is on the edge of a major climate change.
The second group emphasizes the fact that scientific knowledge of the climate system is not complete. They note that current knowledge is, for example, insufficient to predict the regional distribution of future climate change with certainty. As a consequence, this group argues that hasty choices made now could impose large and uncompensated costs on human societies—or might even backfire environmentally. This group urges caution and delay—adopting a “Wait and See” strategy in which no deliberate policy actions are taken until scientific certainty about the timing, distribution, and severity of future climate change has been established.
R.K. Pachauri and Mala Damodaran take up the challenge of comparing the economic implications of these two strategies. They assess the potential impacts of global climate change on agriculture, forests and ecosystems, coastal zones, and human health.