4 results
Chapter 3 - Energy and Environment
-
- By Lisa Emberson, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Kebin He, Tsinghua University, Johan Rockström, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Markus Amann, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Jennie Barron, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Robert Correll, Global Environment Technology Foundation, Sara Feresu, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of Zimbabwe, Richard Haeuber, United States Environmental Protection Agency), Kevin Hicks, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Francis X. Johnson, Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm University, Anders Karlqvist, Swedish Polar Research Secretariat, Zbigniew Klimont, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Iyngararasan Mylvakanam, United Nations Environment Programme, Wei Wei Song, Tsinghua University, Harry Vallack, Stockholm Environment Institute, University of York, Qiang Zhang, Tsinghua University, Jill Jäger, Sustainable Europe Research Institute
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 191-254
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Executive Summary
Modern energy systems have been central to the development of human societies. They have perhaps been the single most important determinant of growth of our industrial societies and our modern economy. Unfortunately, they have also been a key driver of many of the negative environmental trends observed in the world today. For example, current energy systems are the predominant source of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, accounting for 84% of total global CO2 emissions and 64% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions related to human activities. Past trends suggest that this percentage is likely to increase in the future if our energy needs continue to be met by fossil fuels.
The impact of GHG emissions on climate is arguably the most significant environmental impact associated with our energy systems, as the effects of such emissions are felt globally. However, these effects will not necessarily be equitable. Due to the realities of global and national economics, the areas that may suffer the greatest impacts from climate change may be those that have to date contributed the least in terms of GHG emissions. Our fossil fuel-based energy systems also emit substantial quantities of other atmospheric pollutants, for example sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), primary particulate matter (PM), and non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOCs), which degrade air quality and cause damage to health and ecosystems through processes such as acidifi cation, eutrophication, and the formation of ground-level ozone (O3) and secondary PM. Biomass-based energy systems can also have substantial impacts on land and water resources.
Chapter 17 - Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development
-
- By Keywan Riahi, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Frank Dentener, Joint Research Center, Dolf Gielen, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Arnulf Grubler, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria and Yale University, Jessica Jewell, Central European University, Zbigniew Klimont, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Volker Krey, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, David McCollum, University of California, Shonali Pachauri, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Shilpa Rao, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Bas van Ruijven, PBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Detlef P. van Vuuren, PBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Charlie Wilson, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Morna Isaac, PBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Mark Jaccard, Simon Fraser University, Shigeki Kobayashi, Toyota Central R&D Laboratories, Peter Kolp, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Eric D. Larson, Princeton University and Climate Central, Yu Nagai, Vienna University of Technology, Pallav Purohit, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Jules Schers, PBL, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Central European University, Rita van Dingenen, Joint Research Center, Oscar van Vliet, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Granger Morgan, Carnegie Mellon University
- Global Energy Assessment Writing Team
-
- Book:
- Global Energy Assessment
- Published online:
- 05 September 2012
- Print publication:
- 27 August 2012, pp 1205-1306
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Executive Summary
Chapter 17 explores possible transformational pathways of the future global energy system with the overarching aim of assessing the technological feasibility as well as the economic implications of meeting a range of sustainability objectives simultaneously. As such, it aims at the integration across objectives, and thus goes beyond earlier assessments of the future energy system that have mostly focused on either specific topics or single objectives. Specifically, the chapter assesses technical measures, policies, and related costs and benefits for meeting the objectives that were identified in Chapters 2 to 6, including:
providing almost universal access to affordable clean cooking and electricity for the poor;
limiting air pollution and health damages from energy use;
improving energy security throughout the world; and
limiting climate change.
The assessment of future energy pathways in this chapter shows that it is technically possible to achieve improved energy access, air quality, and energy security simultaneously while avoiding dangerous climate change. In fact, a number of alternative combinations of resources, technologies, and policies are found capable of attaining these objectives. From a large ensemble of possible transformations, three distinct groups of pathways (GEA-Supply, GEA-Mix, and GEA-Efficiency) have been identified and analyzed. Within each group, one pathway has been selected as “illustrative” in order to represent alternative evolutions of the energy system toward sustainable development. The pathway groups, together with the illustrative cases, depict salient branching points for policy implementation and highlight different degrees of freedom and different routes to the sustainability objectives.
24 - Future scenarios of nitrogen in Europe
- from Part V - European nitrogen policies and future challenges
-
- By Wilfried Winiwarter, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Jean-Paul Hettelingh, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Alex F. Bouwman, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Wim de Vries, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Jan Willem Erisman, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, James Galloway, University of Virginia, Zbigniew Klimont, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Allison Leach, University of Virginia, Adrian Leip, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Christian Pallière, Fertilizers Europe, Uwe A. Schneider, KlimaCampus, Hamburg University, Till Spranger, Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety, Mark A. Sutton, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Anastasia Svirejeva-Hopkins, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Klaas W. van der Hoek, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Peter Witzke, EuroCARE GmbH
- Edited by Mark A. Sutton, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK, Clare M. Howard, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK, Jan Willem Erisman, Gilles Billen, Albert Bleeker, Peringe Grennfelt, Hans van Grinsven, Bruna Grizzetti
-
- Book:
- The European Nitrogen Assessment
- Published online:
- 16 May 2011
- Print publication:
- 14 April 2011, pp 551-569
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Executive summary
Nature of the problem
The future effects of nitrogen in the environment will depend on the extent of nitrogen use and the practical application techniques of nitrogen in a similar way as in the past. Projections and scenarios are appropriate tools for extrapolating current knowledge into the future. However, these tools will not allow future system turnovers to be predicted.
Approaches
In principle, scenarios of nitrogen use follow the approaches currently used for air pollution, climate, or ecosystem projections. Short-term projections (to 2030) are developed using a ‘baseline’ path of development, which considers abatement options that are consistent with European policy. For medium-term projections (to 2050) and long-term projections, the European Nitrogen Assessment (ENA) applies a ‘storyline’ approach similar to that used in the IPCC SRES scenarios. Beyond 2050 in particular, such storylines also take into account technological and behavioral shifts.
Key findings/state of knowledge
The ENA distinguishes between driver-oriented and effect-oriented factors determining nitrogen use. Parameters that cause changes in nitrogen fixation or application are called drivers. In a driver-based approach, it is assumed that any variation of these parameters will also trigger a change in nitrogen pollution. In an effect-based approach, as the adverse effects of nitrogen become evident in the environment, introduction of nitrogen abatement legislation requiring the application of more efficient abatement measures is expected. This approach needs to rely on a target that is likely to be maintained in the future (e.g. human health). Nitrogen abatement legislation based on such targets will aim to counter any growth in adverse environmental effects that occur as a result of increased nitrogen application.
[…]
22 - Costs and benefits of nitrogen in the environment
- from Part V - European nitrogen policies and future challenges
-
- By Corjan Brink, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hans van Grinsven, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Brian H. Jacobsen, University of Copenhagen, Ari Rabl, ARMINES/Ecoles des Mines de Paris, Ing-Marie Gren, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Mike Holland, University of Reading, Zbigniew Klimont, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Kevin Hicks, University of York, Roy Brouwer, VU University Amsterdam, Roald Dickens, Department for the Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Jaap Willems, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Mette Termansen, University of Aarhus, Gerard Velthof, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Rob Alkemade, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Mark van Oorschot, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Jim Webb, AEA Energy and Environment
- Edited by Mark A. Sutton, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK, Clare M. Howard, NERC Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, UK, Jan Willem Erisman, Gilles Billen, Albert Bleeker, Peringe Grennfelt, Hans van Grinsven, Bruna Grizzetti
-
- Book:
- The European Nitrogen Assessment
- Published online:
- 16 May 2011
- Print publication:
- 14 April 2011, pp 513-540
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Executive summary
Nature of the problem
Single issue policies have been an effective means of reducing reactive nitrogen (Nr) emissions in the EU, but to make further reductions more-integrated approaches are required.
Approaches
This chapter shows how cost–benefit analysis (CBA) can provide guidance for the setting of new policy priorities for the abatement of the European Nr emissions from an integrated perspective.
Data on costs and benefits of Nr-abatement, including four national and regional case studies, are reviewed and made comparable by expression in euro per kg of added Nr (agriculture) or euro per kg of reduced Nr emission (unit cost approach).
Social cost estimates are based on Willingness to Pay (WTP) for human life or health, for ecosystem services and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction.
Key findings
The total annual Nr-related damage in EU27 ranges between 70 and 320 billion Euro, equivalent to 150–750 euro/capita, of which about 75% is related to health damage and air pollution. This damage cost constitutes 1%–4% of the average European income.
Inferred social costs of health impacts from NOx are highest (10–30 euro per kg of pollutant-Nr emission). Health costs from secondary ammonium particles (2–20 euro/kg N), from GHG balance effects of N2O (5–15 euro/kg N), from ecosystem impacts via N-runoff (5–20 euro/kg N) and by N-deposition (2–10 euro/kg N) are intermediate. Costs of health impacts from NO3 in drinking water (0–4 euro/kg N) and by N2O via stratospheric ozone depletion (1–3 euro/kg N) are estimated to be low.
[…]