Search results

The state of São Paulo, the most populous state in Brazil with 40 million people, is leading the way in Brazilian environmental policies. This article discusses the implications this has particularly for climate change policies. Located in the southeast part of the country, far from the Amazon rainforest, São Paulo state has adopted policies and actions that are leading to effective improvements in the quality of air and to the partial recovery of the original Atlantic rainforest, and that promote sustainable practices for ethanol production from sugarcane. Compared to the state of São Paulo, Brazil as a whole faces a considerably different situation, with the federal and the state governments having chosen different pathways for addressing the challenges posed by climate change.

The São Paulo State has 36 million people, 25 million living in three metropolitan areas. Only the São Paulo Metropolitan Region (SPMR) includes the state capital (São Paulo City) plus 38 cities, where ≈ 18 million people live, affected by frequent episodes of ozone, NOx, and fine particulate matter. In 2003, it was estimated that 15.1% of the SPMR vehicles used ethanol and 70.2% used the local gasoline. Natural gas vehicles have witnessed a booming participation in the last years, mainly through conversion of gasoline cars, and the present fleet is almost one million vehicles. To face the problems generated by light vehicles emissions the Federal Government set a program called PROCONVE - Program of Air Pollution Control from Vehicles - in 1986 and since then until now a significant reduction was reached, but the growth of the fleet hides most of the emission cuts. A discussion covers the evolution of the air pollution management in São Paulo; and innovative tools for air pollution management - both for mobile and stationary sources. This is an abstract of a paper presented at the 98th AWMA Annual Conference and Exhibition (Minneapolis, MN 6/21-24/2005).

Bioenergy deployment offers significant potential for climate change mitigation, but also carries considerable risks. In this review, we bring together perspectives of various communities involved in the research and regulation of bioenergy deployment in the context of climate change mitigation: Land-use and energy experts, landuse and integrated assessment modelers, human geographers, ecosystem researchers, climate scientists and two different strands of life-cycle assessment experts. We summarize technological options, outline the state-of-theart knowledge on various climate effects, provide an update on estimates of technical resource potential and comprehensively identify sustainability effects. Cellulosic feedstocks, increased end-use efficiency, improved land carbon-stock management and residue use, and, when fully developed, BECCS appear as the most promising options, depending on development costs, implementation, learning, and risk management. Combined heat and power, efficient biomass cookstoves and small-scale power generation for rural areas can help to promote energy access and sustainable development, along with reduced emissions. We estimate the sustainable technical potential as up to 100 EJ: high agreement; 100–300 EJ: medium agreement; above 300 EJ: low agreement. Stabilization scenarios indicate that bioenergy may supply from 10 to 245 EJ yr 1 to global primary energy supply by 2050. Models indicate that, if technological and governance preconditions are met, large-scale deployment (>200 EJ), together with BECCS, could help to keep global warming below 2° degrees of preindustrial levels; but such high deployment of land-intensive bioenergy feedstocks could also lead to detrimental climate effects, negatively impact ecosystems, biodiversity and livelihoods. The integration of bioenergy systems into agriculture and forest landscapes can improve land and water use efficiency and help address concerns about environmental impacts. We conclude that the high variability in pathways, uncertainties in technological development and ambiguity in political decision render forecasts on deployment levels and climate effects very difficult. However, uncertainty about projections should not preclude pursuing beneficial bioenergy options. ; publishedVersion ; © 2015. This is the authors' accepted and refereed manuscript to the article. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ DOI:10.1111/gcbb.12205