Suchergebnisse

Lighting accounts for 10–13% of China's electricity consumption. Triggered by the nationwide power shortage of the mid-1990s, the Chinese government launched its Green Lights Program in 1996. Since then, this program has been continuously highlighted in the nation's 9th–12th Five-Year Plans (1996–2015). This paper presents a review and assessment of this program during the past two decades. Based on available data, the achievements along with the implementation of this program are assessed by examining a set of indicators of electricity savings, consumer savings, market penetration, product quality, and production capacity expansion. The success of this programs can be attributed to several factors: 1) strong and sustained government commitment; 2) prioritized policy focus by program stages; 3) extensive efforts on product quality control; 4) a close symbiosis of energy efficiency policies with industrial development policies; and 5) the implementation of various incentive schemes. Nonetheless, several challenges are evident that the program needs to address in its next phase. These include: 1) promoting the use of efficient lighting products in rural China; 2) emphasizing the overall efficacy of lighting fixtures rather than focusing only on bulb efficacy; and 3) promoting the healthy development of an emerging semiconductor lighting industry in the nation.

Lighting accounts for 10–13% of China's electricity consumption. Triggered by the nationwide power shortage of the mid-1990s, the Chinese government launched its Green Lights Program in 1996. Since then, this program has been continuously highlighted in the nation's 9th–12th Five-Year Plans (1996–2015). This paper presents a review and assessment of this program during the past two decades. Based on available data, the achievements along with the implementation of this program are assessed by examining a set of indicators of electricity savings, consumer savings, market penetration, product quality, and production capacity expansion. The success of this programs can be attributed to several factors: 1) strong and sustained government commitment; 2) prioritized policy focus by program stages; 3) extensive efforts on product quality control; 4) a close symbiosis of energy efficiency policies with industrial development policies; and 5) the implementation of various incentive schemes. Nonetheless, several challenges are evident that the program needs to address in its next phase. These include: 1) promoting the use of efficient lighting products in rural China; 2) emphasizing the overall efficacy of lighting fixtures rather than focusing only on bulb efficacy; and 3) promoting the healthy development of an emerging semiconductor lighting industry in the nation.

Over two-thirds of Indians use solid fuels to meet daily cooking energy needs, with associated negative environmental, social, and health impacts. Major national initiatives implemented by the Indian government over the last few decades have included subsidies for cleaner burning fuels like liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and kerosene to encourage a transition to these. However, the extent to which these programs have affected net emissions from the use of these improved fuels has not been adequately studied. Here, we estimate the amount of fuelwood displaced and its net emissions impact due to improved access to LPG for cooking in India between 2001 and 2011 using nationally representative household expenditure surveys and census datasets. We account for a suite of climate-relevant emissions (Kyoto gases and other short-lived climate pollutants) and biomass renewability scenarios (a fully renewable and a conservative non-renewable case). We estimate that the national fuelwood displaced due to increased LPG access between 2001 and 2011 was approximately 7.2 million tons. On aggregate, we estimate a net emissions reduction of 6.73 MtCO2e due to the fuelwood displaced from increased access to LPG, when both Kyoto and non-Kyoto climate-active emissions are accounted for and assuming 0.3 as the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) harvested. However, if only Kyoto gases are considered, we estimate a smaller net emissions decrease of 0.03 MtCO2e (assuming fully renewable biomass harvesting), or 3.05 MtCO2e (assuming 0.3 as the fNRB). We conclude that the transition to LPG cooking in India reduced pressures on forests and achieved modest climate benefits, though uncertainties regarding the extent of non-renewable biomass harvesting and suite of climate-active emissions included in such an estimation can significantly influence results in any given year and should be considered carefully in any analysis and policy-making.

Over two-thirds of Indians use solid fuels to meet daily cooking energy needs, with associated negative environmental, social, and health impacts. Major national initiatives implemented by the Indian government over the last few decades have included subsidies for cleaner burning fuels like liquid petroleum gas (LPG) and kerosene to encourage a transition to these. However, the extent to which these programs have affected net emissions from the use of these improved fuels has not been adequately studied. Here, we estimate the amount of fuelwood displaced and its net emissions impact due to improved access to LPG for cooking in India between 2001 and 2011 using nationally representative household expenditure surveys and census datasets. We account for a suite of climate-relevant emissions (Kyoto gases and other short-lived climate pollutants) and biomass renewability scenarios (a fully renewable and a conservative non-renewable case). We estimate that the national fuelwood displaced due to increased LPG access between 2001 and 2011 was approximately 7.2 million tons. On aggregate, we estimate a net emissions reduction of 6.73 MtCO2e due to the fuelwood displaced from increased access to LPG, when both Kyoto and non-Kyoto climate-active emissions are accounted for and assuming 0.3 as the fraction of non-renewable biomass (fNRB) harvested. However, if only Kyoto gases are considered, we estimate a smaller net emissions decrease of 0.03 MtCO2e (assuming fully renewable biomass harvesting), or 3.05 MtCO2e (assuming 0.3 as the fNRB). We conclude that the transition to LPG cooking in India reduced pressures on forests and achieved modest climate benefits, though uncertainties regarding the extent of non-renewable biomass harvesting and suite of climate-active emissions included in such an estimation can significantly influence results in any given year and should be considered carefully in any analysis and policy-making.

Policy makers are trying to balance the demands of three broad objectives in the energy sector; energy security to ensure economic stability and growth; reducing energy poverty, by ensuring access to electricity and clean-combusting fuels and equipment for the poor; and managing greenhouse gas emissions from energy. The World Energy Council has called this the "energy trilemma" - of how to achieve an appropriate balance between these sometimes conflicting objectives. Over the past two years, the challenge of providing people living in poverty with access to modern energy has been prominent in policy debates. The UN Secretary General's Sustainable Energy for All initiative is instrumental in highlighting the importance of energy access for poverty reduction. Some developing countries are now drawing-up national strategies for Sustainable Energy for All and over the next few years, attention is likely to continue in the debates about the post-2015 development agenda and during the UN Decade for Sustainable Energy for All (2014-24). However, and despite this policy focus, governments sometimes overlook the needs of chronically poor people when initiating energy for all programmes as they are often the most difficult for energy service providers to reach, and are least able to afford services when they are available. Chronically poor people therefore need to be explicitly considered in measures to deliver energy services. Research and policy evaluation tells us that access to electricity, together with the assets which enable its use in a transformational way, improved cooking technologies, and mechanical power can help people to escape from persistent poverty. There are three broad policy areas which can help achieve this: - expanding electricity coverage and distributing clean-combusting fuels and equipment to populations not yet served; - improving the ability of the poorest people to afford these when they are available; - enhancing the reliability of energy services. This is important if energy is to contribute in a transformational way to escaping poverty. A minimalist approach will not do - energy is needed by poor households for productive uses as well as domestic and community needs. This CPAN Policy Guide provides guidance for developing country policy makers and their advisers when considering the specific measures necessary to ensure that chronically poor people are included in efforts to deliver sustainable energy for all. It is therefore intended for policy and programme designers and implementers in energy agencies, as well as policymakers in ministries of finance and planning, energy, rural development and health alongside those in local government. One message from this guide is that co-ordination and inter-sectoral collaboration is required to ensure that the expansion of energy services contributes to poverty reduction.

Policy makers are trying to balance the demands of three broad objectives in the energy sector; energy security to ensure economic stability and growth; reducing energy poverty, by ensuring access to electricity and clean-combusting fuels and equipment for the poor; and managing greenhouse gas emissions from energy. The World Energy Council has called this the "energy trilemma" - of how to achieve an appropriate balance between these sometimes conflicting objectives. Over the past two years, the challenge of providing people living in poverty with access to modern energy has been prominent in policy debates. The UN Secretary General's Sustainable Energy for All initiative is instrumental in highlighting the importance of energy access for poverty reduction. Some developing countries are now drawing-up national strategies for Sustainable Energy for All and over the next few years, attention is likely to continue in the debates about the post-2015 development agenda and during the UN Decade for Sustainable Energy for All (2014-24). However, and despite this policy focus, governments sometimes overlook the needs of chronically poor people when initiating energy for all programmes as they are often the most difficult for energy service providers to reach, and are least able to afford services when they are available. Chronically poor people therefore need to be explicitly considered in measures to deliver energy services. Research and policy evaluation tells us that access to electricity, together with the assets which enable its use in a transformational way, improved cooking technologies, and mechanical power can help people to escape from persistent poverty. There are three broad policy areas which can help achieve this: - expanding electricity coverage and distributing clean-combusting fuels and equipment to populations not yet served; - improving the ability of the poorest people to afford these when they are available; - enhancing the reliability of energy services. This is important if energy is to contribute in a transformational way to escaping poverty. A minimalist approach will not do - energy is needed by poor households for productive uses as well as domestic and community needs. This CPAN Policy Guide provides guidance for developing country policy makers and their advisers when considering the specific measures necessary to ensure that chronically poor people are included in efforts to deliver sustainable energy for all. It is therefore intended for policy and programme designers and implementers in energy agencies, as well as policymakers in ministries of finance and planning, energy, rural development and health alongside those in local government. One message from this guide is that co-ordination and inter-sectoral collaboration is required to ensure that the expansion of energy services contributes to poverty reduction.

Household air pollution from traditional cook stoves presents a greater health hazard than any other environmental factor. Despite government efforts to support clean-burning cooking fuels, over 700 million people in South Asia could still rely on traditional stoves in 2030. This number could rise if climate change mitigation efforts increase energy costs. Here we quantify the costs of support policies to make clean cooking affordable to all South Asians under four increasingly stringent climate policy scenarios. Our most sringent mitigation scenario increases clean fuel costs 38% in 2030 relative to the baseline, keeping 21% more South Asians on traditional stoves or increasing the minimum support policy cost to achieve universal clean cooking by up to 44%. The extent of this increase depends on how poliymakers allocate subsidies between clean fuels and stoves. These additional costs are within the range of financial transfers to South Asia estimated in efforts-sharing scenarios of international climate agreements. Three billion people globally burn solid fuels such as firewood, charcoal, coal, dung, and crop resides in open fires and traditional stoves for cooking and heating. Household air pollution from the incomplete combustion of these fuels globally leads to 4.3 million premature deaths each year, with 1.7 million of those in South Asia. This exceeds the burden of disease from any other energy-related or environmental risk factor. Solid-fuel use also perpetuates income and gender inequality by forcing users, mostly poor women and children, to spend long hours collecting fuels and to suffer from its adverse health effects. To address this problem, the United Nations Secretary-General's Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative and the new Sustainable Development Goals aim to achieve universal access to modern energy services by 2030. Numerous intervention efforts have focused on distributing more efficient and cleaner burning biomass stoves, but several of these programmes have had little or no demonstrable impact on health outcomes. In India, the nation with the largest population of solid-fuel users globally, government interventions have sought to make petroleum-based fuels, such as kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), more affordable through subsidy at an estimated cost of over US$6 billion per year. Although LPG use has grown rapidly, particularly in rural areas, over 72% of Indians continued to rely primarily on solid fuels in 2012. In the future, expanding clean cooking may become more challenging if climate policies increase the cost of fuels. Previous research has found that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions in Asia and Africa would increase the cost of kerosene and LPG. However, these studies do not explore compensatory policies that could counteract these effects, and assess only a limited set of climate mitigation scenarios. Only two studies explore normative scenarios that achieve access and climate goals simultanously, both of which do not explore the cost-effectiveness or distributional impacts on population subgroups of these policies. Meanwhile, studies that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of energy access policies have not considered the impact of climate policy. Te latest assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that we have only low confidence in our understanding of the possible impacts of climate policy on access to modern energy services, and medium confidence in the policies needed to counteract them. In this study, we contribute new insights to the interaction of climate policy and clean cooking acces policies by quantifying the feasibility and costs of achieving universal access by 2030 for a range of climate policy stringencies, and under a wide range of fuel and stove price support policies. Our analysis suggests that the potential trade-offs between the two goals might be arger than suggested by previous studies. However, we find that efficient policy design could partially compensate for the additional access policy costs associated with climate mitigation. Furthermore, these costs fall below the level of potential financial transfers to South Asia that may result from international climate agreements.

Household air pollution from traditional cook stoves presents a greater health hazard than any other environmental factor. Despite government efforts to support clean-burning cooking fuels, over 700 million people in South Asia could still rely on traditional stoves in 2030. This number could rise if climate change mitigation efforts increase energy costs. Here we quantify the costs of support policies to make clean cooking affordable to all South Asians under four increasingly stringent climate policy scenarios. Our most sringent mitigation scenario increases clean fuel costs 38% in 2030 relative to the baseline, keeping 21% more South Asians on traditional stoves or increasing the minimum support policy cost to achieve universal clean cooking by up to 44%. The extent of this increase depends on how poliymakers allocate subsidies between clean fuels and stoves. These additional costs are within the range of financial transfers to South Asia estimated in efforts-sharing scenarios of international climate agreements. Three billion people globally burn solid fuels such as firewood, charcoal, coal, dung, and crop resides in open fires and traditional stoves for cooking and heating. Household air pollution from the incomplete combustion of these fuels globally leads to 4.3 million premature deaths each year, with 1.7 million of those in South Asia. This exceeds the burden of disease from any other energy-related or environmental risk factor. Solid-fuel use also perpetuates income and gender inequality by forcing users, mostly poor women and children, to spend long hours collecting fuels and to suffer from its adverse health effects. To address this problem, the United Nations Secretary-General's Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) initiative and the new Sustainable Development Goals aim to achieve universal access to modern energy services by 2030. Numerous intervention efforts have focused on distributing more efficient and cleaner burning biomass stoves, but several of these programmes have had little or no demonstrable impact on health outcomes. In India, the nation with the largest population of solid-fuel users globally, government interventions have sought to make petroleum-based fuels, such as kerosene and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), more affordable through subsidy at an estimated cost of over US$6 billion per year. Although LPG use has grown rapidly, particularly in rural areas, over 72% of Indians continued to rely primarily on solid fuels in 2012. In the future, expanding clean cooking may become more challenging if climate policies increase the cost of fuels. Previous research has found that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions in Asia and Africa would increase the cost of kerosene and LPG. However, these studies do not explore compensatory policies that could counteract these effects, and assess only a limited set of climate mitigation scenarios. Only two studies explore normative scenarios that achieve access and climate goals simultanously, both of which do not explore the cost-effectiveness or distributional impacts on population subgroups of these policies. Meanwhile, studies that have evaluated the cost-effectiveness of energy access policies have not considered the impact of climate policy. Te latest assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that we have only low confidence in our understanding of the possible impacts of climate policy on access to modern energy services, and medium confidence in the policies needed to counteract them. In this study, we contribute new insights to the interaction of climate policy and clean cooking acces policies by quantifying the feasibility and costs of achieving universal access by 2030 for a range of climate policy stringencies, and under a wide range of fuel and stove price support policies. Our analysis suggests that the potential trade-offs between the two goals might be arger than suggested by previous studies. However, we find that efficient policy design could partially compensate for the additional access policy costs associated with climate mitigation. Furthermore, these costs fall below the level of potential financial transfers to South Asia that may result from international climate agreements.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has invited world leaders to come to the Climate Summit on September 23, 2014 to deliver "bold pledges" to tackle climate change. This paper was prepared at the request of the Republic of Nauru, Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, as part of their answer to that call. We believe the path to the global low-carbon transformation needed to tackle the climate crisis is within reach, but requires decisive political action from leaders around the world, now. This paper is unabashedly prescriptive on the need for action, but recognizes that there are multiple approaches and models from around the world that can be scaled up and adapted to national circumstances. Cost-effective technologies for a low-carbon economy are being implemented throughout the world, but at nowhere the scale and speed necessary. Emissions continue to rise. With every year of delay, human suffering, biodiversity loss, and the costs of mitigation and adaptation increase. We are running out of time.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has invited world leaders to come to the Climate Summit on September 23, 2014 to deliver "bold pledges" to tackle climate change. This paper was prepared at the request of the Republic of Nauru, Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, as part of their answer to that call. We believe the path to the global low-carbon transformation needed to tackle the climate crisis is within reach, but requires decisive political action from leaders around the world, now. This paper is unabashedly prescriptive on the need for action, but recognizes that there are multiple approaches and models from around the world that can be scaled up and adapted to national circumstances. Cost-effective technologies for a low-carbon economy are being implemented throughout the world, but at nowhere the scale and speed necessary. Emissions continue to rise. With every year of delay, human suffering, biodiversity loss, and the costs of mitigation and adaptation increase. We are running out of time.