Search results

A shift to electric vehicles (EV) is seen as one of the main methods to decarbonise the transportation sector. However, issues have also been raised regarding charging infrastructure, EV reliability and range, as well as the battery environmental and social credentials. Notwithstanding governments, intergovernmental organisations, and research entities have ploughed ahead to promote this transition, but the challenge is the uptake and public acceptance. Grants and financial subsidies have been developed to facilitate this shift. Our study investigates the characteristics of the private EV household charger population using a regression model and spatial analysis to determine the influences of income, car ownership and economic status on EV take up rates. Data on the installation of EV household chargers are used in this paper as a proxy for EV ownership, due to data limitations. The results indicate that 1) urban areas are more likely to see higher concentrations of EV ownership, 2) an income and equity gap exists between those that have adapted electric mobility. This finding is very important because it suggests that lower income categories may have a financial barrier to shifting to EVs.

A shift to electric vehicles (EV) is seen as one of the main methods to decarbonise the transportation sector. However, issues have also been raised regarding charging infrastructure, EV reliability and range, as well as the battery environmental and social credentials. Notwithstanding governments, intergovernmental organisations, and research entities have ploughed ahead to promote this transition, but the challenge is the uptake and public acceptance. Grants and financial subsidies have been developed to facilitate this shift. Our study investigates the characteristics of the private EV household charger population using a regression model and spatial analysis to determine the influences of income, car ownership and economic status on EV take up rates. Data on the installation of EV household chargers are used in this paper as a proxy for EV ownership, due to data limitations. The results indicate that 1) urban areas are more likely to see higher concentrations of EV ownership, 2) an income and equity gap exists between those that have adapted electric mobility. This finding is very important because it suggests that lower income categories may have a financial barrier to shifting to EVs.

Ceramics are considered one of the greatest and earliest most useful successes of humankind. However, ceramics can be highly damaging to natural and social systems during their lifecycle, from material extraction to waste handling. For example, each year in the EU, the manufacture of ceramics (e.g., refractories, wall and floor tiles and bricks and roof tile) emit 19 Mt CO2, while globally, bricks manufacturing is responsible for 2.7% of carbon emissions annually. This critical and systematic review seeks to identify alternatives to mitigate the climate effects of ceramics products and processes to make their lifecycle more sustainable. This article reviews 324 studies to answer the following questions: what are the main determinants of energy and carbon emissions emerging from the ceramics industry? What benefits will this industry amass from adopting more low-carbon processes in manufacturing their products, and what barriers will need to be tackled? We employ a sociotechnical approach to answer these questions, identify barriers to decarbonise the ceramics industry, and present promising avenues for future research. In doing so, we show that environmental and energy challenges associated with the ceramics industry are not just limited to the manufacturing stage but also relate to the extraction of raw materials, waste disposal, and landfilling.

This review investigates the state of the art in metrics used in energy (or fuel) and transport poverty with a view to assessing how these overlapping concepts may be unified in their measurement. Our review contributes to ongoing debates over decarbonisation, a politically sensitive and crucial aspect of the energy transition, and one that could exacerbate patterns of inequality or vulnerability. Up to 125 million people across the European Union experience the effects of energy poverty in their daily lives. A more comprehensive understanding of the breadth and depth of these conditions is therefore paramount. This review assessed 1,134 articles and critically analysed a deeper sample of 93. In terms of the use of metrics, we find that multiple indicators are better than any single metric or composite. We find work remains to be conducted in the transport poverty sphere before energy poverty metrics can be fully unified with those of transport poverty, namely the stipulation of travel standards. Without such standards, our ability to unify the metrics of both fields and potentially alleviate both conditions simultaneously is limited. The difficulties in defining necessary travel necessitate the further use of vulnerability lenses and holistic assessments focused on energy and transport services.

This review investigates the state of the art in metrics used in energy (or fuel) and transport poverty with a view to assessing how these overlapping concepts may be unified in their measurement. Our review contributes to ongoing debates over decarbonisation, a politically sensitive and crucial aspect of the energy transition, and one that could exacerbate patterns of inequality or vulnerability. Up to 125 million people across the European Union experience the effects of energy poverty in their daily lives. A more comprehensive understanding of the breadth and depth of these conditions is therefore paramount. This review assessed 1,134 articles and critically analysed a deeper sample of 93. In terms of the use of metrics, we find that multiple indicators are better than any single metric or composite. We find work remains to be conducted in the transport poverty sphere before energy poverty metrics can be fully unified with those of transport poverty, namely the stipulation of travel standards. Without such standards, our ability to unify the metrics of both fields and potentially alleviate both conditions simultaneously is limited. The difficulties in defining necessary travel necessitate the further use of vulnerability lenses and holistic assessments focused on energy and transport services.

Vaccination now offers a way to resolve the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is critical to recognise the full energy, environmental, economic and social equity (4E) impacts of the vaccination life cycle. The full 4E impacts include the design and trials, order management, material preparation, manufacturing, cold chain logistics, low-temperature storage, crowd management and end-of-life waste management. A life cycle perspective is necessary for sustainable vaccination management because a prolonged immunisation campaign for COVID-19 is likely. The impacts are geographically dispersed across sectors and regions, creating real and virtual 4E footprints that occur at different timescales. Decision-makers in industry and governments have to act, unify, resolve, and work together to implement more sustainable COVID-19 vaccination management globally and locally to minimise the 4E footprints. Potential practices include using renewable energy in production, storage, transportation and waste treatment, using better product design for packaging, using the Internet of Things (IoT) and big data analytics for better logistics, using real-time database management for better tracking of deliveries and public vaccination programmes, and using coordination platforms for more equitable vaccine access. These practices raise global challenges but suggest solutions with a 4E perspective, which could mitigate the impacts of global vaccination campaigns and prepare sustainably for future pandemics and global warming.

Vaccination now offers a way to resolve the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is critical to recognise the full energy, environmental, economic and social equity (4E) impacts of the vaccination life cycle. The full 4E impacts include the design and trials, order management, material preparation, manufacturing, cold chain logistics, low-temperature storage, crowd management and end-of-life waste management. A life cycle perspective is necessary for sustainable vaccination management because a prolonged immunisation campaign for COVID-19 is likely. The impacts are geographically dispersed across sectors and regions, creating real and virtual 4E footprints that occur at different timescales. Decision-makers in industry and governments have to act, unify, resolve, and work together to implement more sustainable COVID-19 vaccination management globally and locally to minimise the 4E footprints. Potential practices include using renewable energy in production, storage, transportation and waste treatment, using better product design for packaging, using the Internet of Things (IoT) and big data analytics for better logistics, using real-time database management for better tracking of deliveries and public vaccination programmes, and using coordination platforms for more equitable vaccine access. These practices raise global challenges but suggest solutions with a 4E perspective, which could mitigate the impacts of global vaccination campaigns and prepare sustainably for future pandemics and global warming.

Intro -- Thinking about War and Peace: Past, Present and Future -- Table of Contents -- Introduction -- A Complicated Distinction: The Philosophical Evolution of Thinking about War and Peace -- Terrorism as War: Implications for State Power and Individual Rights -- Classification of War -- Privatization of Security: A Strategy for Peace or War? -- Cyberterror: The Borderless Danger -- Developing Convergent Expectations in Slovenia's Conflict -- The Katyn Massacre and the Ethics of War: Negotiating Justice and Law -- Roma from Kosovo Forced to be Outsiders: A Decade of Exclusion (1999 - 2009) -- Towards Radical Praxis: Tiqqun, Form-of-Life and the Ethics of Civil War -- Between Sabotage and (Pre)Terrorism: Short Circuits and Their Terrorizing Disruptions.

International audience ; The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce urban adaptation plans, than countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in countries where local climate plans are compulsory, especially in France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans of international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous, i.e. A1 plans are less common. The findings reported here are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making and thinking of stakeholders with similar experiences or developments at all levels and sectors in other regions around the world.

International audience ; The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to ...

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 degrees C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type Al (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type Al, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as Al, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (Al). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. Al and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland: while Al and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type Al) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date.

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of local planning for climate change by collecting and analysing information about local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and framework for analysis was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their alignment with spatial (local, national and international) and other climate related policies. Out of eight types of local climate plans identified in total we document three types of stand-alone local climate plans classified as type A1 (autonomously produced plans), A2 (plans produced to comply with national regulations) or A3 (plans developed for international climate networks). There is wide variation among countries in the prevalence of local climate plans, with generally more plans developed by central and northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have a type A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, and 17% a joint adaptation and mitigation plan, while about 33% lack any form of stand-alone local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but planning for mitigation does not always precede planning for adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 80% of the cities with above 500,000 inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1). Cities in four countries with national climate legislation (A2), i.e. Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are nearly twice as likely to produce local mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce local adaptation plans, compared to cities in countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in two countries where local climate plans are compulsory, i.e. France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans produced for international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous (type A1) plans are less common. This is the most comprehensive analysis of local climate planning to date. The findings are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making towards climate planning and policy development at national, EU and global level being based on the most comprehensive and up-to-date knowledge of local climate planning available to date. ; EU COST Action TU0902 that made the initial work possible and the positive engagement and interaction of the members of this group which led to this work. MO acknowledges funding from the Spanish Government (Grant no. FPDI-2013-16631). EKL was supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of CR within the National Sustainability Program I (NPU I), grant number LO1415. OH and RD were funded by the EC project RAMSES Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities (contract Ref 308497) and the EPSRC project LC Transforms: Low Carbon Transitions of Fleet Operations in Metropolitan Sites Project (EP/N010612/1).

The Paris Agreement aims to limit global mean temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This target has wide-ranging implications for Europe and its cities, which are the source of substantial proportions of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper reports the state of planning for climate change by collecting and analysing local climate mitigation and adaptation plans across 885 urban areas of the EU-28. A typology and analysis framework was developed that classifies local climate plans in terms of their spatial (alignment with local, national and international policy) and sectoral integration (alignment into existing local policy documents). We document local climate plans that we call type A1: non-compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international climate networks; A2: compulsory by national law and not developed as part of international networks; A3: plans developed as part of international networks. This most comprehensive analysis to date reveals that there is large diversity in the availability of local climate plans with most being available in Central and Northern European cities. Approximately 66% of EU cities have an A1, A2, or A3 mitigation plan, 26% an adaptation plan, 17% joint adaptation and mitigation plans, and about 30% lack any form of local climate plan (i.e. what we classify as A1, A2, A3 plans). Mitigation plans are more numerous than adaptation plans, but mitigation does not always precede adaptation. Our analysis reveals that city size, national legislation, and international networks can influence the development of local climate plans. We found that size does matter as about 70% of the cities above 1 million inhabitants have a comprehensive and stand-alone mitigation and/or an adaptation plan (A1 or A2). Countries with national climate legislation (A2), such as Denmark, France, Slovakia and the United Kingdom, are found to have nearly twice as many urban mitigation plans, and five times more likely to produce urban adaptation plans, than countries without such legislation. A1 and A2 mitigation plans are particularly numerous in Denmark, Poland, Germany, and Finland; while A1 and A2 adaptation plans are prevalent in Denmark, Finland, UK and France. The integration of adaptation and mitigation is country-specific and can mainly be observed in countries where local climate plans are compulsory, especially in France and the UK. Finally, local climate plans of international climate networks (A3) are mostly found in the many countries where autonomous, i.e. A1 plans are less common. The findings reported here are of international importance as they will inform and support decision-making and thinking of stakeholders with similar experiences or developments at all levels and sectors in other regions around the world.

This special issue of Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is devoted to the research presented and discussed at the 10th Conference on Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and Environment Systems (SDEWES) held from the 27th September to the 2nd October 2, 2015 in Dubrovnik, Croatia. The contents are in in keeping with the aims and scope of the journal which is to bring together under one roof the current advances in the ever broadening field of renewable and sustainable energy. The articles published in this special issue review, discuss and examine energy resources and technologies (e.g. biomass, hydropower, solar, geothermal and wind), applications and services (e.g. buildings, industry, electricity and transport) and policy and the environment (e.g. economic, emissions, politics, energy planning, social aspects) within the framework of sustainable development. A total of 35 extended manuscripts were invited by the guest editors of this special to submit candidate articles for consideration for publication in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. After a vigorous review process by expert reviewers overseen by the guest editors a total of 22 articles were accepted for publication.