A linear programming input–output model for mapping low-carbon scenarios for Vietnam in 2030

The Philippines submitted an intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) to the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) which outlined a provisional commitment of 70% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 relative to the business-as-usual (BAU) levels. However, the basis of the proposed reductions is unclear, and the INDC has been criticized for possible adverse effects on the economic growth of the country. In this study, we make a rigorous high-level assessment of potential for reduction in GHG emissions using a low-resolution fractional programming input-output model. Five scenarios are considered to gauge the lowest possible GHG emissions intensity per unit gross domestic product (GDP) in 2030 considering differentiated sector growth, changes in grid power mix, and broad deployment of end-use energy conservation measures. Our calculations show that the best projection from the combination of these low-carbon measures yields only a 30.6% reduction in emissions intensity relative to 2006 levels.

GHG Mitigation Potentials of Thailand’s Energy Policies to Achieve INDC Target

Major US electric utility climate pledges have the potential to collectively reduce power sector emissions by one-third

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction in the electricity sector: Implications of increasing renewable energy penetration in Ghana's electricity generation mix

GHG Mitigation in Power Sector: Analyzes of Renewable Energy Potential for Thailand’s NDC Roadmap in 2030

Mitigating Curtailment and Carbon Emissions through Load Migration between Data Centers

Intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) are a new strategy for mitigating climate change. Many international organizations and scholars have assessed the possibility of holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C based on INDCs. Although the conclusions of these assessments are consistent, there are still large differences among the assessment results. For example, the global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 estimated by INDCs are between 47.1–66.5 GtCO2 eq, and the temperature increase at the end of the 21st century estimated by INDCs is between 2.4–4.0°C; the inconsistency represented by these ranges is not conducive to an accurate assessment of the contributions of the current INDCs to global warming mitigation or to the further development of emissions reduction programs. By summarizing the existing studies, we found that the main reasons for the differences in estimates of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 made using INDCs are as follows: (1) The studies interpreted INDCs differently, which is attributable to three reasons: The studies (a) made different assumptions for the unquantifiable INDCs; (b) ignored or used different methods to estimate the emissions not covered by INDCs; and (c) used different amounts of INDCs because the studies were performed at different times. (2) The studies used different databases that include different greenhouse gases, accounting methods and data sources to estimate historical greenhouse gas emissions. (3) The studies used different methods for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and removals related to land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). (4) The studies used different values of the global warming potential. Additionally, the main reasons for the differences in the predictions of the temperature increase at the end of the 21st century based on INDCs are as follows: (1) Differences in the estimations of greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 based on INDCs and (2) different methods of extrapolating global greenhouse gas emissions to 2100. There are three main extrapolation methods: one is to maintain the net present value of the carbon price in 2030 and then extrapolate the greenhouse gas emissions to 2100; another is to maintain the decarbonization rate of a certain period of history and then extrapolate the greenhouse gas emissions to 2100; the third is to match the emissions reduction scenario with the current INDC emissions reduction scenario from the IPCC AR5 scenario database and then use the matching emissions reduction scenario as the current INDC emissions reduction scenario. The use of different methods of extrapolating carbon emissions is one of the main reasons for the differences in the prediction results. (3) Differences in the methods for predicting the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on temperature. Statistical methods and simulation methods are the two main prediction methods; they use different calculation methods, which led to the difference in the prediction results. Therefore, the following points are worth noting: (1) Most importantly, to the extent possible, countries should submit absolute emissions reduction targets as much as possible; nonquantifiable INDCs without detailed methods descriptions and data introductions should not be submitted; (2) authorities should recommend certain data sets that are the most suitable for INDC accounting; (3) a global warming potential should be designated to avoid differences in greenhouse gas estimates due to the use of different criteria; and (4) to the extent possible, future research should adopt simulation methods for predicting the impact of global greenhouse gas emissions on temperature.

Taking Stock of Strategies on Climate Change and the Way Forward: A Strategic Climate Change Framework for Australia

Under the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Conferences of the Parties (COPs), the United Nations Climate Change Conferences have been held yearly to evaluate the progress in dealing with climate change since 1995, when COP 1 was held in Berlin, Germany. COP20, in Lima, Peru in December 2014, reached an agreement that urged all countries to achieve their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets by 31 March 2015. This information is called an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). With the deadline of 31 March 2015 already passed, only 35 of the 193 countries had published their INDCs. After solid and united global efforts, from 30 November to 12 December 2015, COP 21 was held in Paris, France, when, in a historical breakthrough and milestone toward securing the future Earth, a global agreement on the reduction of climate change was agreed upon by representatives of more than 193 countries in attendance. According to the COP21 Organizing Committee, the agreement was to limit global warming to well below 2°C compared to pre-industrial levels. By 12 December 2015, 160 INDCs had been submitted, and on February 04, 2016, Nepal confirmed the 161st INDC, which together represented 188 countries. The requirement that the agreement would become legally binding is that at least 55 countries, which jointly represent at least 55 percent of global greenhouse emissions, have to sign the agreement in New York between 22 April 2016 (Earth Day) and 21 April 2017, and also adopt it within their own legal systems. Readers may find some detailed information from the sixth United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Emissions Gap Report, which was available in 2015 [1].

Rapid industrialization and urbanization in the 20th century have led to increasing volumes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere[...]

On December 12, 2015, the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Paris Agreement, in which several developed and developing countries all committed to participating in the reduction of greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. South Korea has submitted an intended nationally determined contribution (INDC) proposal with a target to cut down 37% greenhouse gas business as usual (BAU) until 2030 in preparation for the 2030 GHG BAU. Under the post-2020 regime, which will be launched from 2021 as the agreement entered into force early, it is expected that efforts to support GHG reduction and adaptation to climate change in developing countries will be accelerated with the utilization of technologies and financial resources of developed countries. South Korea has established the Basic Plan for Climate Change Response and the Basic National Roadmap for Greenhouse Gas Reductions by 2030 to promote the response to climate change at the government level. The Ministry of Science and ICT, as the National Designated Entity designated by the UNFCCC, has come up with middle and long-term strategies for climate technology cooperation. South‐Korea has an abundance of energy-consuming industries to support its export-oriented industrial structure; it is thus expected that achieving the GHG reduction target will incur a considerable cost. Moreover, in order to meet the reduction target (11.3%) of the intended nationally determined contribution proposed by South Korea, it is necessary for South Korea to actively promote projects that can achieve GHG reduction achievements, and financial resources are needed as leverage to reduce risks that can occur in the early stages of projects and attract private sector investment.BR This paper summarizes the theoretical discussions on climate finance and conducted a comparative analysis on the status of the funds related to climate change response in the UK, Germany, Japan and Denmark. Through this, we proposed the legal and policy tasks that should be carried forward to raise public funds that can be used for creation of new industries related to climate change as well as to reduce GHG emissions in South Korea.BR The Climate Change Countermeasures Act, which has been proposed by the National Assembly of South-Korea, stipulates the establishment of funds but there is no additional funding except for general account. In this regard, it is also possible to take measures such as the introduction of carbon tax or the collection and use of royalties through technology research and development projects for climate change, such as Industrial Technology Innovation Promotion Act. In addition, since funds are used in various fields such as domestic greenhouse gas reduction, technology development, and overseas projects, it is necessary to establish a system in which various ministries cooperate with the operation of the fund.

Most climate change mitigation schemes in urban planning concentrate on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the distant future by altering the urban form and encouraging more sustainable behaviour. However, to reach climate change mitigation targets, a more immediate reduction in GHG emissions is also needed as well as a reduction in GHG emissions in other fields. This article evaluates the important role of earthworks in the prompt and substantial reduction required for GHG emissions. The research includes a single case study and three focus group interviews. The results of the case study reveal the magnitude of possible emission reductions through urban planners’ control over earthworks, whereas the findings of the focus groups shed light on the relevance of the findings beyond the single case. Three urban planning solutions were implemented in the case area to reduce GHG emissions from earth construction, resulting in the saving of 2360 tonnes of CO2 emissions. Notable savings were also achieved in other emission categories. Such a successful management of rock and soil material flows requires a strong vision from the urban planner, cooperation among many different actors, and smart decisions in multiple planning phases. Furthermore, numerical data is needed to confirm the environmental benefits if the coordination of earthworks is to be widely included in regional climate change mitigation strategies.

The role of renewable energy in achieving Turkey's INDC

For all its cachet, you might think that hybrid drivetrain technology is inherently green. But only 13 of 34 hybrid vehicles assessed achieve better than a 25% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and just 3 exceed a 40% reduction, according to an evaluation by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).1 Moreover, reductions in GHG emissions do not necessarily correlate with reductions in other toxic emissions. Like any engine output–improving technology, hybrid technology can boost both fuel efficiency and power—but the more you boost one, the less you can boost the other. That dichotomy spurred the UCS to develop its “hybrid scorecard,” which rates each hybrid according to how well it lives up to its promise of reducing air pollution.2 All the vehicles were from model year 2011 except for one, the 2012 Infiniti M Hybrid. First the UCS scored each hybrid on how much it reduced its GHG emissions relative to its conventional counterpart, on a scale of zero (least reduction) to 10 (greatest reduction). These scores reflect the percentage in fuel efficiency gain. For example, the Toyota Prius gets 50 mpg3 compared with 28 mpg for the comparable Toyota Matrix. This represents a 44.0% reduction in GHG emissions, earning the Prius a GHG score of 9.4. At the bottom of the scale, the 21-mpg hybrid VW Touareg reduces GHG emissions only 10% over the 19-mpg conventional Toureg, for a score of 0.0. With a 46% improvement, the luxury Lincoln MKZ Hybrid had the greatest reduction over its conventional counterpart. The UCS also scored hybrids for absolute emissions (rather than relative to the conventional model) of air pollutants including particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. These scores, on a scale of zero (dirtiest) to 10 (cleanest), are based on California certifications for tailpipe emissions. As the scorecard showed, a vehicle that emits less heat-trapping gases may not necessarily emit less of other air pollutants. For example, the Mercedes Benz S400 Hybrid scored 9 on air pollution reduction, alongside the Prius and the Lincoln MKZ, but only 1.3 on GHG emissions. HYBRID SCORECARD: Top 10 Nonluxury Hybrids by Total Environmental Improvement Score “Hybrid technology doesn’t add additional challenges [to reducing exhaust pollutants] that can’t be addressed through design of the vehicle’s emission controls,” says Don Anair, senior vehicles analyst at the UCS. “Numerous manufacturers of hybrids are meeting the lowest emissions levels. Hybrid manufacturers who aren’t delivering the lowest smog-forming emissions have chosen not to do so.” Each vehicle’s air pollution and GHG scores were averaged into a total “environmental improvement score,” again with the MKZ and the Prius leading the pack, and the Touareg scraping bottom. The UCS also scored “hybrid value” (the cost of reducing GHG emissions in dollars per percent reduction) and “forced features” (options you must buy with the hybrid whether you want them or not). HYBRID SCORECARD: Top 10 Luxury Hybrids by Total Environmental Improvement Score Luke Tonachel, vehicles analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, compliments the scorecard for illustrating that hybrid technology is not automatically green. He says, “We should improve the efficiency of all vehicles, and [hybrid technology] is just one technology that can get us there if applied with that goal in mind.” Nonetheless, Jamie Kitman, the New York bureau chief for Automobile Magazine, questions the wisdom of emphasizing percentage improvement in gas mileage rather than absolute miles per gallon. At 21 mpg, the hybrid Cadillac Escalade 4WD represents a 29% improvement over the 15-mpg conventional model, saving nearly 2 gallons per 100 miles. But the hybrid Escalade is still a gas guzzler, and Kitman says he wishes people would see through the marketing that encourages them to buy SUVs and “crossovers” rather than ordinary cars, which are more efficient than either. Says Anair, “The scorecard shows that automakers can pair hybrid technology with advanced emission controls to help tackle climate change while reducing the health impacts from breathing polluted air.” However, he adds, alluding to the stark variation in how much hybrid technology boosted fuel efficiency, “Not all automakers are delivering on the full promise of this technology.”

Energy-related activities are a major contributor of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A growing body of knowledge clearly depicts the links between human activities and climate change. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil and other human activities has released carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and other heat-trapping GHG emissions into the atmosphere and thus increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 emissions. The main human activities that emit CO2 emissions are (1) the combustion of fossil fuels to generate electricity, accounting for about 37% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 31% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, (2) the combustion of fossil fuels such as gasoline and diesel to transport people and goods, accounting for about 31% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 26% of total U.S. GHG emissions in 2013, and (3) industrial processes such as the production and consumption of minerals and chemicals, accounting for about 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions and 12% of total ...