Suchergebnisse

This study analyzed the role of low-carbon energy technologies in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of Indonesia's energy sector by 2030. The aim of this study was to provide insights into the Indonesian government's approach to developing a strategy and plan for mitigating emissions and achieving Indonesia's emission reduction targets by 2030, as pledged in the country's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. The Asia-Pacific Integrated Model/Computable General Equilibrium (AIM/CGE) model was used to quantify three scenarios that had the same socioeconomic assumptions: baseline, countermeasure (CM)1, and CM2, which had a higher emission reduction target than that of CM1. Results of the study showed that an Indonesian low-carbon energy system could be achieved with two pillars, namely, energy efficiency measures and deployment of less carbon-intensive energy systems (i.e., the use of renewable energy in the power and transport sectors, and the use of natural gas in the power sector and in transport). Emission reductions would also be satisfied through the electrification of end-user consumption where the electricity supply becomes decarbonized by deploying renewables for power generation. Under CM1, Indonesia could achieve a 15.5% emission reduction target (compared to the baseline scenario). This reduction could be achieved using efficiency measures that reduce final energy demand by 4%; This would require the deployment of geothermal power plants at a rate six times greater than the baseline scenario and four times the use of hydropower than that used in the baseline scenario. Greater carbon reductions (CM2; i.e., a 27% reduction) could be achieved with similar measures to CM1 but with more intensive penetration. Final energy demand would need to be cut by 13%, deployment of geothermal power plants would need to be seven times greater than at baseline, and hydropower use would need to be five times greater than the baseline case. Carbon prices under CM1 and CM2 were US$16 and US$63 (2005)/tCO2, respectively. The mitigation scenarios for 2030 both had a small positive effect on gross domestic product (GDP) compared to the baseline scenario (0.6% and 0.3% for CM1 and CM2, respectively). This is mainly due to the combination of two assumptions. The first is that there would be a great increase in coal-fired power in the baseline scenario. The other assumption is that there is low productivity in coal-related industries. Eventually, when factors such as capital and labor shift from coal-related industries to other low-carbon-emitting sectors in the CM cases are put in place, the total productivity of the economy would offset low-carbon investment.

This study analyzed the role of low-carbon energy technologies in reducing the greenhouse gas emissions of Indonesia's energy sector by 2030. The aim of this study was to provide insights into the Indonesian government's approach to developing a strategy and plan for mitigating emissions and achieving Indonesia's emission reduction targets by 2030, as pledged in the country's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution. The Asia-Pacific Integrated Model/Computable General Equilibrium (AIM/CGE) model was used to quantify three scenarios that had the same socioeconomic assumptions: baseline, countermeasure (CM)1, and CM2, which had a higher emission reduction target than that of CM1. Results of the study showed that an Indonesian low-carbon energy system could be achieved with two pillars, namely, energy efficiency measures and deployment of less carbon-intensive energy systems (i.e., the use of renewable energy in the power and transport sectors, and the use of natural gas in the power sector and in transport). Emission reductions would also be satisfied through the electrification of end-user consumption where the electricity supply becomes decarbonized by deploying renewables for power generation. Under CM1, Indonesia could achieve a 15.5% emission reduction target (compared to the baseline scenario). This reduction could be achieved using efficiency measures that reduce final energy demand by 4%; This would require the deployment of geothermal power plants at a rate six times greater than the baseline scenario and four times the use of hydropower than that used in the baseline scenario. Greater carbon reductions (CM2; i.e., a 27% reduction) could be achieved with similar measures to CM1 but with more intensive penetration. Final energy demand would need to be cut by 13%, deployment of geothermal power plants would need to be seven times greater than at baseline, and hydropower use would need to be five times greater than the baseline case. Carbon prices under CM1 and CM2 were US$16 and US$63 (2005)/tCO2, respectively. The mitigation scenarios for 2030 both had a small positive effect on gross domestic product (GDP) compared to the baseline scenario (0.6% and 0.3% for CM1 and CM2, respectively). This is mainly due to the combination of two assumptions. The first is that there would be a great increase in coal-fired power in the baseline scenario. The other assumption is that there is low productivity in coal-related industries. Eventually, when factors such as capital and labor shift from coal-related industries to other low-carbon-emitting sectors in the CM cases are put in place, the total productivity of the economy would offset low-carbon investment.

Nearly all the world's governments have prepared and submitted their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), setting out their climate pledges under the 2015 Paris Agreement. These NDCs are to be regularly updated, and many countries are expected to submit a new NDC in 2020. While several studies have assessed the content and potential impacts of the NDCs, this article focusses on the preparatory process and asks the question: under what conditions can countries be expected to develop NDCs that are sufficiently ambitious to contribute to fulfilling the Paris Agreement goals? For some countries, in particular developing nations and emerging economies, the process of preparing and implementing NDCs presents challenges in terms of political support; financial, human and technical resources; and analytical capabilities. With a view to improving future NDCs, this article provides insights from the first round of NDCs. Using results from four surveys carried out in 2015, 2017 and 2018 targeting government representatives and other stakeholders from primarily developing countries and emerging economies, the article finds that the NDC preparation process contributed positively to national climate policy processes. For example, it raised political awareness and preparedness for preparing and implementing climate policies across various ministries and agencies. It also prompted institutional innovation and more coordination between various policy areas. However, more can be done to enhance analytical capacity in order for countries to make commitments based on robust analysis and data. Key policy insights In many countries, the preparation of the NDCs positively contributed to national climate policy processes by raising awareness and catalysing institutional change. The NDC process improved political buy-in across government and non-government stakeholders thereby laying the foundation for future higher NDC and climate policy ambition. A better understanding of broader impacts and the involvement of affected stakeholders in a targeted way could be conducive to reaching the goals defined in the Paris Agreement and support realistic, yet ambitious target setting. Conversely, process-related problems may lead to implementation problems. More analytical, financial and technical resources are needed to implement the first round of NDCs and support countries in preparing future NDC cycles.

The Paris Agreement aims to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, thus contributing to sustainable development goals through building climate-resilient communities and industries. Water is the primary medium through which climate change influences the earth's ecosystem and thus the livelihood and well-being of societies. Extreme weather conditions impact many sectors such as health, tourism, agriculture, and industry where water plays a key role. The climate effect is first and foremost through water systems as highlighted by the World Economic Forum (2016) Global Risks Report. Hence the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) sector plays a pivotal role in addressing climate change. In the last decade, Zambia has experienced the impacts of climate change in the form of extreme weather conditions and rising temperatures. In light of this, the Zambian government developed NDCs in accordance with the Paris agreement that aims to reduce Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and develop sustainable climate-resilient communities and industries. The impacts of climate change are felt through its influence on water. WASH is not only affected by climate change, but also a contributing factor to GHG emissions. Therefore, the WASH sector should play a pivotal role in contributing to the climate change targets. There are gaps among state and non-state actors and with affected communities in acknowledging the critical role of WASH in making real the NDC that need bridging. These include awareness and knowledge of WASH in contributing to NDC; the need to go beyond water to include sanitation and hygiene elements in the NDCs as holistic approach; inclusive participation of civil society and other non-state actors in addressing the gaps; integration of sectors and programmes in the NDCs; and enhanced governance and accountability mechanisms.

Abstract
Indigenous Peoples' advocacy has enabled them to position themselves in global debates on climate change. Although the international community progressively acknowledges Indigenous Peoples' contributions to climate action, their effective recognition in national climate governance remains marginal. This article analyses Indigenous Peoples' recognition in the climate governance of Latin American states based on a document analysis of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted between 2016 and March 2022. A content analysis and a frequency analysis were conducted on 30 documents. Mentions related to Indigenous Peoples in the NDCs are increasing; nevertheless, this recognition reproduces the multicultural approach that has characterized Latin American states' legislations and thereby undermines the coherence of climate policy. The references mainly allude to cultural diversity and climatic vulnerability without addressing the ongoing territorial conflicts that mediate the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and states. Nor do the NDCs recognize the right of Indigenous Peoples to participate at the different levels of climate change decision-making processes. Intercultural recognition of Indigenous Peoples and better standards of participation in climate change governance are mandatory. However, states must first promote institutional transformations to address the historical and institutional factors that have produced Indigenous Peoples' climate vulnerability and generate the necessary mechanisms to implement the recognition committed to in the NDCs.

Significance Statement
The decisions of the Conference of the Parties of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change progressively encourage the participation of Indigenous Peoples and consider their knowledge in decision-making processes. Our article explores how this recommendation is assumed in Latin America through the analysis of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—the national pledges in the context of the Paris Agreement for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to climate change. Our findings reveal that the mentions and recognition of Indigenous Peoples in NDCs are increasing. This recognition is not matched by promoting full and meaningful intercultural participation. In addition to generating mechanisms for effective participation, addressing the multiple historical and institutional drivers of Indigenous Peoples' climate vulnerability is necessary.

The 2015 Paris Agreement was adopted at the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the run-up to COP 21, most UNFCCC Parties put forward intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), containing mitigation pledges. These INDCs are now being confirmed as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), as governments formally ratify the Paris Agreement. NDCs are supposed to provide transparent, quantifiable, comparable, and verifiable mitigation objectives. However, there is neither methodological nor data consistency in the way Parties have prepared their NDCs. This article showcases recent collaboration among research, government, and private institutions that contributed to the Colombian NDC. While documenting the novel research, data, and rich web of collaboration that helped the Colombian government prepare the country's NDC, this article links this specific case with the challenges of policy oriented and interactive models of research. Our experience confirms previous research on the importance of stakeholder interaction, transparency and openness of processes, and willingness to break disciplinary and institutional barriers. In addition, the experience points to the importance of having appropriate available resources and a local institution acting as champion for the project.

During the 2018 COP24 meeting in Poland, the Just Transition received particular emphasis, with the adoption of the "Solidarity and Just Transitions Silesia Declaration". It represented commitments to take seriously the impact of climate change and climate change policy on workers and surrounding communities. To date, however, UNFCCC historical contexts and commitments have rarely been recognised in the academic literature. This paper reviews the link of the Just Transition to UNFCCC processes and labour unions before critically considering the current academic treatment of the agenda and in particular, the under emphasis of Nationally Determined Contributions. It then presents a series of research recommendations centred on a concern for how best to use this political background to leverage tangible impact.

The 2015 Paris Agreement was adopted at the twenty-first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the run-up to COP 21, most UNFCCC Parties put forward intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs), containing mitigation pledges. These INDCs are now being confirmed as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), as governments formally ratify the Paris Agreement. NDCs are supposed to provide transparent, quantifiable, comparable, and verifiable mitigation objectives. However, there is neither methodological nor data consistency in the way Parties have prepared their NDCs. This article showcases recent collaboration among research, government, and private institutions that contributed to the Colombian NDC. While documenting the novel research, data, and rich web of collaboration that helped the Colombian government prepare the country's NDC, this article links this specific case with the challenges of policy-oriented and interactive models of research. Our experience confirms previous research on the importance of stakeholder interaction, transparency and openness of processes, and willingness to break disciplinary and institutional barriers. In addition, the experience points to the importance of having appropriate available resources and a local institution acting as champion for the project. ; Peer Review