Search results

This open access book analyzes and seeks to consolidate the use of robust quantitative tools and qualitative methods for the design and assessment of energy and climate policies. In particular, it examines energy and climate policy performance and associated risks, as well as public acceptance and portfolio analysis in climate policy, and presents methods for evaluating the costs and benefits of flexible policy implementation as well as new framings for business and market actors. In turn, it discusses the development of alternative policy pathways and the identification of optimal switching points, drawing on concrete examples to do so. Lastly, it discusses climate change mitigation policies' implications for the agricultural, food, building, transportation, service and manufacturing sectors. ; Open Access Presents a comprehensive tool set of methods for devising energy and climate policies Focuses on methods that are robust and adaptive enough to mitigate risks Investigates implications of climate change mitigation policies to various sectors

Chapter 1. The Tipping+ Project Journey -- Chapter 2. Tipping Points Emerge in the Interaction Between Narrative and Reality -- Chapter 3. Tipping Points: Deep Roots and Contemporary Challenges in Psychology -- Chapter 4. Transformations, Agency and Positive Tipping Points: a Resilience-based Approach -- Chapter 5. Principles for a Case Study Approach to Social Tipping Points -- Chapter 6. Post-war Development Energy Scenarios for Ukraine -- Chapter 7. Exploring Transition in Coal- and Carbon-intensive Regions Through an Interdisciplinary Lens -- Chapter 8. Social Tipping Processes in the Transformation of Civitavecchia's Socio-energy System -- Chapter 9. Realizing Alternative Energy Futures: From the Promise of a Petroleum Future to Imagining Lofoten as the Green Islands -- Chapter 10. Exploring the Role of Identities and Perceptions of the Future in a Post-coal Mining Region. The Demolition of Andorra Coal-fired Cooling Towers (Spain) as a Tipping Point -- Chapter 11. Narrative-network Dynamics in Tipping Processes Towards Low-carbon Energy Futures: the Case of Indonesia -- Chapter 12. Situated Knowledge and Energy Transformations: a Socioanthropological Exploration -- Chapter 13. Tipping Away From Coal?: Exploring Narratives and Tipping Dynamics in the Phaseout of Coal on Svalbard -- Chapter 14. Confronting Local and Global Tipping Narratives: Green Energy Development in the Arctic and Why Greenland is Not for Sale -- Chapter 15. Assessing Macroeconomic Effects of a Carbon Tax as a Tipping Intervention in Economies Undergoing Coal Phase-out: the Cases of Poland and Greece -- Chapter 16. Transformative Emergence. Research Challenges for Enabling Social-ecological Tipping Points Toward Regional Sustainability Transformations.

This open access book provides the first comprehensive review of the state of the art of social tipping points applied to energy systems from a social interdisciplinary perspective. It does so by presenting a novel theory of systemic and transformative change, linking it to empirical cases assisted with relevant assessment methodologies, including modeling. The authors unveil the narratives and visions, the transformative capacities as well as deliberate strategies and collective actions that at one point in time have been able - or were prevented - to tip a given social-ecological system towards low-carbon, sustainable trajectories in diverse high-intensive carbon regions around the world. This volume shows that self-reinforcing learning feedbacks connecting transformative solutions and strategies across scales and domains can be induced by targeted policy interventions both in local and regional contexts. It further indicates how changes in behavioral patterns, supported by good governance of disruptive technologies, carbon (dis)investment and finance processes as well as new forms of civic engagement, can create the necessary transformative enabling conditions for the emergence of positive tipping points towards low-carbon sustainable futures. The book is a must-read for students, researchers, and scholars, as well as policy-makers and practitioners interested in a better understanding of sustainability, climate, and energy issues and in assessing the potential impacts and effectiveness of strategic interventions aimed at accelerating just sustainable decarbonization processes.

Energy demand globally has been increasing over the last few decades and, in order to achieve climate neutrality in the EU by 2050, the demand for energy needs to be reduced without affecting the comfort of the citizens. Therefore, the role of energy efficiency measures and renewable energy use has become pivotal in energy science. However, designing policies related to the promotion of energy efficiency or usage of renewable energy depends immensely on the evidence/predictions for a set of scenarios up to a certain timeline that can be provided by the energy demand models. In other words, the findings of energy models can help in identifying the focus area of the policies. Thus, different sector-specific energy demand models can showcase the impact of different policy measures on final energy demand. Since the policy-design in a way depends on the findings of energy demand models, we need to understand whether the demand models can incorporate all of the key parameters and needs of model users (such as policymakers, academicians, NGOs, etc.) into consideration while calculating final energy demand. Thus, to understand the different user needs, this study has used a three-tier methodological approach consisting of a focused literature review (conducted under SENTINEL Deliverables D3.1 and D1.2), an online survey and online interviews with different user groups, and lastly, stakeholder workshops. This three-tier methodological approach unfolds mainly two categories of user-needs: generic/transversal user-needs, and sector-specific user-needs. With the help of four different demand models used in SENTINEL, most of the user-needs are taken into account and this report discusses in detail how individual user-needs are getting addressed through demand models. Some of the user-needs (for example 'energy demand transition between 2030- 2050' and 'role of renewable electricity to meet demand') can be addressed with the SENTINEL demand models without requiring any upgrades of the models. However, for some of the needs ...

The demand side plays a pivotal role in order to understand the expanse of the whole energy system, especially when one considers the European Union's (EU) commitment to climate neutrality by 2050, in the context of which, energy demand needs to be reduced substantially. Therefore, the role of policies that support energy efficiency measures and demand-side management practices will be critical; however, the impacts of such policies can only be explored ex-ante using energy demand models. In this context, the energy demand models (EDMs) used in the Sustainable Energy Transitions Laboratory (SENTINEL) project provide yearly and hourly future demand profiles for each of the EU Member States. However, EDMs, including the ones used in SENTINEL, namely: BEVPO, DESSTINEE, DREEM, and HEB, are often criticized for not incorporating dynamic GDP, or socio-political dimensions. Having that in mind, the SENTINEL EDMs will be soft-linked with the QTDIAN toolbox from WP2 to incorporate storylines of different socio-political developments, while calculating the future energy demand. Furthermore, the SENTINEL EDMs use a linear economic (mainly GDP) projection as input data to calculate future energy demand profiles. However, the linear projection of economic input usually excludes market uncertainties, and hence, makes model outputs less realistic. To overcome this limitation in SENTINEL, EDMs will be also soft-linked with the macroeconomic model WEGDYN from WP5. This soft-linking will make the output of the SENTINEL EDMs much more realistic, and, hence, it is expected to increase their useability in decision-making. Thus, the demand profiles, more precisely the hourly and yearly demand profiles for the building, transport and industry sectors, will be used in WP4 as an input to calculate the energy balance in the context of the transition to climate neutrality in the EU. Finally, to make these exercises more policy relevant, all the aforementioned soft-linkages will take place for three case studies of different heterogeneous ...

Background This article presents the main findings from a meta-analysis of how climate change mitigation policy evaluations have been undertaken in the European Union (EU) and six of its Member States: Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece and the United Kingdom. It aims to provide insights into how policy evaluations are carried out and how those practices might be improved. As a first step, this article reviews the literature on the theory and practice of policy evaluations to guide our methodology and further analysis. Results Our sample of 236 policy evaluations in the EU and six Member States covers the period 2010–2016. Compared with the results of a similar meta-analysis carried out covering the period 1998–2007, formal evaluations commissioned by government bodies have been on the rise in 2010–2016. Most evaluations focus on effectiveness and goal achievement and usually forgo a deeper level of reflexivity and/or public participation in the evaluation process. The analysis also reveals the dominance of the energy sector in the sampled evaluations. The article finds that the low number of any policy evaluations in the agriculture, waste or land-use sectors is an area for further investigation. Conclusions The exercise of identifying, coding and categorising these evaluations for 7 years helps to provide insights into the potential use of ex-post evaluations in support of future EU legislative proposals and accompanying impact assessments. Having a good understanding on how a certain policy performed particularly according to evaluation criteria might form the basis for more ambitious climate change mitigation policies in the future. Our analysis further shows that it is crucial and urgent to allocate sufficient resources to the coverage of relatively under-represented sectors, such as land use, land-use change and forestry, and waste. ; published version ; peerReviewed

Europe's capacity to explore the envisaged pathways that achieve its near- and long-term energy and climate objectives needs to be significantly enhanced. In this perspective, we discuss how this capacity is supported by energy and climate-economy models, and how international modelling teams are organised within structured communication channels and consortia as well as coordinate multi-model analyses to provide robust scientific evidence. Noting the lack of such a dedicated channel for the highly active yet currently fragmented European modelling landscape, we highlight the importance of transparency of modelling capabilities and processes, harmonisation of modelling parameters, disclosure of input and output datasets, interlinkages among models of different geographic granularity, and employment of models that transcend the highly harmonised core of tools used in model inter-comparisons. Finally, drawing from the COVID-19 pandemic, we discuss the need to expand the modelling comfort zone, by exploring extreme scenarios, disruptive innovations, and questions that transcend the energy and climate goals across the sustainability spectrum. A comprehensive and comprehensible multi-model framework offers a real example of "collective" science diplomacy, as an instrument to further support the ambitious goals of the EU Green Deal, in compliance with the EU claim to responsible research. ; This work was supported by the H2020 European Commission Projects "PARIS REINFORCE" under Grant Agreement No. 820846, "LOCOMOTION" under Grant Agreement No. 821105, "SENTINEL" under Grant Agreement No. 837089, and "NAVIGATE" under Grant Agreement No. 821124. The sole responsibility for the content of this paper lies with the authors; the paper does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission.

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 ...