• Energy Research

▪ Abstract Energy-technology innovation (ETI) is the set of processes leading to new or improved energy technologies that can augment energy resources; enhance the quality of energy services; and reduce the economic, environmental, or political costs associated with energy supply and use. Advances achieved through ETI have made large contributions to the improvement of the human condition over the past 100 years. Still more will be required of ETI during the decades ahead if civilization is to succeed in meeting what we believe are the three greatest energy challenges still before it: reducing dependence on oil, drastically upgrading the energy services provided to the world's poor, and providing the energy required to increase and sustain prosperity everywhere without wrecking the global climate with the emissions from fossil-fuel burning. This will require significant enhancements to ETI through deeper analysis of ETI processes, greater investments in ETI, improved innovation policies, and better coordination and partnerships across sectors and countries.

Notions of justice and equity, although enshrined in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, have not shaped the outcome of the subsequent negotiations to any substantial extent. These principles are relevant to various aspects of the climate debate, especially those of particular importance to developing countries. While focusing on issues with justice and equity dimensions will most likely be necessary for successful implementation of the Climate Convention, voices that speak out on such topics are often ignored or sometimes completely absent. Here we present and discuss three aspects of the climate debate the allocation of rights to the atmosphere,' liability for climate-related impacts, and the needs of those who do not contribute significantly to climate change that are of substantial importance for countries of the South. We believe that an increased attention to such issues, and their incorporation into the climate deliberations, is important for a robust climate regime. To do so will require, both, attention on the part of scientists, other analysts, and policy-makers as well as strengthening the capacity for marginalized groups to speak up.

AbstractGiven coal’s large contribution to India’s emissions, it is important to explore options for reducing emissions from the Indian coal power sector. Even as India awaits stronger action by industrialized countries, several no-regrets options can still be instituted to position the Indian coal-power sector appropriately for an eventual deeper carbon mitigation strategy: (a) improve efficiency of generation, transmission and distribution, and end-use systems; (b) aggressively deploy higher-efficiency coal combustion technologies; (c) develop a strategic plan for technology innovation; (d) improve environmental regulations to keep open economic carbon capture options; and (e) invest in detailed geological assessment of carbon storage sites.

AbstractThe climate change arena comprises a diverse set of interacting actors from international, national and local levels. The multilevel architecture has implications for low‐carbon technology deployment in developing countries, an issue salient to both development and climate objectives. The paper examines this theme through two inter‐related questions: how do (or don't) low‐carbon technologies get deployed in India's built environment, and what implications can be drawn from the Indian case for effective low‐carbon technology development and transfer for developing countries? By examining the multilevel linkages in India's buildings sector, the paper shows how the interactions between governance levels can both support and hinder technology deployment, ultimately leading to inadequate outcomes. The potential of these linkages is hobbled by aspects of the national context (federated energy governance and developing‐country capacity limitations), yet can also be enabled by other features (the climate policy context, which may motivate international actors to fill domestic capacity lacunae). Reflecting on the India case, the paper makes recommendations for improved low‐carbon technology deployment in developing countries: (1) technology development and transfer collaboration on a ‘need‐driven’ approach, (2) development of the specific types of capacity required across the entire innovation chain and (3) domestic strengthening of the coordination and agendas across and between governance levels. © 2017 The Authors. Environmental Policy and Governance published by ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Solid cookfuel pollution is the largest energy-related health risk globally and most important cause of ill-health for Indian women and girls. At 700 million cooking with open biomass chulhas, the Indian population exposed has not changed in several decades, in spite of hundreds of programs to make the “available clean”, i.e. to burn biomass cleanly in advanced stoves. While such efforts continue, there is need to open up another front to attack this health hazard. Gas and electric cooking, which are clean at the household, are already the choice for one-third of Indians. Needed is a new agenda to make the “clean available”, i.e., to vigorously extend these clean fuels into populations that are caught in the Chulha Trap. This will require engaging new actors including the power and petroleum ministries as well as the ministry of health, which have not to date been directly engaged in addressing this problem. It will have implications for LPG imports, distribution networks, and electric and gas user technologies, as well as setting new priorities for electrification and biofuels, but at heart needs to be addressed as a health problem, not one of energy access, if it is to be solved effectively.

The ‘additionality’ criterion for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (which is key to ensuring that CDM projects lead to real and additional emission reductions) has been a topic of much analysis and discussion. A number of different approaches, including those based on financial, barrier and market-penetration criteria, have been suggested as a test for additionality. A simple test for additionality is proposed that draws on the framework of the diffusion of innovations, especially the risk profile of adopters of new technologies or innovations. This approach has the potential to streamline the assessment for additionality, although it will require data on the rate of implementation of specific technologies or innovations.