The Experts below are selected from a list of 51 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
M G A Van Leeuwen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
safeguarding the sustainability of bioenergy in europe the implementation and impact of the ec renewable energy Directive and Fuel Quality Directive
2012Co-Authors: E M W Smeets, E S Georgiev, M G A Van LeeuwenAbstract:In this study, the sustainability criteria in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED) and the Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) are investigated and reviewed. First, an overview is given of the current and future use of bioenergy, and bioenergy policies in the EU are discussed. Next, it is discussed how the RED-FQD sustainability criteria are operationalised into practically indicators, including a critical evaluation of the scientific robustness, completeness and accuracy of the approaches and indicators used in the RED-FQD. Finally, various options are formulated and a discussion is presented on how the sustainability of bioFuels can be investigated using economic models such as the global computable general equilibrium model MAGNET (Modular Applied GeNeral Equilibrium Tool). Such an analysis is needed to ascertain the impact of bioFuel policies and will help to provide useful insights and advice for policy-makers.
Jonathan Rubin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Policy Design Recommendations
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2012Co-Authors: Daniel Sperling, Michael Griffin, Madhu Khanna, Paul N. Leiby, Siwa Msangi, James Rhodes, Jonathan RubinAbstract:The abundance and low cost of petroleum over the past 150 years has enabled rapid economic growth and extraordinary mobility advancements. But dependence on petroleum Fuels also has large downsides, including dependence on insecure supplies, volatile prices causing high economic costs, polluted and unhealthy air, climate change, and increasing threats to local environments as production moves into more fragile areas. The transition to low-carbon alternative transportation Fuels is becoming more urgent. But their introduction is inhibited by a long list of market conditions and failures. These include sunk investments and technology lock-in by the automotive and energy industries, other forms of technological and market inertia impeding investments in deployment and R&D, cartel pricing, and the failure of markets to assign a price to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Various policies might be adopted to overcome these market conditions and barriers, ranging from pure market instruments such as carbon taxes to prescriptive mandates and voluntary actions. Each has different advantages and disadvantages. Some are easier to implement administratively, some are more economically efficient, and some are more effective in accelerating investments. None is perfect. One of the most compelling, assuming some level of urgency, is a broad, performance-based policy that targets greenhouse gas reduction — what we refer to as a low carbon Fuel standard (LCFS). In this report, we integrate scientific knowledge of alternative Fuels — including an assessment of economic, administrative, institutional, equity, political, and technological considerations — to aid us in proposing a policy design for an LCFS for the United States. We have aimed for a policy design that would be effective, economically efficient, and broadly acceptable. An LCFS is a policy designed to accelerate the transition to low-carbon alternative transportation Fuels by stimulating innovation and investment in new Fuels and technologies. The goal is to provide a durable policy framework that will stimulate innovation and technological development. Since 2007, variations of an LCFS policy have been adopted by California, the European Union (Fuel Quality Directive, FQD), and British Columbia (Renewable and Low-Carbon Fuel Requirement Regulation, RLCFRR). Other states in the United States have been exploring the adoption of an LCFS policy, including states in the Midwest and the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region, and the states of Oregon and Washington. The design of an LCFS is premised on the use of technology-neutral performance targets and credit trading, with the intent of harnessing market forces and providing industry with flexibility. It is also premised on the use of life-cycle measurements of GHG emissions, to assure that emissions are regulated effectively and scientifically. An LCFS is a hybrid of a regulatory and market policy instrument. It does not include mandates for any particular Fuel or technology and as such does not attempt to pick winners or losers. Instead, it defines an average emissions intensity standard — measured in grams CO2 equivalent per mega-joule of Fuel energy (gCO2e/MJ) — that all energy providers must achieve across all Fuels they provide. Many options exist for meeting the standard. Regulated parties are free to employ any combination of strategies that suits their particular circumstances and perspectives — including the purchase of credits from other companies. The breadth and reach of an LCFS, and the challenge of implementing an innovative policy, means that adoption of a national LCFS will not be easy or straightforward and will require careful analysis and design. It is necessary to address the cost-effectiveness of the policy (compared with other similar GHG policies) and to analyze ease of administration, fairness, equity, market flexibility, and impacts on energy security and sustainability. We have done so in a companion report, National Low Carbon Fuel Standard: Technical Analysis Report (TAR). This Policy Design Recommendations (PDR) report builds on insights and findings from the TAR. Below we recommend key policy design principles that chart a path toward developing a national LCFS policy.
Magdalena Fiřtová - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Oil Sands in European Media: Representations of the Canadian Oil Sands in European Newspapers, 2008–2013
Journal of Canadian Studies-revue D Etudes Canadiennes, 2017Co-Authors: Magdalena FiřtováAbstract:This article examines how leading European newspapers reported on oil-sands production in Canada between 2008 and 2013. Based on content and critical discourse analysis of news reports published in major daily newspapers in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France, it compares the interpretative frames and dominant storylines. The data analysis suggests that overall, European coverage adopted a critical perspective based on the environmental impacts of oil-sands development, with very particular differences in environmental frame building among the national media analyzed. The British coverage focused mainly on narratives based on a combination of factors such as cultural ties between the two countries and social and cultural practices of reporting on annual shareholders' meetings. In contrast, the later german and French environmental frame building was embedded mostly in the European debate over the Fuel Quality Directive or in discussions of the Keystone XL pipeline project. This article aims to provide a broader picture of how a prominent Canadian public policy issue is reflected in Europe and to contribute to the assessment of Stephen Harper's goal of fostering the international image of Canada as an energy superpower. The results of the empirical analysis suggest that Canada's position in the oil market did not allow it to actively lead the international energy discourse and instead fractured its ability to efficiently influence this aspect of its international image. As a result, oil-sands production had important destabilizing effects on Canada's international image in European media. Resume: Cet article s'interesse a la couverture, par les grands journaux europeens, de l'exploitation des sables bitumineux au Canada entre 2008 et 2013. Fonde sur une analyse du contenu et du discours critique des articles consacres a ce sujet dans les principaux quotidiens du Royaume-Uni, de l'Allemagne et de la France, l'article en compare les cadres d'interpretation et les recits dominants. L'analyse des donnees montre que, dans l'ensemble, la couverture journalistique europeenne adopte une perspective critique fondee sur l'impact environnemental de l'exploitation des sables petroliferes, avec des variations tres precises dans la construction du contexte environnemental selon les differents medias nationaux. Au Royaume-Uni, la couverture est centree sur des recits qui exploitent une combinaison de facteurs, tels que les liens culturels entre les deux pays et la pratique socioculturelle qui consiste a faire etat des assemblees annuelles des actionnaires. Par contraste, la construction tardive du contexte environnemental par les journaux allemands et francais s'inscrit pour l'essentiel dans le debat europeen au sujet de la Directive concernant les carburants, ou dans des discussions sur le projet de pipeline Keystone XL. L'article cherche a offrir une vue plus vaste de la maniere dont une question de premier plan pour les politiques publiques canadiennes est presentee en Europe, et a evaluer l'atteinte de l'objectif qui, fixe par Stephen Harper, consistait a cultiver l'image du Canada en tant que superpuissance du domaine de l'energie. Les resultats de l'analyse empirique suggerent que la position du Canada sur le marche petrolier ne lui a pas permis de diriger activement le discours international sur l'energie ; elle a au contraire fracture sa capacite a influencer efficacement cet aspect de son image sur la scene internationale, avec pour consequence le grave effet destabilisant de l'exploitation des sables petroliferes sur l'image du Canada dans les medias europeens.
Katrin Arend - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
transatlantic disputes on non tariff barriers to trade from asbestos to the eu Fuel Quality Directive
2015Co-Authors: Hansjoachim Pries, Katrin ArendAbstract:Americans and Europeans “make different risk assessments.” With that statement at the 1999 Stanford European Forum, Horst G. Krenzler touched the very heart of a long row of disputes between the US, the EU, and Canada in the WTO legal framework, which concerned so-called non-tariff barriers to trade. These transatlantic disputes have affected many different areas of core domestic policy and regulation, such as public health or the environment, as past WTO cases, e.g. EC – Asbestos, EC – Hormones andUS – Continued Suspension indicate. Today, we are about to see the development towards another dispute between Canada and the EU arising from the Directive 2009/30/EC (Fuel Quality Directive) and its implementing measures. Like in other disputes on non-tariff barriers to
Julie Witcover - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Status Review of California's Low Carbon Fuel Standard, 2011-2015: May 2016 Issue. Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-16-02
2020Co-Authors: Julie WitcoverAbstract:From 2011–2015, the average Fuel carbon intensity (AFCI) of all alternative Fuels reported to the program declined 21 percent, from near 86 grams carbon dioxide equivalent per mega-joule of Fuel energy (gCO2e/MJ) to just over 68 gCO2e/MJ. Alternative Fuels contributed 6.2 percent of California’s transportation Fuels by energy content in 2011 and 2012, and reached 8.1 percent in 2015. Fuels other than liquid bioFuels comprised 10.9 percent of alternative Fuel transport energy in 2014 and 2015. From 2011–2015, the LCFS required a reduction of 9.2 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e from the baseline. The total emissions reductions reported for the same period was 16.8 MMT CO2e, or 7.4 MMT more than required by the regulation (overcomplying by 81 percent). Increases in alternative Fuel use came primarily from biodiesel, renewable diesel, biogas and electricity. Use of ethanol, the largest renewable Fuel by volume, remained close to a “blendwall” of 10 percent blended with gasoline, the maximum allowed without alternative infrastructure. Total electric vehicle miles traveled (eVMT) in 2015 is estimated to be around 1.3 billion miles based on reported electricity consumption of 431 gigawatt-hours (GWh) or 13 million gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE). None of the 2.2 million gallons (1.5 million GGE) of cellulosic ethanol used in the U.S. in 2015 was consumed in California. LCFS credit prices have shown considerable variation. The average credit price was $20 early in the program (and while the standard was frozen at 1%). Prices have remained above $100/credit thus far in 2016. The overall nominal value of all credit transfers was calculated at $430 million (December 2012–April 2016). Other jurisdictions’ LCFS programs, including the European Union Fuel Quality Directive, the British Columbia Renewable & Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation, and the Oregon Clean Fuels Program, share many features with California’s LCFS but have distinct provisions as well.
