The Experts below are selected from a list of 205755 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Sanjay Basu - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the international monetary fund s effects on global health before and after the 2008 financial crisis
International Journal of Health Services, 2009Co-Authors: David Stuckler, Sanjay BasuAbstract:In April 2009, the G20 Countries committed US$750 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has assumed a central role in global economic management. The IMF provides loans to financi...
-
the international monetary fund s effects on global health before and after the 2008 financial crisis
International Journal of Health Services, 2009Co-Authors: David Stuckler, Sanjay BasuAbstract:In April 2009, the G20 Countries committed US $750 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has assumed a central role in global economic management. The IMF provides loans to financially ailing Countries, but with strict conditions, typically involving a mix of privatization, liberalization, and fiscal austerity programs. These loan conditions have been extremely controversial. In principle, they are designed to help Countries balance their books. In practice, they often translate into reductions in social spending, including spending on public health and health care delivery. As more Countries are being exposed to IMF policies, there is a need to establish what we know and do not know about the IMF's effects on global health. This article introduces a series in which contributors review the evidence on the relationship between the IMF and public health and discuss potential ways to improve the Fund's effects on health. While more evidence is needed for some regions, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that IMF programs have been significantly associated with weakened health care systems, reduced effectiveness of health-focused development aid, and impeded efforts to control tobacco, infectious diseases, and child and maternal mortality. Reforms are urgently needed to prevent the current wave of IMF programs from further undermining public health in financially ailing Countries and limiting progress toward the health Millennium Development Goals.
Norihiro Itsubo - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
external cost estimation of electricity generation in G20 Countries case study using a global life cycle impact assessment method
Sustainability, 2020Co-Authors: Selim Karkour, Yuki Ichisugi, Amila Abeynayaka, Norihiro ItsuboAbstract:The external costs derived from the environmental impacts of electricity generation can be significant and should not be underrated, as their consideration can be useful to establish a ranking between different electricity generation sources to inform decision-makers. The aim of this research is to transparently evaluate the recent external cost of electricity generation in G20 Countries using a global life-cycle impact-assessment (LCIA) method: life cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling (LIME3). The weighting factors developed in the LIME3 method for each G20 country enable one to convert the different environmental impacts (not only climate change and air pollution) resulting from the emissions and resources consumption during the full lifecycle of electricity generation—from resource extraction to electricity generation—into a monetary value. Moreover, in LIME3, not only the weighting factors are developed for each G20 country but also all the impact categories. Using this method, it was possible to determine accurately which resources or emission had an environmental impact in each country. This study shows that the Countries relying heavily on coal, such as India (0.172 $/kWh) or Indonesia (0.135 $/kWh) have the highest external costs inside the G20, with air pollution and climate accounting together for more than 80% of the costs. In these two Countries, the ratio of the external cost/market price was the highest in the G20, at 2.3 and 1.7, respectively. On the other hand, Countries with a higher reliance on renewable energies, such as Canada (0.008 $/kWh) or Brazil (0.012 $/kWh) have lower induced costs. When comparing with the market price, it has to be noted also that for instance Canada is able to generate cheap electricity with a low-external cost. For most of the other G20 Countries, this cost was estimated at between about 0.020$ and 0.040 $/kWh. By estimating the external cost of each electricity generation technology available in each G20 country, this study also highlighted that sometimes the external cost of the electricity generated from one specific technology can be significant even when using renewables due to resource scarcity—for example, the 0.068 $/kWh of electricity generated from hydropower in India. This information, missing from most previous studies, should not be omitted by decision makers when considering which type of electricity generation source to prioritize.
-
development of weighting factors for G20 Countries explore the difference in environmental awareness between developed and emerging Countries
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018Co-Authors: Norihiro Itsubo, Koichi Kuriyama, Kayo Murakami, Koji Tokimatsu, Kentaro Yoshida, Atsushi InabaAbstract:Weighting is one of the steps involved in LCIA. This enables us to integrate various environmental impacts and facilitates the interpretation of environmental information. Many different weighting methodologies have already been proposed, and the results of many case studies with a single index have been published. LIME2 (Itsubo et al. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(4):488-498, 2012) developed weighting factors for four different areas of protection that reflect environmental awareness among the Japanese public. This method has already been widely used in Japan, but difficulties exist universally using the Japanese weighting factors around the world. It is presumed that the weighting varies depending on economic, cultural, and social conditions, and there are still few cases in which weighting factors have been specifically invented or studied in consideration of variance in these elements. This study attempted to develop weighting factors applicable to the Group of Twenty (G20) Countries with a view toward developing those that could be used in different Countries. In the study, a survey was conducted with a uniform questionnaire in G20 Countries to compare the weighting factors calculated for different Countries, along with an investigation on development and utilization of global weighting factors. A conjoint analysis was conducted to give a weighting between the four areas of protection defined by LIME: human health, social assets, biodiversity, and primary production. The analysis is suitable for measuring the value of each of the multiple attributes of the environment. This study conducted a questionnaire in all the G20 member states. The survey puts priority on making the questions understood by the respondents and minimizing bias, adopting interviews, visiting surveys, and surveys in venues in the 11 emerging Countries. In the developed Countries, Internet surveys were conducted after confirming that their results are statistically significant from the pretest results in these states. In both surveys, random sampling was performed to take 200–250 samples (households) in each of the emerging Countries and 500–600 samples in each of the developed Countries. The surveys collected a total of 6400 responses. Statistical values based on this model can be considered to reflect the variability between each individual’s environmental thoughts. The calculated results can then be used to compare the variety of environmental thoughts in developed and emerging Countries. The study was able to obtain two different kinds of results: dimensionless weighting factors and economic indicators using the amount of willingness to pay. This paper solely presents the former. The weighting factors in the entire G20 community, in the group of developed Countries (G8) and in the group of emerging Countries (G20 states excluding the G8) and those in the individual G20 Countries, were estimated. The calculated values were significant statistically at the 1 % level (all p values for the safeguard subject coefficients were less than 0.0001), with the exception of monetary attributes for several emerging Countries. Converted into dimensionless values, so that the total sum for the four subjects equals 1, the weighting factor was the highest for human health in the entire G20 circles, at 0.34, followed by biodiversity at 0.29, and primary production at 0.23. The weighting for social assets was relatively poor, at 0.13. In the G8 developed states, the figures of biodiversity and primary production were relatively higher than those of the same two subjects in the full G20. Biodiversity had the highest value, at 0.34, and was followed by human health at 0.30. On the other hand, in emerging Countries, the weighting of health impacts was particularly significant, at 0.44, whereas the three other subjects had almost equivalent weightings—biodiversity at 0.19, social assets at 0.18, and primary product at 0.18. The weighting factors by country and the variance of preference intensities by country showed minor differences among developed Countries while they reflected considerable differences among emerging Countries. Accurate weighting factors representing the environmental attitudes of the world and national public are needed in order to conduct general purpose LCA. This study is the world’s first to conduct surveys with the use of the same questionnaire not only in developed Countries but also in emerging Countries, and to compare the findings. A total of 6400 responses were obtained via interviews and Internet surveys. The survey thus gained a statistically significant result on all the environmental attributes including the weighting factors for the G20 circles, G8 states, emerging Countries exclusive of the G8 states, and individual Countries in which surveys took place. The results have revealed a relatively minor difference in weighting factors and variation coefficients between the areas of protection in the developed Countries whereas a considerable difference was observed between those subjects in emerging Countries.
-
development of weighting factors for G20 Countries part 2 estimation of willingness to pay and annual global damage cost
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2018Co-Authors: Kayo Murakami, Koichi Kuriyama, Kentaro Yoshida, Norihiro Itsubo, Koji TokimatsuAbstract:This paper is the second part of a series of articles presenting the results of research on monetary weighting factors (MWFs) for the G20 Countries, which together account for approximately 90% of the global GDP. We developed their MWFs with regard to Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) and evaluated them via a large-scale questionnaire survey. We estimated the economic value of one unit of damage caused by human activities. To ensure that the MWFs covered all areas of protection as defined by the LCIA method based on Endpoint Modeling (human health, social assets, biodiversity, and primary production), we conducted a choice experiment in all G20 Countries. We conducted face-to-face interviews to minimize survey bias and ensure that the questions were understood by the emerging G20 Countries’ respondents. Internet surveys were adopted to collect samples from the developed G20 Countries’ respondents, where Internet diffusion rates are generally high. We obtained response data from 200 to 250 and 500 to 600 households of all the emerging and all the developed G20 Countries, respectively. We gathered 6400 responses in all. We estimated preference intensities using the random parameter logit model. We calculated MWFs based on each respondent’s willingness to pay. We devised MWFs providing the costs of damage to four safeguard subjects. All the estimated values are statistically significant at the 1% level, with the exception of monetary attributes from Mexico. The MWFs for the G20 are 23,000 USD for human health (per year), 2.5 USD for social assets (per USD of resources), 11 billion USD for biodiversity (per species), and 5.6 billion USD for primary production (per 100 million tons). The differences between the developed and emerging G20 Countries are considerable, with the values generally being smaller for the latter in purchasing power parity (USD) terms. The estimated global total economic annual impact was approximately 5.1 trillion USD (6.7% of the world’s total GDP). We obtained reasonable and conservative global-scale MWFs compared with previous studies. Moreover, the cross-country heterogeneity in this study potentially helps extrapolate future/global value developments from current/local estimates. The variations in human health and social asset MWFs are small enough within developed Countries to allow international transfers among them, while significant variations in biodiversity and primary production MWFs are a caveat to up-front international transfers even within developed Countries.
Christian Breyer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a comparative analysis of electricity generation costs from renewable fossil fuel and nuclear sources in G20 Countries for the period 2015 2030
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Manish Ram, Michael Child, Arman Aghahosseini, Dmitrii Bogdanov, Alena Lohrmann, Christian BreyerAbstract:Abstract Despite the positive momentum achieved by the renewable energy sector in recent years, there are substantial challenges that need the attention of the global community, and one of the more pressing issues is dealing with the deleterious external costs of power generation. One of the parameters to compare costs of energy across various technologies is levelised cost of energy (LCOE), but it has been conventional practice to neglect the external costs in estimating the LCOE of power generation technologies. Furthermore, as LCOE is a critical indicator for policy and decision makers, there is a need to juxtapose actual costs of renewable and conventional power generation technologies. This research paper attempts to internalise some of these external and GHG emission costs across various power generation and storage technologies in all the G20 Countries, as they account for 85% of global power consumption. As future investment decisions are largely influenced by costs, estimates in this research prove renewables and storage to be far cheaper than fossil and nuclear sources by 2030, even without considering external costs. The myth that renewables are ‘way too expensive’ has been debunked repeatedly, and the cost decline of wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies have outpaced most industry expectations. The results of this research not only substantiate this trend, but also statistically display that all the G20 Countries have the opportunity to decrease their energy costs significantly, between now and 2030. Renewable energy technologies offer the lowest LCOE ranges across G20 Countries in 2030. Utility-scale solar PV generally shows the lowest values ranging from 16 to 117 €/MWhel and onshore wind LCOE range is from 16 to 90 €/MWhel. Rooftop solar PV generally offers the next lowest LCOE ranging from 31 to 126 €/MWhel, followed by LCOE of offshore wind power ranging from 64 to 135 €/MWhel. Solar PV and battery systems are highly competitive on an LCOE basis at utility-scale ranging from 21 to 165 €/MWhel and at residential scale from 40 to 204 €/MWhel. The G20, as well as other Countries, can continue to develop their economies in a sustainable manner, along with substantial co-benefits in adjacent policy fields such as higher national welfare, better health of citizens, lower respective health costs and improved energy security.
-
a comparative analysis of electricity generation costs from renewable fossil fuel and nuclear sources in G20 Countries for the period 2015 2030
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Michael Child, Arman Aghahosseini, Dmitrii Bogdanov, Alena Lohrmann, Christian BreyerAbstract:Abstract Despite the positive momentum achieved by the renewable energy sector in recent years, there are substantial challenges that need the attention of the global community, and one of the more pressing issues is dealing with the deleterious external costs of power generation. One of the parameters to compare costs of energy across various technologies is levelised cost of energy (LCOE), but it has been conventional practice to neglect the external costs in estimating the LCOE of power generation technologies. Furthermore, as LCOE is a critical indicator for policy and decision makers, there is a need to juxtapose actual costs of renewable and conventional power generation technologies. This research paper attempts to internalise some of these external and GHG emission costs across various power generation and storage technologies in all the G20 Countries, as they account for 85% of global power consumption. As future investment decisions are largely influenced by costs, estimates in this research prove renewables and storage to be far cheaper than fossil and nuclear sources by 2030, even without considering external costs. The myth that renewables are ‘way too expensive’ has been debunked repeatedly, and the cost decline of wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies have outpaced most industry expectations. The results of this research not only substantiate this trend, but also statistically display that all the G20 Countries have the opportunity to decrease their energy costs significantly, between now and 2030. Renewable energy technologies offer the lowest LCOE ranges across G20 Countries in 2030. Utility-scale solar PV generally shows the lowest values ranging from 16 to 117 €/MWhel and onshore wind LCOE range is from 16 to 90 €/MWhel. Rooftop solar PV generally offers the next lowest LCOE ranging from 31 to 126 €/MWhel, followed by LCOE of offshore wind power ranging from 64 to 135 €/MWhel. Solar PV and battery systems are highly competitive on an LCOE basis at utility-scale ranging from 21 to 165 €/MWhel and at residential scale from 40 to 204 €/MWhel. The G20, as well as other Countries, can continue to develop their economies in a sustainable manner, along with substantial co-benefits in adjacent policy fields such as higher national welfare, better health of citizens, lower respective health costs and improved energy security.
David Stuckler - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the international monetary fund s effects on global health before and after the 2008 financial crisis
International Journal of Health Services, 2009Co-Authors: David Stuckler, Sanjay BasuAbstract:In April 2009, the G20 Countries committed US$750 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has assumed a central role in global economic management. The IMF provides loans to financi...
-
the international monetary fund s effects on global health before and after the 2008 financial crisis
International Journal of Health Services, 2009Co-Authors: David Stuckler, Sanjay BasuAbstract:In April 2009, the G20 Countries committed US $750 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which has assumed a central role in global economic management. The IMF provides loans to financially ailing Countries, but with strict conditions, typically involving a mix of privatization, liberalization, and fiscal austerity programs. These loan conditions have been extremely controversial. In principle, they are designed to help Countries balance their books. In practice, they often translate into reductions in social spending, including spending on public health and health care delivery. As more Countries are being exposed to IMF policies, there is a need to establish what we know and do not know about the IMF's effects on global health. This article introduces a series in which contributors review the evidence on the relationship between the IMF and public health and discuss potential ways to improve the Fund's effects on health. While more evidence is needed for some regions, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that IMF programs have been significantly associated with weakened health care systems, reduced effectiveness of health-focused development aid, and impeded efforts to control tobacco, infectious diseases, and child and maternal mortality. Reforms are urgently needed to prevent the current wave of IMF programs from further undermining public health in financially ailing Countries and limiting progress toward the health Millennium Development Goals.
Michael Child - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a comparative analysis of electricity generation costs from renewable fossil fuel and nuclear sources in G20 Countries for the period 2015 2030
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Manish Ram, Michael Child, Arman Aghahosseini, Dmitrii Bogdanov, Alena Lohrmann, Christian BreyerAbstract:Abstract Despite the positive momentum achieved by the renewable energy sector in recent years, there are substantial challenges that need the attention of the global community, and one of the more pressing issues is dealing with the deleterious external costs of power generation. One of the parameters to compare costs of energy across various technologies is levelised cost of energy (LCOE), but it has been conventional practice to neglect the external costs in estimating the LCOE of power generation technologies. Furthermore, as LCOE is a critical indicator for policy and decision makers, there is a need to juxtapose actual costs of renewable and conventional power generation technologies. This research paper attempts to internalise some of these external and GHG emission costs across various power generation and storage technologies in all the G20 Countries, as they account for 85% of global power consumption. As future investment decisions are largely influenced by costs, estimates in this research prove renewables and storage to be far cheaper than fossil and nuclear sources by 2030, even without considering external costs. The myth that renewables are ‘way too expensive’ has been debunked repeatedly, and the cost decline of wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies have outpaced most industry expectations. The results of this research not only substantiate this trend, but also statistically display that all the G20 Countries have the opportunity to decrease their energy costs significantly, between now and 2030. Renewable energy technologies offer the lowest LCOE ranges across G20 Countries in 2030. Utility-scale solar PV generally shows the lowest values ranging from 16 to 117 €/MWhel and onshore wind LCOE range is from 16 to 90 €/MWhel. Rooftop solar PV generally offers the next lowest LCOE ranging from 31 to 126 €/MWhel, followed by LCOE of offshore wind power ranging from 64 to 135 €/MWhel. Solar PV and battery systems are highly competitive on an LCOE basis at utility-scale ranging from 21 to 165 €/MWhel and at residential scale from 40 to 204 €/MWhel. The G20, as well as other Countries, can continue to develop their economies in a sustainable manner, along with substantial co-benefits in adjacent policy fields such as higher national welfare, better health of citizens, lower respective health costs and improved energy security.
-
a comparative analysis of electricity generation costs from renewable fossil fuel and nuclear sources in G20 Countries for the period 2015 2030
Journal of Cleaner Production, 2018Co-Authors: Michael Child, Arman Aghahosseini, Dmitrii Bogdanov, Alena Lohrmann, Christian BreyerAbstract:Abstract Despite the positive momentum achieved by the renewable energy sector in recent years, there are substantial challenges that need the attention of the global community, and one of the more pressing issues is dealing with the deleterious external costs of power generation. One of the parameters to compare costs of energy across various technologies is levelised cost of energy (LCOE), but it has been conventional practice to neglect the external costs in estimating the LCOE of power generation technologies. Furthermore, as LCOE is a critical indicator for policy and decision makers, there is a need to juxtapose actual costs of renewable and conventional power generation technologies. This research paper attempts to internalise some of these external and GHG emission costs across various power generation and storage technologies in all the G20 Countries, as they account for 85% of global power consumption. As future investment decisions are largely influenced by costs, estimates in this research prove renewables and storage to be far cheaper than fossil and nuclear sources by 2030, even without considering external costs. The myth that renewables are ‘way too expensive’ has been debunked repeatedly, and the cost decline of wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies have outpaced most industry expectations. The results of this research not only substantiate this trend, but also statistically display that all the G20 Countries have the opportunity to decrease their energy costs significantly, between now and 2030. Renewable energy technologies offer the lowest LCOE ranges across G20 Countries in 2030. Utility-scale solar PV generally shows the lowest values ranging from 16 to 117 €/MWhel and onshore wind LCOE range is from 16 to 90 €/MWhel. Rooftop solar PV generally offers the next lowest LCOE ranging from 31 to 126 €/MWhel, followed by LCOE of offshore wind power ranging from 64 to 135 €/MWhel. Solar PV and battery systems are highly competitive on an LCOE basis at utility-scale ranging from 21 to 165 €/MWhel and at residential scale from 40 to 204 €/MWhel. The G20, as well as other Countries, can continue to develop their economies in a sustainable manner, along with substantial co-benefits in adjacent policy fields such as higher national welfare, better health of citizens, lower respective health costs and improved energy security.
