Search

The article informs about substantial investments in climate mitigation to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement along with political and financial barriers continue to hinder mitigation efforts. It mentions that Global mitigation investment pathways modeled in the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for progress on the alignment of financial flows with low greenhouse gas emissions pathways to reach global climate goals in a cost-effective manner.

Buildings are key in supporting human activities and well-being by providing shelter and other important services to their users. Buildings are, however, also responsible for major energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during their life cycle. Improving the quality of services provided by buildings while reaching low energy demand (LED) levels is crucial for climate and sustainability targets. Building sector models have become essential tools for decision support on strategies to reduce energy demand and GHG emissions. Yet current models have significant limitations in their ability to assess the transformations required for LED. We review building sector models ranging from the subnational to the global scale to identify best practices and critical gaps in representing transformations toward LED futures. We focus on three key dimensions of intervention (socio-behavioral, infrastructural, and technological), three megatrends (digitalization, sharing economy, and circular economy), and decent living standards. This review recommends the model developments needed to better assess LED transformations in buildings and support decision-making toward sustainability targets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic and Russia's war on Ukraine have impacted the global economy, including the energy sector. The pandemic caused drastic fluctuations in energy demand, oil price shocks, disruptions in energy supply chains, and hampered energy investments, while the war left the world with energy price hikes and energy security challenges. The long-term impacts of these crises on low-carbon energy transitions and mitigation of climate change are still uncertain but are slowly emerging. This paper analyzes the impacts throughout the energy system, including upstream fuel supply, renewable energy investments, demand for energy services, and implications for energy equity, by reviewing recent studies and consulting experts in the field. We find that both crises initially appeared as opportunities for low-carbon energy transitions: the pandemic by showing the extent of lifestyle and behavioral change in a short period and the role of science-based policy advice, and the war by highlighting the need for greater energy diversification and reliance on local, renewable energy sources. However, the early evidence suggests that policymaking worldwide is focused on short-term, seemingly quicker solutions, such as supporting the incumbent energy industry in the post-pandemic era to save the economy and looking for new fossil fuel supply routes for enhancing energy security following the war. As such, the fossil fuel industry may emerge even stronger after these energy crises creating new lock-ins. This implies that the public sentiment against dependency on fossil fuels may end as a lost opportunity to translate into actions toward climate-friendly energy transitions, without ambitious plans for phasing out such fuels altogether. We propose policy recommendations to overcome these challenges toward achieving resilient and sustainable energy systems, mostly driven by energy services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since internationally sourced investment goods must be paid for at market exchange rates, capability-based interregional finance flows should be vastly larger. Comment on "Fairness considerations in global mitigation investments" Gregor Semieniuk, Jayati Ghosh, Nancy Folbre In an otherwise excellent analysis of fair regional shares of global mitigation investments, Pachauri et al. (Policy Forum, 9 December 2022, p. 1057) dramatically overestimate developing countries' "capability" to invest by estimating GDP using purchasing power parity exchange rates. In response to Semieniuk et al. we would like to first point out that, in defining the required global mitigation investments for the 2020 to 2030 period, our study relies on the estimates in the sixth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) WGIII. [Extracted from the article]