Search

Meeting energy needs and ensuring ecological sustainability are important tasks for policymakers. In particular, changing the energy mix used in daily electricity generation can have a major effect on ecological conditions, and this is a previously neglected research topic. Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the influence of daily electricity generation from nuclear power and renewables on the achievement of carbon neutrality targets in the four largest nuclear power countries (i.e., the U.S., China, France, and Russia). The study applies the wavelet-transform coherence (WTC), quantile-on-quantile regression (QQR), and Granger causality in quantiles (GCQ) approaches for the period from January 2, 2019 to December 29, 2022. The outcomes present that electricity generation from nuclear energy reduces carbon (CO 2) emissions only in Russia, while hydropower generation does not contribute to CO 2 emission reduction in any country. Solar electricity generation decreases CO 2 emissions in different quantiles in the U.S. and Russia, while electricity generation from wind power reduces CO 2 emissions in the U.S. and France. The empirical outcomes also reveal that expanding solar, wind, and nuclear power in the energy mix can enhance the potential of the U.S., France, and Russia to achieve carbon neutrality and secure a sustainable future. However, China is using nuclear and renewables inefficiently regarding carbon neutrality. Therefore, the empirical evidence for China is highly controversial compared to former studies. [Display omitted] • The study examines renewable and nuclear electricity effect on carbon neutrality. • The study focuses on top four major nuclear power countries. • The study applies nonlinear approaches by using high-frequency (daily) data. • Renewable and nuclear electricity have time, frequency, & quantile-varying effect. • The best electricity source change according to each country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and a natural gas crisis between the European Union (EU) and Russia has begun. These events have negatively affected humanity and resulted in economic and environmental consequences. Against this background, this study examines the impact of geopolitical risk (GPR) and economic policy uncertainty (EPU) caused by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, on sectoral carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions. To this end, the study analyzes data from January 1997 to October 2022 by using wavelet transform coherence (WTC) and time-varying wavelet causality test (TVWCT) approaches. The WTC results show that GPR and EPU reduce CO 2 emissions in the residential, commercial, industrial, and electricity sectors, while GPR increases CO 2 emissions in the transportation sector during the period from January 2019 to October 2022, which includes Russia-Ukraine conflict. The WTC analysis also indicates that the reduction in CO 2 emissions provided by the EPU is higher than that of the GPR for several periods. According to the TVWCT, there are causal impacts of the GPR and the EPU on sectoral CO 2 emissions, but the timing of the causal impacts differs between the raw and decomposed data. The results suggest that the EPU has a larger impact on reducing sectoral CO 2 emissions during the Ukraine-Russia crisis and that production disruptions due to uncertainty have the greatest impact on reducing CO 2 emissions in the electric power and transportation sectors. • Investigating the effects of EPU and GPR on sectoral CO 2 emissions. • Discusses the environmental effects of the conflicts between Ukraine and Russia. • GPR and EPU reduce CO 2 in households, commerce, electricity, and industry. • GPR stimulates CO 2 emissions in the transportation sector. • The CO 2 -reducing effect of EPU is greater than that of GPR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The study was a collaboration between Lifting The Burden (LTB) and the European Headache Federation (EHF). Its aim was to evaluate the implementation of quality indicators for headache care Europe-wide in specialist headache centres (level-3 according to the EHF/LTB standard). Methods: Employing previously-developed instruments in 14 such centres, we made enquiries, in each, of health-care providers (doctors, nurses, psychologists, physiotherapists) and 50 patients, and analysed the medical records of 50 other patients. Enquiries were in 9 domains: diagnostic accuracy, individualized management, referral pathways, patient's education and reassurance, convenience and comfort, patient's satisfaction, equity and efficiency of the headache care, outcome assessment and safety. Results: Our study showed that highly experienced headache centres treated their patients in general very well. The centres were content with their work and their patients were content with their treatment. Including disability and quality-of-life evaluations in clinical assessments, and protocols regarding safety, proved problematic: better standards for these are needed. Some centres had problems with follow-up: many specialised centres operated in one-touch systems, without possibility of controlling long-term management or the success of treatments dependent on this. Conclusions: This first Europe-wide quality study showed that the quality indicators were workable in specialist care. They demonstrated common trends, producing evidence of what is majority practice. They also uncovered deficits that might be remedied in order to improve quality. They offer the means of setting benchmarks against which service quality may be judged. The next step is to take the evaluation process into non-specialist care (EHF/LTB levels 1 and 2). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]