Sectoral trends in global energy use and greenhouse gasemissions

Price, Lynn; Can, Stephane de la Rue du; Sinton, Jonathan E.; Worrell, Ernst; Zhou, Nan; Sathaye, Jayant; Levine, Mark

doi:10.2172/888753

Cited by 67 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Bellarby et al (2008) calculated these amounts at 0.059-0.257 Gt CO 2 eq year −1 for the use of farm machinery and 0.284 to 0.575 for the production of fertilizers. (Worldwide, agriculture is consuming 11 exajoule (EJ) of energy annually and this amount is expected to increase by 0.8 to 2.9% annually between 2000 and 2030 (Price et al 2006)). Fiala (2008) projected that by 2030, the global emissions of GHGs from the production of chicken, pork and beef will reach 1891 Gt CO 2 eq year −1 .…”

Section: Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Organic Agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research

Rahmann¹,

Ardakani

Bàrberi

et al. 2016

Org. Agr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

Organic Agriculture 3.0 is innovation with research

Rahmann¹,

Ardakani

Bàrberi

et al. 2016

Org. Agr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the description of the world of 2030, which includes assumptions on system behaviour and human choice. For determining costs and potentials in 2030 in the AR4, WG III has initially chosen to look at two scenarios for 2030, SRES A1 and B2 (Price et al 2006). The A1 scenario is for a world of ".…”

Section: Spotlight On: Costs and Potentialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dealing consistently with risk and uncertainty across the IPCC reports is a difficult challenge. Huge practical difficulties arise from the Panel's scale and interdisciplinary context, the complexity of the climate change issue and its political context. The key question of this paper is if the observed differences in the handling of uncertainties by the three IPCC Working Groups can be clarified. To address this question, the paper reviews a few key issues on the foundations of uncertainty analysis, and summarizes the history of the treatment of uncertainty by the IPCC. One of the key findings is that there is reason to agree to disagree: the fundamental differences between the issues covered by the IPCC's three interdisciplinary Working Groups, between the type of information available, and between the dominant paradigms of the practitioners, legitimately lead to different approaches. We argue that properly using the IPCC's Guidance Notes for Lead Authors for addressing uncertainty, adding a pedigree analysis for key findings, and particularly communicating the diverse nature of uncertainty to the users of the assessment would increase the quality of the assessment. This approach would provide information about the nature of the uncertainties in addition to their magnitude and the confidence assessors have in their findings.

show abstract

“…Final energy consumption represents energy consumed directly by the end user while primary energy consumption includes final consumption plus the energy that was necessary to produce secondary energy, such as energy transformation loses in electricity production (Price, 2006). The efficiency of non fossil fuels such as nuclear, wind and hydro were treated the same as coal power plant, so that primary resource requirements for fossil fuels and hydro can be easily compared , .…”

Section: Agriculturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…On a worldwide basis, energy demand in the industrial sector grows the slowest, at an average rate of 1.5 percent per year from 1971 to 2000 (Price, et al, 2006). In contrast, taking account of the losses occurred in transformation sector, service sector energy consumption has grown the fastest at an AGR of 7% from 1980 to 2004 in China, slower growth can been observed in household sector at 5.4% (Figure 2).…”

Section: Figure 2 Historical Energy Use By Sector In Statisticsmentioning

confidence: 99%