| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
124631
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper argues that an integrated policy architecture consisting of multiple policy phases and economic instruments is needed to support the development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) from its present demonstration phase to full-scale deployment. Building on an analysis of the different types of policy instruments to correct market failures specific to CCS in its various stages of development, we suggest a way to combine these into an integrated policy architecture. This policy architecture adapts to the need of a maturing technology, meets the requirement of policymakers to maintain flexibility to respond to changing circumstances while providing investors with the policy certainty that is needed to encourage private sector investment. This combination of flexibility and predictability is achieved through the use of 'policy gateways' which explicitly define rules and criteria for when and how policy settings will change. Our findings extend to bioenergy-based CCS applications (BECCS), which could potentially achieve negative emissions. We argue that within a framework of correcting the carbon externality, the added environmental benefits of BECCS should be reflected in an extra incentive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
112262
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper, in the first step, presents an overview of the origination and formulation of sustainable development (SD) concept and the related policy making frameworks. The frameworks include Pressure-State-Response (PSR), Driving Force-State-Response (DSR), Driving Force-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR), Driving Force-Pressure-State-Effect-Action (DPSEA) and Driving Force-Pressure-State-Exposure-Effect-Action (DPSEEA). In this regard, 40 case studies using the reviewed frameworks reported during 1994-2011 are surveyed. Then, their application area and application intensity are investigated. It is concluded that PSR, and DPSEA & DPSEEA have the higher and lower application intensities, respectively. Moreover, using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with a set of criteria, it is shown that PSR and DPSIR have the highest and lowest priorities. Finally, the shortcomings of frameworks applications are discussed. The paper is helpful in selecting appropriate policy making frameworks and presents some hints for future research in the area for developing more comprehensive models especially for sustainable electric energy policy making.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|