Global Climate Change Digest: Main Page | Introduction | Archives | Calendar | Copy Policy | Abbreviations | Guide to Publishers

GCRIO Home ->arrow Library ->arrow Archives of the Global Climate Change Digest ->arrow August 1998 ->arrow PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS... MITIGATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE Search

U.S. Global Change Research Information Office logo and link to home

Last Updated:
February 28, 2007

GCRIO Program Overview



Our extensive collection of documents.


Get Acrobat Reader

Privacy Policy

Global Climate Change DigestArchives of the
Global Climate Change Digest

A Guide to Information on Greenhouse Gases and Ozone Depletion
Published July 1988 through June 1999



Item #d98aug8

“Natural Resource Management in Mitigating Climate Impacts: The Example of Mangrove Restoration in Vietnam,” N. H. Tri (Mangrove Ecosystem Research Division, Centre for Natural Resources Management and Environmental Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam), W. N. Adger, P. M. Kelly,Global Environmental Change 8 (1) 49-61 (1998).

The authors hold up and analyze the rehabilitation of a mangrove ecosystem in Vietnam as an example of a management strategy to protect coastal resources against present-day hazards while overcoming the uncertainty in the threat from climate change. The rehabilitation was justified on the basis of enhancing sea-defense systems, and analysis showed that the actions were economically desirable based on the direct-use benefits gained by local communities. Indirect benefits also accrued in the form of avoided costs for maintaining sea dikes that the mangrove stands effectively protect from storm damage.

Item #d98aug9

“Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the Chinese Industrial Sector,” J. B. London (Dept. Planning and Landscape Architecture, 143 Lee Hall, Clemson Univ., Clemson, S.C., 29634), Li Junfeng, W. A. Ward, G. J. Wells, Dai Yande, Liu Jingru,Energy Policy 26 (6), 477-485 (1998).

Twenty-five case studies of Chinese industries were undertaken to assess the possibilities for applying high-return conservation technologies to reduce CO2 emission. In 13 of the 25 cases, the calculated environmental benefits were valued at more than the costs of the mitigating technology, and 19 had positive net benefits to the environment, although not all outweighed the cost of implementing the mitigative action. The authors concluded that the study “suggests that targeted investments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can produce a large number of no-regrets outcomes” and concluded that “institutional arrangements must be improved to facilitate the implementation of environmentally benign development technology.”

Item #d98aug10

“The Embodied Energy of Food: The Role of Diet,” D. A. Coley (Centre for Energy and the Environment, Physics Bldg., Univ. Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QL, UK), Emma Goodliffe, Jennie Macdiarmid,Energy Policy 26 (6), 455- 459 (1998).

Developed countries invest large amounts of energy in the agricultural, transportation, and retail sectors to provide food to their populations. The authors estimated the width of the distribution of the embodied energies of British diets and found the mean and standard deviation of that distribution to be large, indicating that a potential exists for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions resulting from the use of fossil fuels simply by changing the foods consumed.

Item #d98aug11

“Environmental and Electricity Planning Implications of Carbon Tax and Technological Constraints in a Developing Country,” R. M. Shrestha (Asian Inst. of Technol., P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand), Rabin Shrestha, S. C. Bhattacharya,Energy Policy 26 (7), 527-533 (1998).

An analysis of the effects of interfuel and technology substitution on the price elasticity of electricity indicated that a low carbon tax may not be effective in reducing CO2 emissions, regardless of technological restrictions. Moreover, the electricity industry would run out of interfuel and technology substitutions, leaving the effectiveness of CO2 mitigation depending mainly on the demand-side response.

Item #d98aug12

“Carbon Dioxide Emission Reduction Scenarios in Mexico for Year 2005: Industrial Cogeneration and Efficient Lighting,” C. Sheinbaum (Inst. Ing., UNAM. Apdo. Postal 70-472, Coyoacan 04510, Mexico D.F.), I. Jauregui, L. Rodriguez V.,Mitigation & Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2 (4), 359-372 (1997-1998).

The effects of efficient lighting in the commercial and residential sectors and of cogeneration in the industrial sector were analyzed to see what influences they might have on Mexican energy demand and CO2 emission for the year 2005. The analysis showed that these technologies are cost-effective and together could reduce Mexican CO2 emissions by almost 13%. Although the installation and use of efficient lighting is already a part of the electric utility’s demand- side-management program, important barriers still hinder the adoption of large-scale cogeneration plants.

Item #d98aug13

“Cost-Effectiveness of Alternative Strategies in Mitigating the Greenhouse Impact of Waste Management in Three Communities of Different Size,” Riitta Pipatti (VTT Energy, P.O. Box 1604 FIN-02044 VTT, Espoo, Finland), Margareta Wihersaari,Mitigation & Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 2 (4), 337-358 (1997-1998).

Waste management produces large amounts of methane, so the potential of alternative waste-management strategies to reduce this methanogenesis was assessed in three communities in Finland. The study found that the emissions from transportation of municipal wastes are small compared with the emissions of landfills. Moreover, recovery of the landfill gas and its use in energy production was found to be the most cost-effective way to reduce the greenhouse impact of large landfills. Incinerating the combustible portion of the municipal waste was also an efficient manner of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

Item #d98aug14

“From Equipment to Infrastructure: Community Energy Management and Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction,” Mark Jaccard (Sch. of Resource and Env. Mgt., Simon Fraser Univ., Vancouver, B.C., V5A 1S6, Canada), Lee Failing, Trent Berry,Energy Policy 25 (13), 1065-1074 (1997).

Four communities in British Columbia were analyzed for the period 1995 to 2010 to compare the energy-service costs, energy consumptions, and emissions associated with a business-as-usual scenario and a community-energy- management approach that coordinates land-use planning, transportation management, site selection and design, and energy-production and -delivery planning.

The study indicated that community energy management could reduce energy-service costs and energy consumption by 15 to 30% and reduce CO2 and NOx emissions by 30 to 45%. The adoption of community energy management did require new policy initiatives from all levels of government. Those initiatives include changing the government of land-use planning, providing infrastructure grants, providing information and incentives to developers, changing zoning objectives, instituting development charges to and tax incentives for developers, and coordinating utilities’ choices of energy forms and delivery systems.

Item #d98aug15

“Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Mitigation Potential of Using Animal Wastes in Asia,” S. C. Bhattacharya (School of Env., Resources, & Devel., Asian Inst. of Technol., P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani, 12120, Thailand), J. M. Thomas, P. A. Salam,Energy 22 (11), 1079-1085 (1997).

Animal wastes produced in the developing countries of Asia are a major source of methane and other greenhouse gases. This study estimated that 17,730 Gg of methane, 1,290,000 Gg of CO2, and 179 Gg of N2O are emitted from animal wastes in the area each year. The researchers noted that greenhouse-gas emissions of methane, CO2, and N2O would be reduced 53.1, 19.5, and 61.1%, respectively, if those animal wastes were used to produce biogas that would replace kerosene in cookstoves.

Item #d98aug16

“International Technology Transfer for Climate Change Mitigation and the Cases of Russia and China,” Eric Martinot (Energy & Resources Grp., 310 Barrows, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 94720), J. E. Sinton, B. M. Haddad,Ann. Rev. Energy & Env. 22, 357-401 (1997).

This review of the opportunities and needs for technology transfer related to the mitigation of climate change effects found a number of similarities between Russia and China: Opportunities for the introduction of energy efficiency and renewable energy; needs for economic reform and restructuring; difficulties in responding to market conditions; policies that interfered with international assistance; and requirements for international joint ventures. Both countries need to build up their capacities, which means that they have to enhance their market-oriented capabilities. Russia needs new institutional responses, such as revised commercial legal codes and housing-sector changes. China needs to put in place policies and programs to upgrade its technological base and encourage technology transfer.

Item #d98aug17

“CO2 Mitigation and Fuel Production,” Meyer Steinberg (Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY, 11973),World Resource Rev. 9 (4), 508-520 (1997).

Three processes produce methanol as a transportation fuel. The Hydrocarb Process uses coal or natural gas and stores carbon. The Hynol Process uses biomass or coal and natural gas. The Carnol Process uses natural gas and CO2 recovered from power-plant emissions. Analysis showed that the Hydrocarb Process is the least efficient in the production of methanol and heat; the Hynol Process is the most efficient but has a higher rate of CO2 emission. Addition of a Carnol system to a power plant can reduce overall CO2 emissions by up to 56% when the methanol is used as a fuel for internal-combustion engines, and this number jumps to 77% when the methanol is used in fuel-cell applications.

  • Guide to Publishers
  • Index of Abbreviations

  • Hosted by U.S. Global Change Research Information Office. Copyright by Center for Environmental Information, Inc. For more information contact U.S. Global Change Research Information Office, Suite 250, 1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20006. Tel: +1 202 223 6262. Fax: +1 202 223 3065. Email: Web: Webmaster:
    U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Intranet Logo and link to Home