Search

This paper attempts to inform policy makers and legislators on how to set energy efficiency standards and labelling (S&L) regulations. It draws lessons from the literature on S&L regulations in the Asia–Pacific region and from practical experience in drafting the S&L regulations for Brunei Darussalam. The paper proposes necessary components for effective S&L regulations, as follows: clear liabilities, authoritative administration, open principles for technical systems, and enforceable mechanisms. It also recommends some key issues in good practice toward effective S&L regulations, such as policy making in advance, customised legislation, inclusive and transparent legislative procedure, and flexibility in the legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Convergence in energy efficiency of BRI counties and its factors are studied. • Energy efficiency along BRI experienced an increasing trend except 2009 and 2010. • BRI countries with low TFEE are catching up with countries with high TFEE. • High-income & Eastern Europe and West Asia countries have faster catch-up rate. The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has raised concern that it may involve an extensive economic growth pattern at a higher cost of energy and the environment, and China is making a great effort to construct a green BRI, which may improve the general energy efficiency of BRI countries. Therefore, it is important to investigate whether backward countries with low energy efficiency are catching up with frontier countries or falling behind. In response, this paper adopts DEA to calculate the total-factor energy efficiency (TFEE) of the BRI countries, and investigates heterogeneous beta-convergence in energy efficiency of BRI counties and its factors. The results indicate that: (1) except for 2009 and 2010, the TFEE along the BRI experienced an increasing trend due to the global finance crisis; (2) BRI countries with low TFEE are catching up with countries with high TFEE, and more significantly when the TFEE growth rate is greater; (3) the TFEE converges at a faster rate in high-income BRI countries and Eastern Europe and West Asia countries; and (4) inadequate innovation ability and a weak R&D absorption capacity may decelerate the energy efficiency convergence rate of BRI countries, especially those with low-income. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In Asia, as elsewhere in the world, countries rushed to promote biofuels during the dramatic oil price increases of 2007–2008 as way to enhance energy security, without waiting for the settlement of controversial debates about the environmental effects of biofuels, especially their effects on greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, biodiversity, and whether biofuels cause a conflict between food and fuel. This paper does not settle this debate, but instead argues that there are straightforward, practical and feasible measures that can be implemented immediately in order to reduce the pressure of biofuels on the environment and food supply, and more generally increase food production. The key is to focus on increasing resource use efficiency in agriculture, especially different forms of energy use. Resource use efficiency in agriculture is low in many parts of Asia. Concrete measures that could be taken include reductions in market-distorting input subsidies and the introduction of resource-conserving technologies. These could be supplemented with greater use of non-fossil fuels in agricultural production, use of agricultural wastes in energy production, inclusion of input use levels in biofuel certification systems, and greater investment in agricultural research, extension systems, and infrastructure development. Biofuel fever has waned since the onset of the global financial crisis in late 2008, but it is likely to return when economic conditions eventually improve, and possible moves to strengthen the European Union biofuel blending requirements could further accelerate it. Much of the debate on biofuel-related impacts in the region has focused on deforestation, with little attention on agricultural input use, which could also have serious consequences for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In sum, this paper argues that governments can still improve the environmental performance of biofuels while reducing potential conflicts with food security by implementing the straightforward measures suggested here. Though these may appear to be basic textbook suggestions, many governments are still not following them even though the spread of biofuels increases their importance and urgency. The message is that the governments in the region should get back to the basics. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: This paper explores the cost-effective strategy for introducing modern bioenergy into developing Asia through the 21st century under a 400ppmv CO2 stabilization constraint using a global energy model that treats the bioenergy sector in detail. The major conclusions are the following. First, under the 400ppmv CO2 stabilization constraint, it is cost-effective to use modern bioenergy largely to generate heat and replace direct coal use in developing Asia in the first half of the century, because direct heat generation from modern biomass is efficient and expected to achieve large CO2 reduction. As second-generation bioenergy conversion technologies (mainly gasification-based technologies) become mature in the second half of the century, it becomes cost-effective to introduce biomass-derived hydrogen, electricity, and Fischer–Tropsch synfuels and bioethanol produced using these technologies into developing Asia instead of modern biomass-derived heat. All biomass gasification-based conversion technologies are combined with CO2 capture and storage from 2060, which enables negative CO2 emissions and makes a substantial contribution to achieving the stringent climate stabilization target. Second, due to its small availability of biomass resources, large-scale import of biofuels and wood pellets is inevitable in developing Asia except southeastern Asia under the CO2 constraint used here. It is shown that this contributes to diversifying liquid fuel import sources and improving energy security in developing Asia. Third, sensitivity analysis shows that these findings are robust to bioenergy-related cost parameters. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to provide a broad overview of the social and environmental costs and benefits of biofuels in Asia. The major factors that will determine the impacts of biofuels are: (1) their contribution to land-use change, (2) the feedstocks used, and (3) issues of technology and scale. Biofuels offer economic benefits, and in the right circumstances can reduce emissions and make a small contribution to energy security. Feedstocks that involve the conversion of agricultural land will affect food security and cause indirect land-use change, while those that replace forests, wetlands or natural grasslands will increase emissions and damage biodiversity. Biofuels from cellulose, algae or waste will avoid some of these problems, but come with their own set of uncertainties and risks. In order to ensure net societal benefits of biofuel production, governments, researchers, and companies will need to work together to carry out comprehensive assessments, map suitable and unsuitable areas, and define and apply standards relevant to the different circumstances of each country. The greatest benefits may come from feedstocks produced on a modest scale as co-products of smart technologies developed for phytoremediation, waste disposal and emissions reduction. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Asia’s largest biofuels producers are currently Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, China and India. This paper first examines the current status of biofuels in these countries, including the national development targets, strategies, incentives and policies. It then identifies the fundamental driving forces behind the development and promotion of these industries and considers their economic, social and environmental impacts. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]