Integrated Clean Energy for the Pacific Islands: The Small Island Developing States Ran into Some Kingsize Opposition in Their Attempt to Save the World from Its Fossil-Fuel Fixation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Thirty years ago, a group of international scientists interested in global environmental policy approached their respective national government leaders and the United Nations with a proposal for a world political and scientific conference that would involve governmental agencies at all levels--international, regional, sub-regional, national, provincial, and local. Those scientists had uncovered evidence of global atmospheric problems, especially the destruction of the ozone layer, from the use of chlorofluorocarbon gasses in aerosols and from pollution caused by excessive burning of fossil fuels. When the Conference on the Human Environment convened in Stockholm in 1972, members agreed to initiate a United Nations Environment Program to meet the challenges of creating global environmental policy. Hard scientific evidence on the ozone problem and the availability of technological substitutes for chlorofluorocarbons resulted in the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Unfortunately, the issue of carbon dioxide and other emissions from burning carbon-based fuels struck directly at the economic heart of our civilization, making the issue a political and economic nightmare as well as ecological disaster. In June 1992, 178 nations attended the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio. Attendees at the Rio Earth Summit agreed to a comprehensive environmental policy framework called Agenda 21, as well as to international agreements on biodiversity and the development of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change. (1) The Alliance of Small Island Developing States (AOSIS) volunteered its countries as test sites for the policies of Agenda 21 and the process of sustainable development. Since these islands were small, undeveloped, and very willing, it would not--everyone thought--cost too much to realize some serious progress in small islands. Accordingly, the United Nations organized the 1994 Barbados Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States to address such issues as rising seas caused by climate-changing emissions, natural disaster management, biodiversity loss, waste management, and energy. (2) Five years later, the UN General Assembly reviewed the progress of the small island developing states and, as a result, urged the industrial countries to live up to the promises of substantial financial and technical assistance they had made in 1994. (3) Critical Needs In February 2000, the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) asked me to assist the small island developing states of the Pacific in assessing their critical environmental needs for the upcoming Ministerial Conference on Environment and Development in Asia and Pacific the following August. Since I was involved in the 1995 and the 2000 State of the Environment synthesis for the Pacific Islands for UNESCAP, I already had a great wealth of information available, as well as an accumulation of some 25 years of personal knowledge of the trials and tribulations of environmental reform in small island environments. About two weeks into the synthesis, I discovered an astonishing possibility emerging from the data: the small island developing states could become a test case for freeing the world from its addiction to fossil fuels. There were basically four perspectives on the prospects of a successful renewable energy program: the island perspective, the international perspective, the industrial perspective, and the scientific perspective. The Island Perspective The small island nations, especially Vanuatu, Tuvalu, the Cook Islands, and Samoa, had been movers and shakers in the battle for reduced C[O.sub.2] emissions from the very first time they were briefed on the issues in the mid 1980s. The island nations formed the Alliance of Small Island Developing States, a solid voting block of 36 nations within the UN, expressly to combat the issues of climate change. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».