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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".