Energy Efficiency and Climate Change: Conserving Power for a Sustainable Future


B. Sudhakara Reddy, Gaudenz B. Assenza, Dora Assenza & Franziska Hasselmann

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Chapters
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
  • Subject Index
  • Copyright

    View Copyright Page

    List of Tables

    • 2.1 Great weather disasters, 1950–2001 45
    • 2.2 Projected climate change impacts compared to other environmental problems 48
    • 4.1 Functions of the actors in energy efficiency 97
    • 4.2 Overview of factors fostering the implementation of EE programmes 101
    • 4.3 Features of the energy sector relevant to policy 103
    • 5.1 Positive aspects of energy efficiency 115
    • 5.2 History of corporate environmentalism 124
    • 5.3 Potential savings due to increase in supply-side efficiency 125
    • 5.4 Potential savings due to increase in demand-side efficiency 126
    • 5.5 Potential savings due to other options 128
    • 5.6 Employment benefits in EU countries due to energy efficiency 132
    • 5.7 Energy-efficient homes vs. typical homes 135
    • 5.8 Energy efficiency projects 138
    • 5.9 Externalities of energy efficiency 145
    • 6.1 Variables in the causal model (examples) 172
    • 7.1 Emissions reduction obligation under Annex B to Kyoto Protocol 198
    • 8.1 Technology commercialization model 222
    • 9.1 Regional allocation of concessional flows, 1990–1999 246
    • 10.1 Components of a sound performance analysis 281

    List of Figures

    • 1.1 Energy outlook in 2030 6
    • 1.2 World energy investment, 2005–2030 9
    • 1.3 Fuel share in energy investment requirements, 2005–2030 10
    • 1.4 Share of energy investment of different countries and groups, 2005–2030 11
    • 2.1 Trends in economic and insured losses, 1950–2004 46
    • 2.2 Trend in annual frequency of great natural catastrophes, 1950–2004 47
    • 2.3 Per capita CO2 emissions by Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 countries 52
    • 2.4 Recommendations to financial institutions and governments 54
    • 3.1 Fisher's time-preference theory of interest 60
    • 3.2 Cost-benefit of a cleaner technology project 73
    • 4.1 Characterization of energy efficiency potential 84
    • 4.2 Technology choices for private sector investment in energy efficiency 91
    • 4.3 Inter-relationships among actors 94
    • 4.4 Actors' perspectives 95
    • 4.5 Actor–factor influence state diagram 98
    • 4.6 Research environments 105
    • 4A.1 Comparison of energy and entropy flows of (a) electric furnace and (b) heat pump 108
    • 4A.2 World-wide averages of second-law efficiencies for the generation and transformation of electricity into energy services 110
    • 5.1 Methodology of selecting projects 140
    • 5.2 Benefits to various stakeholders—Local and global 141
    • 6.1 Schematic representation of profitability barriers 159
    • 6.2 Schematic representation of feasibility barriers 160
    • 6.3 Targeting micro, meso and macro barriers 163
    • 6.4 Structure of causal model 166
    • 6.5 Causal linkages 171
    • 7.1 The CDM project cycle 207
    • 8.1 The chain from basic research to commercialization 218
    • 8.2 Technology diffusion curve 220
    • 9.1 Net long-term flows to developing countries, 1995–2004 245
    • 9.2 Sources of risk in energy efficiency investments 248
    • 9.3 Role of local financial institutions 250
    • 9.4 Role of ESCOs 251
    • 9.5 The functions of ESCO 252
    • 9.6 International ESCO and local partner 253
    • 9.7 Financing channels 262
    • 9.8 Pre-offer financial analysis 264
    • 10.1 Institutions involved in energy efficiency 275
    • 10.2 Roles of utilities 277

    List of Boxes

    • 1.1 Flow-on benefits to promote energy efficient practices 24
    • 4.1 Key reasons for advocating EE 81
    • 4.2 Ingredients of the techno-economic model of change 89
    • 5.1 Energy efficiency and the indoor environment 116
    • 5.2 Benefits of EE for business establishments 122
    • 5.3 Trade-off between a technology and service—An example 136
    • 6.1 The case of Hungary 181
    • 7.1 Standardized procedures for small-scale energy-efficiency projects proposed by the CDM Executive Board 209
    • 8.1 Luz International Limited—A failure story 226
    • 8.2 Case: The commercialization of the Internet 235
    • 9.1 ‘Securitizing’ the savings stream, developing financial structures and credit enhancements to support EE project loans 249
    • 10.1 Performance evaluation 284
    • 10.2 Performance description 285
    • 10.3 Performance prediction 285
    • 10.4 Performance prescription 285


    Arising from the ashes of the Second World War, the industrialized countries embarked on an epoch of unprecedented growth and stability, but seem to have ignored emergencies, the predominant pattern being to live as if there was no tomorrow.

    Individuals, companies and nations borrowed with abandon, not realizing how overuse of energy, over-consumption of goods and resources and lack of ecological stewardship will destabilize the very fundamentals of prosperity in the future.

    In pursuit of development, industrialized nations exploited natural resources unhindered. And today, it's the turn of the nature to react to its over-exploitation in the form of devastating changes in the climate. The developing countries that have very limited role in destroying the nature are caught in a great dilemma. With high vulnerability neither these countries can ignore climate change nor can they withstand its devastating changes. While struggling to meet the basic needs of their people, these countries are in a catch-22 situation (spurging is not an option). This book attempts to answer this dilemma of developing countries through sustainable market-based energy-efficiency (EE) solutions.

    This book discusses the factor of energy, which drives all economies. Energy and development are correlated and the causation is both ways. More efficient energy use enhances production, promotes economic development and improves the standard of living. Energy is closely linked to economic opportunity, security and empowerment. Energy services are essential to both social and economic development and wider access to them is critical in achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and thereby assist in sustainable human development.

    The future of energy seems uncertain. At the beginning of the 20th century, nuclear energy was unheard of. Today, the world abounds in nuclear reactors. Similarly, even to imagine the kind of life possible without petroleum products is extremely frightening. Although previous concerns about global energy scarcity have proved unfounded, there is a fierce debate whether the peak of oil utilization has already been reached, or whether oil extraction will still increase for years or perhaps even decades. Fossil fuels may never be fully exhausted, but their quality and accessibility are declining, and their end is most likely to be caused by demand constraints rather than resource limitations.

    After the reckless use of this scarce resource, modern society is now struggling to identify new energy resources. Global warming, acid rain, radioactive waste and other issues increasingly influence energy policies in the new world. The challenges of resource scarcity and environmental sustainability, have made the future of energy policy a hot topic among policy makers and academics. Understanding energy demand and how efficient use of energy is used is of interest to policy makers as both aspects influence economic development, environment and sustainability.

    Researchers and policy makers have turned their attention to the more efficient utilization of existing energy supplies to help meet society's energy needs. Depending on the system and user investigated, it may be more economical to make efficient use of existing energy resources and reduce waste rather than develop new energy supplies to meet growing energy demand. EE investments can have broader societal benefits in addition to reduced energy costs. More efficient utilization of energy often leads to improved productivity and competitiveness in business and helps avoid or reduce environmental impacts associated with the extraction, delivery and combustion of fossil fuels. Yet, policies or programmes to increase EE often face daunting institutional, behavioural, financial and cultural barriers to their adoption.

    The global financial crisis and global warming arose from the same unsustainable economic policies, which aimed to maximize short-term growth at the expense of long-term development. This book shows that economic growth is not necessarily incompatible with sustainable development. The question is not whether growth or the environment is more important, but how the economy can become environmentally and socially sustainable. The volume shows that the real choice facing policy makers is between sustainable forms of economic development and unsustainable ones. It provides a systematic framework for students, policy makers, academics and others interested in the efficient utilization of energy.

    Chapter 1 of the volume introduces the key issues to be addressed in the subsequent discussions, that is, the interrelations among the environment, economy and energy (the three ‘Es’). The next two chapters deal with the ‘great climate debate’ and discuss clashing positions represented by sceptics and supporters of action on climate change. The discussion focuses on market-based measures as a means to increase the win-win opportunities and to attract investors to invest in climate change mitigation. Chapter 4 provides an overview of the fundamentals of EE. Chapters 5 and 6 develop a new systematic classification and explanation of benefits and drawbacks to EE. The topic of EE is approached with the aim of understanding the barriers to and the drivers for EE investments. The chapters try to identify (a) the drivers and barriers that affect the success or failure of EE investments and (b) the institutions that are responsible for the emergence of these barriers and drivers. This taxonomy aims to synthesize ideas from three broad perspectives, namely, micro (project/end user), meso (organization) and macro (state, market and civil society). Chapter 7 looks at the relationship between international environmental law and EE. A detailed treatment of the prerequisites for adopting a private sector-driven ‘business model’ approach for the successful diffusion of sustainable energy technologies (SETs) is presented in Chapter 8. Emphasis is laid on the mobilization of private capital and the commercialization of energy-efficient technologies (EETs). This private sector perspective is critical to reduce the burden on state budgets, which are creaking under the weight of numerous demands of urgent nature. This is expected to integrate the processes of market transformation and entrepreneurship development with innovative regulatory, marketing, financing, incentive and intermediary mechanisms. Chapter 9 discusses the linkages between EE and the financing mechanism. It shows how to tap the dynamism, innovation and power of markets for promoting EE and environmental concerns. It helps institutions that are involved in EE to identify and assess promising market opportunities, find local partners that are critical for success, package projects to make them attractive to lenders and investors and find sources of financing. Chapter 10 discusses the lessons of experience of institutions in supporting energy-efficient technologies. The emphasis is on analyzing the performance of organizations, particularly multilateral institutions (MIs) in promoting EETs.

    Many policies adopted in response to the global financial crisis are of a short-term nature, based on saving dirty industries with low or no profit-ability, while neglecting opportunities in EE, clean energy and intelligent resource management. The advantage of the EE approach is that it looks at real needs and at real human development. It provides value for money, for consumers, businesses and governments. For several decades, EE has been a growth industry creating new jobs at an ever-faster rate. Nevertheless, many governments, firms and consumers neglected the energy savings potential due to a complex web of barriers. These barriers are discussed here. The volume examines the approaches around the world that succeeded and failed, and draws lessons about the way to proceed.

    In energy and environmental policy, the choice is between continuing the status quo, with most resources invested into fossil fuels, or promoting new forms of energy, especially renewable energy (megawatts) and EE (negawatts). To achieve win-win outcomes, which combine positive economic and environmental effects, policy makers can choose among a range of instruments, such as emissions trading, taxes, subsidies, command and control instruments, information mechanisms and voluntary mechanisms. This book explores public policy and technologies from the perspective of current political, economic and cultural realities as well as likely future trends. It argues that governments and firms can prosper and strengthen their security by investing in the growing green world market, securing patents for green technologies and adopting climate change measures that overall create more jobs than they destroy.

    We are indebted to the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India, and the collaborating universities, in particular Palacky University in Olomouc (Czech Republic) and the Catholic University of Ružomberok (Slovakia), including the faculty and staff of the respective organizations for their support of our efforts in writing this book and for providing all the necessary facilities that we all, too often, take for granted.

    There are some people who are mentors. The influence of the late Prof. Amulya K. N. Reddy (research supervisor of the first author) on the work described here is extremely significant. Prof. Reddy, a pioneer in the field, first introduced the first author to the issue of EE on which he had been engaged for some 20 years. For this, he is deeply indebted to him. There are others who provided important ideas. They include Dr. Eric Ferguson, The Netherlands; Dr. P. Balachandra, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Science; Mr. K. Sreenivasa Rao, assistant editor, Journal of the Indian Institute of Science (JIISc), Bangalore, India and Mr. Hippu Salk Kristle Nathan (IGIDR, Mumbai) who have contributed to this book through technical and philosophical discussions of different parts of it. We offer them our sincere gratitude. The assistance of Tatyana Golubenko and the comments of Beatrice Maalouf in developing an early partial draft are gratefully acknowledged. We would like to thank Thomson Publishing Service, UK and Elsevier Science Publisher, UK, for permission to reproduce published material in Chapter 4 and Chapter 5. We thank Ms. Manali Das, Ms. Elina Majumdar and Ms. Meena Chakravorty and others at SAGE publications, New Delhi, for excellent handling of the publication of this volume.

    Last and most of all, BSR offers a special word of thanks to his wife, Lalitha, and sons, Sandeep and Siddarth, for the loving family environment that afforded him the tranquillity and peace of mind that made the writing possible. It is a pleasure to acknowledge their contribution and to thank them for it.

    B. SudhakaraReddy, Gaudenz B.Assenza, DoraAssenza, FranziskaHasselmann
  • Epilogue: Road to a Sustainable Future: A Systematic Understanding of Energy Efficiency and Climate Change

    Human beings influence the climate through many activities. Though technological solutions exist, inefficient practices adapted by social, economic, informational and institutional actions hinder their penetration. We also believe that policies do have the required leverage to influence the energy path and a significant reduction of energy consumption levels can be achieved if such policies are promoted. Active intervention in markets and private capital mobilization are critical complements to policies. For students, policy makers, researchers, practitioners and all those who have interest in a sustainable future, a roadmap, based on energy efficiency, has been outlined here to attain sustainable development. A broad, in-depth and systematic understanding is attempted keeping the approaches simple, fundamental and promising. Although the reader is challenged to create a new knowledge by critically adapting his/her own experiences to the relatively complex contents of previous chapters, the central messages are provided here.

    Accelerating Technology Solutions

    It is important to accelerate technological diffusion and to get consumers to pay attention to climate change issues.

    A sustainable energy future cannot be understood in terms of technology alone. A strong interaction exists among energy, economy, environment, technology, geopolitics and sustainability. However, for a sustainable energy future, technological solutions are at the heart of an energy efficiency approach. Technology is the primary means to increase efficiency by increasing useful output or decreasing waste per unit input, that is, maximizing energy utilization. Other managerial measures of efficiency improvements are secondary and cannot achieve much without higher technological efficiency underneath. Energy is embedded in many aspects of human life and its efficient utilization is important from a variety of viewpoints, for example, energy–environment linkage. Energy production and use account for nearly 50 per cent of the human-caused increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere. Acid rain and air pollution are further side effects. It is estimated that, by using the most advanced technologies, a CO2 reduction of about 50 per cent is possible until the year 20501 and that the‘(…) average equipment used in the household sector in European Union (EU) countries is 50 per cent less efficient than the best equipment currently sold’.2 For all humans valuing future lives this is a key argument.

    Looking at current energy use trends and resource reserves, the main question is not about the period of depletion of coal, oil and gas stocks, but about the substitution by a combination of alternative energy sources, efficient technologies, lightweight materials and other advanced technologies. This approach requires action across all sectors of the economy, from electricity and transportation to agriculture. The successful development of these technologies requires substantial new investments in research, incentives for producers and consumers and emission reduction requirements to drive innovation. Governments at all levels need to encourage short-term action to reduce emissions while laying the groundwork for a longer-term technology revolution.

    In recent years, a number of trends have accelerated the utilization of energy-efficient technologies. ‘Technology push’ programmes, supported by subsidies, have created niche markets for otherwise expensive renewable energy technologies in many developing countries. While the quantitative impact of these systems may appear quite small, analysts argue that the most significant achievement of the renewable energy programme is the creation of domestic capacity that could sustain renewable energy markets in the future.

    1 Martinot 2000.

    2 EC 2000, 142.

    Geopolitics and Global Energy Security

    Understanding of energy security relies on geographical diversification of energy supplies, sources and stability of prices.

    Since the extraction and burning of coal started, energy is powering the world economy. Depletion of stocks and global energy supplies make countries vulnerable to disruptive events, no matter where they take place. The first oil crisis of 1973 or the invasion of Iraq in 2003 exemplified the consequences for nations when energy supply became uncertain. Therefore, national security must be interpreted in terms of economic vulnerability, which is linked to dependence on energy. Although energy security focuses on energy vulnerability rather than on energy imports, there may be economic and political incentives to reduce energy imports. As fears about the stability of the world's energy resources grow, policy makers may integrate these security concerns into the climate change policies. If policy makers promise incentives for domestic energy sources and discourage energy imports, they have to choose different climate policies. In addition to the inefficiencies in carbon abatement policies, there may also be a global inefficiency associated with a country's energy imports and exports. If governments seek to minimize their own costs rather than the world's costs, they may choose substantially different abatement policies than are assumed in most climate change studies. Whether a country agrees to a target for a given amount of carbon abatement (focusing on quantity) or to reach a given marginal benefit associated with carbon abatement (focusing on the carbon price), it has an incentive to choose policies that deviate from those which would minimize world cost. Rather than simply abating on the basis of carbon intensity, the country may cut emissions more with those imported fuels and less with exported ones.

    This shows that climate change can be a geopolitical problem and the potential ramifications of its impacts on security are significant. Under these circumstances, a stage can be set for intense competition for resources among countries seeking to secure their energy supply by diversifying sources and areas of origin. The spatial politics of reducing GHG emissions should be looked into through an overview of the positions of the main actors in negotiations on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). These positions cannot be understood merely as the product of rational choices made by disembodied states. For this, a subaltern and class-based view of climate geopolitics is necessary that stresses on a local and social problem as much as it is a global environmental problem is necessary.

    Improving Theories and Models

    There is a need for strategies to refine the models on which policies and programmes are based. That results from analyses and an understanding of past and current assumptions underlying energy efficiency and climate change approaches.

    Models of the world at the end guide actions upon the world. Careful and continuous refining of models should be an obvious task to any responsible thinker. Refining models hold potentials for new actions. This holds true for climate change models as well. Analyzing and understanding models—their logic and method—and to propose counterarguments for every argument is a fundamental precondition for refining existing ones and therefore policy programmes and actions. Several models on different levels of detail exist in the climate change field. We discuss some.

    Actions on climate change. Whether, how and when to act on climate change is an ongoing debate. Clashing positions represented by sceptics and supporters of action on climate change are built around different assumptions about the need for more scientific knowledge, alternative explanations of climate change, the precautionary principle, trade-offs of costs and benefits of climate change.

    Climate change mitigation. At the heart of climate change mitigation lie assumptions about costs. These assumptions are inputs into environment– economic models as well as economic decision support systems in view of energy efficiency investments. Estimations of net economic costs vary from a high value to zero depending partly on assumptions about discount rates. Irving Fisher's time-preference theory of interest shows that discounting is related to how much value one places on current relative to future lives. The scenario envisaged by Nordhaus (1991) serves as an example: a discount rate of 4 per cent suggests that at an efficient level of tax is USD 2.44 per ton of carbon; the result would be a less than 5 per cent decrease in emissions compared to business as usual. A discount rate of zero, however, suggests an efficient tax of USD 65.94 per ton of carbon which would lower emissions by one third.3 Consumers as well as business and industrial organizations evaluate the cost effectiveness of energy efficiency (EE) measures. Most consumers make investment decisions without direct reference to discount rates and discounted capital flows. Business and industrial organizations often use rates of return or payback period for evaluations. However, often more stringent investment criteria are applied to EE investments than to production investments.

    Governmental intervention. The justification of governmental intervention is partly based on the existence of market barriers to the introduction of EE measures and technologies. The extent to which the non-application of efficient technologies can be dedicated to market failures is under dispute. Some argue that the freedom of the consumer to choose products depending on the lifestyle convenience is also responsible as people stick to conventional technologies regardless of EE indicators of alternatives. Techno-economic models of technology diffusion assume rational and comprehensively informed consumer decisions. The challenge of reconciling government and free market contributions with regard to the energy market and EE remains. More empirical certainty could increase the effectiveness of both—policy and market-based mechanisms.

    Survival Strategy

    For a successful diffusion of EE measures it is important to understand attitudes, behaviour, consumer preference and ways to change them.

    Underlying every policy, legislative proposal, programme and economic model is a set of assumptions about how organizations and individuals behave and change. Hence, it is important to review the current assumptions and ‘common knowledge’ underlying energy and climate change approaches and discuss emerging strategies to refine the models on which policies and programmes are based. Studies of consumer preferences reveal that often non-energy benefits motivate decisions to adopt energy efficient measures. Those include: (a) improved indoor environment, comfort, health, safety and productivity; (b) reduced noise; (c) labour and time savings; (d) improved process control; (e) increased reliability, amenity or convenience and (f) direct and indirect economic benefits from downsizing or elimination of equipment. Further, technology appeal was found to be important. These non-economic motivations dominate the decisions primarily of high-income groups. Modern and fashionable technology designs appeal to consumers and there is a higher probability of consumers purchasing the technology.

    3 Nordhaus 1991.

    Behavioural theory suggests real world programming to speed diffusion of innovation. For greater diffusion of EE measures, it is important to combine the understanding of social norms with network analysis and map social chains of communication and power which can help policy makers catalyze voluntary behaviour changes more quickly. Education and information can accelerate citizen awareness and empower people to act. However, the truism that ‘knowledge is power’, while encouraging the sharing of information, tends to overlook the complexities of effective communication that can successfully move people to action. Even if there is a broad agreement that behaviour, choice and human action are key to affecting climate change, it's another thing altogether to actually incorporate behavioural change into EE policy and programmes. There are real questions about whether we know enough about behaviour to see it as a reliable resource. Can behaviour changes result in persistent savings? How do ‘behavioural’ interventions such as social marketing (that rely on voluntary action) compare to traditional ‘technology’ programmes (that often involve subsidies)? Can the behaviour and technology approaches exist side-by-side, or should they be integrated? Should they be evaluated by the same standards? Does better understanding of behaviour force us to rethink well-tooled energy planning concepts, such as ‘free ridership’, ‘non-energy benefits’, ‘market transformation effects’ and ‘spill-overs’? What are the barriers to improved behavioural interventions as well the traps and perverse disincentives found in current (and emerging) markets? How does concern about global warming change this picture? To find answers to these questions, one has to probe the opinions, attitudes and preferences of individuals. It should look at public opinions and attitudes about energy efficiency and global warming, how they are changing and the conditions under which changes in attitude are likely to translate into climate-positive actions. We should also explore segmentation analysis—especially what it reveals about the different ways people respond to policy and programme communications—and suggest new approaches needed to move beyond ‘preaching to the choir’.

    Individual Interests Versus Societal Interests

    Diffusion of EE measures depends mainly on human interaction for acceptance and behaviour.

    Energy efficiency investment has effects of society-wide interest that can be used by policy makers to catalyze voluntary behaviour. In a free market, customers will get the best price and can buy only the goods and services they wish to buy. However, the free market approach only works if the market for efficiency is structured in such a way that customers can actually express their desire for EE through purchases. This type of market structure does not exist in many parts of the world. EE measures can help to restructure and revamp the existing relatively small market for energy efficiency products into a free market. EE measures can create significant employment opportunities too. New jobs can be created especially in manufacturing and construction sectors. This is particularly the case where EE projects can demonstrate positive impacts for social groups currently disadvantaged in the employment market, for example, those with low skills and fewer qualifications, living in economically deprived areas with energy starved conditioning.

    In case of societal interests, EE measures cannot help reduce pollution levels, but can provide significant benefits for local economies. If expenditure on energy is reduced, the savings will improve the performance of the local economy via the ‘multiplier effect’ to the extent the savings are spent in the local economy. The multiplier effect is an economic phenomenon characteristic of all economies, relating the spending and re-spending effects of money on the output of local economies. Also, the expenditure on energy efficiency improvements itself will improve the local economic performance because the materials and labour for those improvements are likely to come from the local economy. In today's global markets, economic growth is synonymous with efficient energy production, delivery and use. It enables increased output from power transmitters, electrical cables, motors and production units. On the supply side, it is no coincidence that energy production and delivery efficiency is higher in more developed economies.

    Leveraging Past Lessons for Future Action

    To be successful in an EE approach to a sustainable energy future we need to learn from past experiences.

    The success and effective period of energy efficiency programmes depend on the circumstances of each programme. However, there are lessons from past energy efficiency programmes which can serve as general guidelines.

    Focus on people. One of the main lessons to learn is the need to focus on people. Individuals and local organizations that help support a programme during its lifetime and their motivation and commitment to programme affected by direct and indirect benefits need to be addressed. As a diverse group of stakeholders (government officials, project managers, non-profit organizations, community groups, project participants and international policy makers) are involved in EE programmes, looking at the perspectives of various actors should help improve the credibility of the programme as well as facilitate the review of EE programmes.

    Collaborate. From a governmental perspective, programmes addressing the business sector are found to be most effective if taking place in form of collaborations, thereby, supporting investments in financial infrastructure. Some successful models have included financial support to help businesses to switch to more efficient systems. Energy service companies, leasing programmes, guarantee funds and insurance mechanisms are some such models which can play a critical role in the phase of transformation.

    Focus on areas and mechanisms of high effectiveness. Governmental programmes need to analyze sectors carefully to find out where the sources of high effectiveness for EE measures lie. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has attracted considerable private sector interest. The mechanism has the potential to become a powerful instrument for foreign direct investment and technology transfer. Private sector involvement in the CDM is successful as it is project based and inherent risks are reduced by assured credits, minimum overheads, flexibility, transparency and simplicity, an appeal mechanism and stability.

    Evaluate options and develop institutional and technical capabilities. At the country level, critical steps for successful government-driven programmes are (a) to identify and evaluate various efficient options; (b) to develop specific investment projects and related institutional designs for selected policy options; and (c) to strengthen the institutional and technical capabilities. For the EE programme to become successful the following conditions have to be met: (a) significant energy savings; (b) be cost effective; (c) be comprehensive; (d) achieve all cost-effective savings available in each customer interaction; (e) be preferably large scale; (f) create EE capability as well as capture present savings; (g) be monitored and evaluated; (h) provide continuous improvement and (i) pay particular attention to prevent lost opportunities.

    Include non-price factors. Often consumers do not base their investment decisions solely on price. Many considerations play a role in the consumer's decision making, such as education, social status, convenience, feeling of competence and interest in new technologies as well as health and safety concerns. To be successful, EE programmes need to include other non-price factors such as awareness about environmental issues, energy consumption and on how to control and reduce energy waste.

    Integrating Climate Policies with Development Priorities
    Development vs. Environment

    In the interest of global sustainability and moving on to environmentally more desirable paths, the concept of economic and social development should be the top priority for developing countries. This means that the issue of climate change must be viewed through the lens of human development. The challenge for such a type of development is the practical question of choosing sustainable pathways that provide food and energy security, employment opportunities and at the same time minimize environmental impacts. Instead of focusing attention on policies to reduce climate change risks, the starting point should be development issues that are vital the economic development and how this can be achieved in an environment-friendly manner. This means that environmental policies should be derived from development priorities. This needs a conceptual framework that places sustainable human development before climate change by reversing the existing framework. For that one has to find out alternative and cleaner pathways to achieve sustainable development goals that can also contribute to climate change goals. To achieve this objective, one has to reframe the global climate change debate as deriving from and complementing development priorities which can be approached at multiple levels and from various perspectives and should take into consideration the rapid economic growth to be achieved by developing countries. There is also the need to build scientific and technical capacity, advance scientific knowledge, and linking economic, social, technological perspectives with policy making. This ‘reversal thinking’ should map development, equity and vulnerability on to GHG emission problem. The determinants of this include financial resources, technology and importantly the availability of trained persons to use them effectively. Access to information and institutional mechanism (legal, social, and so on) is also important.

    For developing countries, climate change remains marginal to the pressing issues of poverty, natural resource management, food security, energy needs and access to modern transport or land use that takes into consideration development, equity and vulnerability and capture the attention of leading stakeholders. Presently, the cooperation efforts and analyses of climate change policies have been driven uniquely by concerns of the developed countries. From this perspective, related ancillary benefits in energy efficiency, and health impacts of local air pollution may be significant and promote actions, but they are only of secondary importance in that they may reduce the total costs of compliance with climate change commitments. Such an approach will have limited success in developing countries. The challenge then is to have integrated development and environmental policies so that the developing countries can stay on the path that minimizes the local and global environmental costs of relieving poverty, providing adequate food, supplying electricity to households and industry, and providing employment and transportation facilities consistent with the needs of the people of developing countries. It may not be easy to reframe global environmental policies as deriving from development priorities and solve the climate change problem. However, this new framework suggests that global collaboration on climate change should be approached at multiple levels through local and national development projects as well as through multilateral efforts to establish cooperation mechanisms within an equitable and efficient global climate change regime.

    According to this approach, a less-polarized way of meeting the challenges of sustainable development and climate change is necessary to build environmental and climate policy upon development priorities that are crucial to the billions of people from the developing world. For example, international financiers should prioritize projects that have a low financial cost per unit of GHG emission reduction, while national stakeholders are keen on national benefits of the activity in the form of employment generation, social development and local environmental improvements. Following that, it will be relevant to measure multiple financial, economic, social and environmental benefits of mitigation policies and then negotiation can take place between national stakeholders and international financiers to develop a portfolio of policy options that balance sustainable development and climate change policy priorities. Another issue is that of generalized methodologies. The parameters that are included in the models vary significantly by nation and region, and with time. Hence, it is important to develop localized models of environmental impacts, population exposure, preferences and valuation. This type of methodology is useful in understanding synergies and trade-offs between global and local environmental policies. Research is required on inter-linkages between sustainable development and climate change policies.

    However, a number of barriers—technical, financial and capacity—exist for implementing these initiatives.4 Barrier removal is an essential part of technology transfer and efficiency improvement. In this regard, governmental sector participation in technology diffusion should be seen as a way of obtaining economic, environmental and social benefits of clean technologies since private sector cannot be expected to bear the full transaction cost for barrier removal. To achieve this, policy makers need to design appropriate policy measures to promote cleaner technologies. There are also chicken and egg problems facing energy efficiency and renewable energy technology (RET) markets. On the one hand, the capital markets will not finance RET projects in the absence of a sufficient volume. On the other, the market for RET projects will not develop to be of a sufficient volume in the absence of adequate financing. Such issues have to be addressed. An innovative financial, institutional and implementational mechanism is needed that can support such integrated objectives.

    If such an approach were successful in altering development paths, the climate benefits will be substantial. In fact, the scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the type of development path taken by a country is more significant in terms of long-term emissions than explicit mitigation measures.5

    Policy: Reflections and Future Directions

    There is a need for using sustainable development as a framework for climate change policies. Regarding the principle of sustainable development, creating a system and making it acceptable to all is of paramount importance. This creates a huge ethical problem. A rich person in a developed country can complain bitterly about the way poor countries allow their environment to be destroyed by economic development. On the contrary, a poor person in a developing country, ever uncertain of his next meal, health care, education, will rejoice at any improvement in the situation, and is unlikely to be concerned about damage to the environmental damage unless it affects his livelihood. How do we balance the short-term benefits of the population with the long-term interests of preserving the environment? In such a situation, the framework that is developed should reflect the needs of developing countries and provide a constructive basis for combining the policies of local development and global climate change. For the implementation of such a framework the international climate change policies should be linked to sustainable development. There is also a need for a more systematic assessment of various institutions, market instruments and regulatory frameworks that can be used to support the implementation of these policies.

    4 Reddy 2003.

    5 IPCC 2007.

    A goal to ‘stabilize world climate’ is misplaced, not to mention its unattainable nature. Climate is a dynamic system within which extreme events and dramatic changes will always occur, irrespective of human actions or preferences. It is widely agreed that the climate is changing but its future trajectory and impacts on the environment and society remain uncertain.6 There can be little doubt ‘(…) that man is capable of influencing the climate through human activities of many different kinds’.7 Although a matter of some debate with regard to the data reliability, the curve of the global mean temperature has been rising since 1861 and although no single explanation for global warming can be given the greenhouse effect is a plausible one. This effect is attributed to the GHGs CO2, CH4, N2, O, O3 and FCCs.8

    The clash between sceptics and supporters is likely to endure, and may even become more pitched as the stakes on climate change are raised. The expansion of scientific knowledge is unlikely to end the debate, as each side will get more data to confirm their case. Sceptics will continue to assail supporters for blending science with environmental activism, and supporters will maintain their doubts about the scientific credibility of sceptics because of their likely links to vested economic interests.

    Regardless of who is right in this debate, each side is valuable to the other. Like any democratic set-up, a vocal group of contrarians is necessary to achieve scientific progress, since it forces supporters to improve their science and vice versa. It is necessary to point out the flaws in assumptions, logic and method, and to propose counter-arguments for every argument. The problem is not the scientific controversy, but the way in which science is used by economic and political interests, and the risk that scientists could become pawns in a high-stakes political game.

    Development may well be a better strategy for reducing the impacts of climate change than focusing on CHG emission reduction. Developing countries, with less ability to prosper, afford and use new technologies, have higher rates of hunger; poorer public health services; greater incidence of infectious and parasitic diseases; less access to education, safe water or sanitation; and, therefore, greater mortality rates and lower life expectancies. It is a proven fact that there are a large number of ‘no-regret options’ waiting to be exploited. These options have the potential to be welcomed by sceptics, supporters as well as neutral observers as they provide the dual benefit of economic improvement of the masses and climate change mitigation, a concept of win-win situation. Hence, the resources that are spent on emission reduction for the sake of avoiding impacts are better spent on vulnerability reduction in developing countries. This approach would enhance societies' abilities to cope not only with climate change but also adversity in general, regardless of its cause, or whether it's man-made or not. Such a multifaceted and holistic approach would help to improve the lives of people living in poverty, without compromising the ability to address future challenges, whether caused by climate change or something else.

    6 Heal and Kriström 2002, 3; Santamouris 2001, 22.

    7 Santamouris 2001, 19.

    8 Ibid., 25.

    To compare the two strategies to reduce the impact of climate change, one has to address the trade-off between environmental protection and development in general, or even between emission reduction and development aid. In a narrow sense, cutting emissions helps alleviating malaria and water shortage. In a broader sense, the same money can be spent differently and directly to alleviate malaria and water shortage even more effectively. Only by considering the broader question we can decide how much effort should be expended on development vis-a-vis GHG emission abatement.

    The main problem lies not with the principles advocated by such approaches per se, but rather the structural barriers that have inhibited local actions towards achieving higher energy efficiency levels. The main barrier is the difference in approaches—growth-based and development-oriented. Another key barrier is the political and institutional context within which the energy development agencies operate. As communities do not function in isolation from the wider spheres of power and decision-making, much of what can be achieved through local actions can only be sustained, institutionalized and scaled up by removing the obstacles at the local, regional, national or international levels. One should also recognize and act upon the need for strategic alliances and partnerships among various actors, namely, central and local governments, NGOs and civil society organizations, local communities and households and the private sector. It means addressing energy development, environment, poverty, social justice, equity and gender issues as parts of the same political process of development. It involves bridging the gap between carefree selfishness in degrading the environment and changing attitudes—reduce–recycle–reuse (R–R–R). This strategy will have positive impacts not only on the quality of life but also on the resources and the environment.

    The climate negotiations will succeed only if developing countries are driven by development priorities, and if there are countries or groups of countries among them willing to take a leadership role to push the process forward. In the absence of leadership, even well-intentioned players remain uncoordinated, which increases the transaction costs. Hence, the issue of climate change should be approached at multiple levels through local, national and international development projects as well as through multilateral efforts to establish cooperation mechanisms within an equitable and efficient sustainable development regime.

    Consolidated Bibliography

    ABGR (Australian Building Green Rating) Scheme. 2001. Available online at
    Acemoglu, Daron and SimonJohnson. 2005. ‘Unbundling Institutions’, Journal of Political Economy, 113(5): 949–95.
    ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2006. Clean Air Initiative for Asian Cities (CAI-Asia), project report, Asia Development Bank (ADB). Available online at
    ADB (Asian Development Bank). 2008. ‘Role of Multilateral Institutions’. Available online at (accessed in February 2008).
    Alliance to Save Energy. 2002. ‘Global Energy Efficiency Project Financing’. Available online at (accessed on 20 March 2002).
    Allison, Graham and Philip Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.
    2nd edition
    . Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
    Almeida, E.L.F.1998. ‘Energy Efficiency and the Limits of Market Forces: The Example of the Electric Motor Market in France’, Energy Policy, 26(8): 643–53.
    Anderson, Terry L. and Donald R.Leal. 2001. Free Market Environmentalism. New York: Palgrave.
    Anon. 1980. ‘Blueprint for Energy Survival’, New Scientist, 6 November: 354.
    Anon. 1995a. Business Focus Series: Strategies for Financing EE. Washington, D.C.: Agency for International Development.
    Anon. 1995b. ‘A Carbon Tax in Waiting’, New Scientist, 146(1978): 9.
    Anon. 1998. ‘Deals on Wheels’, New Scientist, 159(2146): 5.
    Anon. 2002. Indian Renewable Energy Agency, Annual Report (2001–02). New Delhi: IREDA (Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency).
    Anon. 2003a. The e7 Guide to Implementing Projects under the Clean Development Mechanism. Reports presented by e7 to the Ninth Meeting of the Conference of Parties in Milan, Italy.
    Anon. 2003b. Market Study for Industrial Energy Outsourcing. London, UK: The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).
    Anon. 2007. The Tenth Report of the Implementation Committee. Economic and Social Commission for Europe, Geneva.
    Anon. 2009. ‘Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’. Available online at (accessed on 20 January 2009).
    APPCDC (Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate Workplan). 2006. Inaugural Ministerial Meeting, Sydney, January 11–12. Available online at (accessed on 20 January 2009).
    Assenza, Gaudenz. 2000. ‘Mobilizing Private Capital for the Global Environment: A Theoretical Analysis of the Process of Attracting Private Investment to Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Projects’, PhD Dissertation, School of Geography, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
    Assenza, Gaudenz. 2005. Mobilizing Private Finance for Sustainable Development: Wishful Thinking or Realistic Policy ?Olomouc: Periplum.
    Baca, Jim. 1995. ‘People for the West! Challenges and Opportunities’, in John D.Echeverria and RaymondBooth-Eby (eds), Let the People Judge: Wise Use and the Property Rights Movement, pp. 53–57. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
    Bachram, Heidi, JessicaBekker, LisaClayden, ChristinaHotz and AdamMa'anit. 2003. ‘The Sky is Not the Limit: The Emerging Market in Greenhouse Gases’. TNI Briefing Series No. 2003, Carbon Trade Watch, Transnational Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
    Baird, Stuart. not dated. ‘The Environmental Impact of Natural Gas’ (online). ICLEI. Available online at (accessed on 10 November 2001).
    Baker, Susan and PetrJehlička. 1998. ‘Dilemmas of Transition: The Environment, Democracy and Economic Reform in East Central Europe—An Introduction’, Environmental Politics, 7(1): 1–26.
    Banerjee, Abhijit and BarryD. Solomon. 2003. ‘Eco-labeling For Energy Efficiency and Sustainability: A Meta-evaluation of US Programs’, Energy Policy, 31(2): 109–23.
    Beckerman, Wilfred. 1974. Two Cheers for the Affluent Society: A Spirited Defense of Economic Growth. New York: St. Martin's Press.
    Beckerman, Wilfred. 1996. Through Green-colored Glasses: Environmentalism Reconsidered. Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute.
    Bendor, Jonathan and TerryMoe. 1985. ‘An Adaptive Model of Bureaucratic Politics’, American Political Science Review, 79(9): 755–74.
    Benoit, Philippe. 1996. ‘Project Finance at the World Bank: An Overview of Policies and Instruments’, World Bank technical paper no. 312, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
    Bergesen and Botnen. 1996. ‘Sustainable Principles or Sustainable Institutions?’Environmental Policy and Law, 23(5).
    Bergesen, Helge Ole and LeivLunde. 1999. Dinosaurs or Dynamos? The United Nations and the World Bank at the Turn of the Century. London, UK: Earthscan.
    Berkhout, Peter H.G., Jos C.Muskens and Jan W.Velthuijsen. 2000. ‘Defining The Rebound Effect’, Energy Policy, 28(6/7): 425–32.
    Berners-Lee, T., J.Hendler and O.Lassila. 2001. ‘The Semantic Web: A New Form of Web Content that is Meaningful to Computers will Unleash a Revolution of New Possibilities’, Scientific American, 17 May.
    Birol, Faith and Jan H.Keppler. 2000. ‘Prices, Technology Development and the Rebound Effect’, Energy Policy, 28(6/7): 457–69.
    Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. 2000. ‘Reflections on the Politics Linking Science, Environment and Innovation’, in MichaelLucas (ed.), Understanding Business: Environments, pp. 264–77. London and New York: Routledge in Association with the Open University.
    Bower, S.1991. ‘The First Steps Out of the Greenhouse’, New Scientist, 129(1756): 37.
    Bradbrook, Adrian J.1997a. ‘Energy Efficiency and the Energy Charter Treaty’, Environmental Planning and Law Journal, vol. 14: 327–40.
    Bradbrook, Adrian J.1997b. Energy Charter Treaty, Art. 19(1).
    Bradley, R., K.Baumert and J.Pershing (eds). 2005. Growing in the Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute. Available online at
    Bradley, R., K.Baumert, N.Dubash, J.Moreira, S.Mwakasonda, W.Ng, L.Noguiera, V.Parente, J.Pershing, L.Schipper, H.Winkler and F.Cardoso. 2005. ‘Growing in the Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First’, S.l. Working paper, World Resources Institute, Washington D.C., XI, p. 119.
    Brännlund, Runar, TarekGhalwash and JonasNordström. 2004. ‘Increased Energy Efficiency and the Rebound Effect: Effects on Consumption and Emissions’, Swedish working paper in Economics, No. 642, Department of Economics, Umeå University, Sweden.
    Brookes, Leonard. 2000. ‘Energy Efficiency Fallacies Revisited’, Energy Policy, 28(6/7): 355–66.
    Brown, Lester R.2003. Rescuing a Planet under Stress and a Civilization in Trouble. New York: Norton and Company.
    Brown, Lester R., ChristopherFlavin and SandraPostel. 2000. State of the World. New York: WW Norton & Co.
    Brown, Vivienne. 2000. ‘Competition and Power in Markets’, in VivekSuneja (ed.), Understanding Business: Markets, pp. 117–44. London and New York: Routledge in Association with the Open University.
    Brundtland, Gro H.1987. Our Common Future, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    Bruner, Michael and MaxOelschlaeger. 1994. ‘Rhetoric, Environmentalism, and Environmental Ethics’, Environmental Ethics, 16(4): 377–96.
    Buiter, Willem and StevenFries. 2002. ‘What Should the Multilateral Development Banks Do?’ Working paper no. 74, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), London, UK.
    Business Roundtable. 2007. ‘More Diverse, More Domestic, More Efficient—A Vision for America's Energy Future’. Available online at http://www.businessroundtableorg/pdf/Energy/Business_Roundtable_Energy_Report_06062007.pdf (accessed in January 2008).
    CAN (Climate Action Network Europe). 2003. Letter from Can-Europe re CDM/JI and ET Draft Proposal. Climate Action Network Europe, 28 February. Available online at
    Carter, Francis W.1993. ‘Czechoslovakia’, in Francis W.Carter and DavidTurnock (eds), Environmental Problems in Eastern Europe, pp. 63–89. London: Routledge.
    CCIG (Climate Change Integration Group). 2008. A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change. Final report to the Governor, Climate Change Integration Group (CCIG), State of Oregon, USA.
    Christophersen, Thomas R.1997. ‘Financing Investments in Sustainable Energy on a Project Basis: A Commercial Lender's Perspective’, paper presented at the conference Attracting Private Investment in Sustainable Energy,Belgium.
    Claussen, Eileen. 2002. ‘Climate Change: Myths and Realities’. Available online at (accessed on 18 July 2002).
    Clinch, J. Peter and John D.Healy. 2001. ‘Cost-benefit Analysis of Domestic Energy Efficiency’, Energy Policy, 29(2): 113–24.
    Collier, Ute. 1997. ‘Climate Change and the Science Sceptics’. Available online at (accessed on 16 April 2003).
    Commission of the European Communities. 2003. Analysis of Action Plan for Energy Efficiency. Biannual report prepared for Parliamentary Scrutiny, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels.
    Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Action Plan for Energy Efficiency: Realising the Potential. Brussels, Commission of the European Communities.
    Connolly, Barbara, TamarGutner and HildegardBerdarff. 1996. ‘Organizational Inertia and Environmental Assistance to Eastern Europe’, in Robert O.Keohane and Marc A.Levy (eds), Institutions for Environmental Aid. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
    Coon, Charli, E.2001a. ‘National Security Demands More Diverse Energy Supplies’. Available online at (accessed on 25 November 2001).
    Coon, Charli, E.2001b. ‘Why President Bush is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol’, The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, 1437(May): 1–10.
    Cordes, L.2000. ‘The Collaborative Labelling and Appliance Standards Program’, Renewable Energy for Development, 13(1): 10–11.
    Council of Europe Committee of Ministers. 1970. ‘Resolution (70) 11.7. On the Coordination of Efforts Made in Town and Country Planning in Air Pollution Control’, International Protection of the Environment (Oceana), vol. XV: 7532.
    Crane, Dwight B., Kenneth A.Froot, Scott P.Mason, André F.Perold, Robert C.Merton, ZviBodie, Eric R.Sirri and PeterTufano. 1995. The Global Financial System: A Functional Perspective. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.
    CTI (Climate Technology Initiative). 2002. ‘Methodologies for Climate Change Technology Transfer Needs Assessments and Implementing Activities: Developing and Transition Country Approaches and Experience’. Available online at (accessed in May 2003).
    Dawson, Brian and MattSpannagle. 2009. The Complete Guide to Climate Change. UK: Taylor and Francis.
    DeLong, J. Bradford. 2000. ‘The Shape of Twentieth Century Economic History’, NBER working papers 7569, National Bureau of Economic Research Inc., Massachusetts.
    Diekman, Jochen, WolfgangEichhammer, AnjaNeubert, HeilwigRieke, BarbaraSchlomann and Hans-JoachimZiesing. 1999. Energy Efficiency Indicators: Statistic Fundamentals, Theory and Decision Support for Policy (translated by author). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.
    Dieperink, C., I.Brand and W.Vermeulen. 2004. ‘Diffusion of Energy-saving Innovations in Industry and the Built Environment: Dutch studies as Inputs for a More Integrated Analytical Framework’, Energy Policy, 32(8): 773–84.
    Dorf, Richard C.2001. Technology, Humans and Society: Toward a Sustainable World. London and San Diego: Academic Press.
    Dubash, N.K. and R.Bradley. 2005. ‘Pathways to Rural Electrification in India: Are National Goals also an International Opportunity?’ in R.Bradley and K.A.Baumert (eds), Growing in the Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First, pp. 69–93. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
    Earth Summit. 2001. ‘Investing in the Future: Financing for Development Process’. Available online at (accessed on January 2002).
    Easton, David. 1965. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development). 1996. ‘Environments in transition’, The Environmental Bulletin of the EBRD. London, UK: EBRD.
    EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development). 2001. Annual Report 2001. Available online at (accessed on 6 May 2002).
    EC (European Commission). 1999. ‘Economic Foundations for Energy Policy’. Energy in Europe Series: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities December 1999, European Commission, Luxembourg.
    EC (European Commission). 1999. Annual Energy Review, report in ‘Energy in Europe Series: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities’. Luxembourg: European Commission.
    EC (European Commission). 2000. The Cohesion Fund and the Environment; the Application of the ‘Polluter Pays’Principle in Cohesion Fund Countries. Brussels: EC.
    ECS (Energy Charter Secretariat). 2002. The Energy Charter Treaty—A Reader's Guide, Bruxelles: Energy Charter Secretariat.
    ECS (Energy Charter Secretariat). 2003. ‘What is the Energy Charter?’ An Introductory Guide. Brussels: Energy Charter Secretariat.
    EE-Policy. 1992. ‘Policy Options for the U.S. Congress’, (Chapter 5) in Building Energy Efficiency. Available online at (accessed in May 2002).
    Ekins, P.1995. ‘Rethinking the Costs Related to Global Warming: A Survey of the Issues’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 6(3): 231–77.
    EMS (Environmental Media Services). 2003. ‘Energy Industry Disinformation Campaign Threatens Health, Environment’. Available online at (accessed on 16 April 2003).
    Enviros Consultancy. 2003. ‘ First Year of the UK Trading Scheme: Summary’. Available online at (accessed on 1 April 2003).
    EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). not dated. ‘Global Warming: Climate’. Available online at (accessed on 10 November 2001)
    ESCAP (Economic and Social Council for Asia and the Pacific). 2008. Energy Security and Sustainable Development in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: Economic and Social Council for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP).
    FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2000. The State of Food and Agriculture. Rome: FAO of the United Nations.
    Ferguson, Eric F.2002. Personal communication (via e-mail).
    Ferguson, Eric F.2003. Personal communication (via e-mail).
    Flaim, Silvio J.1995. ‘Environmental Consequences of Renewable Energy Development in Rural India’, Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy (India), 5: 43–53.
    Forestry Commission. 2005. ‘Climate Change and British Woodland, Information Note’. Available online at$FILE/fcin069.pdf.
    FriedemannP. and H.Andreas. 1997. ‘Implementing Energy Efficiency Measures from a Psychological Point of View’, paper presented at the International Conference on Energy Efficiency in Public and Municipal Buildings, EU Programme-ECOS Ouverture, Austria, 9–11 July.
    Frondel, M.1997. ‘Thermodynamics and the Economic Process’, Discussion Paper no. 243, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
    Frondel, M. and D.Rubbelke. 2002. ‘Technological Efficiency Improvements: Beyond the Prospects of First-law Efficiencies’, International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 18(3): 287–93.
    Frondel, M., K.Oertel and D.Rubbelke. 2002. ‘The Domino Effect in Climate Change’, International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 17(3): 202–10.
    FukuyamaFrancis.1989. The End of History?The National Interest, Summer.
    FukuyamaFrancis.2006. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
    Garforth, Peter and MaryMcClellan. 1996. ‘Energy Efficiency Financing at the IFC’, presentation at IFC, Washington, D.C., November 9–10.
    GCC (Global Climate Coalition). 2001. ‘Not titled’. Available online at (accessed on 8 July 2002).
    GEF (Global Environment Facility). 1996. Operational Strategy of the Global Environment Facility. Washington, D.C.: Global Environment Facility (GEF).
    GEF (Global Environment Facility). 1998. Project Performance Report. Washington, D.C.: Global Environment Facility (GEF).
    GEF (Global Environment Facility). not dated. ‘What is the Global Environment Facility?’ Available online at (accessed on 23 November 2002).
    Gelbspan, Ross. 1995. ‘The Heat Is On: The Warming of the World's Climate Sparks Blaze of Denial’, Harper's, 291(1747): 31–37.
    Geller, H. and NadelS.1994. Market Transformation Strategies to Promote End-use Efficiency. Report no. E941 submitted to American Council for Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.
    Gilli, P.V., N.Nakicenovic and R.Kurz. 1995. First–and Second–law Efficiencies of the Global and Regional Energy Systems. Research report, Proceedings of the 16th World Energy Council Congress, Tokyo, October 8–13.
    Goklany, I.M.1998. ‘Saving Habitat and Conserving Biodiversity on a Crowded Planet’, BioScience, 48: 941–53.
    Goklany, I.M.2000. ‘Potential Consequences of Increasing Atmospheric CO2 Concentration Compared to Other Environmental Problems’, Technology, 7S: 189–213.
    Goldemberg, J., T.B.Johansson, Amulya K.NReddy and R.H.Williams. 1988. Energy for a Sustainable World. New York: Wiley Eastern.
    Golove, W.H. and J.H.Eto. 1996. ‘Market Barriers to Energy Efficiency: A Critical Reappraisal of the Rationale for Public Policies to Promote Energy Efficiency’. Available online at (accessed in May 2002).
    Goodacre, Christopher, StephenSharples and PeterSmith. 2002. ‘Integrating Energy Efficiency with the Social Agenda in Sustainability’, Energy and Buildings, 34(1): 53–61.
    Goodstein, Eban. 1999. Economics and the Environment. Washington, D.C.: Prentice Hall.
    Goulder, Lawrence H. and Robert N.Stavins. 2002. ‘An Eye on the Future’, Nature, 419(6908): 673–74.
    Government of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests Webpage. Available online at (accessed in December 2006)
    Greening, Lorna A., David L.Greene and CarmenDifiglio. 2000. ‘Energy Efficiency and Consumption—The Rebound Effect—A Survey’, Energy Policy, 28(6/7): 389–401.
    Greenpeace and Deutsches Institut fuer Wirtschaftsforschung (eds). 1997. The Price of Energy. Aldershot: Dartmouth Publishing Company.
    Greenpeace. not dated. ‘Countering the Skeptics’. Available online at (accessed on 17 August 2002).
    Gunn, Calum. 1997. ‘Energy Efficiency vs Economic Efficiency: New Zealand Electricity Sector Reform in the Context of the National Energy Policy Objective’, Energy Policy, 25(2): 241–54.
    Guy, Simon and ElizabethShove. 2000. A Sociology of Energy, Buildings and the Environment. Constructing Knowledge, Designing Practice. London and New York: Routledge.
    G7 Naples Summit. 1994. ‘Summit Communiqué’. Available online at (accessed in June 2001).
    G7 Paris Summit. 1989. ‘Summit Communiqué’. Available online at (accessed in June 2001).
    G7 Venice Summit. 1980. ‘Summit Communiqué’. Available online at (accessed in June 2001).
    G8 Genoa Summit. 2001. ‘Summit Communiqué’. Available online at
    G8 Koln Summit. 1999. ‘Summit Communiqué’. Available online at (accessed in June 2001).
    Hagem, Cathrine, SteffenKallbekken, OttarMæstad and HegeWestskog. 2003. ‘Tough Justice for Small Nations: How Strategic Behaviour Can Influence the Enforcement of the Kyoto Protocol’. CICERO Working Paper 2003:01, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway.
    Hager, Mary. 1993. ‘Enter the Contrarians’, Tomorrow, 3(4): 10–13, 16–19.
    Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc. 1995. The Future Market for Energy Efficiency Technologies and Services. Arlington, VA: Hagler Bailly Consulting Inc.
    Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc. 1996a. ‘Strategies for Financing Energy Efficiency’ (online). Business Focus Series. Prepared for USAID; Office of Energy, Environment, and Technology, Center for Environment; Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and Research. USA: USAID. Available online at (accessed on 13 March 2002).
    Hagler Bailly Consulting, Inc. 1996b. ‘Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment’, United States Journal16(2): 33–40
    Hahn, Robert W.1989. ‘Economic Prescriptions for Environmental Problems: How the Patient Followed the Doctor's Orders’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3(2): 95–114.
    Hamer, M.1994.‘Royal Commission Slams Road Building Plans’, New Scientist, 144(1950) (5 November): 6.
    Hansen, James, MakikoSato and RetoRuedy. 2000. ‘Global Warming in the Twenty-first Century: An Alternative Scenario’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(18): 9875–80.
    Harris, Mary et al. 1994. ‘Financing and Contracting Energy Efficiency’, paper presented at the Conference on The Business of Sustainable Cities: Public/Private Partnerships for Creative Technical and Institutional Solutions, Washington, D.C., September 22–23.
    Hasenclever, Andreas, PeterMayer, and VolkerRittberger. 1997. Theories of International Regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Haugland, Torleif, Helge OleBergesen and KjellRoland. 1998. Energy Structures and Environmental Futures. New York: Oxford University Press.
    Hawken, Paul, AmoryLovins and L. HunterLovins. 1999. Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. New York: Little, Brown and Company.
    Heal, Geoffrey and BengtKriström. 2002. ‘Uncertainty and Climate Change’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 22(1): 3–39.
    Heathfield, David and MarkRussell. 1992. Modern Economics (
    2nd edition
    ). Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
    Helm, Dieter. 2002. ‘Energy Policy: Security of Supply, Sustainability and Competition’, Energy Policy, 30(3): 174–84.
    Henderson, C.1998. ‘Small Is Still Beautiful’, New Scientist, 158(2131): 18–19.
    Hill, M.2001. ‘Essays on Environmental Policy Analysis: Computable General Equilibrium Approaches Applied to Sweden’, Ph. D dissertation, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden.
    Hollander, J.M. and T.R.Schneider. 1996. ‘Energy Efficiency: Issues for the Decade’, Energy, 21(4): 273–87.
    Honeywell, 1995. ‘Energy Efficiency Financing in Eastern Europe’, EBRD presentation, Brussels, Belgium, November 7.
    Houghton, John T., Gregory S.Jenkins and J.J.Ephraums (eds). 1990. IPCC First Assessment Report: Scientific Assessment of Climate Change—Report of Working Group I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Hueting, Roefie. 1991. ‘Correcting National Income for Environmental Losses: A Practical Solution for a Theoretical Dilemma’, in RobertCostanza (ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability, pp. 168–75. New York: Columbia University Press.
    Humphrey, Craig R., Tammy L.Lewis and Frederick H.Buttel. 2002. Environment, Energy and Society: A New Synthesis. Belmont: Wadsworth Group.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 1997a. Energy Technologies for the 21st Century. Paris: OECD.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 1997b. Energy and Climate Change: An IEA Source-book for Kyoto and Beyond. Paris, France: OECD/IEA.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 1997c. Indicators of Energy Use and Efficiency: Understanding the Link between Energy Use and Human Activity. France: International Development Agency.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 1998a. Regional Trends in Energy Efficient, Coal-fired, Power Generation Technologies. France: International Development Agency.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 1998b. ‘Opportunities for International Co-operation under the Kyoto Protocol: Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation’. Available online at (accessed on 6 March 2002).
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 1998c. Benign Energy? The Environmental Consequences of Renewables. London: IEA Publications.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 1999. International Collaboration in Energy Technology—A Sampling of Success Stories. France: International Development Agency.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2000a. Dealing with Climate Change: National Policies and Measures 2000. France: International Development Agency.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2000b. ‘Looking at Energy Subsidies: Getting the Prices Right’. World Energy Outlook. Paris, France: OECD/IEA.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2002. ‘The Energy Efficiency Update: Germany’. Available online at (accessed on 1 June 2003).
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2002a. Beyond Kyoto: Energy Dynamics and Climate Stabilisation. London: IEA.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2002b. Climate Change and the Financial Services Industry: Module 1—Threats and Opportunities. Boston: Beacon Press.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2002c. Climate Change and the Financial Services Industry: Module 2—A Blueprint for Action. Boston: Beacon Press.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2002d. Dealing with Climate Change: Policies and Measures in IEA Member Countries—2002 Edition. London: IEA.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2003. Carbon Disclosure Project: Carbon Finance and the Global Equity Markets. Boston: Beacon Press.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2006a. World Energy Outlook 2006 edition. Paris, France: OECD/IEA.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2006b. ‘Energy Efficiency Strategies’. Available online at (accessed in May 2008).
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2007. World Energy Outlook. Paris: IEA Publications.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2008a. International Energy Outlook 2008 edition. Paris, France: OECD/IEA.
    IEA (International Energy Agency). 2008b. World Energy Outlook. Paris, France: OECD/IEA.
    IFC (International Finance Corporation). 2005. Commercialising Energy Efficiency Finance. Washington, D.C., USA: IFC.
    Innovest. 2002a. Climate Change and the Financial Services Industry: Module 1—Threats and Opportunities. Report prepared for the UNEP Finance Initiatives Climate Change Working Group, United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. (Andrew Dlugolecki is mentioned as an author.)
    Innovest. 2002b. Climate Change and the Financial Services Industry: Module 2— Blueprint for Action. Report prepared for the UNEP Finance Initiatives Climate Change Working Group, United Nations Environmental Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. (Andrew Dlugolecki is mentioned as an author.)
    Innovest. 2003. Carbon Disclosure Project: Carbon Finance and the Global Equity Markets. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
    Innovest. 2007. Carbon Disclosure Project Report. Report for the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) London.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. Second Assessment Report: Working Group III. Report submitted to World Meteorological Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change. (Eds) John T.Houghton, L.G. MeiroFilho, B.A.Callander, N.Harris, A.Kattenberg and K.Maskell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2000. Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer. A Special Report of IPCC Working Group III. Cambridge University Press, New York.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001a. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, (eds) BertMetz, OgunladeDavidson, RobSwart, BertMetz, OgunladeDavidson and JiahuaPan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001b. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, (eds) John T.Houghton, DingYihui, David J.Griggs, MariaNoguer, Paul J.van der Linden and XiaosuDai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001c. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, (eds) James J.McCarthy, Osvaldo F.Canziani, Neil A.LearyDavid J.Dokken and Kasey S.WhiteCambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2001d. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of WG III to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2003. ‘About IPCC’. Available online at (accessed on 23 April 2003).
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2006. ‘Economic and Social Dimensions. (CUP). 6’. Available online at
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report, (eds) AbdelkaderAllali, RoxanaBojariu, SandraDiaz, IsmailElgizouli, DaveGriggs, DavidHawkins, OlavHohmeyer, Bubu PatehJallow, LuckaKajfez-Bogataj, NeilLeary, HoesungLee and DavidWratt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007b. ‘Summary for Policymakers’, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (eds) Solomon, S., D.Qin, M.Manning, Z.Chen, M.Marquis, K.B.Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L.Miller. Available online at (accessed in May 2008).
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007c. Fourth Assessment Report. Report submitted to World Meteorological Organization, United Nations Environment Programme, Washington, D.C.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007d. ‘Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policy-makers’. Available online at
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007e. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, (eds) SusanSolomon, DaheQin, MartinManning et al. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007f. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation, (eds) BertMetz, OgunladeDavidson, PeterBosch, RutuDave and LeoMeyer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
    IPMVP (International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol)2007Volume I. Report from Efficiency Valuation, Organisation, Washington, D.C., USA.
    IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development). 2003. ‘International Institute for Sustainable Development Emissions Trading and Poverty Alleviation—The Role of Clean Technologies’. Available online at (accessed in December 2005).
    Jacobsen, H.K.2000. ‘Technology Diffusion in Energy-Economy Models: The Case of Danish Vintage Model’, The Energy Journal, 21(1): 43–71.
    Jacoby, Henry D., Ronald G.Prinn and RichardSchmalensee. 1998. ‘Kyoto's Unfinished Business’, Foreign Affairs, 77(4): 54–66.
    Jaffe, Adam B., Richard G.Newell, and Robert N.Stavins. 1999. ‘Energy Efficient Technologies and Climate Change Policies: Issues and Evidence’, Climate Issue Brief no. 19. Available online at
    Jaffe, Stavins. 1994. ‘The Energy Efficiency Gap’, Energy Policy, 22(10): 804–10.
    Jakob, M.2007. ‘The Drivers of and Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Renovation Decisions of Single-family Home-owners’, CEPE Working Paper No. 56, Centre for Energy Policy and Economics (CEPE), Zurich.
    Jensen, Christian. 1998. ‘How Many Climate Researchers Support the “Leipzig Declaration”?’ Available online at (accessed on 20 April 2003).
    Kaasa, Stine Madland. 2005. The Commission on Sustainable Development: A Study of Institutional Design, Distribution of Capabilities and Entrepreneurial Leadership, FNI report 5/2005, report submitted to Fridtjof Nansens Institutt, Norway.
    Kauffman, Robert J., TimMiller and BinWang. 2002. ‘When Internet Companies Morph: Understanding Organizational Strategy Changes in the “New” New Economy’, First Monday, 7 (7).
    Keohane, Robert O., PeterHaas and MarcLevy. 1993. ‘The Effectiveness of International Environmental Institutions’, in Peter M.Haas et al. (eds), Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection, pp. 3–24. Cambridge MA: MIT press.
    Kessides, Christine. 1993. ‘Institutional Options for the Provision of Infrastructure’, World Bank Discussion Papers, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.
    Kok, M., B.Metz, J.Verhagen and S. vanRooijen. 2008. ‘Integrating Development and Climate Policies: National and International Benefits’, Climate Policy, 8(2): 103–18.
    Koopmans, Carl C. and Dirk Willem teVelde. 2001. ‘Bridging the Energy Efficiency Gap: Using Bottom-up Information in a Top-down Energy Demand Model’, Energy Economics, 23(1): 57–75.
    Kothaa, S., S.Rajgopala and V.P.Rindova. 2001. ‘Reputation Building and Performance: An Empirical Analysis of the Top-50 Pure Internet Firms’, European Management Journal, 19(6), 571–86.
    Kramer, John M.1983. ‘The Environmental Crisis in Eastern Europe: The Price for Progress’, Slavic Review, 42(2): 204–20.
    Kuratov, Sergei, SergeiSolyanik and SemenSvitelman. 2002. ‘Factors Determining Environmental Conditions in the Republic of Kazakhstan in 2000–2001’, in MeganFalvey and GlennKempf (eds), Green Salvation Herald 2001, 9–24, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
    Kurokawa, Kosuke. 2003. Energy from the Desert: Feasibility of Very Large Scale Photovoltaic Power Generation (VLS-PV) Systems. London, UK: James & James.
    Kwasnicki, W. and H.Kwasnicka. 1996. ‘Long-term Diffusion Factors of Technological Development: An Evolutionary Model and Case Study’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 52(1): 31–57.
    Laitner, John A.2000. ‘Energy Efficiency: Rebounding to a Sound Perspective’, Energy Policy, 28(6/7): 471–75.
    Landscheidt, T.2003. ‘New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?’Energy and Environment, 14(2–3): 327–50.
    Lapper, Richard and ConnerMiddelmann. 1996. ‘Risks of a Concrete Proposal’, Financial Times, London, 21 August.
    Laurson, Peter, A.Melzer and T.Zylicz. 1995. Final Report by the Consultants: A Strategy to Enhance Partnerships in Project Financing for Environmental Investments in Central and Eastern Europe. London, Great Britain: EBRD (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development).
    Leiner, B.M., V.G.Cerf, D.D.Clark, R.E.Kahn, L.Kleinrock, D.C.Lynch, J.Postel, L.G.Roberts and S.Wolff. 2000. ‘A Brief History of the Internet’. Available online at (accessed in September 2006).
    Long, Marybeth and AlastairIles. 1997. Assessing Climate Change: Co-evolution of Knowledge, Communities, and Methodologies. Interim Report IR-97-036 submitted to International Institute for Applied System Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
    Lotker, M.1991. Barriers to Commercialization of Large-scale Solar Electricity: Lessons Learned from the Luz Experience. Technical Report SAND91-7014 submitted to Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, USA.
    Lovei, Magda. 1995. ‘Financing Pollution Abatement: Theory and Practice’, Environment Department Papers, No. 028, The World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA.
    Lovins, Amory B.1977. Soft Energy Paths: Toward a Durable Peace. Harmondsworth, UK Penguin.
    Lovins, Amory B.1989. ‘End-use/Least-cost Investment Strategies’, paper presented at the 14th Congress of the World Energy Conference, World Energy Conference, Montreal, Canada, September 17–22.
    Lovins, Amory B.2008. Profitable Solutions to Climate Change. Old Snowmass: Rocky Mountain Institute.
    Lovins, Amory B., L. HunterLovins and PaulHawken. 2000. ‘A Road Map for Natural Capitalism’, in MichaelLucas (ed.), Understanding Business: Environments, pp. 250–63. London and New York: Routledge in Association with the Open University.
    Lutzenhiser, Loren and ElizabethShove. 1999. ‘Contracting Knowledge: The Operational Limits to Interdisciplinary Energy Efficiency Research and Development in the US and the UK’, Energy Policy, 27(4): 217–27.
    MacKenzie, D.1992. ‘Europe Weakens Carbon Tax’, New Scientist, 134(1821): 5.
    Marcetti, C.1972. ‘Primary Energy Substitution Models: On the Interaction between Energy and Society’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 9(4): 77–84.
    Maret, Susan. 2000. ‘Review: Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle’. Available online at (accessed on 15 April 2003).
    Marshall, George. not dated. ‘Alternative Arguments’. Available online at (accessed on 16 April 2003).
    Marshall. 2006. ‘Desert Houses, Energy and Water Use: Living with the Climate’. Presented at the Sharing Knowledge Workshop, Darwin, 30–31 March.
    Martin, J.1996. ‘Energy Technologies: Systemic Aspects, Technological Trajectories, and Institutional Frameworks’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 53(1): 81–95.
    Martin, Randy L.1997. ‘Financing Energy Efficiency: A Handbook for Iowa Lenders’. Available online at (accessed on 13 March 2002).
    Martinot, Eric and OmarMcDoom. 2000. Promoting Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy: GEF Climate Change Projects and Impacts. Global Environment Facility. Available online at (accessed in July 2006).
    Matveytchuk, Alexey. 1998. (‘What Does the Coming Century have in Store for Us?’)Oil of Russia, no. 2: 29–35.
    Mazza, Patrick. 2002. ‘Climate Change Solutions as Economic Development: Transforming Barriers into Drivers’, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 22(2): 158–67.
    McClellan, K.2000. ‘EBRD Mechanisms to Finance Climate Friendly Technologies’, paper presented at the workshop organized by Capacity for Climate Protection in Central and Eastern Europe, Szentendre, Hungary, February 21.
    McClellan, K.2004. Mechanisms to Finance Climate Friendly Technologies. Report prepared for the Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe, Szentendre, Hungary.
    McClellan, K. not dated. ‘European Bank for Reconstruction and Development: Mechanisms to Finance Climate Friendly Technologies’. Available from (accessed on 4 April 2002).
    McGrew, Anthony. 2000. ‘Putting the Advanced Capitalist State in Perspective’, in MichaelLucas (ed.), Understanding Business: Environments, pp. 183–92. London and New York: Routledge in Association with The Open University.
    McKibbin, Warwick J. and Peter J.Wilcoxen. 2002. ‘Climate Change after Kyoto: A Blueprint for a Realistic Approach’, Brookings Review, 20(2): 7–10.
    McKinsey Global Institute. 2007. Curbing Global Energy Demand Growth: The Energy Productivity Opportunity. Washington D.C.: Mckinsey Global Institute.
    McNeill, J. R., John RobertMcNeill and PaulKennedy. 2001. Something New under the Sun. NY: WW Norton.
    Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L.Meadows and J.Randers. 1992. Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Analysis, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, Post Mills.
    Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L.Meadows, JørgenRanders et al. 1972. The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.
    Menanteau, P.2003. ‘Can Negotiated Agreements Replace Efficiency Standards as an Instrument for Transforming the Electrical Appliance Market?’Energy Policy, 31(9): 827–35.
    Menanteau, P. and H.Lefebvre. 2000. ‘Competing Technologies and the Diffusion of Innovations: The Emergence of Energy Efficient Lamps in the Residential Sector’, Research Policy, 29(3): 375–89.
    Meyer, Stephen. 1995. ‘The Economic Impact of Environmental Regulation’. Available online at (accessed on 3 June 2003).
    Meyer, Stephen. 1999. ‘Additionality of Emissions Reductions from Clean Development Mechanism Projects: Issues and Options for Project-Level Assessment’ Environmental Energy Technologies Division LBLN-43704. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, Berkeley.
    Michaels, Patrick J.1995. ‘Testimony of Patrick J. Michaels (University of West Virginia) before the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Environment’. Available online at (accessed on 17 August 2002).
    Meyer, Stephen. 1998. ‘Long Hot Year’, Policy Analysis. Working paper no. 329. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute.
    Mitchem, Carl. 1994. Thinking through Technology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    MOL (Magyar Olaj- es Gazipari Reszvenytarsasag). 2001. ‘A Communicate of the Hungarian Oil and Gas Public Limited Company’. Available online at
    Moreira, J.R., L.A. HortaNogueira and V.Parente. 2005. ‘Biofuels for Transport, Development and Climate Change: Lessons from Brazil’, in R.Bradley and K.A.Baumert (eds), Growing in the Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
    Morgenstern, R.D. and S.Al-Jurf. 1999. ‘Can Free Information Really Accelerate Technology Diffusion?’Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 61(1): 13–24.
    Mostashari, A. and J.Sussman. 2003. ‘Stakeholder-assisted Modeling and Policy Design Process’, paper presented at the International Conference of Public Participation and Information Technology, Cambridge, MA.
    Munich Re. 2004. ‘Natural Catastrophes’. Topics Geo—Annual Review.
    Mwakasonda, S. and H.Winkler. 2005. ‘Carbon Capture and Storage in South Africa’, Chapter 6 in R.Bradley, K.Baumert and J.Pershing (eds), Growing in the Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First, pp. 94–109. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
    NadelPreston, John and TheodosiosPalaskas. 2000. Personal communication (thesis defense).
    Nadel, S.1990. ‘Electric Utility Conservation Programs: A Review of the Lessons Taught by a Decade of Program Experience’, Utility Programs—Proceedings of the ACEEE 1990 Summery Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Vol. 8, American Council for an Energy-efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.
    Nakicenovic, N.1996. ‘Freeing Energy from Carbon’, Daedalus, 125(3) 95–112.
    National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 1994. ‘Resources for Energy efficiency Financing: Financing Local Energy Efficiency Projects’. Available from (accessed on 15 January 2002).
    Newell, Richard G.2000. ‘Balancing Policies for Energy Efficiency and Climate Change’, Resources, 16(140): 14–17.
    Newell, Richard G.2007. ‘Climate Change Technology and Policy’, Resources for the Future. Working paper, Washington, D.C.
    Nichols, D. and E.Martinot. 2000. ‘Measuring Results from Climate Change Programs: Performance Indicators for GEF’, Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 4, Global Environment Facility, Washington, D.C., USA. Available online at (accessed in July 2002).
    Norberg-Bohm, V.2000. ‘Creating Incentives for Environmentally Enhancing Technological Change: Lessons From 30 Years of U.S. Energy Technology Policy’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 65(2): 125–48.
    Nordhaus, William D.1991. ‘ To Slow or Not to Slow: The Economics of the Greenhouse Effect’, The Economic Journal, 101(407): 920–37.
    Nordhaus, William D.1993. ‘Rolling the DICE: An Optimal Transition Path for Controlling Greenhouse Gases’, Resource and Energy Economics, 15(1): 27–50.
    O'Brien, G., P.O'Keefe, J.Rose and L.Wilson. 2008. ‘Climate Change and Variability, Energy and Disaster Management: Produced Risks without Produced Solutions— Rethinking the Approach’, paper presented Climate Change and Disaster Impact Reduction Conference, Nepal, May 28.
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1974. ‘Environmental Guidelines. Annex. 7. (iv)’. Reprinted in International Protection of the Environment. Vol. 5: 2314. Oceana.
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1997a. Financing Energy Efficiency in Countries Making the Transition to a Market Economy: Policies and Measures. Paris: OECD.
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1997b. Financing Energy Efficiency in Countries with Economies in Transition. Paris: OECD.
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1999a. Fostering Scientific and Technology Progress: OECD Policy Brief. Paris: OECD.
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1999b. ‘Technology and Environment: Towards Policy Integration. A Publication of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’. Available online at (accessed in March 2002).
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1999c. National Climate Policies and the Kyoto Protocol. Paris: OECD.
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2000. ‘Local Systems of Innovation in a Globalized World Economy’, Innovation and Industrial Change. France: OECD Development Centre.
    OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 2003. Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Policy: Effectiveness, Efficiency and Usage in the Policy Mix. Paris: OECD.
    OECD/IEA (Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development/International Energy Agency). 2000. Energy Labels and Standards. Paris: OECD.
    OIT (Office of Industrial Technologies). 2003. ‘Compressed Air System Upgrade Improves Production at an Automotive Glass Plant’. Available online at (accessed on 3 June 2003).
    OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries). not dated. ‘Questions about OPEC’. Available online at (accessed in 19 November 2001).
    Pacudan, Romeo and Elainede Guzman. 2002. ‘Impact of Energy Efficiency Policy to Productive Efficiency of Electricity Distribution Industry in the Philippines’, Energy Economics, 24(1): 41–54.
    Panayotou, Theodore. 1995a. ‘Effective Financing of Environmentally Sustainable Development in Eastern Europe and Central Asia’, paper presented at the Third Annual World Bank Conference on Effective Financing of Environmentally Sustainable Development, Washington, D.C., October 4–6.
    Panayotou, Theodore. 1995b. ‘Environmental Degradation at Different Stages of Economic Development’, in I.Ahmed and J.A.Doelman (eds), Beyond Rio: The Environmental Crisis and Sustainable Livelihoods in the Third World. London: Macmillan Press.
    Parikh, J.K., B.SReddy and R.Banarjee. 1994. Planning for Demand Side Management in the Electricity Sector. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Company.
    Pearce, Fred. 1997. ‘Greenhouse Wars’, New Scientist, 155(2091): 38–43.
    PEERA (Protocol on Energy Efficiency and Related Environmental Aspects). 2008. Available online at
    Pelline, Jeff. 1999. ‘Net Firm to Connect Users by Phone’. Available online at (accessed on 24 October 2000).
    Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development. 2003. A User's Guide to the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism).
    2nd edition
    . Pembina Institute for Appropriate Development.
    Pembleton, Peter N.2002. The Three Dimensions: Defining Sustainable Development. Vienna, Austria: United Nations Industrial Development Organization.
    Peter, R., B.Ramaseshan and C.V.Nayar. 2002. ‘Conceptual Model for Marketing Solar based Technology to Developing Countries’, Renewable Energy, 25(4): 511–24.
    Pew Center. 2001. ‘Nobel Prize Recipient Dr. Joseph E. Stiglitz Calls for Immediate Action Against Climate Change’. Available online at (accessed on 17 August 2002).
    Porter, Michael E. and Classvan der Linde. 1995. ‘Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate’, Harvard Business Review, 75(5): 120–34.
    Pye, Miriam. 1988. Making Business Sense of Energy Efficiency and Pollution Prevention. Washington, D.C.: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
    Pye, Miriam. not dated. ‘Providing Customer Financing through Utility Energy Efficiency Programmes’. Available online at (accessed in 15 January 2002).
    Raffensperger, Carolyn and JoelTickner (eds). 1999. Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
    RaynovichR.S.1999. ‘Predict it Makes Book on its Users’, Red Herring (online) (accessed in 25 May 2000).
    Reddy, A.K.N.1986. Lecture notes on ‘Technology Management’, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore.
    Reddy, A.K.N.1991. ‘Barriers to Improvements in Energy Efficiency’, Energy Policy, 19(10): 953–61.
    Reddy, A.K.N.2002. ‘Energy Technologies and Policies for Rural Development’, in T. B.Johansson and J.Goldemberg (eds), Energy for Sustainable Development, pp. 115–36. New York: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).
    Reddy, Sudhakara, B.1998. Selected Options for Stabilising GHG Emissions for Sustainable Development. Report submitted to the UNDP (United Nations Development Program), New Delhi, India.
    Reddy, Sudhakara, B.2002. Barriers to the Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technologies. UNEP Report. Report submitted to Centre for Energy and Environment, Denmark.
    Reddy, Sudhakara, B.2003. ‘Overcoming the Energy Efficiency Gap in India's Residential Sector’, Energy Policy, 31(11): 1117–27.
    Reddy, Sudhakara, B.2004. ‘Commercialisation of Energy Efficient Technologies—Beyond State-centric Promotion’, proceedings of the Joint International Conference on Sustainable Energy and Environment (SEE), December 1–3, Hua Hin, Thailand.
    Reddy, Sudhakara, B. and P.Balachandra2003. ‘Integrated Energy-Environment-Policy Analysis’, Utilities Policy, 11(2): 59–73.
    Reddy, Sudhakara, B. and P.Balachandra2006a. Energy, Environment and Sustainable Development—A Technological Perspective. New Delhi: Narosa Publishers.
    Reddy, Sudhakara, B. and P.Balachandra2006b. ‘Climate Change Mitigation and Business Opportunities—The Case of Household Sector in India’, Energy for Sustainable Development, X(4): 36–50.
    SudhakaraB. Reddy, M.D.Abdul Rashid Sarkar, C.B.Joshi. 2003. ‘Energy Efficiency and Clean Development Mechanism—The South Asian Perspective’. Interim Project Report, IGIDR, Mumbai.
    Sudhakara, B. Reddy and T.Srinivas. 2009. ‘Energy Use in Indian Household Sector—An Actor-oriented Approach’, Energy—The International Journal, 34(6).
    Renner, M. and P.Sampat. 2002. Vital Signs—The Trends that are Shaping our Future. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.
    Reynolds, P.J. and A.Lunnas. 1978. ‘Research and Development Needs in Heat Pump Technology’, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Heat Pump Technology Conference, Oklahoma State University, Oklahama, USA, April.
    Ribeiro, S.K. and Abreu. 2008. ‘Brazilian Transport Initiatives with GHG Reductions as a Co-benefit’, Climate Policy, 8(2): 220–40.
    Robinson, John B.1991. ‘The Proof of the Pudding: Making Energy Efficiency Work’, Energy Policy, 19(6): 631–45.
    Roe, Sarah. 1998. ‘Energy Efficiency is No Waste of Time’. Available online at (accessed in 14 May 2002).
    Rogers, E.M.1995. Diffusion of Innovations (
    4th edition
    ). New York: The Free Press.
    Rogers, Richard. 1997. ‘For Industry, “No Regrets” is the New Modus Operandi’, International Herald Tribune, 1 December, 24.
    Rohdin, P. and P.Thollander. 2005. ‘Barriers to and Driving Forces for Energy Efficiency in the Non-energy Intensive Manufacturing Industry in Sweden’, Energy, 31(12): 1836–44.
    Russell, Christopher. 2001. ‘Justifying Energy Efficiency Projects to Management’, Strategic Planning for Energy and the Environment, 21(1): 20–26.
    Samuelson, Paul A. and William D.Nordhaus. 1989. Economics (
    13th edition
    ). New York: McGraw Hill.
    Sandel, Michael J.1997. ‘It's Immoral to Buy the Right to Pollute’, New York Times, A29, New York, 15 December.
    Sanders, Maria. 1997. Green Base Conversion Project (415) 968-8798. Center for Economic Conversion, 222 View Street, Mountain View, CA.
    Santamouris, M. (ed.). 2001. Energy in the Urban Built Environment. London: James and James Science Publishers.
    Saunders, Harry. 1992. ‘Does Energy Conservation Worsen Global Warming?’ in FereidunFesharaki and James P.Dorian (eds), International Issues in Energy Policy, Development and Economics. Boulder: Westview.
    Schipper, Lee. 2000. ‘On the Rebound: The Interaction of Energy Efficiency, Energy Use and Economic Activity: An Introduction’, Energy Policy, 28(6/7): 351–53.
    Schelling, Thomas C.1997. ‘The Cost of Combating Global Warming: Facing the Tradeoffs’, Foreign Affairs, 76(6): 8–14.
    SchipperL., R.B.Howarth and H.Geller, 1990. ‘United States Energy Use from 1973 to 1987: The Impact of Improved Efficiency’, Annual Review of Energy, 15: 455–604.
    SchipperL., R.B.Howarth and Carlassare. 1992. ‘Energy Intensity, Sectoral Activity, and Structural Change in the Norwegian Economy’, Energy, 17(3): 215–33.
    Schipper, Lee, S.Meyers, M.Grubb, M.Chadwick and L.Kristoferson. 1992. ‘Building a Sustainable Energy Path’, in Stockholm Environment Institute (ed.), World Energy: Building a Sustainable Future. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute.
    Schmidheiny, Stephan and FredericoZorraquín. 1996. Financing Change: The Financial Community, Eco-efficiency and Sustainable Development. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    Schmutzler, Armin. 2001. ‘Environmental Regulations and Managerial Myopia’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 18(1): 87–100.
    Schneider, Stephen H. and A. BrewsterRickel. 2002. ‘Climate and Life: Impact of Human Activities on Climate. Greenhouse Effect Induced by Carbon Dioxide and Other Trace Gases’. Available online at on 23 July 2002).
    Shell International Limited. 2003. ‘Shell Trading and Nuon Complete Historic First EU Emission Trading Scheme Trade’. Available online at (accessed on 28 February 2003).
    Showstack, Randy. 1998. ‘Profiting from Climate Change: Business and Science and Technology’, The Earth Times, 1–15 October, p. 27.
    Sinclair-Desgagne, Bernard. 1999. ‘Remarks on Environmental Regulation, Firm Behavior and Innovation’. Available online at (accessed on 3 June 2003).
    Skodvin, Tora and SteinarAndresen. 2006. ‘Leadership Revisited’, Global Environmental Politics, 6(3): 13–27.
    Sloman, John and MarkSutcliffe. 2000. ‘When Markets Fail’, in VivekSuneja (ed.), Understanding Business: Markets, pp. 147–66. London and New York: Routledge in Association with the Open University.
    Smith, Frances B.1997. ‘The Global Warming Treaty: For U.S. Consumers—All Pain, No Gain’. Available online at (accessed on 10 March 2003).
    SorrellS., J.Scleich, S.Scott, E.O'Malley, F.Trace, U.Boede, K.Ostertag and P.Radgen. 2000. Reducing Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Private and Public Organisations. Report submitted to the European Commission, in the framework of the Non-nuclear Energy Programme, JOULE III, Brighton, UK.
    Starkey, Ken and AndrewCrane. 2003. ‘Toward Green Narrative: Management and the Evolutionary Epic’, The Academy of Management Review, 28(2): 220–37.
    Stavins, Robert N.1989. ‘Harnessing Market Forces to Protect the Environment’, Environment, 31(1): (4–7): 28–35.
    Stern, N.H.2007. The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Stokes, Bruce1992. ‘What a Difference a Discount Makes’, National Journal, 124–25.
    Surry, Daniel W. and John D.Farquhar. 1997. ‘Diffusion Theory and Instructional Technology’. Journal of Instructional Science and Technology, 2(1) (online journal).
    Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard and MortenVesterdal. 2003. ‘How to Design Greenhouse Gas Trading in the EU?’Energy Policy, 31(14): 1531–39.
    Swisher, Joel N.1996. ‘Regulatory and Mixed Policy Options for Reducing Energy Use and Carbon Emissions’, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, issue no.1: 23–49.
    Tampier, Martin. 2003. ‘Emissions Credit Trading and Renewables: An Assessment of Present and Future Opportunities’, Refocus (The International Renewable Energy Magazine), March/April: 46–49.
    Taylor RobertP., ChandrasekarGovindarajalu, JeremyLevin and Anke S.Meyer. 2005. Financing Energy Efficiency. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Publication.
    The Observer. 2000.
    The Solar Finance Consulting Group 1995, 6.
    Thollander, P. and M.Ottosson, 2008. ‘An Energy Efficient Swedish Pulp and Paper Industry—Exploring Barriers to and Driving Forces for Cost-effective Energy Efficiency Investments’, Energy Efficiency, 1(1): 21–34.
    ThomasStefan, CarlosLopes and LorenzoPagliano. 2000. ‘The Possibilities for Policy Supporting DSM in the Liberalized Internal European Electricity and Gas Markets’In Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE Summer Study.
    Thomas, G. and S.Wyatt. 1999. ‘Shaping Cyberspace—Interpreting and Transforming the Internet’, Research Policy, 28(7): 681–98.
    Thomas, S., C.Lopes and L.Pagliano. 2000. ‘The Possibilities for Policy Supporting DSM in the Liberalised Internal European Electricity And Gas Markets’, in Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings', Paper presented at American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.
    Thomas, Stefan, Nilsson, LarsJ.Eichhammer, Wolfgang StefanThomas, Lars J.Nilsson, WolfgangEichhammer, HarryVreuls, Jean-SébastienBroc, DidierBosseboeuf, BrunoLapillonne and KlemensLeutgöb. 2000. Completing the Market for Least-cost Energy Services: Strengthening Energy Efficiency in the Changing European Electricity and Gas Markets. A Study of the SAVE Programme. Project Final Report. Available online at (accessed on 5 February 2001).
    Thompson, P.B.2002. ‘Consumer Theory, Home Production and Energy Efficiency’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 20(1): 50–59.
    Tietenberg, Thomas H.1996. The Economics of Global Warming. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
    Tokar, Brian. 1995. ‘The “Wise Use” Backlash: Responding to Militant Anti-Environmentalism’, The Ecologist, 25(4): 150–57.
    Torkunov, Anatoly (ed.). 2001. Contemporary International Relations. Moscow, Russia: ROSSPEN
    Üerge-Vorsatz, Diana and JochenHauff. 2001. ‘Drivers of Market Transformation: Analysis of the Hungarian Lighting Success Story’, Energy Policy, 29(10): 801–10.
    UN (United Nations). 2001. ‘Financial Flow Statistics’, Background Paper No. 19, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Untied Nations, Washington, D.C.
    UN (United Nations). 2005. ‘Energy Efficiency: Promotion of Energy Efficiency in Industry and Financing of Investments’. Available online at (accessed in June 2007).
    Underdal, Arild. 2002. ‘One Questions, Two Answers’, in Edward L.Miles (ed.), Environmental Regime Effectiveness. Confronting Theory with Evidence, pp. 3–45. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2002. Human Development Report. North America: UNDP.
    UNDSD (United Nations Division for Sustainable Development). 1993. ‘Agenda 21’. Available online at (accessed in March 2006).
    UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 1994a. Manual on Business Planning: How to Construct a Business Plan for Energy Efficiency Projects. Geneva: United Nations.
    UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 1994b. Manual on Financial Engineering: Sources of Finance for Energy Efficiency Projects. Geneva: United Nations.
    UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 1998a. ‘Energy Conservation: Report on ‘Energy Efficiency Initiative’ from The IEA, Executive Summary’;. Available online at (accessed on 27 May 2002).
    UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 1998b. ‘Sources of Financing Energy Efficiency Projects in Central and Eastern Europe’. ECE Energy Series, no. 15. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
    UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2001. ‘Energy Efficiency and Energy Security in the CIS’. ECE Energy Series no. 17. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.
    UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2005. ‘Financing Energy Efficiency and Climate Change Mitigation: A Guide for Investors in Belarus, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine’. ECE Energy Series, no. 28.
    UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 2006. ‘What UNECE Does for You’, UNPAN News letter, 4(6): 27 November.
    UNECE-Helsinki Protocol. 1985. ‘Protocol on the Reduction of Sulphur Emissions’. Available online at (accessed in March 2006).
    UNECE-Gothenburg Protocol. 1999a. ‘Article 6 (1)(c)’. Available online at (accessed in March 2006).
    UNECE-Gothenburg Protocol. 1999b. Available online at (accessed in May 2006).
    UNECE-Oslo Protocol. 1994. Protocol on Further Reduction of Sulphur Emissions.
    UNECE-Sophia Protocol. 1988. The 1979 Convention On Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution Concerning The Control Of Emissions Of Nitrogen Oxides Or Their Transboundary Fluxes, BH930.txt. Technical Annex. Paragraph 11.
    UNECE-VOC Protocol. 1991. Protocol Concerning the Control of Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds.
    UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2001. Global Developmental Report. North America: UNEP.
    UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2009. Industrialized Countries to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 5.2 Per cent. (accessed on 20 January 2009).
    UNEP and UNFCCC (United Nations Environmental Programme & United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 1995. Second Assessment Report. Available online at (accessed in May 2005).
    UNEP and UNFCCC (United Nations Environmental Programme & United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)2002. ‘Climate Change Information Kit’. Available online at (accessed on 16 December 2002).
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 1997. Kyoto Protocol. Available online at
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 1999. FCCC/CP/1998/16/Add.1. Decision 4/CP.4. Development and Transfer of Technologies. COP4 (1998) Paragraph 2. Buenos Aires.
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2001. FCCC/CP/2001/L.7. Decision 5/CP.6. Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. Annex. Section. Matters Relating Article 3.14 of the Kyoto Protocol. COP 6 (2). Bonn.
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2002a. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1. Decision 5/CP.7. Implementation of Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Convention. Part II. Action Taken. 32. COP 7. Marrakech.
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2002b. FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1. Decision 9/CP.7. Matters relating to Article 3, paragraph 14, of the Kyoto Protocol. Part II. Action Taken. 48. COP 7. Marrakech.
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2002c. Guidelines for the implementation of Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol. Decision 16/CP.7. Appendix B, paragraph 2. Marrakech.
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2002d. ‘A Guide to the Climate Change Convention and its Kyoto Protocol’. United Nations, Bonn.
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2002e. Report of the Conference of parties on its 7th session held at Marrakech, United Nations.
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2002f. Report of the Conference of the Parties on its eighth session, New Delhi (23 October to 1 November 2002). Part Two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its eighth session. Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Available online at
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2002g. Document FCCC/SBSTA/2002/INF14, 16 October: ‘Methodological Issues: Scientific and Methodological Assessment of Contributions to Climate Change’.
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2003. ‘Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification’. Available online at (accessed on 31 March 2003).
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2006a. Vienna Climate Change Talks and Agreement. Press Release (accessed on January 20, 2009).
    UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2006b. ‘Monitoring Report’. Available online at
    UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund). 2003. The State of the World's Children. North America: UNICEF.
    UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). 1992. Available online at (accessed on 12 February 2003).
    UNEP (United Nations Environmental Programme). 2001. Global Environmental Report. Report submitted to United Nations Environment Programme, North America.
    US EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Tools of the Trade: Designing and Operating a Cap and Trade Program. Washington, D.C.: US EPA.
    USAID (United States Agency for International Development). 1991. Opportunities for Improving End-use Electricity Efficiency in India, Electricity Efficiency in India. A Report of the Office of Energy, Washington, D.C.
    Van Doren, Peter. 1999. ‘The Cost of Reducing Carbon Emissions. An Examination of Administration Forecasts’. Briefing Paper no. 44 presented at Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., 11 March.
    Van Soest, Daan P. and Erwin H.Bulte. 2001. ‘Does the Energy Efficiency Paradox Exist? Technological Progress and Uncertainty’, Environmental and Resource Economics, 18(1): 101–12.
    Varone, Frederic and BernardAebischer. 2001. ‘Energy Efficiency: The Challenges of Policy Design’, Energy Policy, 29(8): 615–29.
    Victor, David G.1991. ‘Limits of Market-based Strategies for Slowing Global Warming: The Case of Tradable Permits’, Policy Sciences, 24(2): 199–222.
    Vine, Edward, DruryCrawley and PaulCentolella (eds). 1991. Energy Efficiency and the Environment: Forging the Link. Report submitted to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. Washington, D.C.
    Vine, Edward, JanHamrin, NickEyre, DavidCrossely, MichelleMaloney and GregWatt. 2003. ‘Public Policy Analysis of Energy Efficiency and Load Management in Changing Electricity Businesses’, Energy Policy, 31(5): 405–30.
    Wade, J. and A.Warren. 2001. ‘Employment Generation from Energy Efficiency Programmes: Enhancing Political and Social Acceptance’, European Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ECEEE), Summer proceedings, Vol. 1, pp. 50–59, ECEEE/ADEME, Paris.
    Walker, Charles E., Mark A.Bloomfiels and MargoThorning. 1996. ‘An Economic Perspective on Climate Change Policies’. Available online at (accessed on 16 April 2003).
    Weber, Lukas. 1997. ‘Some Reflections on Barriers to the Efficient Use of Energy’, Energy Policy, 25(10): 833–35.
    Wei-Shiuen, N. and L.Schipper. 2005. ‘China Motorization Trends: Policy Options in a World of Transport Challenges’, in R.Bradley, K.Baumert and J.Pershing (eds), Growing in the Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
    Weiss, Edith B.1990. ‘In Fairness to Future Generations’, Environment, 32(2): 6–11, 30–31.
    Weitzman, Martin L.1994. ‘On the Environmental Discount Rate’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 26(2): 200–09.
    Wells, John B. and John S.Hoffman. 2000. ‘Close the Efficiency Gap: Use Profits to Drive the Capture of Value’, Cogeneration and Competitive Power Journal, 15(3): 42–52.
    Wheelock, Jane. 2000. ‘Households’, in VivekSuneja (ed.), Understanding Business: Markets, pp. 59–72. London and New York: Routledge in Association with the Open University.
    Winkler, H. R., Spalding-Fecher, S. Mwakasonda and O.Davidson. 2002. ‘Sustainable Development Policies and Measures: Starting from Development to Tackle Climate Change’, in K.Baumert, O.Blanchard, S.Llosa and J. F.Perkaus (eds), Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting the Climate, pp. 61–87. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.
    Wolfensohn, James. 1997. ‘Concluding Remarks to the Plenary: 1997 Annual Meetings’. Available online at (accessed on 11 May 1998).
    World Bank. 1989. Impact of Lower Oil Prices on Renewable Energy Technologies. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
    World Bank. 2000. Energy and Development Report. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
    World Bank. 2002a. ‘World Bank and the Government of Kazakhstan Hold Sixth Annual Country Portfolio Performance Review’ (Internet). World Bank Office in Kazakhstan, 12 August. Available online at (accessed on 30 September 2002).
    World Bank. 2002b. World Development Report. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
    World Bank. 2003. Energy Statistics. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
    World Bank. 2004. ‘Clean Development Mechanisms in China: Taking a Proactive and Sustainable Approach’, Working paper No. 30245, World Bank, Washington, D.C.
    World Bank. 2005a. Workshop on ESCOs and Equity Financing: Workshop Summary. 12 June.
    World Bank. 2005b. MIGA Operational Evaluation—2005 Annual Report. Washington D.C.: World Bank.
    World Bank Group. 1998. ‘Products and Services’. Available online at (accesses on 7 June 1998).
    World Bank Group. 2005. Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting Trust Activities. Washington, D.C., USA: The World Bank.
    WEC (World Energy Council). 2003. Renewable Energy Targets. London.
    WEC (World Energy Council). 2006. ‘Survey of Energy Resources 2004’. Available online at (accessed in June 2007)
    WRI (World Resource Institute). 2003. World Resources 2002–2004: Decisions for the Earth: Balance, Voice and Power. Washington D.C.: WRI.
    WSSD (World Summit on Sustainable Development). 2002. Draft Plan of Implementation of the WSSD. A/CONF.199.L.1. 10.
    Wuppertal Institute. 1999. ‘Energy Pricing Policy: Targets, Possibilities and Impacts’. Available online at (accessed on 23 October 2001).
    YBIEL (Yearbook of International Environmental Law). 1992.
    YBIEL (Yearbook of International Environmental Law). 1993.
    YBIEL (Yearbook of International Environmental Law). 1995.
    YBIEL (Yearbook of International Environmental Law). 1996.
    Yeh, Sonia. 1997. ‘The Five Most Important Global Change Issues to OPEC Countries’. Available online at (accessed on 16 April 2003).
    Zakon. 2003. ‘Hobbes' Internet Timeline v 8.2’. Available online at (accessed in June 2006).
    Zhang, Z.X.2006. ‘The World Bank's Prototype Carbon Fund and China’, Journal of Energy and Development, 31(2): 157–71.

    About the Authors

    B. Sudhakara Reddy is a professor at the Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India. He is a Member of the Editorial Committee on Energy Efficiency, Switzerland. He has also served as Expert, Evaluation of projects on Renewable Energy–FP7 Programme, European Commission, 2007; Member, Expert Appraisal Committee for Thermal Power and Coal Mine projects; Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India; Member, Board of Management, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai; Member, Research Advisory Committee, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Hayama, Japan; Member, Working Group on Energy Efficiency and DSM for formulation of 11th Five Year Plan (2007–2012), Planning Commission, Government of India; Member, Network of Advisors, Linx Research, New York, NY 10022; and Executive Committee Member (2004–2006), Indian Society for Ecological Economics (INSEE).

    Gaudenz B. Assenza is the lead author and project director of the research programme on ‘Energy and Climate Change’, 2001–2006 at Palacky University, Czech Republic. He is also the lead author and project director of the research project ‘Best Practices of Multilateral Institutions in Promoting Energy Efficiency’, 2001–2002, ext. 2002–2005, UN Foundation, USA and Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway. His publications include 5 Country Studies published by the United Nations: New York and Geneva, 2004–2020.

    He is the Member of UN Experts Group, ‘Energy Efficiency Investment Project for Climate Change Mitigation’ (ECE-CIS-99-043), 2000–2003, UNECE, Geneva. He is also a lecturer, Central European Studies Program (CESP), at Palacky University, since 2003, teaching ‘The Politics of the Environment in Central and Eastern Europe’.

    Dora Assenza is a senior lecturer of economics, Palacky University, Olomouc, Czech Republic. She is also a faculty member, teaching Environmental Economics at Valdesta State University, Georgia, USA.

    Franziska Hasselmann is a post-doc scientist at the Geography Unit, University of Fribourg, Switzerland and a visiting scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Switzerland.

    • Loading...
Back to Top