Results 1 - 10 of 9742
Results 1 - 10 of 9742. Search took: 0.039 seconds
|Sort by: date | relevance|
[en] In 2020, Total produced 447 units of fossil fuels for every 1 unit of renewable energy. Nonetheless, despite its desire to rename itself Total Energies, the major continues to invest heavily in the development of new fossil energy projects, such as the highly controversial EACOP oil project such as the highly controversial EACOP oil project in Uganda and Tanzania, or in the Arctic. 90% of its capital expenditure remains oriented towards fossil fuels and the trends in its hydrocarbon production could result in an increase of more than 50% between 2015 and 2030. Thus, the way French financial players are adapting their relationship with Total SE, in a context of climate emergency, is a good indicator of the sincerity of their commitments, and of the challenges related to their success. This briefing takes stock of Total SE's climate promises and of the way financial players have treated such a heavyweight in the energy sector until now. It also sketches out possible courses of action. The first follows a global approach that extends across the entirety of financial actors' portfolios and the companies they support. The second follows a sector-based approach aimed at finding immediate solutions for the most polluting sectors, which also turn out to involve the heaviest ESG and financial risks. For an oil and gas company, these are unconventional hydrocarbons - shale gas and oil, oil sands and drilling in the Arctic and deep waters. While acting on the first axis will only end up having an impact after several years, targeting the most polluting sectors makes it possible to meet the scientific imperative of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 7.6% every year until 20301. The actions to be taken on both axes must of course be based on science, which stipulates that oil production must be reduced by 4% and gas production by 3% per year by 2030 in order to meet the 1.5 deg. C objective.
[fr]En 2020, Total a produit 447 unites d'energies fossiles pour 1 d'energies renouvelables. Or malgre sa volonte de se renommer TotalEnergies, la major continue d'investir massivement dans le developpement de nouveaux projets d'energies fossiles, comme le tres controverse projet petrolier d'EACOP entre l'Ouganda et la Tanzanie, ou des projets d'energies fossiles en Arctique. 90% de ses depenses d'investissements demeurent orientees vers les energies fossiles et l'evolution de sa production d'hydrocarbures nous amene vers une augmentation de plus de 50% de cette derniere entre 2015 et 2030. Ainsi, la maniere dont les acteurs financiers francais adaptent leur relation a Total SE dans un contexte d'urgence climatique est un bon indicateur de la sincerite de leurs engagements precites, et des defis lies a leur succes. Ce briefing analyse les promesses climatiques du groupe, ainsi que la maniere dont les acteurs financiers ont jusqu'a present traite un tel poids lourd du secteur energetique. Il presente enfin les pistes d'actions possibles. Le premier suit une approche globale qui couvre l'integralite des portefeuilles des acteurs financiers et des entreprises qu'ils soutiennent. Le deuxieme suit une approche sectorielle visant a trouver des solutions immediates pour les secteurs les plus polluants, lesquels s'averent concentrer aussi les plus lourds risques ESG et financiers. Pour une entreprise gaziere et petroliere, il s'agit des hydrocarbures non conventionnels - gaz et petrole de schiste, sables bitumineux et forages en Arctique et en eaux tres profondes. Alors qu'agir sur le premier axe ne pourra produire des impacts qu'au bout de quelques annees, viser les secteurs les plus polluants permet de repondre a l'imperatif scientifique de baisser tous les ans nos emissions de gaz a effet de serre de 7,6% jusqu'en 20301. Les actions a mener sur les deux axes doivent bien entendu etre fondees sur la science, laquelle stipule qu'il faut baisser de 4% la production petroliere et de 3% la production gaziere par an d'ici 2030 afin de tenir l'objectif de 1,5 deg. C.
[en] The UAE was the first Newcomer country to start building a large nuclear power plant in three decades: The Nuclear Construction of four units of the Barakah Nuclear Power Plant started simultaneously in 2012 - Sets a role model globally by achieving in a record time requirements needed to ensure its nuclear infrastructure was capable to support the programme through the highest levels on nuclear safety, security and non proliferation; The FANR issued also regulations for onsite as well as offsite nuclear emergency preparedness and response, and the combined onsite and offsite arrangements were put in place. EPREV including the follow up done; The country builds its national capacity for a sustainable operation simultaneously. Simulators in FANR and at site. Online monitoring of plant parameters are available at FANR as well as laboratories and monitoring systems; Highly experienced regulatory experts support the program in headquarter in Abu Dhabi and at site office in Barakah. Steps taken by FANR - Initial phase: The creation of the necessary skills and legally binding requirements for the safe siting, construction and design of the reactors to be built as well as for the needed security and non-proliferation arrangements; Evaluation: FANR evaluated the project based on a two step process, first construction license and then the operating license. This included further innovative design enhancements to address extreme conditions related to severe phenomena inside and outside the reactors. Systematic documentation and knowledge management built at FANR; Enhancement: Environmental effects on the reactors, as well as additional cooling and power supply measures enhanced. UAE specific factors and Fukushima impact. Making the most of synergy: The government signed international agreements & conventions supporting the programme developments; The agreements with the country of origin regulatory bodies which allowed FANR to leverage the work of the Korean regulators to license the reference plant in Korea, the Shin Kori 3 and 4 reactors; Support of the IAEA was instrumental in ensuring that the FANR approach to regulation kept with the best international practices; A pool of international experienced experts work hand in hand with local staff to develop regulations, conduct assessments and do inspections. Also the competence based framework for training and mentoring is essential for sustainability of FANR as a recognized nuclear regulator worldwide; FANR has over 30 agreements with international organizations & other regulatory bodies to exchange technical knowledge & build national capacity.
[en] Regulatory Framework - National Regulations: Decree on licensing of nuclear facilities; About 40 regulation 25 of which are related to the nuclear facilities and activities; All regulations are under revision to ensure conformance with new regulatory infrastructure and framework and to update in accordance with latest IAEA requirements; Five Guidelines for the applicants; About 25 internal procedures, including review and assessment guidelines and Project Management Plans for ongoing authorization projects. Safety Regime - Bilateral Peaceful Use: USA, Canada, France, South Korea, Russia, Argentine, Germany, China, Jordan, Japan. Multilateral Safety Related: Nuclear Safety Convention; Paris Convention on Liability; Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention; Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency; Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident; Joint Convention on Management of Spent Fuel and Management of Radioactive Waste (signed but not ratified yet non technical reason). Multilateral Security Related: Treaty on the Non proliferation of Nuclear Weapons; Convention on The Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (ratification of Amendment to CPPNM is in - Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty - International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. Safeguards: Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the IAEA for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with NPT; Protocol Additional to the Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Turkey and the IAEA for the Application of Safeguards in Connection with NPT.
[en] During normal operations and particularly in the event of the unexpected, an adequate legal framework for the safe, secure and peaceful use of nuclear technology is indispensable. The national and international nuclear legal systems of today provide a legal framework for conducting activities related to nuclear energy and ionizing radiation in a manner that adequately protects individuals, property and the environment, and helps determine liability when something goes wrong. The 1986 Chornobyl accident prompted the swift adoption of the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (Early Notification Convention) and the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (Assistance Convention), which form the legal basis for the international emergency preparedness and response framework. Further negotiations led to the adoption of the Joint Protocol Relating to the Application of the Vienna Convention and the Paris Convention in 1988, as well as the Protocol to Amend the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage in 1997. In addition, the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident catalyzed efforts to further strengthen the existing framework for nuclear liability and safety.
[en] Reporting on the climate action of cities and regions in the context of the pandemic and the renewal of national contributions to the Paris Agreement. Each year, the Climate Chance Observatory proposes a summary of the progress made in terms of climate action and published by cities and regions around the world. Although the absence of consolidated and comparable data remains a challenge, this does not mean that there is no action or mobilisation. The analysis of the remarkable evolution of emissions at the local level, the monitoring of the development of the main international initiatives led by networks of local authorities, and publications of academic and specialised literature, make it possible to draw global trends. The formulation, implementation and monitoring-evaluation of local climate actions is a complex process that requires both the support of States and a proper consideration of the inhabitants' needs. This is why our monitoring is accompanied by analyses of multi-level governance and the localisation of Sustainable Development Goals. The reduction of GHG emissions by European cities is encouraging. However, in a context of mass adoption of carbon neutrality objectives, the monitoring of the impact of local climate policies remains scattered and poorly consolidated, even at the national level. The mobilisation of local governments and the structuring of their climate action is continuing. Although international initiatives show a certain dynamism in Latin America, Europe and North Africa, they do not account for the action of Asian cities and regions. Even in times of Covid-19, local governments remain places of innovation and experimentation for climate policies. At the city level, the densification of services is now seen as the remedy to the health and climate crises. Few of the renewed national contributions to the Paris Agreement mention governance mechanisms that integrate local and sub-national governments, except in Latin America. Their sectoral approach to tackling local emissions reduction masks the potential of spatial planning and local governance. Multi-level governance in G20 countries: our first case studies (Germany, Canada, France, Brazil) show that few cities are subject to climate obligations, whose action relies on the disparate support of federal and federated states. The lack of harmonisation of monitoring methods makes it difficult to integrate the potential of cities into national strategies. Agenda 2030: after a few years in the adoption phase, local governments are embracing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to cushion the socio-economic shocks of climate policies. Despite the lack of funding, driven by the dynamic exchanges between scientists and decision-makers, adaptation to climate change is accelerating within regions and cities.
[en] Protection of the environment, including climate action, is one of the objectives of the European Union. EU has been exercising leadership in addressing climate change with continued policies since 1990s. Recently, climate action extended to EU policies other than climate change mitigation and adaptation. EU claimed it mainstreaming of climate action. The concept of mainstreaming was originally proposed in the context of EU budget, namely its Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Current MFF2014-2020 aimed at allocating at least 20% of the budget to climate related activities and the target is within the reach. EU is also developing a system for sustainable finance and reached an agreement on regulation on taxonomy, a classification system of economic activities which can be considered 'sustainable'. European Green Deal, proposed by new European Commission under Urusla Von der Leyen, is also in line with this policy trend. It contains a category of policy measures entitled 'mainstreaming sustainability in all EU policies' and budget and sustainable finance fall into this category. Accompanied Sustainable Europe Investment Plan, or European Green Deal Investment Plan, includes a proposal to establish a Just Transition Fund to support the territories most affected by the transition towards climate neutrality, which is also beyond traditional climate action. (author)
[en] Using nuclear energy is one of the mitigation actions in the world. There are different methods to decrease greenhouse gas emissions from energy sector such as renewable energy, energy efficiency and nuclear power. Iran contributed to Paris agreement and wants to decrease GHGs about 4% till 2030. About 80 percent of GHGs are emitted from energy sector. Iran must establish national MRV system according to UNFCC principles and national energy and environment Regulation. In this paper the National MRV System is suggested for Iran. Instruction of measurement in MRV system, instruction of reporting in MRV system, instruction of verification in MRV system in the country and the institutional arrangement for implementing the MRV system in the country to assist policy makers and decision makers and managers, is provided. Measureable data, authorities and how they are measured, reported cases, authorities, how they report, and time, as well as verifications, authorities, how and time of verification are proposed. (author)
[en] This manual provides details of the IAEA assessment and prognosis process, including its technical basis. It is complemented by a dedicated website, which provides access to assessment and prognosis tools and procedures. These tools provide a detailed technical workflow that is populated based on information submitted by the Accident State during a nuclear or radiological incident or emergency. This manual also serves as a companion publication to the Operations Manual for Incident and Emergency Communication (EPR–IEComm 2019), which contains a full documentation of the communication procedures for Contact Points identified under the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and the Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency
[en] This new edition of the Nuclear Law Bulletin Index covers the first 103 issues of the Nuclear Law Bulletin (NLB). By established practice, the plan of the Index is not a replica of the Bulletin, as it was considered more useful for research purposes to group together all the information concerning legislative and regulatory activities, case law and bilateral agreements and to classify this information by country. Following classification by country, references to the work of international organisations, multilateral agreements, studies and articles are set out in separate sections. The 'Bibliography and News Briefs' section is omitted from the Index. A separate chapter of the Index has been devoted to the listing of the instruments published in the Supplements to the Bulletin, or in the Chapter 'Texts' from past Bulletins, up until the present date. Each item in the Index is followed by a reference to the relevant Bulletin. Legislative and regulatory texts, as well as agreements reproduced in the Bulletins or their Supplements, are also referenced
[en] 1. The Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy (hereinafter called the 'Paris Convention') establishes a special regime assigning civil liability for damage incurred as a result of a nuclear incident and providing for the compensation of third parties who suffer damage as a result of such an incident. While the Paris Convention imposes a fairly high minimum liability amount upon the operator of a nuclear installation situated in the territory of a Contracting Party, it does not address the case where an incident may result in damages exceeding the amount of compensation available from the liable operator. Many Paris Convention States recognised that operator funds under the Paris Convention might not be adequate to compensate the damage suffered and that a supplementary system for compensating victims of a nuclear incident should be created. They favoured the establishment of an international system by which States would commit public funds in addition to those to be provided under the Paris Convention and the result was that on 31 January 1963, the Brussels Supplementary Convention was adopted. As its name implies, the Brussels Supplementary Convention is 'supplementary' to the Paris Convention. It establishes a system whereby compensation additional to that provided for under the Paris Convention is to be made available to victims who suffer nuclear damage as a result of a nuclear incident for which a Paris Convention nuclear operator is liable. The Brussels Supplementary Convention is subject to the provisions contained in the Paris Convention, including those which define the concepts of 'nuclear incident', 'nuclear installation' and 'nuclear damage', and no State may become or remain a Contracting Party to the Brussels Supplementary Convention unless it is a Contracting Party to the Paris Convention. Similarly, the Brussels Supplementary Convention will only remain in force for as long as the Paris Convention remains in force. 5. The Brussels Supplementary Convention increases the amount of compensation to be made available to victims where the amount called for under the Paris Convention is insufficient. It does so, first, by requiring the Contracting Party in whose territory the liable operator's nuclear installation is located to provide funds over and above those which the operator must make available under the Paris Convention, and secondly, by requiring all Contracting Parties collectively to make available an additional amount of compensation from public funds. In the first instance, the amount of funds to be provided by the Contracting Party in whose territory the liable operator's nuclear installation is located is the difference between the amount of the operator's liability under its national legislation and EUR 1 200 million, and in the second instance the additional compensation to be provided by the Contracting Parties collectively is EUR 300 million. Under the combined Paris-Brussels international nuclear liability regime therefore, a total of EUR 1 500 million is available to compensate victims of a nuclear accident.