A survey of senior building sector executives on the feasibility of implementing energy efficiency measures across their sector in China, Europe, India and the U.S. 

Briefing

A survey of senior building sector executives on the feasibility of implementing energy efficiency measures across their sector in China, Europe, India and the U.S. 

Highlights

A survey of senior building sector executives on the feasibility of implementing energy efficiency measures across their sector in China, Europe, India and the U.S. 

Case Study

A survey of senior building sector executives on the feasibility of implementing energy efficiency measures across their sector in China, Europe, India and the U.S. 

Many recent major studies, including the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, have attested that energy efficiency is humanity’s prime option to combat climate change in the short- to mid-term. The potential to avoid CO2 emissions cost-effectively has been reported to be significant through efficiency policies. However, the review of global research findings on the quantification of cost-effectiveness of opportunities through improved efficiency has highlighted that there is a major shortcoming in the vast majority of such calculations.

Background
In 2007, the Indonesian Government instigated a national program to convert domestic kerosene users to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking. This was primarily motivated by the rising cost of kerosene subsidies.

Objective
To review the national conversion program and LPG scale up by evaluating its impacts, including assessing sustained changes in cooking behaviour and consequent reductions in exposure to household air pollution (HAP).

Co-benefits rarely enter quantitative decision-support frameworks, often because the methodologies for their integration are lacking or not known. This review fills in this gap by providing comprehensive methodological guidance on the quantification of co-impacts and their integration into climate-related decision making based on the literature. The article first clarifies the confusion in the literature about related terms and makes a proposal for a more consistent terminological framework, then emphasizes the importance of working in a multiple-objective–multiple-impact framework.