Mitigation from a cross-sectoral perspective

Introduction Cell-cell fusion is a key event in fertilization and during differentiation of muscle, bone and trophoblast cells, and possibly also in stem-cell plasticity, carcinogenesis and tumor progression (Chen et al. Earlier work on fusion mechanisms has been focused on the earliest stages of the fusion pathways, which bring about the first measurable indications of fusion: lipid mixing and the opening of a narrow fusion pore – an aqueous connection between the membranes (Earp et al. Weissenhorn et al., 2007). At later stages of cell-cell fusion, these initial pores of a few nanometers in diameter expand to pores that are readily detectable by fluorescence microscopy (diameter >~0.2 μm) and finally yield an open lumen of cell-size diameter (~10-15 μm). Little is known about the properties of these larger pores and the mechanisms that underlie the enlargement of cytoplasmic bridges from early fusion pores to syncytia (Gattegno et al. For instance, we still do not know whether this enlargement proceeds spontaneously and, if not, whether it is driven by the cytoskeleton (Podbilewicz and White, 1994; Zheng and Chang, 1991), membrane tension (Knutton, 1980) or another, as-yet unidentified, cell machinery. The role of the actin cytoskeleton in cell-cell fusion has drawn special attention in many recent studies. Syncytium formation,

Technical Summary

Mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissions from waste: conclusions and strategies from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report. Working Group III (Mitigation).

This paper examines the role of climate forcing agents other than carbon dioxide using the MiniCAM integrated assessment model. Non-CO2 greenhouse gases are particularly important through the middle of the 21st century. The addition of non-CO2 greenhouse gases abatement options significantly reduces mitigation costs in the first half of the century as compared to a case where only CO2 abatement options are pursued. Non-CO2 greenhouse gas forcing is dominated by methane and tropospheric ozone. Assumptions about the prevalence of methane recovery and local air pollution controls are a critical determinant of reference forcing from these two gases. While the influence of aerosols are small by the end of the century, there is a significant interaction between a climate policy and aerosol cooling near mid-century such that global-mean climate change to 2050 is practically unaffected by mitigation policy.

Multi-Gas Forcing Stabilization with Minicam

recently completed international collaboration under Stanford University's Energy Modeling Forum (EMF)1. The EMF was started in 1976 as an organized forum for discussion and evaluation of important energy and environmental issues. The EMF operates mainly around organized working groups that focus their work by comparing the results of different economic, market, and planning models. Participants in EMF are leading energy and economics experts and advisors from industry, universities, government, and other research organizations. On the topic of climate change mitigation, recent EMF working groups include: EMF-16, The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation,

/pdf/overview-of-emf-21-multigas-mitigation-and-climate-policy-2gfyyc6ohk.pdf

Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy

Traditionally, economic analyses of greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation focused on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from energy sources, while nonCO2 GHGs were not incorporated into the studies, due to the lack of data on abatement costs of non-CO2 GHGs. In recent years, however, increasing attention has been dedicated to the benefits of reducing emissions of non-CO2 GHGs such as methane and nitrous oxide. Increased attention to the potential role of these gases in a GHG reduction policy increased the need for better data on the costs of non-CO2 GHG abatement for countries and regions outside of the US and the European Union (EU). Using a net present value calculation, this analysis develops regionally adjusted costs per mitigation option and marginal abatement cost curves by region for use in economic models. The result is worldwide cost estimates for methane and nitrous oxide from waste, energy and the industrial sectors. This paper also demonstrates the ability to significantly reduce greenhouse gases from these sectors with current technologies and the low cost of methane and nitrous oxide relative to CO reductions.

Alexei Sankovski

Papers

Mitigation of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Waste, Energy and Industry

Estimating Potential Reductions of Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Waste, Energy and Industry