Gateway to Think Tanks
来源类型 | Working and discussion papers |
规范类型 | 工作论文 |
Crisis to Context: the Fuelwood debate | |
Robert Nash and Cecilia Luttrell | |
发表日期 | 2006 |
出版年 | 2006 |
语种 | 英语 |
概述 | A study by FAO in 1981 estimated that 2000 million people were dependent on fuelwood and other biomass fuel, of which more than 100 million were unable to meet minimum requirements sustainably. |
摘要 | In the 1970s there was a surge of interest in the issue of fuelwood. For the most part this was propelled by the 1973 rise in fossil fuel prices and associated energy concerns, as well as certain influential publications on the issue such as that by Eckholm (1975) entitled the ‘Other Energy Crisis: Fuelwood’1. Wood fuel demand was seen to be outpacing sustainable supply, and catastrophic projections for year 2000 were presented in the form of a ‘fuelwood gap’ (see United Nations, 1980). A study by FAO in 1981 estimated that 2000 million people were dependent on fuelwood and other biomass fuel, of which more than 100 million were unable to meet minimum requirements sustainably. Projections for the year 2000 suggested 2.4 thousand million people would suffer acute deficits (FAO, 1981). The lack of viable alternatives to reduce the number of people dependent upon fuelwood for their energy needs was also emphasised. |
主题 | environment ; forests ; Global |
URL | https://www.odi.org/publications/2884-crisis-context-fuelwood-debate |
来源智库 | Overseas Development Institute (United Kingdom) |
资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/506617 |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Robert Nash and Cecilia Luttrell. Crisis to Context: the Fuelwood debate. 2006. |
条目包含的文件 | ||||||
文件名称/大小 | 资源类型 | 版本类型 | 开放类型 | 使用许可 | ||
3773.pdf(24KB) | 智库出版物 | 限制开放 | CC BY-NC-SA | 浏览 |
个性服务 |
推荐该条目 |
保存到收藏夹 |
导出为Endnote文件 |
谷歌学术 |
谷歌学术中相似的文章 |
[Robert Nash and Cecilia Luttrell]的文章 |
百度学术 |
百度学术中相似的文章 |
[Robert Nash and Cecilia Luttrell]的文章 |
必应学术 |
必应学术中相似的文章 |
[Robert Nash and Cecilia Luttrell]的文章 |
相关权益政策 |
暂无数据 |
收藏/分享 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。