Global Energy Interconnection (GEI) is one of the global plans of China, which is a concept of Chinese scientists that may guarantee adequate clean energy. The current situation of power generation based on fossil fuels is already realised by China, and there are certain offers to enter the collaboration of cross-border clean energy sharing system.
Based on the prediction of unsustainable global energy and power supply in demand, China is advocating for smart-grid technologies, strategic electric systems, and overall sustainable energy objectives through a global energy network. It does not mean that the world is going ‘carbon-free’, but there is a step ahead for the provision of ‘low carbon energy’ in the heart and line of ‘Sustainable Development of Global Energy Supply’ under the ‘Sustainable Development Agenda of 2030 (also known as Global Goals)’.
An international organisation has been developed, namely Global Energy Interconnection Development and Cooperation Organisation (GEIDCO), with significant funding from China. The mission is to promote the establishment of the GEI-cross border and resolve the global conflicts to make the planet a sustainable one. The call for more ‘renewable energy’ has already attracted the Southeast Asian neighbourhood and those looking for reliable and cheap power supply.
The generation of energy in this plan includes ocean-wave, solar, hydro and wind, and there has been a preparation-ongoing-process related to economic (feasibility) viability of transmission. The flow of finance associated with energy supply is typically considered to be equitable to ensure that the supply of energy is not ‘corporatised’ under this GEI-cross border arrangements.
Conflict and foreign policies are the main factors that may significantly impact the economic viability of GEI-cross border networking. This is the case in which Pakistan may reconsider its relationships with the ‘Global Economic-nergy Giants’; India is among them. In the given scenario, the energy policy has already been connected, inter alia, with security policy which is also referred to as ‘Energy-Security Policy’.
Pakistan may also think about resetting its ‘integrated policy mechanism’ for such an agenda. The levelised costs of power generation Pakistan already faces are the lifetime cost of ‘renewables’, the approach could be developed by the policymakers to indicate the relative merits of identifying the subsidising methods of clean developing technologies. Consideration of risk and return is vital in the energy-security appraisal; the discount method could be applied technically to encapsulate double-jeopardy in a non-specific way.
The assessment also entails that the existing environmental-and-climate policy at various levels is not integrated with the energy policy. As after the 18th amendment, such policies are inter-provincial and inter-ministerial, there has been levelled serious apprehensions regarding policy sustainability at various sectors. The policy integration among security, energy, climate and environment is a possible feature, and Pakistan’s policymakers shall think that the global atmosphere is shaping in the form of a ‘just and equitable’ social system. This is about taking serious steps towards a policy for ‘good governance’ in each sector, i.e., ‘interconnectivity in governance’ besides transparency, accountability and the rule of law. Technical and strategic thinking for energy security is a possible way to serve the public at large at each governing level in Pakistan.
Historically, policymakers and developers have focused on the cost to manufacture the preferred concept of power structures. Fabrication and manufacture with an unsustainable pattern have led to unscrupulous and unprincipled practices. Decommissioning such practices require equitable utilisation of resources, and energy security, in this case, may serve as a point of transmission. The policy could be chained as Pakistan’s Powerplay in China’s GEI with emerging and innovative leadership through a new plan and mechanism at the national level.
In order to remove complexity in mooring line ‘policy’, additional thinking and loading intelligence is required at local levels. As the local body system is already incapable of delivery, the policymakers shall think about how ‘energy’ can be linked from local to international levels. In this case, China’s local to global policy implementation mechanism is an excellent example of a practice setting in international governance.
Based on the prediction of unsustainable global energy and power supply in demand, China is advocating for smart-grid technologies, strategic electric systems, and overall sustainable energy objectives through a global energy network. It does not mean that the world is going ‘carbon-free’, but there is a step ahead for the provision of ‘low carbon energy’ in the heart and line of ‘Sustainable Development of Global Energy Supply’ under the ‘Sustainable Development Agenda of 2030 (also known as Global Goals)’.
An international organisation has been developed, namely Global Energy Interconnection Development and Cooperation Organisation (GEIDCO), with significant funding from China. The mission is to promote the establishment of the GEI-cross border and resolve the global conflicts to make the planet a sustainable one. The call for more ‘renewable energy’ has already attracted the Southeast Asian neighbourhood and those looking for reliable and cheap power supply.
The generation of energy in this plan includes ocean-wave, solar, hydro and wind, and there has been a preparation-ongoing-process related to economic (feasibility) viability of transmission. The flow of finance associated with energy supply is typically considered to be equitable to ensure that the supply of energy is not ‘corporatised’ under this GEI-cross border arrangements.
Conflict and foreign policies are the main factors that may significantly impact the economic viability of GEI-cross border networking. This is the case in which Pakistan may reconsider its relationships with the ‘Global Economic-nergy Giants’; India is among them. In the given scenario, the energy policy has already been connected, inter alia, with security policy which is also referred to as ‘Energy-Security Policy’.
Pakistan may also think about resetting its ‘integrated policy mechanism’ for such an agenda. The levelised costs of power generation Pakistan already faces are the lifetime cost of ‘renewables’, the approach could be developed by the policymakers to indicate the relative merits of identifying the subsidising methods of clean developing technologies. Consideration of risk and return is vital in the energy-security appraisal; the discount method could be applied technically to encapsulate double-jeopardy in a non-specific way.
The assessment also entails that the existing environmental-and-climate policy at various levels is not integrated with the energy policy. As after the 18th amendment, such policies are inter-provincial and inter-ministerial, there has been levelled serious apprehensions regarding policy sustainability at various sectors. The policy integration among security, energy, climate and environment is a possible feature, and Pakistan’s policymakers shall think that the global atmosphere is shaping in the form of a ‘just and equitable’ social system. This is about taking serious steps towards a policy for ‘good governance’ in each sector, i.e., ‘interconnectivity in governance’ besides transparency, accountability and the rule of law. Technical and strategic thinking for energy security is a possible way to serve the public at large at each governing level in Pakistan.
Historically, policymakers and developers have focused on the cost to manufacture the preferred concept of power structures. Fabrication and manufacture with an unsustainable pattern have led to unscrupulous and unprincipled practices. Decommissioning such practices require equitable utilisation of resources, and energy security, in this case, may serve as a point of transmission. The policy could be chained as Pakistan’s Powerplay in China’s GEI with emerging and innovative leadership through a new plan and mechanism at the national level.
In order to remove complexity in mooring line ‘policy’, additional thinking and loading intelligence is required at local levels. As the local body system is already incapable of delivery, the policymakers shall think about how ‘energy’ can be linked from local to international levels. In this case, China’s local to global policy implementation mechanism is an excellent example of a practice setting in international governance.