Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39440023›Full record

ArticlePNAS nexus2024

Quantifying energy transition vulnerability helps more just and inclusive decarbonization.

Yifan Shen, Xunpeng Shi, Zhibo Zhao, R Quentin Grafton, Jian Yu, Yuli Shan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PNAS nexus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Global Renewable Energy Infrastructure Resilience Under Climate Risks.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Yifan ShenDepartment of Economics and Finance, SILC Business School, Shanghai University, Shanghai 201899, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4193-6537
Xunpeng ShiAustralia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9653-7395
Zhibo ZhaoDepartment of Finance, School of Finance, Qilu University of Technology (Shandong Academy of Sciences), Jinan 250100, China.
R Quentin GraftonCrawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University, Acton, ACT 2601, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0048-9083
Jian YuSchool of Economics, Central University of Finance and Economics, Beijing 102206, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9116-6046
Yuli ShanSchool of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5215-8657

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COP28 agreement signals "beginning of the end" of the fossil fuel era, calling on countries to contribute to global efforts to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems in a just, orderly and equitable manner. While a quantitative assessment of country's vulnerability in energy transition is a prerequisite for national and international policy makers to ensure a just and inclusive transition, it is notably absent in the existing research. Here, we develop a conceptual framework based on the vulnerability scoping diagram (VSD) method to assess differences in energy transition vulnerability across countries, with a specific focus on the challenges associated with transitioning away from fossil fuels. The resulting energy transition vulnerability index (ETVI) scores reveal that countries in the Global South generally exhibit higher vulnerability in their energy transition compared to those in the Global North, and this gap has widened over the past decade. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the decade-long trend of continuous decline in global energy transition vulnerability. This study also provides two important applications of ETVI scores, aligning them with major global sustainable development agenda. Firstly, we identify substantial differences in the dynamics of transition vulnerability across seven major party groups in the international climate change negotiations and distinguish four energy transition statuses in relation to achieving global climate goals:

Identifiers

PMID39440023
PMCPMC11495377

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.