Objectives of the Thesis Sample Clauses

Objectives of the Thesis. The objective of this thesis is to explore how we are governed through problematisations. One clarification that must be highlighted in relation to this objective is that this thesis does not seek to produce any normative claims about the English or Swedish youth or their countries sexual health policies. This is not to say that the thesis is not invested in the highly contested field of sexual health politics, nor does it mean that it has no value for those negotiating the different tendencies in said field. It means that the kind of knowledge that can be produced by applying Foucauldian analytics of problematisations to analyse policy is not suited for the purpose of ranking, approving or disapproving of any of the different positions or policies analysed. It does, however, offer other forms of valuable contribution. It is necessary to make this point in response to the contemporary problematisations of what counts as valuable knowledge for the political process (Lather 2010; Xxxxxxxxx 2012), and the problematic nexus of (positivist) research and policy in the uncritical uses of quantitative data analysis for policy (Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2000; Lather 2010). As seen above, comparing Sweden and England has been used as a way to provide a narrative about the sexual cultures in these countries from which certain normative claims can be made. Following Xxxxxxxx (2007, 2008) I argue that knowledges that fail to engage with the historicity of the context in which they propose to intervene are limited, not only in terms of producing meaningful accounts of the phenomenons they investigate, but also in terms of the value of the insights that can be gained from such comparisons in order to inform political action. However, it is that same historicity of contexts that make comparison a powerful tool to illuminate the constitutive nature of policy problems (Ronnblom 2012). This is because, following Xxxxxxxx, comparisons can be used to reveal the historically contingent processes that have made those problems and solutions relevant in a particular place and at a particular time (Xxxxxxxx 2007, 2008). The idea is that creating ‘a dialogue between the identified problem representations within contrasting problematisations’ (Ronnblom 2012: 133), illuminates the specificity of contexts rather than universal realities across time, cultures or geophysical settings. This, in turn, offers new and creative ways to understand the similarities and difference across contexts, a...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Objectives of the Thesis

  • OBJECTIVES OF THE AGREEMENT 7.1 The parties agree that key objectives of this agreement are;

  • Objectives of this Agreement The objectives of this agreement are as follows:

  • Objectives of Agreement The objectives of this Agreement are to:

  • Objectives and Scope 1. The Parties confirm their joint objective of strengthening their relations by developing their political dialogue and reinforcing their cooperation.

  • Objectives and Commitments 7.1 The Objectives of the Parties to this Agreement are:

  • Objective The objective of this Agreement is to create a free and open investment regime in ASEAN in order to achieve the end goal of economic integration under the AEC in accordance with the AEC Blueprint, through the following:

  • Objectives The objectives of this Agreement are to:

  • Agreement Objectives The parties agree that the objectives of the Agreement are to facilitate:

  • Steps of the Procedure 18. a. Except for grievances involving multiple employees or discipline, all grievances must be initiated at Step 1 of the grievance procedure.

  • Goals and Objectives of the Agreement Agreement Goals The goals of this Agreement are to: ● Reduce wildfire risk related to the tree mortality crisis; ● Provide a financial model for funding and scaling proactive forestry management and wildfire remediation; ● Produce renewable bioenergy to spur uptake of tariffs in support of Senate Bill 1122 Bio Market Agreement Tariff (BioMat) for renewable bioenergy projects, and to meet California’s other statutory energy goals; ● Create clean energy jobs throughout the state; ● Reduce energy costs by generating cheap net-metered energy; ● Accelerate the deployment of distributed biomass gasification in California; and ● Mitigate climate change through the avoidance of conventional energy generation and the sequestration of fixed carbon from biomass waste. Ratepayer Benefits:2 This Agreement will result in the ratepayer benefits of greater electricity reliability, lower costs, and increased safety by creating a strong market demand for forestry biomass waste and generating cheap energy. This demand will increase safety by creating an economic driver to support forest thinning, thus reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire and the associated damage to investor-owned utility (IOU) infrastructure, such as transmission lines and remote substations. Preventing this damage to or destruction of ratepayer-supported infrastructure lowers costs for ratepayers. Additionally, the ability of IOUs to use a higher- capacity Powertainer provides a much larger offset against the yearly billion-dollar vegetation management costs borne by IOUs (and hence by ratepayers). The PT+’s significant increase in waste processing capacity also significantly speeds up and improves the economics of wildfire risk reduction, magnifying the benefits listed above. The PT+ will directly increase PG&E’s grid reliability by reducing peak loading by up to 250 kilowatt (kW), and has the potential to increase grid reliability significantly when deployed at scale. The technology will provide on-demand, non- weather dependent, renewable energy. The uniquely flexible nature of this energy will offer grid managers new tools to enhance grid stability and reliability. The technology can be used to provide local capacity in hard-to-serve areas, while reducing peak demand. Technological Advancement and Breakthroughs:3 This Agreement will lead to technological advancement and breakthroughs to overcome barriers to the achievement of California’s statutory energy goals by substantially reducing the LCOE of distributed gasification, helping drive uptake of the undersubscribed BioMAT program and increasing the potential for mass commercial deployment of distributed biomass gasification technology, particularly through net energy metering. This breakthrough will help California achieve its goal of developing bioenergy markets (Bioenergy Action Plan 2012) and fulfil its ambitious renewable portfolio standard (SB X1-2, 2011-2012; SB350, 2015). The PT+ will also help overcome barriers to achieving California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction (AB 32, 2006) and air quality improvement goals. It reduces greenhouse gas and criteria pollutants over three primary pathways: 1) The PT+’s increased capacity and Combined Heat and Power (CHP) module expand the displacement of emissions from conventional generation; 2) the biochar offtake enables the sequestration of hundreds of tons carbon that would otherwise have been released into the atmosphere; and 3) its increased processing capacity avoids GHG and criteria emissions by reducing the risk of GHG emissions from wildfire and other forms of disposal, such as open pile burning or decomposition. The carbon sequestration potential of the biochar offtake is particularly groundbreaking because very few technologies exist that can essentially sequester atmospheric carbon, which is what the PT+ enables when paired with the natural forest ecosystem––an innovative and groundbreaking bio-energy technology, with carbon capture and storage. Additionally, as noted in the Governor’s Clean Energy Jobs Plan (2011), clean energy jobs are a critical component of 2 California Public Resources Code, Section 25711.5(a) requires projects funded by the Electric Program Investment Charge (EPIC) to result in ratepayer benefits. The California Public Utilities Commission, which established the EPIC in 2011, defines ratepayer benefits as greater reliability, lower costs, and increased safety (See CPUC “Phase 2” Decision 00-00-000 at page 19, May 24, 2012, xxxx://xxxx.xxxx.xx.xxx/PublishedDocs/WORD_PDF/FINAL_DECISION/167664.PDF). 3 California Public Resources Code, Section 25711.5(a) also requires EPIC-funded projects to lead to technological advancement and breakthroughs to overcome barriers that prevent the achievement of the state’s statutory and energy goals. California’s energy goals. When deployed at scale, the PT+ will result in the creation of thousands of jobs across multiple sectors, including manufacturing, feedstock supply chain (harvesting, processing, and transportation), equipment operation, construction, and project development. Additional Co-benefits: ● Annual electricity and thermal savings; ● Expansion of forestry waste markets; ● Expansion/development of an agricultural biochar market; ● Peak load reduction; ● Flexible generation; ● Energy cost reductions; ● Reduced wildfire risk; ● Local air quality benefits; ● Water use reductions (through energy savings); and ● Watershed benefits.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.