Exploring the possibility space: taking stock of the diverse capabilities and gaps in integrated assessment models

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) have emerged as key tools for building and assessing long term climate mitigation scenarios. Due to their central role in the recent IPCC assessments, and international climate policy analyses more generally, and the high uncertainties related to future projection...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental research letters Vol. 16; no. 5; pp. 53006 - 53026
Main Authors: Keppo, I, Butnar, I, Bauer, N, Caspani, M, Edelenbosch, O, Emmerling, J, Fragkos, P, Guivarch, C, Harmsen, M, Lefèvre, J, Le Gallic, T, Leimbach, M, McDowall, W, Mercure, J-F, Schaeffer, R, Trutnevyte, E, Wagner, F
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Bristol IOP Publishing 01.05.2021
Subjects:
Adequacy
Climate change mitigation
Climate policy
energy-economy feedback
Environment and Society
Environmental policy
Environmental Sciences
finance
heterogeneity
integrated assessment model
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
model interpretation
open climate campaign
policy scenarios
Representations
technology diffusion
policy scenarios
Integrated Assessment Model
model interpretation
energy-economy feedback
technology diffusion
finance
heterogeneity
ISSN:1748-9326, 1748-9326
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Integrated assessment models (IAMs) have emerged as key tools for building and assessing long term climate mitigation scenarios. Due to their central role in the recent IPCC assessments, and international climate policy analyses more generally, and the high uncertainties related to future projections, IAMs have been critically assessed by scholars from different fields receiving various critiques ranging from adequacy of their methods to how their results are used and communicated. Although IAMs are conceptually diverse and evolved in very different directions, they tend to be criticised under the umbrella of ‘IAMs’. Here we first briefly summarise the IAM landscape and how models differ from each other. We then proceed to discuss six prominent critiques emerging from the recent literature, reflect and respond to them in the light of IAM diversity and ongoing work and suggest ways forward. The six critiques relate to (a) representation of heterogeneous actors in the models, (b) modelling of technology diffusion and dynamics, (c) representation of capital markets, (d) energy-economy feedbacks, (e) policy scenarios, and (f) interpretation and use of model results.
Bibliography:ERL-110261.R2
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:1748-9326
1748-9326
DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/abe5d8