TY - JOUR
T1 - Exploring the possibility space
T2 - taking stock of the diverse capabilities and gaps in integrated assessment models
AU - Keppo, I.
AU - Butnar, I.
AU - Bauer, N.
AU - Caspani, M.
AU - Edelenbosch, O.
AU - Emmerling, J.
AU - Fragkos, P.
AU - Guivarch, C.
AU - Harmsen, M.
AU - Lefevre, J.
AU - Le Gallic, T.
AU - Leimbach, M.
AU - Mcdowall, W.
AU - Mercure, J. F.
AU - Schaeffer, R.
AU - Trutnevyte, E.
AU - Wagner, F.
N1 - | openaire: EC/H2020/821124/EU//NAVIGATE
PY - 2021/5
Y1 - 2021/5
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - energy-economy feedback
KW - finance
KW - heterogeneity
KW - integrated assessment model
KW - model interpretation
KW - policy scenarios
KW - technology diffusion
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85105183164&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1088/1748-9326/abe5d8
DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/abe5d8
M3 - Review Article
AN - SCOPUS:85105183164
SN - 1748-9326
VL - 16
JO - Environmental Research Letters
JF - Environmental Research Letters
IS - 5
M1 - 053006
ER -