Search

Greenhouse gas emission scenarios are key to analyse of human interference with the climate system. They are mainly produced by one category of computer models: Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). We analyse how IAM research organised into a community around the production of socio-economic scenarios during the preparation of the IPCC AR5 (2005-2014). We seek to describe the co-emergence of a research community, its instruments, and its domain of applicability. We highlight the role of the IPCC process in the making of the IAM community, showing how IAMs worked their way to an influent position. We then survey three elements of the repertoire that served to organise collective work on scenarios in interaction with the IPCC and the European Union, and which now frames the community and its epistemic practices. This repertoire needs to articulate epistemic practices with the pursuit of policy relevance, which shows how epistemic communities and patterns of co-production materialise in practical arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Co-benefits of climate policies: a potential keystone of climate negotiations? This paper analyzes the challenges related to the assessment of co-benefits of climate policies underpinned by the implementation of multi-objective policies which seek synergies between climate policies and other development objectives (poverty alleviation, employment, health etc.). The analysis highlights the increasing interest in co-benefits in the latest 5th IPCC report, in particular by integrated models. Nevertheless, the quantified evaluation of co-benefits is still confronted to several methodological limitations which reduce the scope of co-benefits, particularly at the global level. In a growing context of climate-development approaches in climate negotiations, this article insists on the need to also assess cobenefits of other policies which induce a significant part of GHG emissions. Considering climate policies focused only on Greehouse Gases emissions reduction limits the range of policy instruments to carbon taxation, tradable carbon emissions permits or dedicated mitigation and adaptation funds. This also hinders the integration of climate objectives in non-climate policies. Analyzing impacts of development policies on Green Gases emissions in the form of co-benefits requires to broaden the range of policy instruments and to take into account other drivers of emissions such as land dynamics. Including these mechanisms in integrated models therefore represents new scientific frontiers for integrated models in the coming years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we analyze the socioeconomic effects of energy sustainability challenges raised by oil depletion and climate change at the European and global levels. We assess macroeconomic impacts at different period markers from 2010 to 2100 and under different visions of the future of globalization. Fragmented capital markets affect the pace and direction of change and induce additional economic losses in the long term. Regionalized good markets have a positive effect in the long term because less intense international trade moderates the effects of fossil fuel constraints. A sustainable energy future will require implementing policies and measures that are able to (a) provide correct incentives for long-term investments by resorting to other signals than current market prices, (b) incorporate sectoral measures that act complementarily to pricing scheme measures for sectors confronted with biased agents’ behaviors or strong inertias, and (c) foster globalization patterns that are consistent with energy sustainability objectives. The challenge consists in articulating the objectives and the instruments of these different policy and measures triggering the transition toward a sustainable future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An increasing number of countries issue Deep Decarbonization Strategies (DDS). While DDS contents are well analysed, the processes by which they are developed attract less attention. This paper investigates what numerical model(s) are used in these processes, how they are used, and how models, modellers and stakeholders jointly contribute to the production of DDS. It draws lessons from an in-depth analysis of the second French national low-carbon strategy, complemented with insights from the US, Swedish and Brazilian DDS production processes. While configurations differ, DDS processes typically rely on multiple, sometimes overlapping models and involve a broad range of stakeholders. Articulating models together, and through stakeholder consultations, produces both numbers and collectives that share visions of the future – and both are equally important. Setting up and coordinating such assemblages of models and stakeholders requires effort, time, anticipation and resources. The cases presented here highlight the importance of technical, institutional and relational legacies (e.g. prior experience of joint work, hybrid communities), and of political support. We conclude on the importance for policymakers to account for these dimensions when setting up DDS processes and layout avenues for further research. Key policy insights The production of Deep Decarbonization Strategies (DDS) relies on multi-model, multi-stakeholder processes and requires developing models in consultation with stakeholders. These modelling assemblages produce numbers, shared visions and also relationships – all of which are equally important when it comes to elaborating DDS. Such assemblages require time, resources, trial and error, which in turn points to the importance of institutional, relational and technical legacies (e.g. prior experience with and around modelling tools, hybrid communities), as well as of political support, in facilitating this work. DDS elaboration processes constitute a learning experiment and present opportunities for technical and institutional innovation. Policymakers should anticipate and plan for these dimensions when deciding to produce DDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]