Search

Low carbon energy transitions are of paramount importance to achieve climate goals. These transitions are not only technical and economical, but also deeply social and gendered. In this paper, we reviewed the academic literature to understand: firstly, what gender vulnerabilities have been discussed in the literature and how they have been embedded in structural dynamics. Secondly, what socio-cultural and socio-economic drivers may lead to these gendered vulnerabilities? Based on content analysis, four key themes emerged from this literature survey: land use change, gender-neutral energy policies, access to resources , and green practices, gender, and culture . These four themes indicate that there are several enabling mechanisms arising from social and structural inequalities, indicative that vulnerabilities ought not to be considered in isolation, but in relationship with others. We also explored dimensions of vulnerability (exposure, sensitivity, adaptative capacity) based on Carley et al (2018 Nat. Energy 3 621–7) to contextualise components of vulnerability in relation to gender. The main finding suggests considering further intersectional approaches to low carbon energy transitions, emphasising acknowledging, and lessening societal inequalities.

Integrated assessment models (IAMs) form a prime tool in informing about climate mitigation strategies. Diagnostic indicators that allow comparison across these models can help describe and explain differences in model projections. This increases transparency and comparability. Earlier, the IAM community has developed an approach to diagnose models (Kriegler (2015 Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90 45–61)). Here we build on this, by proposing a selected set of well-defined indicators as a community standard, to systematically and routinely assess IAM behaviour, similar to metrics used for other modeling communities such as climate models. These indicators are the relative abatement index, emission reduction type index, inertia timescale, fossil fuel reduction, transformation index and cost per abatement value. We apply the approach to 17 IAMs, assessing both older as well as their latest versions, as applied in the IPCC 6th Assessment Report. The study shows that the approach can be easily applied and used to indentify key differences between models and model versions. Moreover, we demonstrate that this comparison helps to link model behavior to model characteristics and assumptions. We show that together, the set of six indicators can provide useful indication of the main traits of the model and can roughly indicate the general model behavior. The results also show that there is often a considerable spread across the models. Interestingly, the diagnostic values often change for different model versions, but there does not seem to be a distinct trend.