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

Keppo, I.; Butnar, R. I.; Bauer, Nicolas; Caspani, M.; Edelenbosch, O.; Emmerling, J.; Fragkos, P.; Guivarch, C.; Harmsen, M.; Lefèvre, J.; Le Gallic, T.; Leimbach, Marian; McDowall, W.; Mercure, J.-F.; Schaeffer, R.; Trutnevyte, E.; Wagner, F.

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/abe5d8

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Add to Basket

Local TagsRelease HistoryDetailsSummary

Released

Journal Article

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

Authors

Keppo, I.
External Organizations;

Butnar, R. I.
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/Nicolas.Bauer

Bauer, Nicolas
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

Caspani, M.
External Organizations;

Edelenbosch, O.
External Organizations;

Emmerling, J.
External Organizations;

Fragkos, P.
External Organizations;

Guivarch, C.
External Organizations;

Harmsen, M.
External Organizations;

Lefèvre, J.
External Organizations;

Le Gallic, T.
External Organizations;

/persons/resource/marian.leimbach

Leimbach, Marian
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research;

McDowall, W.
External Organizations;

Mercure, J.-F.
External Organizations;

Schaeffer, R.
External Organizations;

Trutnevyte, E.
External Organizations;

Wagner, F.
External Organizations;

External Ressource

No external resources are shared

Fulltext (public)

Keppo_2021_Environ._Res._Lett._16_053006.pdf
(Publisher version), 704KB

Supplementary Material (public)

There is no public supplementary material available

Citation

Keppo, I., Butnar, R. 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. (2021): Exploring the possibility space: taking stock of the diverse capabilities and gaps in integrated assessment models. - Environmental Research Letters, 16, 5, 053006.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe5d8

Cite as: https://publications.pik-potsdam.de/pubman/item/item_26246

Abstract

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.