Environmental Modeling & Assessment

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 229–249 | Cite as

Integrated assessment modeling of global climate change: Transparent rational tool for policy making or opaque screen hiding value‐laden assumptions?

  • Stephen H. Schneider

Abstract

One of the principal tools used in the integrated assessment (IA) of environmental science, technology and policy problems is integrated assessment models (IAMs). These models are often comprised of many sub‐models adopted from a wide range of disciplines. A multi‐disciplinary tool kit is presented, from which three decades of IA of global climatic change issues have tapped. A distinction between multi‐ and inter‐disciplinarity is suggested, hinging on the synergistic value added for the latter. Then, a hierarchy of five generations of IAMs are proposed, roughly paralleling the development of IAMs as they incorporated more components of the coupled physical, biological and social scientific disciplines needed to address a “real world” problem like climatic change impacts and policy responses. The need for validation protocols and exploration of predictability limits is also emphasized. The critical importance of making value‐laden assumptions highly transparent in both natural and social scientific components of IAMs is stressed, and it is suggested that incorporating decision‐makers and other citizens into the early design of IAMs can help with this process. The latter could also help IA modelers to offer a large range of value‐containing options via menu driven designs. Examples of specific topics which are often not well understood by potential users of IAMs are briefly surveyed, and it is argued that if the assumptions and values embedded in such topics are not made explicit to users, then IAMs, rather than helping to provide us with refined insights, could well hide value‐laden assumptions or conditions. In particular, issues of induced technological change, timing of carbon abatement, transients, surprises, adaptation, subjective probability assessment and the use of contemporary spatial variations as a substitute for time evolving changes (what I label “ergodic economics”) are given as examples of problematic issues that IA modelers need to explicitly address and make transparent if IAMs are to enlighten more than they conceal. A checklist of six practices which might help to increase transparency of IAMs is offered in the conclusions. Incorporation of decision‐makers into all stages of development and use of IAMs is re‐emphasized as one safeguard against misunderstanding or misrepresentation of IAM results by lay audiences.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    J. Alcamo, Image 2.0: Integrated modeling of global climate change, Water, Air. and Soil Pollution 76(1/2) (1994).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    J. Alcamo, R. Shaw and L. Hordijk, The RAINS Model of Acidification: Science and Strategies in Europe (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    J. Alcamo and E. Kreilemen, Emission scenarios and global climate protection. Global environmental change, Human and Policy Divisions 6 (1996) 305–334.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    C. Azar, Technological change and the long-run cost of reducing CO2 emissions, Working paper, INSEAD, France (1996).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    P.G. Brown, Stewardship of climate. An editorial comment, Climatic Change 37(2) (1997) 329–334.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    R.S. Chen, Interdisciplinary research and integration: The case of CO2 and climate, Climatic Change 3(4) (1981) 429–448.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    G. Chichilnisky, An axiomatic approach to sustainable development, Social Choice and Welfare 13(2) (1996) 219–248.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    T. Colborn, D. Dumanoski and J.P. Myers, Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival?: A Scientific Detective Story (Dutton, New York, 1996).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Finla Report of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems (CONAES), Energy in Transition: 1985–2010 (National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC, 1979).Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    P. Crosson and N. Rosenberg, An overview of the Mink study, Climatic Change 24(1/2) (1993) 159–173.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    G.C. Daily, Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems (Island Press, Washington, DC, Covelo, CA, 1997).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    M. Douglas and A. Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Danger (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1982).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    H. Dowlatabadi and M. Kandlikar, Key uncertainties in climate change policy: Results from ICAM-2, in: The 6th Global Warming Conference, San Francisco, CA (1995).Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    H. Dowlatabadi, Sensitivity of climate change mitigation estimates to assumptions about technical change, Energy Economics (1998) (in press).Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    P.N. Edwards, Global comprehensive models in politics and policy-making. An editorial essay, Climatic Change 32(2) (1996) 149–161.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    P.R. Ehrlich, The limits to substitution: Meta-resource depletion and a new economic-ecological paradigm, Ecological Economics 1 (1989) 9–16.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    P.R. Ehrlich, A.H. Ehrlich and G. Daily, The Stork and the Plow (Putnam, New York, 1995).Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    D. Gaskins and J. Weyant, EMF-12: Model comparisons of the costs of reducing CO2 emissions, American Economic Review 83 (1993) 318–323.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    M.H. Glantz, Forecasting by analogy: Local responses to global climate change, in: Adapting to Climate Change: Assessments and Issues, eds. J.B. Smith et al. (Springer, New York, 1996) pp. 407–426.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    L.H. Goulder, Effects of carbon taxes in an economy with prior tax distortions: An inter-temporal general equilibrium analysis, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 29 (1995) 271–297.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    L.H. Goulder, Environmental taxation and the double dividend: A reader's guide, International Tax and Public Finance 2(2) (1996) 155–182.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    L.H. Goulder and K. Mathai, Optimal CO2 abatement in the presence of induced technological change, Working paper, Stanford University (1997).Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    L.H. Goulder and S.H. Schneider, Induced technological change, crowding out, and the attractiveness of CO2 emissions abatement, Resource and Environmental Economics (submitted).Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    A. Grobecker, S. Coroniti and R. Cannon, The effects of stratospheric pollution by aircraft, Technical Information Service, Dept. of Transportation, Springfield, VA, DOT-TST-75-50 (1974).Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    M. Grubb, Energy technologies, systems and the timing of CO2 emissions abatement, Energy Policy 25(2) (1997) 159–172.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    M. Grubb, M.H. Duong and T. Chapuis, Optimizing climate change abatement responses: On inertia and induced technology development, in: Integrative Assessment of Mitigation, Impacts, and Adaptation to Climate Change, eds. N. Nakicenovic, W.D. Nordhaus, R. Richels and F.L. Toth (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1994) pp. 513–534.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    P.M. Haas, Obtaining international environmental protection through epistemic consensus, Millenium 19 (1990) 347–364.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    M. Ha-Duong, Necessities and problems of coupling climate and socioeconomic models for integrated assessments studies from an economist's point of view, in: EU Advanced Study Course 1997: Goal and Economic Instruments for the Achievement of Global Warming Mitigation in Europe, Berlin (20–26 July 1997).Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    M.J. Hamond, S.J. DeCanio, P. Duxbury, A.H. Sanstad and C.H. Stinson, Tax waste, not work. How changing what we tax can lead to a stronger economy and a cleaner environment, Redefining Progress (1997).Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    J. Hansen, A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy and J. Lerner, Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms, in: Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, eds. J. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5 (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1984) pp. 130–163.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    K. Hasselmann, S. Hasselmann, R. Giering, V. Ocaña and H. von Storch, Sensitivity study of optimal CO2 emission paths using a simplified structural integrated assessment model (SIAM), Climatic Change 37(2) (1997) 345–386.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    K. Hasselmann, L. Bengtsson, U. Cubasch, G.C. Hegerl, H. Rodhe, E. Roeckner, H.V. Storch and R. Voss, Detection of anthropogenic climate change using a fingerprint method, Max Planck Institut für Meteorologie, Report No. 168 (1995).Google Scholar
  33. [33]
    J.M. Haywood, R.J. Stouffer, R.T. Wetherald, S. Manabe and V. Ramaswamy, Transient response of a coupled model to estimated changes in greenhouse gas and sulfate concentrations, Geophysical Research Letters 24(11) (1997) 1335–1338.Google Scholar
  34. [34]
    G. Heal, Discounting and climate change. An editorial essay, Climatic Change 37(2) (1997) (in press).Google Scholar
  35. [35]
    J.-C. Hourcade and J. Robinson, Mitigating factors: Assessing the costs of reducing GHG emissions, Energy Policy 24 (1996) 863–873.Google Scholar
  36. [36]
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC), Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg and K. Maskell (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar
  37. [37]
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC), Climate Change 1995. Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses. Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. R.T. Watson, M.C. Zinyowera and R.H. Moss (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar
  38. [38]
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC), Climate Change 1995. Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eds. J.P. Bruce, H. Lee and E.F. Haites (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996).Google Scholar
  39. [39]
    C. Jaeger and B. Kasemir, Climatic risks and rational actors, Global Environmental Change 1 (1996) 23–36.Google Scholar
  40. [40]
    T.N. Jenkins, Democratising the global economy by ecologicalising economics: The example of global warming, Ecological Economics 16 (1996) 227–238.Google Scholar
  41. [41]
    D.W. Jorgenson and P.J. Wilcoxen, Reducing U.S. carbon emissions: An econometric general equilibrium assessment, in: Reducing Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Costs and Policy Options, eds. D. Gaskins and J. Weyant (Stanford University Press, 1995).Google Scholar
  42. [42]
    T.R. Karl and R.W. Knight, Secular trends of precipitation amount, frequency, and intensity in the USA, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (1998) (in press).Google Scholar
  43. [43]
    K.C. Land and S.H. Schneider, Forecasting in the social and natural sciences: An overview and analysis of isomorphisms, Climatic Change 11(1/2) (1987) 7–34.Google Scholar
  44. [44]
    R.J. Lempert, M.E. Schlesinger and S.C. Bankes, When we don't know the costs or the benefits: Adaptive strategies for abating climate change, Climatic Change 33(2) (1996) 235–274.Google Scholar
  45. [45]
    D.M. Liverman, Forecasting the impact of climate on food systems: Model testing and model linkage, Climatic Change 11(1/2) (1987) 267–285.Google Scholar
  46. [46]
    E. Lorenz, Climatic determinism in causes of climatic change, Meteorological Monographs 8 (1968) 1–3.Google Scholar
  47. [47]
    E.N. Lorenz, Climatic change as a mathematical problem, Journal of Applied Meteorology 9 (1970) 325–329.Google Scholar
  48. [48]
    E. Lorenz, Climate predictability, in: The Physical Basis of Climate and Climate Modeling, Report of the GARP Study Conference, Stockholm, 29 July–10 August, GARP Publication Series No. 16 (1975) p. 132.Google Scholar
  49. [49]
    S. Manabe and R.J. Stouffer, Century scale-effects of increased atmospheric CO2 on the ocean-atmosphere system, Nature 364 (1993) 215–218.Google Scholar
  50. [50]
    L.O. Mearns, R.W. Katz and S.H. Schneider, Changes in the probabilities of extreme high temperature events with changes in global mean temperature, J. Climate Appl. Meteorol. 23 (1984) 1601–1613.Google Scholar
  51. [51]
    L.O. Mearns, Transforming the results of climate models to the scales of impacts, Paper presented at the IPCC Workshop on Regional Climate Change Projections for Impact Assessment, 24–26 September 1996, Imperial College London (1997) (in press).Google Scholar
  52. [52]
    R. Mendelsohn, W. Morrison, M. Schlesinger and N. Andronova, Country-specific market impacts of climate change (1996) (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
  53. [53]
    R. Mendelsohn, W. Nordhaus and D. Shaw, Climate impacts on aggregate farm value: Accounting for adaptation, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 80 (1996) 55–66.Google Scholar
  54. [54]
    J.F.B. Mitchell, T.C. Johns, J.M. Gregory and S.F.B. Tett, Transient climate response to increasing sulphate aerosols and greenhouse gases, Nature 376 (1995) 501–504.Google Scholar
  55. [55]
    M.G. Morgan and D.W. Keith, Subjective judgments by climate experts, Environmental Science and Technology 29 (1995) 468A–476A.Google Scholar
  56. [56]
    M.G. Morgan and H. Dowlatabadi, Learning from integrated assessment of climate change, Climatic Change 34(3/4) (1996) 337–368.Google Scholar
  57. [57]
    N. Myers, Ultimate Security: The Environmental Basis of Political Stability (W.W. Norton, New York, 1993).Google Scholar
  58. [58]
    N. Myers, Two key challenges for biodiversity: Discontinuities and synergisms, Biodiversity and Conservation 5 (1996) 1025–1034.Google Scholar
  59. [59]
    N. Nakicenovic, Technological change and learning, in: Climate Change: Integrating Science, Economics, and Policy, eds. Nakicenovic et al., CP-96-1 (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria, 1996).Google Scholar
  60. [60]
    National Academy of Sciences, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1991).Google Scholar
  61. [61]
    National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, Acidic deposition: State of science and technology, Summary report of the U.S. NAPAP, Washington, DC (1991).Google Scholar
  62. [62]
    W.D. Nordhaus, An optimal transition path for controlling greenhouse gases, Science 258 (1992) 1315–1319.Google Scholar
  63. [63]
    W.D. Nordhaus, Expert opinion on climatic change, American Scientist 82 (1994) 45–52.Google Scholar
  64. [64]
    W.D. Nordhaus, Discounting in economics and climate change. Editorial, Climatic Change 37(2) (1997) 315–328.Google Scholar
  65. [65]
    N. Oreskes, K. Shrader-Frechette and K. Belitz, Verification, validation, and confirmation of numerical models in the Earth sciences, Science 263(5147) (1994) 641–646.Google Scholar
  66. [66]
    J.T. Overpeck, R.S. Webb and T. Webb III, Mapping eastern North American vegetation change over the past 18,000 years: No analogs and the future, Geology 20 (1992) 1071–1074.Google Scholar
  67. [67]
    E.A. Parson, Integrated assessment and environmental policy making: In pursuit of usefulness, Energy Policy 23(4/5) (1995) 463–475.Google Scholar
  68. [68]
    E.A. Parson, Three dilemmas in the integrated assessment of climate change. An editorial comment, Climatic Change 34(3/4) (1996) 315–326.Google Scholar
  69. [69]
    R. Prinn, H. Jacoby, A. Sokolov, C. Wang, X. Xiao, Z. Yang, R. Eckaus, P. Stone, D. Ellerman, J. Melillo, J. Fitzmaurice, D. Kicklighter, G. Holian and Y. Liu, Integrated global system model for climate policy assessment: feedbacks and sensitivity studies, Climatic Change (1998) (in revision).Google Scholar
  70. [70]
    J.R. Ravetz, Integrated environmental assessment forum: Developing guidelines for “Good Practice”, Working paper ULYSSES, Darmstadt University of Technology (1997).Google Scholar
  71. [71]
    R. Repetto and D. Austin, The Costs of Climate Protection: A Guide for the Perplexed (World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, 1997).Google Scholar
  72. [72]
    R. Richels and J. Edmonds, The costs of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, Energy Policy 23(4/5) (1995) 373–378.Google Scholar
  73. [73]
    J. Risbey, M. Kandlikar and A. Patwardhan, Assessing integrated assessments, Climatic Change 34(3/4) (1996) 369–395.Google Scholar
  74. [74]
    J.B. Robinson, Modelling the interactions between human and natural systems, The International Social Science Journal 43 (1996) 629–647.Google Scholar
  75. [75]
    T.L. Root and S.H. Schneider, Ecology and climate: Research strategies and implications, Science 269 (1995) 331–341.Google Scholar
  76. [76]
    N.J. Rosenberg and M.J. Scott, Implications of policies to prevent climate change for future food security, Global Environmental Change 4 (1994) 49–62.Google Scholar
  77. [77]
    C.M. Rosenzweig, M.L. Parry and G. Fischer, Potential impact of climate change on world food supply, Nature 367 (1994) 133–138.Google Scholar
  78. [78]
    D.S. Rothman and J.B. Robinson, Growing pains: A conceptual framework for considering integrated assessments, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 46 (1997) 23–43.Google Scholar
  79. [79]
    J. Rotmans and M. van Asselt, Integrated assessment: a growing child on its way to maturity. An editorial, Climatic Change 34(3/4) (1996) 327–336.Google Scholar
  80. [80]
    T. Roughgarden and S.H. Schneider, Quantifying uncertainties of damage from climatic change, Science (submitted).Google Scholar
  81. [81]
    B.D. Santer, K.E. Taylor, T.M.L. Wigley, T.C. Johns, P.D. Jones, D.J. Karoly, J.F.B. Mitchell, A.H. Oort, J.E. Penner, V. Ramaswamy, M.D. Schwarzkopf, R.J. Stouffer and S. Tett, A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere, Nature 382 (1996) 39–46.Google Scholar
  82. [82]
    M. Schlesinger, Development of the geographical climate scenarios for the impact analyses of Energy Modeling Forum 14 — Integrated assessment of climate change, Paper presented at the EMF-14 workshop (August 1996).Google Scholar
  83. [83]
    S.H. Schneider, Editorial for the first issue of Climatic Change and general guidelines for reviewers, Climatic Change 1(1) (1977) 3–4.Google Scholar
  84. [84]
    S.H. Schneider, An international program on global climate change: Can it endure? An editorial, Climatic Change 10 (1987) 211–218.Google Scholar
  85. [85]
    S.H. Schneider, The role of the university in interdisciplinary global change research: Structural constraints and the potential for change. An editorial, Climatic Change 20(1) (1992) vii–x.Google Scholar
  86. [86]
    S.H. Schneider, Detecting climatic change signals: Are there any “fingerprints”?, Science 263 (1994) 341–347.Google Scholar
  87. [87]
    S.H. Schneider, Evolutionary organizational models for interdisciplinary research and teaching of global environmental change, in: Global Environmental Change Science: Education and Training, ed. D.J. Waddington, NATO ASI Series, Vol. 129 (Springer, Heidelberg, 1995) pp. 9–40.Google Scholar
  88. [88]
    S.H. Schneider, The future of climate: Potential for interaction and surprises, in: Climate Change and World Food Security, ed. T.E. Downing, NATO ASI Series, Vol. 137 (Springer, Heidelberg, 1996) pp. 77–113.Google Scholar
  89. [89]
    S.H. Schneider, Laboratory Earth: The Planetary Gamble We Can't Afford to Lose (Basic Books, New York, 1997).Google Scholar
  90. [90]
    S.H. Schneider and R.S. Chen, Carbon dioxide warming and coastline flooding: Physical factors and climatic impact, Ann. Rev. Energy 5 (1980) 107–140.Google Scholar
  91. [91]
    S.H. Schneider and B.L. Turner II, Anticipating global change surprise, in: Elements of Change 1994, eds. S.J. Hassol and J. Katzenberger (Aspen Global Change Institute, Aspen, CO, 1995) pp. 130–145.Google Scholar
  92. [92]
    S.H. Schneider and L. Goulder, Achieving carbon dioxide concentration targets. What needs to be done now?, Nature 389 (1997) 13–14.Google Scholar
  93. [93]
    S.H. Schneider and T.L. Root, Ecological implications of climate change will include surprises, Biodiversity and Conservation 5 (1996) 1109–1119.Google Scholar
  94. [94]
    S.H. Schneider and R. Londer, The Coevolution of Climate and Life (Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, CA, 1984).Google Scholar
  95. [95]
    S.H. Schneider, B.L. Turner II and H. Morehouse Garriga, Imaginable surprise in global change science, Journal of Risk Research (in press).Google Scholar
  96. [96]
    B. Smit, D. McNabb, J. Smithers, E. Swanson, R. Blain and P. Keddie, Farming adaptations to climatic variation, in: Great Lakes — St. Lawrence Basin Project on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change and Variability: Progress Report One, eds. L. Mortsch and B. Mills (1996) pp. 125–135.Google Scholar
  97. [97]
    J.B. Smith and D. Tirpak, eds., The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States: Draft Report to Congress, Vols. 1 and 2, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Office of Research and Development (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, October 1988).Google Scholar
  98. [98]
    T.F. Stocker and A. Schmittner, Influence of CO2 emission rates on the stability of the thermohaline circulation, Nature 388 (1997) 862–864.Google Scholar
  99. [99]
    S.L. Thompson and S.H. Schneider, CO2 and climate: the importance of realistic geography in estimating the transient response, Science 217 (1982) 1031–1033.Google Scholar
  100. [100]
    M. van Asselt and J. Rotmans, Uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling: a cultural perspective-based approach, GLOBO Report Series No. 9 (1995) RIVM.Google Scholar
  101. [101]
    J.P. van der Sluijs, Anchoring amid uncertainty: On the management of uncertainties in risk assessment of anthropogenic climate change, Ph.D. thesis, Utrecht University (1997).Google Scholar
  102. [102]
    P. Vitousek, Beyond global warming: Ecology and global change, Ecology 75 (1994) 1861–1876.Google Scholar
  103. [103]
    T.M.L. Wigley, R. Richels and J.A. Edmonds, Economic and environmental choices in the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, Nature 379 (1996) 240–243.Google Scholar
  104. [104]
    B. Wynne and S. Shackley, Environmental models: Truth machines or social heuristics, The Globe 21 (1994) 6–8.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen H. Schneider
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA E-mail:

Personalised recommendations