Integrated Assessment Modeling
- 1.4k Downloads
This entry discusses the role of integrated assessment models (IAMs) in climate change research. IAMs are an interdisciplinary research platform, which constitutes a consistent scientific framework in which the large-scale interactions between human and natural Earth systems can be examined.
KeywordsGlobal Warming Potential Bioenergy Crop Integrate Assessment Model Computable General Equilibrium Model Emission Mitigation
- Climate policy (greenhouse gas mitigation policy)
A climate policy refers to a policy scheme designed to deliberately limit the magnitude of climate change, often involving mitigation of greenhouse gases. Integrated assessment models (IAMs) represent climate policies in abstract forms. The most commonly modeled climate policy is attaching a universal price on emissions of carbon dioxide (or carbon dioxide equivalent of other greenhouse gases). Such policy represents a universal carbon tax or an economy-wide cap-and-trade policy. Other forms of climate policies, such as differential carbon price by sector or renewable portfolio standards, have also been used in IAMs.
- Cost of greenhouse gas mitigation (economic cost)
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) employ varies metrics for estimating the economic cost of mitigation policy. One common approach estimates reduction in GDP, a proxy for slowdown in economic activity due to increased price of energy and agricultural products. Another approach estimates the (gross) loss in social welfare due to a policy by measuring the area under the marginal abatement cost curve. Other metrics include foregone consumption, compensated variation, and equivalent variation.
- Integrated assessment model (IAM)
Integrated assessment model (IAM) in climate change research is a model which simulates the interactions of human decision-making about energy systems and land use with biogeochemistry and the natural Earth system. IAMs can be divided into two categories.
Higher resolution IAMs focus on explicitly representing processes and process interactions among human and natural Earth systems.
Highly aggregated IAMs use highly reduced-form representations of the link between human activities, impacts from climate change, and the cost of emissions mitigation.
- Integrated earth system model (iESM)
Integrated Earth System Models (iESMs) are a class of models under development by collaboration between integrated assessment modeling community and climate modeling community. By fully integrating the human dimension from an IAM and the natural dimension from a climate model, iESM allows simultaneously estimating human system impacts on climate change and climate change impacts on human systems, as well as examining the effects of feedbacks between the components.
- Land use (land-use emissions)
Land use is one of the largest anthropogenic sources of emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols, and short-lived species. Emissions, as well as sequestration of emissions, may occur from land-use practices, changes in land cover, or changes in forested area or the density. On the other hand, land-use patterns are affected by the changes in the climate. As such, modeling land use has been an important component of the integrated assessment modeling of climate change.
- Representative concentration pathways (RCPs)
The Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) are the most recent set of emission scenarios generated by integrated assessment models. Four scenarios explicitly considering emission mitigation efforts that were sufficiently differentiated in terms of radiative forcing at the end of the century were selected from published literature. RCPs are designed to facilitate the interactions with climate models by including geospatially resolved emissions and land-use data.
- 2.Nordhaus WD, Yohe GW (1983) Future carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. Changing climate: report of the carbon dioxide assessment committee. National Academy Press, Washington DC, pp 87–153Google Scholar
- 3.Nordhaus WD (1993) Optimal greenhouse-gas reductions and tax policy in the “DICE” model. Am Econ Rev 83:313–317Google Scholar
- 4.Nordhaus WD, Yang Z (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate-change strategies. Am Econ Rev 86:741–765Google Scholar
- 8.Weyant J, Davidson O, Dowlatabadi H, Edmonds J, Grubb M, Parson EA, Richels R, Rotmans J, Shukla PR, Tol RSJ (1996)Integrated assessment of climate change: an overview and comparison of approaches and results. In: Bruce JP, H-sŏng Yi, Haites EF (eds) Climate change 1995: economic and social dimensions of climate change. The contribution of working group III to the second assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, UK/New York, pp 367–396Google Scholar
- 11.Stern NH (2007) The economics of climate change: the Stern Review. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 12.Portney PR, Weyant JP (eds) (1999) Discounting and intergenerational equity. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 13.Dasgupta P, Mäler KG, Barrett S (1999) Intergenerational equity, social discount rates and global warming. In: Portney PR, Weyant JP (eds) Discounting and intergenerational equity. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 14.Clarke L, Edmonds J, Jacoby H, Pitcher H, Reilly J, Richels R (2007) Scenarios of greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations. Synthesis and assessment product 2.1a, report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 16.Edmonds J, Reilly J (1983) Global energy and CO2 to the year 2050. Energy J 4:21–48Google Scholar
- 18.Edmonds J, Reilly JM (1985) Global energy: assessing the future. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 19.Brenkert A, Smith S, Kim S, Pitcher H (2003) Model documentation for the MiniCAM. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Technical report PNNL-14337Google Scholar
- 20.Kim SH, Edmonds JA, Smith SJ, Wise M, Lurz J (2006) The object-oriented energy climate technology systems (ObjECTS) framework and hybrid modeling of transportation in the MiniCAM long-term, global integrated assessment model. Energy J 27:63–91Google Scholar
- 21.Clarke L, Wise M, Kim S, Smith S, Lurz J, Edmonds J, Pitcher H (2007) Model documentation for the minicam climate change science program stabilization scenarios: CCSP product 2.1 a. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL-16735Google Scholar
- 22.Wise MA, Calvin KV, Thomson AM, Clarke LE, Bond-Lamberty B, Sands RD, Smith SJ, Janetos AC, Edmonds JA (2009) The implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for agriculture, land use, land-use change emissions and bioenergy. Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryGoogle Scholar
- 23.Sokolov AP, Schlosser CA, Dutkiewicz S, Paltsev S, Kicklighter DW, Jacoby HD, Prinn RG, Forest CE, Reilly JM, Wang C, et al (2005) MIT integrated global system model (IGSM) version 2: model description and baseline evaluation, MIT Joint Program for the Science and Policy of Global Change. Report 124, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
- 26.Kainuma M, Matsuoka Y, Morita T (eds) (2003) Climate policy assessment: Asia-Pacific integrated modeling. Springer-Verlag, TokyoGoogle Scholar
- 29.Raper SCB, Wigley TML, Warrick RA (1996) Global sea-level rise: past and future. In: Milliman JD Haq BU (eds) Sea-level rise and coastal subsidence: causes, consequences, and strategies. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- 31.McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In: Zarambka P (ed) Frontiers of econometrics. Academic, New York, pp 105–142Google Scholar
- 32.McFadden D (1981) Econometric models for probabilistic choice among products. In: Manski C, McFadden D (eds) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 198–272Google Scholar
- 34.Bouwman AF, Kram T, Goldewijk KK (2006) Integrated modeling of global environmental change: an overview of Image 2.4. Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyGoogle Scholar
- 39.Edmonds JA, Scott MJ, Roop JM, MacCracken CN (1999) International emission trading and the cost of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
- 40.Kyoto Protocol: the kyoto protocol to the united nations framework convention on climate change. UNEP/WMO, KyotoGoogle Scholar
- 42.Edmonds JA, Wise MA, Dooley JJ, Kim SH, Smith SJ, Runci PJ, Clarke LE, Malone EL, Stokes GM (2007) Global energy technology strategy: addressing climate change phase 2 findings from an international public-private sponsored research program. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), RichlandGoogle Scholar
- 43.Metz B, Davidson O, Bosch P, Dave R, Meyer L (eds) (2007)Climate change 2007: mitigation of climate change; contribution of working group III to the 4th assessment report of the intergovenmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 44.Weyant JP, Francisco C, Blanford GJ (2006) Overview of EMF-21: multigas mitigation and climate policy. Energy J 27:1–32Google Scholar
- 45.National Research Council (U.S.) (2005) Climate research committee: radiative forcing of climate change: expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Academic, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- 46.Wuebbles DJ, Edmonds J (1991) Primer on greenhouse gases. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MichiganGoogle Scholar
- 47.Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Marquis M, Averyt K, Tignor M, LeRoy Miller H, Chen Z (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007. The physical science basis: contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 48.Houghton JT, Meiro Filho LG, Callander BA, Harris N, Kattenburg A, Maskell K (eds) (1996) Climate change 1995: the science of climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- 50.Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ (eds) (1990) Climate change: the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- 51.Houghton JT, Jenkins GJ, Ephraums JJ (eds) (1990) Climate change: the IPCC response strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
- 59.Edmonds JA, Reilly J, Trabalka JR, Reichle DE (1984) An analysis of possible future atmospheric retention of fossil fuel CO2, TR013, US Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Division, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
- 60.Trabalka JR, Reichle DE (eds) (1986) The changing carbon cycle: a global analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 61.Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK, van Vuuren DP, Carter TR, Emori S, Kainuma M, Kram T, Meehl GA, Mitchell JFB, Nakicenovic N, Riahi K, Smith SJ, Stouffer RJ, Thomson AM, Weyant JP, Wilbanks TJ (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 62.Leggett J, Pepper WJ, Swart RJ, Edmonds J, Meira Filho LG, Mintzer I, Wang MX, Wasson J (1992) Emissions scenarios for the IPCC: an update. Climate change 1992: The supplementary report to the IPCC scientific assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 63.Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grubler A, Jung TY, Kram T (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 65.Fujino J, Nair R, Kainuma M, Masui T, Matsuoka Y (2006) Multi-gas mitigation analysis on stabilization scenarios using AIM global model. Energy J SI3:343–354Google Scholar
- 66.Hijioka Y, Matsuoka Y, Nishimoto H, Masui M, Kainuma M (2008) Global GHG emissions scenarios under GHG concentration stabilization targets. J Global Environ Eng 13:97–108Google Scholar
- 67.Smith SJ, Wigley TML (2006) Multi-gas forcing stabilization with MiniCAM. Energy J SI3:373–392Google Scholar
- 68.van Vuuren DP, Eickhout B, Lucas PL, den Elzen MGJ (2006) Long-term multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing-exploring costs and benefits within an integrated assessment framework. Energy J SI3:201–234Google Scholar
- 70.van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Moss R, Edmonds J, Thomson A, Nakicenovic N, Kram T, Berkhout F, Swart R, Janetos A, Rose SK, Arnell N (2011) A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities. Global Environ Chang (In Press)Google Scholar
- 71.Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Hallegatte S, Kram T, Lempert R, Moss RH, Wilbanks TJ (2010) Socio-economic scenario development for climate change analysis. CIRED working paper. Centre International de Recherche sur l’Environnement et le Développement, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
- 72.Janetos AC, Clarke L, Collins W, Ebi K, Edmonds J, Foster I, Jacoby HJ, Judd K, Leung L, Newell R, Ojima D, Pugh G, Sanstad A, Schultz P, Stevens R, Weyant J, Wilbanks T (2008) Science challenges and future directions: climate change integrated assessment research. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science. http://science.energy.gov/~/media/ber/pdf/Ia_workshop_low_res_06_25_09.pdf. Accessed 5 Dec 2011
- 76.Parry M, Canzaiani O, Palutikof J, Van der Linden P, Hanson C (eds) (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability; Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK/New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 78.Weyant JP, Hill J (1999) The costs of the Kyoto protocol: a multi-model evaluation; introduction and overview. Energy J 20(Special Issue):vii–xlivGoogle Scholar
- 79.Kyle P, Clarke L, Rong F, Smith SJ (2010) Climate policy and the long-term evolution of the US buildings sector. Energy J 31:145–172Google Scholar