IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v166y2021ics0040162521000433.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why the shared socioeconomic pathway framework has not been useful for improving climate change mitigation policy analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Rosen, Richard A.

Abstract

Numerous ways to improve the usefulness of climate change mitigation scenarios that rely on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) framework that was developed over the last 10 years have been suggested. The problem with these proposals is that the diagnosis of what has led to the inability of integrated assessment modelers to properly analyze mitigation policies is wrong. The first main problem with the past use of the SSP-based mitigation scenarios is that few input variables for what is supposed to be the same SSP are given the same numerical values by different modeling teams. The more significant problem with the way in SSP-based mitigation scenarios have been used to analyze mitigation policies is that the different integrated assessment models (IAMs) have very different structures and functions. Thus, even if all the input variables comprising a single SSP had the same numerical values, the scenario results from running such a SSP through different IAMs would be quite different, leading to different understandings of the usefulness of different mitigation policies. This situation can be avoided by developing just two or three more detailed and improved IAMs focused on the critical next 10–20 years for mitigating climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosen, Richard A., 2021. "Why the shared socioeconomic pathway framework has not been useful for improving climate change mitigation policy analysis," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:166:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521000433
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162521000433
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120611?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard A. Rosen, 2016. "IS THE IPCC’s 5TH ASSESSMENT A DENIER OF POSSIBLE MACROECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE?," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(01), pages 1-30, February.
    2. Richard Rosen & Edeltraud Guenther, 2014. "The Economics of Mitigating Climate Change?," Challenge, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(4), pages 57-81.
    3. Richard A. Rosen, 2015. "IAMs and peer review," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(5), pages 390-390, May.
    4. Rosen, Richard A. & Guenther, Edeltraud, 2015. "The economics of mitigating climate change: What can we know?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 93-106.
    5. Rosen, Richard A. & Guenther, Edeltraud, 2016. "The energy policy relevance of the 2014 IPCC Working Group III report on the macro-economics of mitigating climate change," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 330-334.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sandoval, Noah & Reyna, Janet L. & Landis, Amy E., 2023. "Internal consistency and diversity scenario development: A comparative framework to evaluate energy model scenarios," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ajay Gambhir & Isabela Butnar & Pei-Hao Li & Pete Smith & Neil Strachan, 2019. "A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-21, May.
    2. Charlie Wilson & Céline Guivarch & Elmar Kriegler & Bas Ruijven & Detlef P. Vuuren & Volker Krey & Valeria Jana Schwanitz & Erica L. Thompson, 2021. "Evaluating process-based integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 1-22, May.
    3. Franziska Schütze & Steffen Fürst & Jahel Mielke & Gesine A. Steudle & Sarah Wolf & Carlo C. Jaeger, 2017. "The Role of Sustainable Investment in Climate Policy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-19, December.
    4. Richard A. Rosen, 2016. "IS THE IPCC’s 5TH ASSESSMENT A DENIER OF POSSIBLE MACROECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE?," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(01), pages 1-30, February.
    5. Alexandre C. Köberle & Toon Vandyck & Celine Guivarch & Nick Macaluso & Valentina Bosetti & Ajay Gambhir & Massimo Tavoni & Joeri Rogelj, 2021. "The cost of mitigation revisited," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 11(12), pages 1035-1045, December.
    6. Sarah Wolf & Franziska Schütze & Carlo C. Jaeger, 2016. "Balance or Synergies between Environment and Economy—A Note on Model Structures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-11, August.
    7. Rogna, Marco & Vogt, Carla J., 2021. "Accounting for inequality aversion can justify the 2° C goal," Ruhr Economic Papers 925, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    8. Lempert Robert J., 2014. "Embedding (some) benefit-cost concepts into decision support processes with deep uncertainty," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 487-514, December.
    9. Kermeli, Katerina & Edelenbosch, Oreane Y. & Crijns-Graus, Wina & van Ruijven, Bas J. & Mima, Silvana & van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Worrell, Ernst, 2019. "The scope for better industry representation in long-term energy models: Modeling the cement industry," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 240(C), pages 964-985.
    10. T. Gasser & C. Guivarch & K. Tachiiri & C. D. Jones & P. Ciais, 2015. "Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, November.
    11. Goldstein, Don, 2015. "Climate-adaptive technological change in a small region: A resource-based scenario approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 168-180.
    12. Alexander R. Barron & Allen A. Fawcett & Marc A. C. Hafstead & James R. Mcfarland & Adele C. Morris, 2018. "Policy Insights From The Emf 32 Study On U.S. Carbon Tax Scenarios," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-47, February.
    13. Skea, Jim & van Diemen, Renée & Portugal-Pereira, Joana & Khourdajie, Alaa Al, 2021. "Outlooks, explorations and normative scenarios: Approaches to global energy futures compared," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    14. Kung, Chih-Chun & Cao, Xiaoyong & Choi, Yongrok & Kung, Shan-Shan, 2019. "A stochastic analysis of cropland utilization and resource allocation under climate change," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    15. Edilio Valentini & Paolo Vitale, 2019. "Optimal Climate Policy for a Pessimistic Social Planner," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 72(2), pages 411-443, February.
    16. Marco Rogna & Carla J. Vogt, 2022. "Optimal climate policies under fairness preferences," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(3), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Simon Robertson, 2021. "Transparency, trust, and integrated assessment models: An ethical consideration for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), January.
    18. Colla, Martin & Ioannou, Anastasia & Falcone, Gioia, 2020. "Critical review of competitiveness indicators for energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    19. Delali B. K. Dovie & Mawuli Dzodzomenyo & Daniel E. Dodor & Antwi-Boasiako Amoah & Daniel K. Twerefou & Samuel N. A. Codjoe & Raymond A. Kasei, 2020. "Multi-Vector Approach to Cities’ Transition to Low-Carbon Emission Developments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-14, July.
    20. Feng, Jing-Chun & Yan, Jinyue & Yu, Zhi & Zeng, Xuelan & Xu, Weijia, 2018. "Case study of an industrial park toward zero carbon emission," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 209(C), pages 65-78.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:166:y:2021:i:c:s0040162521000433. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.