IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/pugtwp/333088.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Why Rapid and Deep Decarbonization isn’t Simple: Linking Bottom-up Socio-technical Decision-making Insights with Top-down Macroeconomic Analyses

Author

Listed:
  • Cotterman, Turner

Abstract

Energy-economy-emissions modeling has commonly projected that the rapid and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) required to avoid the most significant consequences of climate change are, in theory, attainable with emissions policies and existing technologies. However, the assumptions of rates of change embodied in the technological deployments and retirements of these projections may not be consistent with existing socio-technical bottlenecks. This paper proposes to evaluate the top-down projections of a Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model—one of a number of energy-economy-emissions modeling approaches commonly used for assessing the impacts of decarbonization—with a bottom-up framework representing the aggregated effect of project planning and approval processes. The Socio-technical Decision-making Model (SDM) will be used to construct an upper-bound achievability limit for project developments, given timelines and constraints for regulatory approval, capital investment cycles, public acceptance, and other socio-technical considerations. Results from this framework can be used to develop energy and climate change policy targets more cognizant of the sensitivity of predictions to highly uncertain social, economic, and technical outcomes and adaptations. Illustrative scenarios of nuclear power generation in China are presented to extend and improve our current understanding of CGE model predictions of technical feasibility, as well as the manner in which alternative parameterization for socioeconomic and political impediments can modify simulated pathways. A key finding is that the deployment of nuclear power technologies as a low-carbon generation resource in China may be able to be accelerated above recent economic projections due to support from political, regulatory, industrial, and social drivers.

Suggested Citation

  • Cotterman, Turner, 2019. "Why Rapid and Deep Decarbonization isn’t Simple: Linking Bottom-up Socio-technical Decision-making Insights with Top-down Macroeconomic Analyses," Conference papers 333088, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:pugtwp:333088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/333088/files/9499.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brian O’Neill & Elmar Kriegler & Keywan Riahi & Kristie Ebi & Stephane Hallegatte & Timothy Carter & Ritu Mathur & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared socioeconomic pathways," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 387-400, February.
    2. Iyer, Gokul & Hultman, Nathan & Eom, Jiyong & McJeon, Haewon & Patel, Pralit & Clarke, Leon, 2015. "Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 103-118.
    3. Derek Lemoine & Ivan Rudik, 2017. "Managing Climate Change Under Uncertainty: Recursive Integrated Assessment at an Inflection Point," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 117-142, October.
    4. Gunnar Luderer & Robert C. Pietzcker & Samuel Carrara & Harmen-Sytze de Boer & Shinichiro Fujimori & Nils Johnson & Silvana Mima & Douglas Arent, 2017. "Assessment of wind and solar power in global low-carbon energy scenarios: An introduction," Post-Print hal-01515408, HAL.
    5. Hall, N. & Ashworth, P. & Devine-Wright, P., 2013. "Societal acceptance of wind farms: Analysis of four common themes across Australian case studies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 200-208.
    6. Luderer, Gunnar & Pietzcker, Robert C. & Carrara, Samuel & de Boer, Harmen Sytze & Fujimori, Shinichiro & Johnson, Nils & Mima, Silvana & Arent, Douglas, 2017. "Assessment of wind and solar power in global low-carbon energy scenarios: An introduction," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 542-551.
    7. Derek Lemoine & Ivan Rudik, 2017. "Managing Climate Change Under Uncertainty: Recursive Integrated Assessment at an Inflection Point," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 117-142, October.
    8. Michael J. Ford & Ahmed Abdulla & M. Granger Morgan, 2017. "Evaluating the Cost, Safety, and Proliferation Risks of Small Floating Nuclear Reactors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2191-2211, November.
    9. Gabrielle Wong-Parodi & Tamar Krishnamurti & Alex Davis & Daniel Schwartz & Baruch Fischhoff, 2016. "A decision science approach for integrating social science in climate and energy solutions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 563-569, June.
    10. Frank W. Geels & Frans Berkhout & Detlef P. van Vuuren, 2016. "Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(6), pages 576-583, June.
    11. David I. Stern, 2017. "How accurate are energy intensity projections?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 537-545, August.
    12. Li, Francis G.N. & Trutnevyte, Evelina & Strachan, Neil, 2015. "A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 290-305.
    13. Evan D. Sherwin & Max Henrion & Inês M. L. Azevedo, 2018. "Estimation of the year-on-year volatility and the unpredictability of the United States energy system," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 341-346, April.
    14. Elke U. Weber, 2017. "Breaking cognitive barriers to a sustainable future," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 1-2, January.
    15. Alexeeva-Talebi, Victoria & Böhringer, Christoph & Löschel, Andreas & Voigt, Sebastian, 2012. "The value-added of sectoral disaggregation: Implications on competitive consequences of climate change policies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(S2), pages 127-142.
    16. M. Alejandro Cardenete & M. Carmen Lima & Ferran Sancho, 2017. "Validating Policy‐Induced Economic Change Using Sequential General Equilibrium SAMs," Journal of Forecasting, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(3), pages 291-304, April.
    17. Evelina Trutnevyte & Céline Guivarch & Robert Lempert & Neil Strachan, 2016. "Reinvigorating the scenario technique to expand uncertainty consideration," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 373-379, April.
    18. Bjorn Lomborg, 2016. "Impact of Current Climate Proposals," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 7(1), pages 109-118, February.
    19. Boulanger, Paul-Marie & Brechet, Thierry, 2005. "Models for policy-making in sustainable development: The state of the art and perspectives for research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(3), pages 337-350, November.
    20. Dai, Hancheng & Fujimori, Shinichiro & Silva Herran, Diego & Shiraki, Hiroto & Masui, Toshihiko & Matsuoka, Yuzuru, 2017. "The impacts on climate mitigation costs of considering curtailment and storage of variable renewable energy in a general equilibrium model," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 627-637.
    21. Holly Jean Buck, 2016. "Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 155-167, November.
    22. Peter J. Loftus & Armond M. Cohen & Jane C. S. Long & Jesse D. Jenkins, 2015. "A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 93-112, January.
    23. Bertram, Christoph & Johnson, Nils & Luderer, Gunnar & Riahi, Keywan & Isaac, Morna & Eom, Jiyong, 2015. "Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with weak near-term climate policies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 62-72.
    24. M. Morgan & Carnegie Mellon, 2011. "Certainty, uncertainty, and climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(4), pages 707-721, October.
    25. Gert Jan Kramer & Martin Haigh, 2009. "No quick switch to low-carbon energy," Nature, Nature, vol. 462(7273), pages 568-569, December.
    26. Fujimori, Shinichiro & Dai, Hancheng & Masui, Toshihiko & Matsuoka, Yuzuru, 2016. "Global energy model hindcasting," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 293-301.
    27. Rao, Anand B. & Rubin, Edward S. & Keith, David W. & Granger Morgan, M., 2006. "Evaluation of potential cost reductions from improved amine-based CO2 capture systems," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(18), pages 3765-3772, December.
    28. Kristie Ebi & Stephane Hallegatte & Tom Kram & Nigel Arnell & Timothy Carter & Jae Edmonds & Elmar Kriegler & Ritu Mathur & Brian O’Neill & Keywan Riahi & Harald Winkler & Detlef Vuuren & Timm Zwickel, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 363-372, February.
    29. Bohringer, Christoph & Loschel, Andreas, 2006. "Computable general equilibrium models for sustainability impact assessment: Status quo and prospects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 49-64, November.
    30. Detlef Vuuren & Elmar Kriegler & Brian O’Neill & Kristie Ebi & Keywan Riahi & Timothy Carter & Jae Edmonds & Stephane Hallegatte & Tom Kram & Ritu Mathur & Harald Winkler, 2014. "A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: scenario matrix architecture," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 373-386, February.
    31. Michiel van Dijk & George Philippidis & Geert Woltjer, 2016. "Catching up with history: A methodology to validate global CGE models," FOODSECURE Technical papers 9, LEI Wageningen UR.
    32. C. Wilson & A. Grubler & N. Bauer & V. Krey & K. Riahi, 2013. "Future capacity growth of energy technologies: are scenarios consistent with historical evidence?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 118(2), pages 381-395, May.
    33. Hertel, Thomas, 1997. "Global Trade Analysis: Modeling and applications," GTAP Books, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, number 7685, December.
    34. repec:nas:journl:v:115:y:2018:p:5314-5316 is not listed on IDEAS
    35. Elmar Kriegler & Jae Edmonds & Stéphane Hallegatte & Kristie Ebi & Tom Kram & Keywan Riahi & Harald Winkler & Detlef Vuuren, 2014. "A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(3), pages 401-414, February.
    36. Daniel Johansson & Paul Lucas & Matthias Weitzel & Erik Ahlgren & A. Bazaz & Wenying Chen & Michel Elzen & Joydeep Ghosh & Maria Grahn & Qiao-Mei Liang & Sonja Peterson & Basanta Pradhan & Bas Ruijven, 2015. "Multi-model comparison of the economic and energy implications for China and India in an international climate regime," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 20(8), pages 1335-1359, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Cotterman, Turner & Small, Mitchell J. & Wilson, Stephen & Abdulla, Ahmed & Wong-Parodi, Gabrielle, 2021. "Applying risk tolerance and socio-technical dynamics for more realistic energy transition pathways," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 291(C).
    2. 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.
    3. van Sluisveld, Mariësse A.E. & Hof, Andries F. & Carrara, Samuel & Geels, Frank W. & Nilsson, Måns & Rogge, Karoline & Turnheim, Bruno & van Vuuren, Detlef P., 2020. "Aligning integrated assessment modelling with socio-technical transition insights: An application to low-carbon energy scenario analysis in Europe," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Leibowicz, Benjamin D. & Krey, Volker & Grubler, Arnulf, 2016. "Representing spatial technology diffusion in an energy system optimization model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 350-363.
    5. Odenweller, Adrian, 2022. "Climate mitigation under S-shaped energy technology diffusion: Leveraging synergies of optimisation and simulation models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    6. Hof, Andries F. & Carrara, Samuel & De Cian, Enrica & Pfluger, Benjamin & van Sluisveld, Mariësse A.E. & de Boer, Harmen Sytze & van Vuuren, Detlef P., 2020. "From global to national scenarios: Bridging different models to explore power generation decarbonisation based on insights from socio-technical transition case studies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    7. Turnheim, Bruno & Nykvist, Björn, 2019. "Opening up the feasibility of sustainability transitions pathways (STPs): Representations, potentials, and conditions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 775-788.
    8. Roson, Roberto & Damania, Richard, 2016. "Simulating the Macroeconomic Impact of Future Water Scarcity an Assessment of Alternative Scenarios," Conference papers 332687, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Govorukha, Kristina & Mayer, Philip & Rübbelke, Dirk & Vögele, Stefan, 2020. "Economic disruptions in long-term energy scenarios – Implications for designing energy policy," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    10. Juliette N. Rooney-Varga & Florian Kapmeier & John D. Sterman & Andrew P. Jones & Michele Putko & Kenneth Rath, 2020. "The Climate Action Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 114-140, April.
    11. 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).
    12. Taran Faehn & Gabriel Bachner & Robert Beach & Jean Chateau & Shinichiro Fujimori & Madanmohan Ghosh & Meriem Hamdi-Cherif & Elisa Lanzi & Sergey Paltsev & Toon Vandyck & Bruno Cunha & Rafael Garaffa , 2020. "Capturing Key Energy and Emission Trends in CGE models: Assessment of Status and Remaining Challenges," Journal of Global Economic Analysis, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, vol. 5(1), pages 196-272, June.
    13. Nicholas A. Cradock-Henry & Bob Frame & Benjamin L. Preston & Andy Reisinger & Dale S. Rothman, 2018. "Dynamic adaptive pathways in downscaled climate change scenarios," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 150(3), pages 333-341, October.
    14. Wolfgang Britz & Roberto Roson & Martina Sartori, 2019. "SSP Long Run Scenarios for European NUTS2 Regions," Working Papers 2019: 22, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    15. Roberto Roson & Richard Damania, 2017. "Beyond Water Stress: Structural Adjustment and Macroeconomic Consequences of the Emerging Water Scarcity," EcoMod2017 10259, EcoMod.
    16. N. B. Melnikov & A. P. Gruzdev & M. G. Dalton & M. Weitzel & B. C. O’Neill, 2021. "Parallel Extended Path Method for Solving Perfect Foresight Models," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 58(2), pages 517-534, August.
    17. Hans van Meijl & Petr Havlik & Hermann Lotze-Campen & Elke Stehfest & Peter Witzke & Ignacio Perez Dominguez & Benjamin Bodirsky & Michiel van Dijk & Jonathan Doelman & Thomas Fellmann & Florian Humpe, 2017. "Challenges of Global Agriculture in a Climate Change Context by 2050 (AgCLIM50)," JRC Research Reports JRC106835, Joint Research Centre.
    18. Gabriele Standardi, 2023. "Exploring market-driven adaptation to climate change in a general equilibrium global trade model," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 1-29, February.
    19. Standardi, Gabriele, 2017. "Endogenous technical change linked to international mobility of primary factors in climate change scenarios: global welfare implications using the GTAP model," Conference papers 332920, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    20. Dale S. Rothman & Paul Raskin & Kasper Kok & John Robinson & Jill Jäger & Barry Hughes & Paul C. Sutton, 2023. "Global Discontinuity: Time for a Paradigm Shift in Global Scenario Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-12, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:pugtwp:333088. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gtpurus.html .

    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.