Organising Policy-Relevant Knowledge for Climate Action

Integrated Assessment Modelling, the IPCC, and the Emergence of a Collective Expertise on Socioeconomic Emission Scenarios

Abstract

Greenhouse gas emission scenarios are key in analyses of human interference with the climate system. They are mainly produced by one category of computer models: Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs). We analyse how IAM research organised into a community around the production of socio-economic scenarios during the preparation of the IPCC AR5 (2005-2014). We seek to describe the co-emergence of a research community, its instruments, and its domain of applicability. We highlight the role of the IPCC process in the making of the IAM community, showing how IAMs worked their way to an influent position. We then survey three elements of the repertoire that served to organise collective work on scenarios in interaction with the IPCC and the European Union, and which now frames the community and its epistemic practices. This repertoire needs to articulate epistemic practices with the pursuit of policy relevance, which shows how epistemic communities and patterns of co-production materialise in practical arrangements.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Akrich M (2010) From communities of practice to epistemic communities: health mobilizations on the Internet. Sociological Research Online 15(2):10.

https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2152

Beck S, Mahony M (2017) The IPCC and the politics of anticipation. Nature Climate Change 7(5): 311-313.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3264

Beck M, Krueger T (2016) The epistemic, ethical, and political dimensions of uncertainty in integrated assessment modelling. WIREs Climate Change 7:627-645.

https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.415

Clarke L, Jiang K, Akimoto M, et al. (2014) Assessing Transformation Pathways. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madrugada R, Sokona Y, et al. (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 413-510.

Corbera E, Calvet-Mir L, Highes, H and Paterson M (2015) Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nature Climate Change 6:94-100.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2782

Crassous R (2008) Modéliser le long terme dans un monde de second rang : application aux politiques climatiques, Thesis, AgroParistech, France.

Demeritt D (2001) The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 91(2): 307-337.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0004-5608.00245

Demortain D (2017) Experts and the production of international policy knowledge: do epistemic communities do the job? In: Littoz-Monnet A (ed) The Politics of Expertise in International Organizations: How International Bureaucracies Produce and Mobilize Knowledge, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 76-92.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315542386-5

Dowlatabadi H (1995) Integrated assessment models of climate change: an incomplete overview. Energy Policy 23(4/5):289-296.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(95)90155-Z

Edenhofer O (2014) A Map of the Solutions Space: Mitigation. Our Common Future Under Climate Change, 7-10 July 2015, Paris, France.

Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, et al. (2014) Technical Summary. In: Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madrugada R, Sokona Y, et al. (2014) Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-107.

Edwards P (1996) Global comprehensive models in politics and policymaking. Climatic Change 32: 149-161.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143706

Edwards P (2010) A Vast Machine: Computer models, climate data, and the politics of global warming. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Edwards P, Mayernik MS, Batcheller AL, Bowker GC and Borgman CL (2011) Science friction: data, metadata, and collaboration. Social Studies of Science 41(5): 667-690.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711413314

Fielnotes (2014a) Our Common Future Under Climate Change Conference, Paris, July 2015.

Fieldnotes (2014b) Eighth annual meeting of the IAMC, Potsdam, November 2015.

Guillemot H (2007) Les modèles numériques du climat. In: Dahan-Dalmedico A (ed). Les modèles du futur. Changement climatique et scénarios économiques: enjeux scientifiques et politiques, Paris: La Découverte, pp. 91-112.

Godard O (2001) L'expertise économique du changement climatique planétaire – 1. Modèles d'organisation de l'expertise. - 2. Sur la scène internationale, le GIEC. - 3. Sur la scène française, autour du Commissariat général du Plan, Paris: Annales des Mines, Série Responsabilité et environnement (21), pp. 23-65.

Haas P (1992) Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46(1): 1-35.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300001442

Hourcade, J. C., Jaccard, M., Bataille, C., and Ghersi, F. (2006) Hybrid modeling: New answers to old challenges. The Energy Journal 2:1–12.

Hulme, M., Mahony, R. (2010) Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC?, Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, Volume: 34 issue: 5, page(s): 705-718

IAMC (2012) Request for Long-Term, Integrated Scenarios in Support of the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report, Working Group III

IAMC Website. Available at: http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/iamc/ (accessed 14.06.2017)

IPCC (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Houghton, J.T.,Y. Ding, D.J. Griggs, M. Noguer, P.J. van der Linden, X. Dai, K. Maskell, and C.A. Johnson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 881pp.

IPCC (2006) Recommendations on New Emission Scenarios, final report, IPCC-XXV/Doc. 11

IPCC (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 [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp.

IPCC (2013) Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1535 pp.

IPCC (2014a). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1435 pp.

IPCC (2014b) WG III AR5 Scenario Database. Available at: https://tntcat.iiasa.ac.at/AR5DB (accessed 14.06.2017)

IPCC (2017) Data Distribution Center. Available at: http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/ddc/ar5_scenario_process/scenario_background.html (accessed 14.06.2017)

Knorr-Cetina K (1982) Scientific communities or transepistemic arenas of research? A critique of quasi-economic models of science. Social Studies of Science 12(1): 101-130.

https://doi.org/10.1177/030631282012001005

Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 329 pp.

Kriegler E, O'Neill B.C, Hallegatte, S, Kram, T, Lempert R.J, Moss R.H, and Wilbanks T. (2012) The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways. Global Environ. Change 22: 807–822.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.005

Lefevre J (2016) Hybridization challenges in energy-economy integrated models and representation of the low carbon transition: an application to the Brazilian case, Thesis, AgroParisTech, Paris, France.

Leggett J, Peppe W.J, Swart R.J, Edmonds J.A, Meira Filho, L.G, Mintzer, I. M-X, Wang and Wasson J. (1992) Emissions Scenarios for IPCC: An Update. In: Climate Change 1992. The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, Houghton, J.T., B.A. Callander et S.K.Varney (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 69-96.

Leonelli S, Ankeny RA (2015) Repertoires: How to transform a project into a research community. BioScience 65(7): 701-708.

https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biv061

Lövbrand E (2011) Co-producing European climate science and policy: a cautionary note on the making of useful knowledge. Science and Public Policy 38(3): 225-236.

https://doi.org/10.3152/030234211X12924093660516

Meyer M and Molyneux-Hodgson S (2010) Introduction: The dynamics of epistemic communities. Sociological Research Online 15(2).

https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.2154

Merz M, Sormani P (eds) (2016) The local configuration of new research fields: on regional and national diversity. Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook Volume 29. Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22683-5

Molyneux-Hodgson S, Meyer M (2009) Tales of emergence: Synthetic biology as a scientific community in the making. Biosocieties 4(2-3): 129-145.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855209990019

Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, et al. (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463(7282):747–756.

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823

Moss, R., Babiker, M., Brinkman, S., Calvo, E., Carter, T., Edmonds, J., Elgizouli, I., Emori, S., Erda, L., Hibbard, K., Jones, R., Kainuma, M., Kelleher, J., Lamarque, J-F., Manning, M., Matthews, B., Meehl, J., Meyer, L., Mitchell, J., Nakicenovic, N., O'Neill, B., Pichs, R., Riahi, K., Rose, S., Runci, P., Stouffer, R., van Vuuren, D., Weyant, J., Wilbanks, T., van Ypersele, J-P., and Zurek, M., (2008) Towards New Scenarios for Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change, Impacts, and Response Strategies. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, 132 pp.

Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, et al. (2000) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

O'Neill BC. and Nakicenovic N (2008) Learning from global emissions scenarios. Environmental Research Letters 3(4): 045014.

https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/045014

Parson E, Burkett V, Fisher-Vanden K, et al. (2007) Global-change scenarios: their development and use. US Department of Energy Publications

Risbey JM, Kandlikar M and Patwardhan A (1996) Assessing Integrated Assessments. Climatic Change 34: 369-395.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00139298

Schwanitz VJ (2013) Evaluating integrated assessment models of global climate change. Environmental Modelling & Software 50:120–131.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.09.005

Shackley S, Wynne B (1995a) Global climate change: the mutual construction of an emergent science-policy domain. Science and Public Policy 22(4): 218-230.

Shackley S, Wynne B (1995b) Integrating knowledges for climate change: Pyramids, nets and uncertainties. Global Environmental Change 5(2): 113-126.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(95)00017-I

Shackley S, Wynne B (1996) Representing uncertainty in global climate science and policy: boundary-ordering devices and authority. Science, Technology & Human Values 21(3): 275-302.

https://doi.org/10.1177/016224399602100302

Shackley S, Risbey J, Stone P and Wynne B (1999) Adjusting to policy expectations in climate change modeling. An interdisciplinary study of flux adjustments in coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation models. Climate Change 43: 413-454.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005474102591

Sundberg M (2010) Organizing simulation code collectives. Science Studies 23(1):37-57

Toth FL (1995) Practice and progress in integrated assessments of climate change: A workshop overview. Energy Policy 23(4-5): 253-267.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0301-4215(95)90152-W

Vardy M, Oppenheimer M, Dubash NK, O'Reilly J and Jamieson D (2017). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: challenges and opportunities. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42:55-75.

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-102016-061053

van Vuuren DP and O'Neill BC (2006) The Consistency of IPCC's SRES Scenarios to 1990–2000 Trends and Recent Projections. Climatic Change 75(1-2): 9-46.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-005-9031-0

van Vuuren DP, Feddema J, Lamarque J-Fr, Riahi K, Rose S, Smith S, Hibbard K (2008) Work plan for data exchange between the Integrated Assessment and Climate 1 Modeling community in support of Phase-0 of scenario analysis for climate change 2 assessment (Representative Community Pathways). International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), available at https://cmip.llnl.gov/cmip5/docs/RCP_handshake.pdf (accessed 10.02.2018).

van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Moss RH, Edmonds J, Thomson A, Nakicenovic N, Kram T, Berkhout F, Swart R, Janetos A, Rose SK, Arnell N (2012) A proposal for a new scenario framework to support research and assessment in different climate research communities. Global Environmental Change 22(1): 21-35.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.08.002

Webster M, Forest C, Reilly J, Babiker M, Kilcklighter D, Mayer M, Prinn R, Sarofim M, Sokolov A, Stone P, Wang C (2003) Uncertainty Analysis of Climate Change and Policy Response, Climatic Change 61: 295–320

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004564.09961.9f

Weyant J, Davidson, Dowlatabadi H, et al. (1996) Integrated Assessment of Climate Change: An Overview and Comparison of Approaches and Results, In: Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Bruce JP, Lee H, Haites E (eds), Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 10: Sections 10.1‐10.3, pp. 374‐380.

Weszkalnys G, Barry A (2013) Multiple Environments: accountability, integration and ontology. In Barry A, Born G (eds.) Interdisciplinarity: reconfiguration of the social and natural sciences, London: Routledge.

Wilson C, Kriegler E, van Vuuren DP, et al. (2017). Evaluating Process-based integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation. IIASA Working Paper. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, WP-17-007.

Wynne B (1984) The institutional context of science, models, and policy: the IIASA energy study. Policy Sciences 17: 277-320.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138709

Published
2019-12-13