Energy model, boundary object and societal lens: 35 years of the MARKAL model in the UK

Abstract Technical energy models operate within social systems and those that perform particular social as well as technical functions are more likely to be used. We illustrate this with the example of the MARKAL energy system model in the UK, a model that is also widely used internationally. In the UK, MARKAL modelling has a long history helping underpin government energy and climate policy. We trace the use of the model from its initial development in the mid-1970s to the present day, highlighting attributes that contribute to its role as a successful ‘boundary object’ for different but interconnecting energy policy communities. We suggest that changing images of the energy policy problem have enabled MARKAL to shift from an initial role in identifying technologies to reduce oil dependency to playing a key role in target-oriented climate policy. Furthermore, we argue that the ability of MARKAL to perform different roles for different groups has served to embed and institutionalise the model in the energy policy community. Moreover, the capacity of the model to represent detailed technology options has accorded with a technological focus that has suited prevailing, shared conceptions of the energy-climate policy problem

Ten commandments for the future of ageing research in the UK: a vision for action

Increases in longevity resulting from improvements in health care and living conditions together with a decrease in fertility rates have contributed to a shift towards an aged population profile. For the first time the UK has more people over age 60 than below 16 years of age. The increase in longevity has not been accompanied by an increase in disease-free life expectancy and research into ageing is required to improve the health and quality of life of older people. However, as the House of Lords reported, ageing research in the UK is not adequately structured and a clear vision and plan are urgently required. Hence, with the aim of setting a common vision for action in ageing research in the UK, a 'Spark Workshop' was organised. International experts from different disciplines related to ageing research gathered to share their perspectives and to evaluate the present status of ageing research in the UK. A detailed assessment of potential improvements was conducted and the prospective secondary gains were considered, which were subsequently distilled into a list of 'ten commandments'. We believe that these commandments, if followed, will help to bring about the necessary implementation of an action plan for ageing research in the UK, commensurate with the scale of the challenge, which is to transform the manifold opportunities of increased longevity into actual delivery of a society living not only for longer, but also healthier, wealthier and happier

The politics of ageing: health consumers, markets and hegemonic challenge

In recent years ageing has travelled from the placid backwaters of politics into the mainstream of economic, social and cultural debate. What are the forces that have politicised ageing, creating a sustained opposition to the supply side hegemony of pharmaceuticals, medicine and state which has historically constructed, propagated and legitimised the understanding of ageing as decline in social worth? In addressing this question, the paper develops Gramsci's theory of hegemony to include the potentially disruptive demand side power of consumers and markets. It shows how in the case of ageing individuals acting in concert through the mechanisms of the market, and not institutionalised modes of opposition, may become the agents of hegemonic challenge through a combination of lifecourse choice and electoral leverage. In response, the hegemony is adapting through the promotion of professionally defined interpretations of ‘active ageing’ designed to retain hegemonic control. With the forces of hegemony and counter‐hegemony nicely balanced and fresh issues such as intergenerational justice constantly emerging, the political tensions of ageing are set to continue

What is climate change policy now trying to achieve?

Almost all advocates of international climate change policy hope and expect that the Climate Change Conference to be held in Paris in November–December 2015 will reach an agreement to reduce global anthropomorphic greenhouse gas emissions. Yet more than 25 years of international climate change policy has failed to reach such an agreement: emissions, far from having been reduced, have greatly increased. In the author’s view, no agreement is likely to be reached in Paris. Anticipating this, Lord Stern, a highly influential figure in international climate change policy, has restated the case for continuing with this policy while relinquishing the objective of reaching such an agreement, argued in 2009 to be essential to ‘save the world’. Advocating the continuation of climate change policy while abandoning an acknowledged condition of its success seems to represent a further stage in the abandonment of rationality in climate change policy formulation

Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: a contrast between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

In this article, we compare two high-profile strategic policy reviews undertaken for the U.K. government on environmental risks: radioactive waste management and climate change. These reviews took very different forms, both in terms of analytic approach and deliberation strategy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was largely an exercise in expert modeling, building, within a cost-benefit framework, an argument for immediate reductions in carbon emissions. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, on the other hand, followed a much more explicitly deliberative and participative process, using multicriteria decision analysis to bring together scientific evidence and stakeholder and public values. In this article, we ask why the two reviews were different, and whether the differences are justified. We conclude that the differences were mainly due to political context, rather than the underpinning science, and as a consequence that, while in our view “fit for purpose,” they would both have been stronger had they been less different. Stern's grappling with ethical issues could have been strengthened by a greater degree of public and stakeholder engagement, and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's handling of issues of uncertainty could have been strengthened by the explicitly probabilistic framework of Stern

Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: a contrast between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

In this article, we compare two high-profile strategic policy reviews undertaken for the U.K. government on environmental risks: radioactive waste management and climate change. These reviews took very different forms, both in terms of analytic approach and deliberation strategy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was largely an exercise in expert modeling, building, within a cost-benefit framework, an argument for immediate reductions in carbon emissions. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, on the other hand, followed a much more explicitly deliberative and participative process, using multicriteria decision analysis to bring together scientific evidence and stakeholder and public values. In this article, we ask why the two reviews were different, and whether the differences are justified. We conclude that the differences were mainly due to political context, rather than the underpinning science, and as a consequence that, while in our view “fit for purpose,” they would both have been stronger had they been less different. Stern's grappling with ethical issues could have been strengthened by a greater degree of public and stakeholder engagement, and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's handling of issues of uncertainty could have been strengthened by the explicitly probabilistic framework of Stern

Strategic appraisal of environmental risks: a contrast between the United Kingdom's Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change and its Committee on Radioactive Waste Management

In this article, we compare two high-profile strategic policy reviews undertaken for the U.K. government on environmental risks: radioactive waste management and climate change. These reviews took very different forms, both in terms of analytic approach and deliberation strategy. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change was largely an exercise in expert modeling, building, within a cost-benefit framework, an argument for immediate reductions in carbon emissions. The Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, on the other hand, followed a much more explicitly deliberative and participative process, using multicriteria decision analysis to bring together scientific evidence and stakeholder and public values. In this article, we ask why the two reviews were different, and whether the differences are justified. We conclude that the differences were mainly due to political context, rather than the underpinning science, and as a consequence that, while in our view “fit for purpose,” they would both have been stronger had they been less different. Stern's grappling with ethical issues could have been strengthened by a greater degree of public and stakeholder engagement, and the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management's handling of issues of uncertainty could have been strengthened by the explicitly probabilistic framework of Stern