Making or breaking climate targets: The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy

This study explores a situation of staged accession to a global climate policy regime from the current situation of regionally fragmented and moderate climate action. The analysis is based on scenarios in which a front runner coalition -- the EU or the EU and China -- embarks on immediate ambitious climate action while the rest of the world makes a transition to a global climate regime between 2030 and 2050. We assume that the ensuing regime involves strong mitigation efforts but does not require late joiners to compensate for their initially higher emissions. Thus, climate targets are relaxed, and although staged accession can achieve significant reductions of global warming, the resulting climate outcome is unlikely to be consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 2 degrees. The addition of China to the front runner coalition can reduce pre-2050 excess emissions by 20.30%, increasing the likelihood of staying below 2 degrees. Not accounting for potential co-benefits, the cost of front runner action is found to be lower for the EU than for China. Regions that delay their accession to the climate regime face a trade-off between reduced short term costs and higher transitional requirements due to larger carbon lock-ins and more rapidly increasing carbon prices during the accession period

Evaluating Process-Based Integrated Assessment Models of Climate Change Mitigation

Process-based integrated assessment models (IAMs) analyse transformation pathways to mitigate climate change. Confidence in models is established by testing their structural assumptions and comparing their behaviour against observations as well as other models. Climate model evaluation is concerted, and prominently reported in a dedicated chapter in the IPCC WG1 assessments. By comparison, evaluation of process-based IAMs tends to be less visible and more dispersed among modelling teams, with the exception of model inter-comparison projects. We contribute the first comprehensive analysis of process-based IAM evaluation, drawing on a wide range of examples across eight different evaluation methods testing both structural and behavioural validity. For each evaluation method, we compare its application to process-based IAMs with its application to climate models, noting similarities and differences, and seeking useful insights for strengthening the evaluation of process-based IAMs. We find that each evaluation method has distinctive strengths and limitations, as well as constraints on their application. We develop a systematic evaluation framework combining multiple methods that should be embedded within the development and use of process-based IAMs

A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: Rejoinder to the review of "Making or beaking climate targets - The AMPERE study staged accession scenarios for climate policy"

We provide a rejoinder to a review (Rosen, 2015) of our original article "Making or breaking climate targets - the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy" (Kriegler et al., 2015a). We have a substantial disagreement with the content of the review, and feel that it is plagued by a number of misconceptions about the nature of the AMPERE study and the integrated assessment modeling approach employed by it. We therefore see this rejoinder as an opportunity to clarify these misconceptions and advance the debate by providing aclearer understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and ultimately the value of integrated assessment