Comparison and interactions between the long-term pursuit of energy independence and climate policies

Jewell, Jessica; Vinichenko, Vadim; McCollum, David; Bauer, Nico; Riahi, Keywan; Aboumahboub, Tino; Fricko, Oliver; Harmsen, Mathijs; Kober, Tom; Krey, Volker; Marangoni, Giacomo; Tavoni, Massimo; Vuuren, Detlef P. van; Zwaan, Bob van der; Cherp, Aleh

doi:10.1038/nenergy.2016.73

Cited by 65 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It was IAMs 10 that most clearly rang the alarm bell that under reasonable assumptions about the availability of energy resources, economic growth, and historic patterns of renewing energy infrastructure, catastrophic climate change in this century is almost a near certainty, unless decisive policies avert it. IAMs have also been used to estimate the costs of such climate stabilization policies [15,80] as well as policies to achieve other energy goals such as universal access to modern energy [81] or reducing energy imports [82]. Although IAMs aspire to both model the effects of various policies and to provide policy advice [83], neither these models nor the technoeconomic perspective in general ask or answer the question of whether (or under what conditions) real-life policy makers would be willing and capable to pursue any of these goals.…”

Section: A Cherp Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating techno-economic, socio-technical and political perspectives on national energy transitions: A meta-theoretical framework

Cherp

Vinichenko²,

Jewell

et al. 2018

Energy Research & Social Science

Self Cite

425

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C TEconomic development, technological innovation, and policy change are especially prominent factors shaping energy transitions. Therefore explaining energy transitions requires combining insights from disciplines investigating these factors. The existing literature is not consistent in identifying these disciplines nor proposing how they can be combined. We conceptualize national energy transitions as a co-evolution of three types of systems: energy flows and markets, energy technologies, and energy-related policies. The focus on the three types of systems gives rise to three perspectives on national energy transitions: techno-economic with its roots in energy systems analysis and various domains of economics; socio-technical with its roots in sociology of technology, STS, and evolutionary economics; and political with its roots in political science. We use the three perspectives as an organizing principle to propose a meta-theoretical framework for analyzing national energy transitions. Following Elinor Ostrom's approach, the proposed framework explains national energy transitions through a nested conceptual map of variables and theories. In comparison with the existing meta-theoretical literature, the three perspectives framework elevates the role of political science since policies are likely to be increasingly prominent in shaping 21st century energy transitions.

show abstract

Section: A Cherp Et Almentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating techno-economic, socio-technical and political perspectives on national energy transitions: A meta-theoretical framework

Cherp

Vinichenko²,

Jewell

et al. 2018

Energy Research & Social Science

Self Cite

425

216

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the DNE21+, GCAM, MERGE, and WITCH models, Aldy et al (2016) argued that the average SCC is about 57 $/tCO 2 eq (2015 price), given the Paris agreement targets and this value is estimated to be only 40% of that under the 2-degree warming-limit goal. Additionally, Jewell et al (2016) compared the policy cost under the US's energy independence target with that under the INDC target. They indicated that the policy costs for reaching these two policy targets are roughly the same; however, they should be remarkably lower than the corresponding costs for achieving the global warming-rise goal of 2°C warming-rise goal, and this is in agreement with the relative finding in Tavoni et al (2014).…”

Section: No Of Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The potential role of energy efficiency enhancement in improving energy security in the context of climate change remains an open question for further exploration. Based on five typical IAMs, that is, MESSAGE, IMAGE, REMIND, WITCH, and TIAM-ECN, Jewell et al (2016) developed an MMC analysis framework to discuss the interactions between climate policy and energy security. They stressed that the consistency between climate policy and energy security is likely to be unidirectional.…”

Section: Relationships Between Climate Policy and Energy Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Robust climate change research: a review on multi-model analysis

Duan

Zhang

Wang

et al. 2019

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Significant differences in key results across the various climate models and integrated assessment models (IAMs) represent a critical challenge to reliable scientific findings and the robust design of climate policies, which leads to an enormous amount of attention and the urgent call for a multimodel study. In this paper, we develop an integrated literature-survey framework by combining the typical content analysis with a simple statistical analysis to systematically examine the developing trends of IAM-based multi-model studies and explore the model-robust climate policy findings; we also conduct an extended analysis to identify the role of a multi-model approach in global warming and other global change research by employing co-citation network analysis. The results reveal that multi-model comparison and ensemble are effective methods to explore reliable scientific findings and yield robust policy conclusions. The current multi-model studies are sparse as a whole, especially for IAM-based climate economic and policy research; future multi-model works, at both the global and regional levels, are therefore promising. We observe that the developed countries (the EU and the US) dominate the current multi-model study, which could be proved by the number of primary IAMs developed, frequency of models adopted, and number of works published. Addressing the risks of global warming relies on reliable scientific research and robust climate policy design, particularly for the developing large emitters, which heavily depends on consistent efforts toward primary model development and comprehensive cooperation with state-of-the-art model teams all over the world.

show abstract

“…Any analysis of co‐benefits should always go hand‐in‐hand with an analysis of costs of achieving these benefits separately from climate policies (Garcia‐Menendez, Saari, Monier, & Selin, ; Jewell et al, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C?

Jewell

Cherp

2019

WIREs Climate Change

Self Cite

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Keeping global warming below 1.5°C is technically possible but is it politically feasible? Understanding political feasibility requires answering three questions: (a) “Feasibility of what?,” (b) “Feasibility when and where?,” and (c) “Feasibility for whom?.” In relation to the 1.5°C target, these questions translate into (a) identifying specific actions comprising the 1.5°C pathways; (b) assessing the economic and political costs of these actions in different socioeconomic and political contexts; and (c) assessing the economic and institutional capacity of relevant social actors to bear these costs. This view of political feasibility stresses costs and capacities in contrast to the prevailing focus on benefits and motivations which mistakes desirability for feasibility. The evidence on the political feasibility of required climate actions is not systematic, but clearly indicates that the costs of required actions are too high in relation to capacities to bear these costs in relevant contexts. In the future, costs may decline and capacities may increase which would reduce political constraints for at least some solutions. However, this is unlikely to happen in time to avoid a temperature overshoot. Further research should focus on exploring the “dynamic political feasibility space” constrained by costs and capacities in order to find more feasible pathways to climate stabilization. This article is categorized under: The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Decarbonizing Energy and/or Reducing Demand

show abstract

Comparison and interactions between the long-term pursuit of energy independence and climate policies

Cited by 65 publications

References 57 publications

Integrating techno-economic, socio-technical and political perspectives on national energy transitions: A meta-theoretical framework

Integrating techno-economic, socio-technical and political perspectives on national energy transitions: A meta-theoretical framework

Robust climate change research: a review on multi-model analysis

On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About