Skip to main content

Modeling Uncertainty in a Large scale integrated Energy-Climate Model

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 138))

Abstract

The well-known method of stochastic programming in extensive form is used on the large scale, partial equilibrium, technology rich global 15-region TIMES Integrated Assessment Model (ETSAP-TIAM), to assess climate policies in a very uncertain world. The main uncertainties considered are those of the Climate Sensitivity parameter, and of the rate of economic development. In this research, we argue that the stochastic programming approach is well adapted to the treatment of major uncertainties, in spite of the limitation inherent to this technique due to increased model size when many outcomes are modeled. The main advantage of the approach is to obtain a single hedging strategy while uncertainty prevails, contrary to classical scenario analysis. Furthermore, the hedging strategy has the very desirable property of attenuating the (in)famous ’razor edge‘ effect of Linear Programming, and thus to propose a more robust mix of technologies to attain the desired climate target. Although the examples treated use the classical expected cost criterion, the paper also presents, and argues in favor of, altering this criterion to introduce risk considerations, by means of a linearized semi-variance term, or by using the Savage criterion. Risk considerations are arguably even more important in situations where the random events are of a ’one-shot‘ nature and involve large costs or payoffs, as is the case in the modeling of global climate strategies. The article presents methodological details of the modeling approach, and uses realistic instances of the ETSAP-TIAM model to illustrate the technique and to analyze the resulting hedging strategies. The instances modeled and analyzed assume several alternative global temperature targets ranging from less than 2°C to 3°C. The 2.5°C target is analyzed in some more details.

The paper makes a distinction between random events that induce anticipatory actions, and those that do not. The first type of event deserves full treatment via stochastic programming, while the second may be treated via ordinary sensitivity analysis. The distinction between the two types of event is not always straightforward, and often requires experimentation via trial-and-error. Some examples of such sensitivity analyses are provided as part of the TIAM application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Andronova N, Schlesinger ME (2001) Objective estimation of the probability distribution for climate sensitivity. Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres) 106(D19):22605–22612

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dantzig GB (1955) Linear Programming Under Uncertainty. Management Science 1:197–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Forest CE, Stone PH, Sokolov AP, Allen MR, Webster MD (2002) Quantifying Uncertainties in Climate System Properties with the Use of Recent Climate Observations. Science 205:113–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fussel H-M (2006) Empirical and Methodological Flaws in Applications of the DICE Model. Poster, Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University

    Google Scholar 

  5. GEM-E3. Computable General Equilibrium Model for studying Economy-Energy-Environment Interactions for Europe and the World, available at: http://www.gem-e3.net/

  6. Houghton JT, Ding Y, Griggs DJ, Noguer M, van der Linden PJ, Xiaosu D (2001) Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press (UK), 944

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hyman R, Reilly J, Babiker M, De Masin A, Jacoby H (2003) Modeling Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Abatement. Environmental Modeling and Assessment 8(3):175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 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. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen A, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kanudia A, Loulou R (1998) Robust Responses to Climate Change via Stochastic MARKAL: The Case of Québec. European Journal of Operational Research 106(1):15–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Loulou R (2007) ETSAP-TIAM: The TIMES Integrated Assessment Model – Part II: Mathematical Formulation. Computational Management Science special issue on Energy and Environment 5(1–2): 7–40.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Loulou R, Kanudia A (1999) Minimax Regret Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Abatement: Methodology and Application. Operations Research Letters 25(5):219–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Loulou R, Labriet M (2007) ETSAP-TIAM: The TIMES Integrated Assessment Model – Part I: Model Structure. Computational Management Science special issue on Energy and Environment 5(1–2): 41–66.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Markowitz HM (1952) Portfolio Selection. Journal of Finance 7(1):77–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nakicenovic N (2000) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press (UK), 599

    Google Scholar 

  15. Nordhaus WD, Boyer J (1999) Roll the DICE Again: Economic Models of Global Warming. Manuscript Edition, Yale University

    Google Scholar 

  16. Raiffa H (1968) Decision Analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sathaye J, Makundi W, Dale L, Chan P, Andrasko K (2005) GHG Mitigation Potential, Costs and Benefits in Global Forests: A Dynamic Partial Equilibrium Approach. LBNL Report 58291, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

    Google Scholar 

  18. Weitzman ML (2008) On Modeling and Interpreting the Economics of Catastrophic Climate Change. Manuscript, REStat FINAL Version July 7, 2008

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wets RJB (1989) Stochastic Programming. In: Nemhauser GL, Rinnooy K, Alexander HG, Todd Michael J. (eds) Handbooks in OR and MS, Vol. 1, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  20. Yohe G, Andronova N, Schlesinger M (2004) To Hedge or Not Against an Uncertain Climate Future? Science 306:416–417

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryse Labriet .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Labriet, M., Loulou, R., Kanudia, A. (2009). Modeling Uncertainty in a Large scale integrated Energy-Climate Model. In: Filar, J., Haurie, A. (eds) Uncertainty and Environmental Decision Making. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 138. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1129-2_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics