Advertisement

An Evaluation of the IPCC WG III Assessments

  • Martin Kowarsch
Chapter
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science book series (BSPS, volume 323)

Abstract

This chapter identifies some challenges, strengths and weaknesses of Working Group (WG) III contributions to the Assessment Reports (ARs) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The focus is on the Fourth (AR4) and Fifth (AR5) assessment cycle of the IPCC. For this purpose, the evaluation criteria and heuristic tools developed in Part II are employed, along with the results of the critical analysis of the underlying economics in Chaps.  7,  8 and  9. Evaluating the IPCC WG III contributions in this way will help us identify the appropriate means of improving IPCC assessments. This chapter argues that in the AR4, both the policy-relevance and the transparency of ethically relevant assumptions could have been higher. This may partly result from the adherence to misguided science-policy models. The AR5 was an improvement in these regards, but faced challenges inter alia in terms of (i) considerable research gaps regarding retrospective, social-science policy analysis, and (ii) political disputes over value-laden findings with far-reaching implications for domestic policies. All things considered, however, both the AR4 and the AR5 did a good job. In contrast to some existing criticisms, there is no clear case of a considerable hidden bias in these WG III ARs, for instance towards more ambitious global mitigation goals.

Keywords

Climate Policy Policy Option Climate Change Mitigation Mitigation Option Mitigation Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Agrawala, Shardul. 1998. Structural and process history of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climatic Change 39(4): 621–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, Silke. 2009. Das Klimaexperiment und der IPCC. Schnittstellen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in den internationalen Beziehungen. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, Silke, Maud Borie, Jason Chilvers, Alejandro Esguerra, Katja Heubach, Mike Hulme, Rolf Lidskog, et al. 2014. Towards a reflexive turn in the governance of global environmental expertise. The cases of the IPCC and the IPBES. GAIA 23(2): 80–87.Google Scholar
  4. Carraro, Carlo, Charles Kolstad, and Robert Stavins. 2015a. Assessment and communication of the social science of climate change: Bridging research and policy. Memorandum from Workshop conducted 18–20 February 2015 in Berlin. http://www.mcc-berlin.net/fileadmin/data/pdf/climate_assessment_memorandum-1.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr 2015.
  5. Carraro, Carlo, Ottmar Edenhofer, Christian Flachsland, Charles Kolstad, Robert Stavins, and Robert Stowe. 2015b. The IPCC at a crossroads: Opportunities for reform. Science 350(6256): 34 f.Google Scholar
  6. Corbera, Esteve, Laura Calvet-Mir, Hannah Hughes, and Matthew Paterson. 2015. Patterns of authorship in the IPCC Working Group III report. Nature Climate Change (Preprint). doi: 10.1038/nclimate2782.Google Scholar
  7. Dunn, William. 1994. Public policy analysis: An introduction, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  8. Edenhofer, Ottmar. 2014. IA models and WGIII: Lessons from IPCC AR5. Presentation at the 7th IAMC meeting, University of Maryland, 17 Nov. http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/iamc_data/iamc2014/Edenhofer_IAMC_17November.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2015.
  9. Edenhofer, Ottmar, and Martin Kowarsch (equal contributions). 2015. Cartography of pathways: A new model for environmental policy assessments. Environmental Science and Policy 51: 56–64.Google Scholar
  10. Edenhofer, Ottmar, and Jan Minx. 2014. Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values. Policy forum: Climate policy. Science 345(6192): 37 f.Google Scholar
  11. Edenhofer, Ottmar, and Kristin Seyboth. 2013. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Encyclopedia of energy, natural resource and environmental economics. Vol. 1: Energy, ed. Jason F. Shogren, 48–56. San Diego: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Edenhofer, Ottmar, Brigitte Knopf, Terry Barker, Lavinia Baumstark, Elie Bellevrat, Bertrand Chateau, and Patrick Criqui, et al. 2010. The economics of low stabilization: Model comparison of mitigation strategies and costs. The Energy Journal 31, Special Issue 1: The Economics of Low Stabilization: 11–48.Google Scholar
  13. Edenhofer, Ottmar, Johannes Wallacher, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Michael Reder, Brigitte Knopf, and Johannes Müller (eds.). 2012. Climate change, justice and sustainability: Linking climate and development policy. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Edenhofer, Ottmar, Christian Flachsland, Robert Stavins, and Robert Stowe. 2013. Identifying options for a new international climate regime Arising from the Durban platform for enhanced action. Issue Brief. https://www.mcc-berlin.net/uploads/media/Edenhofer_Flachsland_Stavins_Stowe_Identifying_Options_for_a_New_International_Climate_Regime_2013.PDF. Accessed 30 Jun 2015.
  15. Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1990. Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fuss, Sabine, Josep G. Canadell, Glen P. Peters, Massimo Tavoni, Robbie M. Andrew, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, et al. 2014. Betting on negative emissions. Commentary. Nature Climate Change 4: 850–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geden, Oliver, and Silke Beck. 2014. Renegotiating the global climate stabilization target. Commentary. Nature Climate Change 4: 747–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hulme, Mike, and Martin Mahony. 2010. Climate change: What do we know about the IPCC? Progress in Physical Geography 34(5): 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. IAC. 2010. Climate change assessments: Review of the process and procedures of the IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/IAC_report/IAC%20Report.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  20. IISD. 2015. Summary of the forty-first session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 24–27 February 2015. Earth Negotiations Bulletin 12(627), http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12627e.pdf. Accessed 30 Jun 2015.
  21. IPCC. eds. James P. Bruce, Hoesung Lee, and Erik F. Haites. 1996. Climate change 1995: Economic and social dimensions of climate change: Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. IPCC. eds. Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Peter Bosch, Rutu Dave, Leo Meyer. 2007. Climate change 2007: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. IPCC. eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Youba Sokona, Ellie Farahani, Susanne Kadner, Kristin Seyboth, Anna Adler, et al. 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. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. IPCC. eds. Core Writing Team, Rajendra K. Pachauri, and Leo A. Meyer. 2014b. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Knopf, Brigitte, Martin Kowarsch, Christian Flachsland, and Ottmar Edenhofer. 2012. The 2 °C target reconsidered. In Climate change, justice and sustainability: Linking climate and development policy, ed. Ottmar Edenhofer, Johannes Wallacher, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Michael Reder, Brigitte Knopf, and Johannes Müller, 121–138. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manning, Martin R. 2006. The treatment of uncertainties in the fourth IPCC assessment report. Advances in Climate Change Research 2(Suppl 1): 13–21.Google Scholar
  27. Mastrandrea, Michael D., Katharine J. Mach, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Ottmar Edenhofer, Thomas F. Stocker, Christopher B. Field, Kristie L. Ebi, and Patrick R. Matschoss. 2011. The IPCC AR5 guidance note on consistent treatment of uncertainties: A common approach across the working groups. Climatic Change 108: 675–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mulkay, Michael. 1978. Consensus in science. Sociology of Science 17(1): 107–122.Google Scholar
  29. Oreskes, Naomi. 2003. The role of quantitative models in science. In Models in ecosystem science, ed. William K. Lauenroth, Charles D. Canham, and Jonathan J. Cole, 13–31. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Skodvin, Tora. 1999. Science-policy interaction in the global greenhouse. Institutional design and institutional performance in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). CICERO Working Paper 1999:3. http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/188.pdf. Accessed 13 Mar 2015.
  31. Stern, Nicolas. 2007. The economics of climate change. The Stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stirling, Andy. 2009. Multicriteria diversity analysis: A novel heuristic framework for appraising energy portfolios. Energy Policy 38: 1622–1634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Swart, Rob, Lenny Bernstein, Minh Ha-Duong, and Arthur Petersen. 2009. Agreeing to disagree: Uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC. Climatic Change 92: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. van der Sluijs, Jeroen P. 2002. A way out of the credibility crisis of models used in integrated environmental assessment. Futures 34: 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Sluijs, Jeroen P., Rinie van Est, and Monique Riphagen. 2010. Beyond consensus: Reflections from a democratic perspective on the interaction between climate politics and science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 2: 409–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Vuuren, Detlef P., Marcel T.J. Kok, Bastien Girod, Paul L. Lucas, and Bert de Vries. 2012. Scenarios in global environmental assessments: Key characteristics and lessons for future use. Global Environmental Change 22(4): 884–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Victor, David G. 2015. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Comment. Nature 520: 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Victor, David G., and Charles F. Kennel. 2014. Climate policy: Ditch the 2 °C warming goal. Comment. Nature 514: 30 f.Google Scholar
  39. Weimer, David L., and Aidan R. Vining. 1992. Policy analysis. Concepts and practice, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Kowarsch
    • 1
  1. 1.Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations