Elements of a Guideline for Future Integrated Economic Assessments of the IPCC
- 309 Downloads
Part IV identifies (in this chapter), and reflects on (in Chap. 12), some elements of a more specific guideline for improving the integrated economic assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This is based on the preceding analysis of the challenges faced by these assessments (Parts I–III). A short check list for integrated economic assessments summarises the key recommendations (Sect. 11.1). Section 11.2 addresses the question of what information we want the IPCC to provide in its next assessments. The IPCC should map alternative policy pathways and their implications even more comprehensively and specifically. More specific proposals for the appropriate treatment of disputed value judgements and uncertainties in IPCC assessments are given next (Sect. 11.3). It is also argued that the multi-scenario analyses should more explicitly explore disputed ethical viewpoints. Then, potential improvements of the IPCC’s processes, formats and public participation are discussed (Sect. 11.4). Finally, Sect. 11.5 argues that the scientific community could better support the IPCC assessments.
KeywordsClimate Policy Policy Instrument Public Participation Problem Framing Climate Policy Scenario
- Bammé, Arno. 2004. Science wars. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
- Beck, Silke. 2009. Das Klimaexperiment und der IPCC. Schnittstellen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in den internationalen Beziehungen. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
- Biewald, Anne, and Martin Kowarsch (equal contributions), Hermann Lotze-Campen, and Dieter Gerten. 2015. Ethical aspects in the economic modeling of water policy options. Global Environmental Change 30: 80–91.Google Scholar
- Blum, Sonja, and Klaus Schubert. 2009. Politikfeldanalyse. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Dewey, John. 1927. The public and its problems. New York: Henry Hold & Co.Google Scholar
- Edenhofer, Ottmar. 2014. IA models and WGIII: lessons from IPCC AR5. Presentation at the 7th IAMC meeting, University of Maryland, College Park, 17 November. http://www.globalchange.umd.edu/iamc_data/iamc2014/Edenhofer_IAMC_17November.pdf. Accessed 20 Apr 2015.
- Farrell, Alexander E., and Jill Jäger (eds.). 2006. Assessments of regional and global environmental risks: Designing processes for the effective use of science in decisionmaking. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
- Fullbrook, Edward. 2009. Epistemology. In Handbook of economics and ethics, ed. Jan Peil and Irene Staveren, 123–129. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
- 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.
- IISD. 2013. The future of sustainable development: Rethinking sustainable development after Rio + 20 and implications for UNEP. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2013/future_rethinking_sd.pdf. Accessed 30 Jun 2015.
- IPCC. eds. Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Peter Bosch, Rutu Dave, and 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
- IPCC. eds. Ottmar Edenhofer, Ramón Pichs-Madruga, Youba Sokona, Ellie Farahani, Susanne Kadner, Kristin Seyboth, Anna Adler, et al. 2014. 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
- Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Kowarsch, Martin, and Andreas Gösele. 2012. Triangle of justice. 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, 73–90. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kowarsch, Martin, and Ottmar Edenhofer. 2016. Principles or pathways? Improving the contribution of philosophical ethics to climate policy. In Climate justice in a non-ideal world, eds. Clare Heyward, and Dominic Roser, 296–318. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Lentsch, Justus, and Peter Weingart (eds.). 2011. The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Lomborg, Bjorn. 2007. Cool it: The skeptical environmentalist’s guide to global warming. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
- OECD. 2015. Scientific advice for policy making: The role and responsibility of expert bodies and individual scientists. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 21, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- Ravetz, Jerome R. 1997. Integrated environmental assessment forum: Developing guidelines for ‘good practice’. http://www.jvds.nl/ulysses/eWP97-1.pdf. Accessed 13 Jun 2015.
- Weimer, David L., and Aidan R. Vining. 1992. Policy analysis. Concepts and practice, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar