Advertisement

Elements of a Guideline for Future Integrated Economic Assessments of the IPCC

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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Climate Policy Policy Instrument Public Participation Problem Framing Climate Policy Scenario 
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. Bammé, Arno. 2004. Science wars. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, Silke. 2009. Das Klimaexperiment und der IPCC. Schnittstellen zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik in den internationalen Beziehungen. Marburg: Metropolis.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Blum, Sonja, and Klaus Schubert. 2009. Politikfeldanalyse. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. Dewey, John. 1927. The public and its problems. New York: Henry Hold & Co.Google Scholar
  8. Edenhofer, Ottmar. 2011. Different views ensure IPCC balance. Commentary. Nature Climate Change 1: 229–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Fullbrook, Edward. 2009. Epistemology. In Handbook of economics and ethics, ed. Jan Peil and Irene Staveren, 123–129. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Gerten, Dieter, Wolfgang Lucht, Sebastian Ostberg, Jens Heinke, Martin Kowarsch, Holger Kreft, Zbigniew W. Kundzewicz, et al. 2013. Asynchronous exposure to global warming: Freshwater resources and terrestrial ecosystems. Environmental Research Letters 8: 034032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodin, Robert E. 2008. Innovating democracy: Democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hulme, Mike. 2009. Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The fifth branch: Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Knutti, Reto. 2010. The end of model democracy? An editorial comment. Climatic Change 102: 395–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Kunreuther, Howard, Geoffrey Heal, Myles Allen, Ottmar Edenhofer, Christopher B. Field, and Gary Yohe. 2013. Risk management and climate change. Perspective. Nature Climate Change 3: 447–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lenton, Timothy. 2011. 2 °C or not 2 °C? That is the climate question. News. Nature 473(7). doi: 10.1038/473007a.Google Scholar
  26. Lentsch, Justus, and Peter Weingart (eds.). 2011. The politics of scientific advice: Institutional design for quality assurance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Lomborg, Bjorn. 2007. Cool it: The skeptical environmentalist’s guide to global warming. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  28. Ng, Yew-Kwang. 1983. Welfare economics: Introduction and development of basic concepts, 2nd ed. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Petersen, Arthur, Jason Blackstock, and Neil Morisetti. 2015. New leadership for a user-friendly IPCC. Commentary. Nature Climate Change 5: 909–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.
  32. Renn, Ortwin. 2009. Inclusive risk governance: Concepts and application to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance 19: 174–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Robert, Christopher, and Richard Zeckhauser. 2011. The methodology of normative policy analysis. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30(3): 613–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shanahan, Elizabeth A., Michael D. Jones, and Mark K. McBeth. 2011. Policy narratives and policy processes. The Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 535–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tol, Richard S.J. 2011. Regulating knowledge monopolies: The case of the IPCC. Climatic Change 108(4): 827–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Urhammer, Emil, and Inge Røpke. 2013. Macroeconomic narratives in a world of crises: An analysis of stories about solving the system crisis. Ecological Economics 96: 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Victor, David G. 2015. Climate change: Embed the social sciences in climate policy. Comment. Nature 520: 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weimer, David L., and Aidan R. Vining. 1992. Policy analysis. Concepts and practice, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Weitzman, Martin L. 2009. On modelling and interpreting the economics of catastrophic climate change. The Review of Economics and Statistics 91(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle 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