This article proposes a fundamental methodological shift in the modelling of policy interventions for sustainability transitions in order to account for complexity (e.g. self-reinforcing mechanisms, such as technology lock-ins, arising from multi-agent interactions) and agent heterogeneity (e.g. differences in consumer and investment behaviour arising from income stratification). We first characterise the uncertainty faced by climate policy-makers and its implications for investment decision-makers. We then identify five shortcomings in the equilibrium and optimisation-based approaches most frequently used to inform sustainability policy: (i) their normative, optimisation-based nature, (ii) their unrealistic reliance on the full-rationality of agents, (iii) their inability to account for mutual influences among agents (multi-agent interactions) and capture related self-reinforcing (positive feedback) processes, (iv) their inability to represent multiple solutions and path-dependency, and (v) their inability to properly account for agent heterogeneity. The aim of this article is to introduce an alternative modelling approach based on complexity dynamics and agent heterogeneity, and explore its use in four key areas of sustainability policy, namely (1) technology adoption and diffusion, (2) macroeconomic impacts of low-carbon policies, (3) interactions between the socio-economic system and the natural environment, and (4) the anticipation of policy outcomes. The practical relevance of the proposed methodology is subsequently discussed by reference to four specific applications relating to each of the above areas: the diffusion of transport technology, the impact of low-carbon investment on income and employment, the management of cascading uncertainties, and the cross-sectoral impact of biofuels policies. In conclusion, the article calls for a fundamental methodological shift aligning the modelling of the socio-economic system with that of the climatic system, for a combined and realistic understanding of the impact of sustainability policies. 相似文献
Four policies might close the gap between the global GHG emissions expected for 2020 on the basis of current (2013) policies and the reduced emissions that will be needed if the long-term global temperature increase can be kept below the 2 °C internationally agreed limit. The four policies are (1) specific energy efficiency measures, (2) closure of the least-efficient coal-fired power plants, (3) minimizing methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production, and (4) accelerating the (partial) phase-out of subsidies to fossil-fuel consumption. In this article we test the hypothesis of the International Energy Agency (IEA) that these policies will not result in a loss of gross domestic product (GDP) and we estimate their employment effects using the E3MG global macro-econometric model. Using a set of scenarios we assess each policy individually and then consider the outcomes if all four policies were implemented simultaneously. We find that the policies are insufficient to close the emissions gap, with an overall emission reduction that is 30% less than that found by the IEA. World GDP is 0.5% higher in 2020, with about 6 million net jobs created by 2020 and unemployment reduced.
Policy relevance
The gap between GHG emissions expected under the Copenhagen and Cancun Agreements and that needed for emissions trajectories to have a reasonable chance of reaching the 2 °C target requires additional policies if it is to be closed. This article uses a global simulation model E3MG to analyse a set of policies proposed by the IEA to close the gap and assesses their macroeconomic effects as well as their feasibility in closing the gap. It complements the IEA assessment by estimating the GDP and employment implications separately by the different policies year by year to 2020, by major industries, and by 21 world regions. 相似文献
This article assesses Japan's carbon budgets up to 2100 in the global efforts to achieve the 2?°C target under different effort-sharing approaches based on long-term GHG mitigation scenarios published in 13 studies. The article also presents exemplary emission trajectories for Japan to stay within the calculated budget.The literature data allow for an in-depth analysis of four effort-sharing categories. For a 450?ppm CO2e stabilization level, the remaining carbon budgets for 2014–2100 were negative for the effort-sharing category that emphasizes historical responsibility and capability. For the other three, including the reference ‘Cost-effectiveness’ category, which showed the highest budget range among all categories, the calculated remaining budgets (20th and 80th percentile ranges) would run out in 21–29 years if the current emission levels were to continue. A 550?ppm CO2e stabilization level increases the budgets by 6–17 years-equivalent of the current emissions, depending on the effort-sharing category. Exemplary emissions trajectories staying within the calculated budgets were also analysed for ‘Equality’, ‘Staged’ and ‘Cost-effectiveness’ categories. For a 450?ppm CO2e stabilization level, Japan's GHG emissions would need to phase out sometime between 2045 and 2080, and the emission reductions in 2030 would be at least 16–29% below 1990 levels even for the most lenient ‘Cost-effectiveness’ category, and 29–36% for the ‘Equality’ category. The start year for accelerated emissions reductions and the emissions convergence level in the long term have major impact on the emissions reduction rates that need to be achieved, particularly in the case of smaller budgets.Policy relevanceIn previous climate mitigation target formulation processes for 2020 and 2030 in Japan, neither equity principles nor long-term management of cumulative GHG emissions was at the centre of discussion. This article quantitatively assesses how much more GHGs Japan can emit by 2100 to achieve the 2?°C target in light of different effort-sharing approaches, and how Japan's GHG emissions can be managed up to 2100. The long-term implications of recent energy policy developments following the Fukushima nuclear disaster for the calculated carbon budgets are also discussed. 相似文献