A Review of Criticisms of Integrated Assessment Models and Proposed Approaches to Address These, through the Lens of BECCS

• Published in: Energies (Basel) Vol. 12; no. 9; p. 1747
• Main Authors: Gambhir, Ajay, Butnar, Isabela, Li, Pei-Hao, Smith, Pete, Strachan, Neil
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel MDPI AG 08-05-2019
• Subjects: Agriculture; BECCS; Carbon; Climate change; climate change mitigation; Collaboration; Emissions; Energy; GDP; Global economy; Gross Domestic Product; IAMs; integrated assessment models; Mitigation; Paris Agreement; Representations; Working groups
• ISSN: 1996-1073; 1996-1073
• DOI: 10.3390/en12091747

This paper reviews the many criticisms that Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs)—the bedrock of mitigation analysis—have received in recent years. Critics have asserted that there is a lack of transparency around model structures and input assumptions, a lack of credibility in those input assumptions that are made visible, an over-reliance on particular technologies and an inadequate representation of real-world policies and processes such as innovation and behaviour change. The paper then reviews the proposals and actions that follow from these criticisms, which fall into three broad categories: scrap the models and use other techniques to set out low-carbon futures; transform them by improving their representation of real-world processes and their transparency; and supplement them with other models and approaches. The article considers the implications of each proposal, through the particular lens of how it would explore the role of a key low-carbon technology—bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), to produce net negative emissions. The paper concludes that IAMs remain critically important in mitigation pathways analysis, because they can encompass a large number of technologies and policies in a consistent framework, but that they should increasingly be supplemented with other models and analytical approaches.