the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 01 Jul 2024
Developing an integrated assessment model to explore optimal cost-benefit paths for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios
Abstract. Most recent cost-benefit Integrated Assessment Models have used only one reference scenario and focused on reducing mainly CO2 emissions. This goal may not adequately account for the uncertainties arising from diverse socioeconomic developments and the potential for mitigating the effects of emissions of individual greenhouse gases, aerosols, and pollutants. We developed an Integrated Assessment Model framework by combining a socioeconomic module with a reduced-complexity climate module. We represented the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) scenarios by 1) calculating a new set of marginal abatement cost curves based on the most recent integrated assessment model, 2) creating a new SSP-dependent damage function based on process-based impact simulation results, and 3) extending the evaluation time to the year 2450. The cost-benefit analysis revealed that the SSP scenarios achieved various rates of control for emissions of individual greenhouse gases, aerosols, and pollutants. The result was diverse patterns of optimal temperatures, including maximum temperature achieved and stabilized temperature by the end of the evaluation period. The model simulations showed the importance of distinguishing options for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases based on distinct socioeconomic growth scenarios. We also show an example of a long-term socioeconomic projection spanning several centuries as well as a variety of socioeconomic assumptions for assessing climate change policies with long-term consequences.
- Preprint
(2288 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1640', Astrid Kerkweg, 15 Jul 2024
Dear authors,
in my role as Executive editor of GMD, I would like to bring to your attention our Editorial version 1.2: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/12/2215/2019/
This highlights some requirements of papers published in GMD, which is also available on the GMD website in the ‘Manuscript Types’ section: http://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission/manuscript_types.html
In particular, please note that for your paper, the following requirement has not been met in the Discussions paper:
- "The main paper must give the model name and version number (or other unique identifier) in the title."
In order to simplify reference to your developments, please add a model name (and/or its acronym) and a version number in the title of your article in your revised submission to GMD, e.g.,
"Developing the integrated assessment model CB-IAM (version X.y) to explore optimal cost-benefit paths for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios"
Yours, Astrid Kerkweg
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1640-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Xuanming Su, 17 Jul 2024
Thank you for pointing this out. We will include a model name and a version number in the title, as follows:
CB-IAM v1.0: An integrated assessment model to explore optimal cost-benefit paths for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1640-AC1
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1640', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Aug 2024
This paper uses climate models to estimate future emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols and pollutants up to 2045.
However, the question now is how to achieve net zero by 2050. Although many countries have declared that they will achieve net zero, there are still concerns about whether this can be achieved. Short-term measures and their feasibility should also be mentioned.
Using SSP1 to SSP5, the reference and optimal paths are shown. However, the explanation of optimal is insufficient. As it is a cost-benefit analysis, it is presumed that the goal is set to be achieved with minimal cost, but it is also necessary to consider whether the path shown is actually feasible. The goal setting is also not clear.
For example, there is a statement that "SSP5 would, in particular, stabilize at a near-zero temperature by the end of the evaluation period because of its comparatively low mitigation costs as well as the rapid growth of GDP, which made economies more willing to pay for the mitigation of future climate change losses.”
However, as shown in Figure 8, a large amount of CO2 will need to be sequestered after 2050. It may be assumed that BECCS and DAC will be used, but these are not yet established technologies and there are concerns about the impact on natural ecosystems.
Problems have been raised with the scenario of continuing to use fossil fuels and relying on absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere in the future. Please also explain the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario.
At a time when this decade is said to be a critical point in the fight against global warming, it is necessary to explain not just the numbers, but how they can be achieved in the real world as soon as possible.
The intention of the paper is unclear. In the case of scenario analysis on global warming, the purpose of many papers is to use the results of the paper to show policy makers, businesses and citizens the need for and possibilities of countermeasures. This paper somehow gives the impression that emissions will fall rapidly and the climate will stabilise after 2100. It is also necessary to explain the specific efforts to reduce emissions after 2100.
Minor comment:
The paper states that “Most recent cost-benefit Integrated Assessment Models have used only one reference scenario and focused on reducing mainly CO2 emissions”, but this is not true. There are many analyses that use multiple scenarios.
Please clarify how this paper differs from previous analyses that have dealt with multiple scenarios
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1640-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1640', Robin Lamboll, 14 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1640/egusphere-2024-1640-RC2-supplement.pdf
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1640', Astrid Kerkweg, 15 Jul 2024
Dear authors,
in my role as Executive editor of GMD, I would like to bring to your attention our Editorial version 1.2: https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/12/2215/2019/
This highlights some requirements of papers published in GMD, which is also available on the GMD website in the ‘Manuscript Types’ section: http://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/submission/manuscript_types.html
In particular, please note that for your paper, the following requirement has not been met in the Discussions paper:
- "The main paper must give the model name and version number (or other unique identifier) in the title."
In order to simplify reference to your developments, please add a model name (and/or its acronym) and a version number in the title of your article in your revised submission to GMD, e.g.,
"Developing the integrated assessment model CB-IAM (version X.y) to explore optimal cost-benefit paths for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios"
Yours, Astrid Kerkweg
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1640-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Xuanming Su, 17 Jul 2024
Thank you for pointing this out. We will include a model name and a version number in the title, as follows:
CB-IAM v1.0: An integrated assessment model to explore optimal cost-benefit paths for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1640-AC1
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1640', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Aug 2024
This paper uses climate models to estimate future emissions of greenhouse gases, aerosols and pollutants up to 2045.
However, the question now is how to achieve net zero by 2050. Although many countries have declared that they will achieve net zero, there are still concerns about whether this can be achieved. Short-term measures and their feasibility should also be mentioned.
Using SSP1 to SSP5, the reference and optimal paths are shown. However, the explanation of optimal is insufficient. As it is a cost-benefit analysis, it is presumed that the goal is set to be achieved with minimal cost, but it is also necessary to consider whether the path shown is actually feasible. The goal setting is also not clear.
For example, there is a statement that "SSP5 would, in particular, stabilize at a near-zero temperature by the end of the evaluation period because of its comparatively low mitigation costs as well as the rapid growth of GDP, which made economies more willing to pay for the mitigation of future climate change losses.”
However, as shown in Figure 8, a large amount of CO2 will need to be sequestered after 2050. It may be assumed that BECCS and DAC will be used, but these are not yet established technologies and there are concerns about the impact on natural ecosystems.
Problems have been raised with the scenario of continuing to use fossil fuels and relying on absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere in the future. Please also explain the advantages and disadvantages of each scenario.
At a time when this decade is said to be a critical point in the fight against global warming, it is necessary to explain not just the numbers, but how they can be achieved in the real world as soon as possible.
The intention of the paper is unclear. In the case of scenario analysis on global warming, the purpose of many papers is to use the results of the paper to show policy makers, businesses and citizens the need for and possibilities of countermeasures. This paper somehow gives the impression that emissions will fall rapidly and the climate will stabilise after 2100. It is also necessary to explain the specific efforts to reduce emissions after 2100.
Minor comment:
The paper states that “Most recent cost-benefit Integrated Assessment Models have used only one reference scenario and focused on reducing mainly CO2 emissions”, but this is not true. There are many analyses that use multiple scenarios.
Please clarify how this paper differs from previous analyses that have dealt with multiple scenarios
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1640-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1640', Robin Lamboll, 14 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1640/egusphere-2024-1640-RC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 271 | 74 | 34 | 379 | 12 | 14 |
- HTML: 271
- PDF: 74
- XML: 34
- Total: 379
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1