Global S&T Development Trend Analysis Platform of Resources and Environment
Climate Engineering: Modelling Projections Oversimplify Risks | |
admin | |
2020-09-09 | |
发布年 | 2020 |
语种 | 英语 |
国家 | 美国 |
领域 | 气候变化 |
正文(英文) | Climate change is gaining prominence as a political and public priority. But many ambitious climate action plans foresee the use of climate engineering technologies whose risks are insufficiently understood. In a new publication, researchers from the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam, Germany, describe how evolving modelling practices are trending towards "best-case" projections. They warn that over-optimistic expectations of climate engineering may reinforce the inertia with which industry and politics have been addressing decarbonisation. In order to forestall this trend, they recommend more stakeholder input and clearer communication of the premises and limitations of model results. The focus of the paper lies on the models underpinning the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment Reports -- the first port-of-call for mapping combinations of technologies, alternative pathways of deployment, and climatic impacts. The authors show how modelling of solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal technologies tends toward "best-case" projections. According to their analysis, the poorly substantiated promises delivered by these projections influence research, policy, and industry planning in the near term and may already be entrenching carbon infrastructures. In the case of certain kinds of carbon dioxide removal, for example, the prospect of future carbon capture is sometimes wrongly seen as a substitute for present mitigation. Climate models are not neutral The researchers outline ways in which this trend can be forestalled. They propose mechanisms for increasing stakeholder input and strengthening political realism in modelling. "The portrayal of modelling as explorative, technically focused mappings for supporting decision making is simplistic. Modellers have to choose parameters and design scenarios. Their choices cannot be 'neutral' -- scenarios reflect hidden judgments and create benchmarks for further conversation, whether in assessment, or in technology and policy development," says co-author Sean Low. For that reason, there needs to be more transparency about the ways in which models are constructed, perceived, and applied. Efforts to expand modelling "reality checks" with technology experts, social scientists, and a wide range of users are a pragmatic first step. Glossing over fine print can lead to big problems The scientific community must also be wary of the selective use of projections. Projections offer schemes that are stylised, optimised, and deceptively simple. By abstracting from possible technical failures and messy politics, they can create a false sense of certainty regarding the feasibility of a particular course of action. But it would be wrong to use them as alternatives to existing climate action plans or instruction manuals. Since modelling projections can offer only partial depictions of systemic risk, it is problematic if political and industry interests co-opt a stylised version for pre-existing agendas and gloss over the models' fine print. Much governance work ahead The authors emphasise the need for policy guardrails: "In climate governance the devil really does lie in the details. The inertia of the carbon economy requires that significant efforts are made to prevent particular and short-term interests undermining policy integrity," says co-author Matthias Honegger. In addition to more transparent modelling, a lot of careful policy development and governance work is needed to ensure that solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal technologies play a constructive role in future climate policy.
make a difference: sponsored opportunity
Story Source: Materials provided by Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. (IASS). Note: Content may be edited for style and length. Journal Reference:
Cite This Page: Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. (IASS). "Climate engineering: Modelling projections oversimplify risks." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 9 September 2020.
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. (IASS). (2020, September 9). Climate engineering: Modelling projections oversimplify risks. ScienceDaily. Retrieved September 10, 2020 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909100246.htm
Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies e.V. (IASS). "Climate engineering: Modelling projections oversimplify risks." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/09/200909100246.htm (accessed September 10, 2020).
|
URL | 查看原文 |
来源平台 | Science Daily |
文献类型 | 新闻 |
条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/293596 |
专题 | 气候变化 |
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | admin. Climate Engineering: Modelling Projections Oversimplify Risks. 2020. |
条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 |
个性服务 |
推荐该条目 |
保存到收藏夹 |
查看访问统计 |
导出为Endnote文件 |
谷歌学术 |
谷歌学术中相似的文章 |
[admin]的文章 |
百度学术 |
百度学术中相似的文章 |
[admin]的文章 |
必应学术 |
必应学术中相似的文章 |
[admin]的文章 |
相关权益政策 |
暂无数据 |
收藏/分享 |
除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。
修改评论