Climate policy decision making in contexts of deep uncertainty - from optimisation to robustness

Abstract Integrated assessment models are often used to evaluate the role of different technologies in meeting global climate goals. Such models have been criticised for failing to address the deep uncertainties and plurality of values that are fundamental to energy transitions. One consequence is that model scenarios overwhelmingly depend on large-scale carbon dioxide removal to hold warming to below 2 °C. Here we propose an alternative approach using Scenario-Focused Decision Analysis (SFDA) as methods that embrace decision making under deep uncertainty. SFDA can accommodate a range of value sets and perspectives, and most importantly can integrate value-based decision-making in designing climate policy. We specifically consider Robust Decision Making (RDM) as an exemplar of SFDA for developing climate policy. We outline an iterative five-stage framework for RDM using the role of carbon dioxide removal in long-term mitigation pathways as an example. The five steps comprise (i) participatory definition of goals, values, potential policy options and uncertainties; (ii) modelling the performance of policy portfolios across a wide range of future scenarios; (iii) visualisation and identification of portfolio vulnerabilities; (iv) analysis of trade-offs; and (v) development of policy strategies. SFDA, and specifically RDM, provide untapped opportunities for diverse actors to explore alternative mitigation pathways and evaluate the robustness of climate policy choices through “deliberation with analysis”. In relation to carbon dioxide removal methods, RDM provides a framework for evaluating their potential for safely meeting climate goals in a societally acceptable manner.

[1]  Emanuele Borgonovo,et al.  Sensitivity of projected long-term CO2 emissions across the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways , 2017 .

[2]  Céline Guivarch,et al.  Scenario techniques for energy and environmental research: An overview of recent developments to broaden the capacity to deal with complexity and uncertainty , 2017, Environ. Model. Softw..

[3]  N. Dubash,et al.  Whose carbon is burnable? Equity considerations in the allocation of a “right to extract” , 2018, Climatic Change.

[4]  C. Pahl-Wostl,et al.  Envisioning robust climate change adaptation futures for coastal regions: a comparative evaluation of cases in three continents , 2017, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change.

[5]  Stan Zachary,et al.  Least worst regret analysis for decision making under uncertainty, with applications to future energy scenarios , 2016 .

[6]  A. Gambhir,et al.  Transitional assistance policies for just, equitable and smooth low-carbon transitions: who, what and how? , 2019, Climate Policy.

[7]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Policy advice: Use experts wisely , 2015, Nature.

[8]  Steven J. Stanton,et al.  Dominance, Politics, and Physiology: Voters' Testosterone Changes on the Night of the 2008 United States Presidential Election , 2009, PloS one.

[9]  M. Lenzen,et al.  Energy descent as a post-carbon transition scenario: How ‘knowledge humility’ reshapes energy futures for post-normal times , 2020 .

[10]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs , 2002, Oper. Res..

[11]  M. Sharmina,et al.  Envisioning surprises: How social sciences could help models represent ‘deep uncertainty’ in future energy and water demand , 2019, Energy Research & Social Science.

[12]  K. Elliott A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science , 2017 .

[13]  Edeltraud Guenther,et al.  THE ECONOMICS OF MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE: WHAT CAN WE KNOW? , 2015, Tạp chí Nghiên cứu dân tộc.

[14]  R. Pindyck Climate Change Policy: What Do the Models Tell Us? , 2013 .

[15]  Enayat Allah Moallemi,et al.  A participatory exploratory modelling approach for long-term planning in energy transitions , 2017 .

[16]  Dagnija Blumberga,et al.  Review of modelling energy transitions pathways with application to energy system flexibility , 2019, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.

[17]  Neil Strachan,et al.  Reinvigorating the scenario technique to expand uncertainty consideration , 2016, Climatic Change.

[18]  Laurie Smith,et al.  Our futures: by the people, for the people , 2019 .

[19]  R. Sugden,et al.  Regret Theory: An alternative theory of rational choice under uncertainty Review of Economic Studies , 1982 .

[20]  Nancy Tuana,et al.  Building a Values‐Informed Mental Model for New Orleans Climate Risk Management , 2017, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[21]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[22]  Nebojsa Nakicenovic,et al.  Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement , 2017 .

[23]  Lawrence Freedman,et al.  Strategy: A History , 2013 .

[24]  Jan H. Kwakkel,et al.  The Exploratory Modeling Workbench: An open source toolkit for exploratory modeling, scenario discovery, and (multi-objective) robust decision making , 2017, Environ. Model. Softw..

[25]  Jessica Jewell,et al.  Debating the bedrock of climate-change mitigation scenarios , 2019, Nature.

[26]  S. Friel,et al.  Learning from the Climate Change Debate to Avoid Polarisation on Negative Emissions , 2020, Environmental Communication.

[27]  David Lane,et al.  Ontological uncertainty and innovation , 2005 .

[28]  N. Nakicenovic,et al.  Summary for policymakers , 1963 .

[29]  Alfred North Whitehead The Aims of Education and Other Essays , 1967 .

[30]  James Price,et al.  Modelling to generate alternatives: A technique to explore uncertainty in energy-environment-economy models , 2017 .

[31]  Jennifer K. Phillips,et al.  A Data–Frame Theory of Sensemaking , 2007 .

[32]  Arthur C. Petersen,et al.  Assessing qualitative and quantitative dimensions of uncertainty in energy modelling for policy support in the United Kingdom , 2018, Energy Research & Social Science.

[33]  G. Peters,et al.  The trouble with negative emissions , 2016, Science.

[34]  M. Workman,et al.  A novel approach to assessing the commercial opportunities for greenhouse gas removal technology value chains: Developing the case for a negative emissions credit in the UK , 2018, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[35]  James Derbyshire Answers to questions on uncertainty in geography: Old lessons and new scenario tools , 2019, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space.

[36]  R. Pindyck The Use and Misuse of Models for Climate Policy , 2015, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.

[37]  Joseph H. A. Guillaume,et al.  An uncertain future, deep uncertainty, scenarios, robustness and adaptation: How do they fit together? , 2016, Environ. Model. Softw..

[38]  Gabrial Anandarajah,et al.  A pathway design framework for national low greenhouse gas emission development strategies , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[39]  Lukas H. Meyer,et al.  Summary for Policymakers , 2022, The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate.

[40]  S. Beck,et al.  The IPCC and the new map of science and politics , 2018, WIREs Climate Change.

[41]  A. Gambhir Planning a Low-Carbon Energy Transition: What Can and Can’t the Models Tell Us? , 2019, Joule.

[42]  A. Popp,et al.  Between Scylla and Charybdis: Delayed mitigation narrows the passage between large-scale CDR and high costs , 2018 .

[43]  Glen P. Peters,et al.  Warning signs for stabilizing global CO2 emissions , 2017 .

[44]  Leonidas Paroussos,et al.  Modelling innovation and the macroeconomics of low-carbon transitions: theory, perspectives and practical use , 2019, Climate Policy.

[45]  Peter Christoff,et al.  Co-producing climate policy and negative emissions: trade-offs for sustainable land-use , 2018, Global Sustainability.

[46]  M. Thompson Among the Energy Tribes: A cultural framework for the analysis and design of energy policy , 1984 .

[47]  P. Fishburn The Foundations Of Expected Utility , 2010 .

[48]  R. Lempert,et al.  Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative Long-Term Policy Analysis , 2003 .

[49]  F. Hui,et al.  Making policy mixes more robust: An integrative and interdisciplinary approach for clean energy transitions , 2020, Energy Research & Social Science.

[50]  Klaus Keller,et al.  Epistemic and ethical trade-offs in decision analytical modelling , 2018, Climatic Change.

[51]  Mark Workman,et al.  Decision making in contexts of deep uncertainty - An alternative approach for long-term climate policy , 2020 .

[52]  E. Lorenz Deterministic nonperiodic flow , 1963 .

[53]  David E. Bell,et al.  Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty , 1982, Oper. Res..

[54]  T. Burns,et al.  Paradigms in public policy : theory and practice of paradigm shifts in the EU , 2009 .

[55]  R. Millar,et al.  Net Zero: The UK’s contribution to stopping global warming , 2019 .

[56]  Gary Klein Seeing What Others Don't: The Remarkable Ways We Gain Insights , 2013 .

[57]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. , 2009, The American psychologist.

[58]  Claire Hoolohan,et al.  ‘Aha’ moments in the water-energy-food nexus: A new morphological scenario method to accelerate sustainable transformation , 2019, Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

[59]  Jan H. Kwakkel,et al.  Exploratory Modeling and Analysis, an approach for model-based foresight under deep uncertainty , 2013 .

[60]  Steven W. Popper,et al.  Reflections: DMDU and Public Policy for Uncertain Times , 2019, Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty.

[61]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[62]  Warren E. Walker,et al.  Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: A method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world , 2013 .

[63]  Nancy Tuana,et al.  Understanding Scientists' Computational Modeling Decisions About Climate Risk Management Strategies Using Values-Informed Mental Models: , 2017 .

[64]  Neil Strachan,et al.  Reinventing the energy modelling–policy interface , 2016, Nature Energy.

[65]  Nils Markusson,et al.  The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[66]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[67]  Robert J. Lempert,et al.  Managing Risk with Climate Vulnerability Science , 2013 .