The Mitigation of Climate Change: Findings of IPCC Working Group III

2008 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Calum Miller
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Ipcc Working Group

scholarly journals Agency and climate change: a quantitative-structuralist approach to the assignment of moral agency in mitigation

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Erik Thorstensen
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Moral Agency ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
The Public ◽  
Structuralist Approach ◽  
Ipcc Report ◽  
Ipcc Working Group

<p>This article uses the IPCC Working Group III’s latest report on mitigation of climate change as its material. The ambition is to investigate how the IPCC assigns moral agency to non-experts. For this, the article analyzes whether the terms “citizens”, “stakeholders”, “the public” and “laypeople” are presented as barriers to, drivers for or neutral towards mitigation measures. The “public” stand out in the IPCC report as a much larger barrier to mitigation than the other groups. This article relates these finding to work conducted by Brian Wynne (1991) and Mike Michael (2009) regarding perception of the public by scientific assessments. This article documents that the IPCC Working Group III tends to replicate stereotypes of the public from such scientific assessments.</p>

IS THE IPCC’s 5TH ASSESSMENT A DENIER OF POSSIBLE MACROECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM MITIGATING CLIMATE CHANGE?

2016 ◽  
Vol 07 (01) ◽  
pp. 1640003 ◽  
Author(s):  
RICHARD A. ROSEN
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Integrated Assessment ◽  
Working Group ◽  
The Self ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Ipcc Report ◽  
Systematic Methodology ◽  
Ipcc Working Group

This review summarizes what we know about the macroeconomics of mitigating climate change over the period 2010 to 2100 as presented in the 2014 IPCC Working Group III report. The review finds that little more, if anything, has been learned about the macroeconomics of mitigating climate change over the long run since the 2007 IPCC report. Furthermore, while the 2014 report is quite self-critical about the serious weaknesses in its methodologies, the self-criticisms are not explicitly taken into account when the net macroeconomic costs of mitigation are reported. Nor do the research teams that run the integrated assessment models relied on in the report utilize any systematic methodology for assessing the inherent uncertainty in the macroeconomic results reported. Thus, the basic quantitative “findings” are misleading — and, perhaps, even deceptive — in part because they appear to preclude the possibility of large macroeconomic benefits from mitigating climate change.

scholarly journals Extensions and alternatives to climate change impact valuation: on the critique of IPCC Working Group III's impact estimates

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
SAMUEL FANKHAUSER ◽  
RICHARD S.J. TOL ◽  
DAVID W. PEARCE
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Willingness To Pay ◽  
Climate Change Impact ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Willingness To Accept ◽  
Damage Cost ◽  
Damage Costs ◽  
Change Impact ◽  
Ipcc Working Group ◽  
Willingness To Accept Compensation

The paper discusses valuation issues in the context of climate change impact estimation. Issues addressed are aggregation of damage costs over diverse regions (particularly equity-weighting), differentiation of per-unit values, willingness to pay versus willingness to accept compensation as a basis for valuation, and accountability for impacts. Numerical illustrations show that the damage cost estimates are quite sensitive to the assumptions made on these issues.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document