2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemHow modelers construct energy costs: Discursive elements in Energy System and Integrated Assessment Models(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2019) Ellenbeck, Saskia; Lilliestam, JohanEnergy system and integrated assessment models (IAMs) are widely used techniques for knowledge production to assess costs of future energy pathways and economic effects of energy/climate policies. With their increased use for policy assessment and increasing dominance in energy policy science, such models attract increasing criticism. In the last years, such models – especially the highly complex IAMs, have been accused of being arbitrary. We challenge this view and argue that the models and their assumptions are not arbitrary, but they are normative and reflect the modelers’ understanding of the functioning of the society, the environment-societal relations and respective appropriate scientific tools and theories – in short: models are shaped by discursive structures, reproducing and reinforcing particular societal discourses. We identify 9 distinct paths, all relating to crucial model decisions, via which discourses enter models: for each of these decisions, there are multiple “correct” answers, in the sense that they can be justified within a particular discourse. We conclude that decisions of modelers about the structure and about assumptions in energy modeling are not arbitrary but contingent to the discursive context the modeler is related to. This has two implications. First, modelers and consumers of model output must reflect on what a model and its assumptions represent, and not only whether are they correct. Second, models hardly need to add more (mathematical) complexity, but rather be reduced and simplified so that they can continue to fulfill their main function as formalized and powerful instruments for thought experiments about future energy pathways.
- ItemBioenergy production and sustainable development: Science base for policymaking remains limited(Milton Park : Taylor & Francis, 2016) Robledo‐Abad, Carmenza; Althaus, Hans‐Jörg; Berndes, Göran; Bolwig, Simon; Corbera, Esteve; Creutzig, Felix; Garcia‐Ulloa, John; Geddes, Anna; Gregg, Jay S.; Haberl, Helmut; Hanger, Susanne; Harper, Richard J.; Hunsberger, Carol; Larsen, Rasmus K.; Lauk, Christian; Leitner, Stefan; Lilliestam, Johan; Lotze‐Campen, Hermann; Muys, Bart; Nordborg, Maria; Ölund, Maria; Orlowsky, Boris; Popp, Alexander; Portugal‐Pereira, Joana; Reinhard, Jürgen; Scheiffle, Lena; Smith, PeteThe possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well‐studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories – environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production.