10 July, 2015

A short note on integrated assessment modeling approaches: rejoinder to the review of “Making or breaking climate targets — The AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy”


Kriegler. E., Riahi, K., Bauer, N., Schwanitz, V.J., Petermann, N., Bosetti, V., Marcucci, A., Otto, S., Paroussos, L., Rao-Skirbekk, S., Arroyo Currás, T., Ashina, S., Bollen, J., Eom, J., Hamdi-Cherif, M., Longden, T., Kitous, A., Méjean, A., Sano, F., Schaeffer, M., Wada, K., Capros, P., van Vuuren, D.P., Edenhofer, O., Bertram, C., Bibas, R., Edmonds, J., Johnson, N., Krey, V., Luderer, G., McCollum, D. and Jiang, K.

We provide a rejoinder to a review (Rosen, 2015) of our original article “Making or breaking climate targets — the AMPERE study on staged accession scenarios for climate policy” (Kriegler et al., 2015a). We have a substantial disagreement with the content of the review, and feel that it is plagued by a number of misconceptions about the nature of the AMPERE study and the integrated assessment modeling approach employed by it. We therefore see this rejoinder as an opportunity to clarify these misconceptions and advance the debate by providing a clearer understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, and ultimately the value of integrated assessment.