Abstract:We analyze how stylized Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), and specifically the widely‐used Dynamic Integrated Climate‐Economy model (DICE), represent the cost of emissions abatement. Many assume temporal independence—that abatement costs in one period are not affected by prior abatement. We contrast this with three dimensions of dynamic realism in emitting systems: (i) inertia, (ii) induced innovation, and (iii) path dependence. We review key evidence from the last quarter century on each of these three components. Studies of stock lifetime, dynamics of diffusion and past transitions suggest typical transition timescales of at least 20–40 years for the bulk emitting systems. The evidence that substantial innovation is induced by both prices and market deployment is unambiguous. Finally, both data and a rapidly growing literature demonstrate substantial path dependence in general, and specifically "carbon lock‐in and lock‐out." Some stylized models in the past decade have incorporated technology learning, and others have considered inertia, but the combination of these factors is important and not yet evident. More complex hybrid IAMs with technology‐rich energy‐system models incorporate these factors, but their complexity has limited the wider understanding and influence of their underlying insights. Few if any global models fully represent path dependence. We conclude with likely implications drawing upon the empirical and modeling evidence accumulated, including results from extending DICE with a highly stylized representation of such dynamic factors. This suggests that dynamic interdependencies could multiply several‐fold the optimal level of initial abatement expenditure. This is because early abatement then also directly facilitates subsequent emission savings. The diversity of dynamic linkages across sectors and technologies also implies more nuanced policy than a single global carbon price. Thus, the issues explored in this review can radically change the general policy conclusions drawn from models, which, like DICE, neglect dynamic realism.This article is categorized under: <ul class="plain-list"><li>Climate Economics > Aggregation Techniques for Impacts and Mitigation Costs</li></ul>

Explore the possibility of advancing climate negotiations on the basis of regional trade organizations: A study based on RICE-N

AI for Global Climate Cooperation: Modeling Global Climate Negotiations, Agreements, and Long-Term Cooperation in RICE-N

Scenario Study on Regional Allocation of CO2 Emissions Allowance in China

How Cooperation and Competition Arise in Regional Climate Policies: RICE as a Dynamic Game

AI4GCC-Team -- Below Sea Level: Score and Real World Relevance

AI4GCC - Team: Below Sea Level: Critiques and Improvements

Dynamic Grouping for Climate Change Negotiation: Facilitating Cooperation and Balancing Interests through Effective Strategies

AI For Global Climate Cooperation 2023 Competition Proceedings

A Matlab and CasADi-based Implementation of RICE Dynamic Game

Exploring Global Climate Cooperation through AI: An Assessment of the AI4GCC Framework by simulations

Climate Policy under Spatial Heat Transport: Cooperative and Noncooperative Regional Outcomes

A Cross-Country Study of Carbon Footprint Using MRIO Model

Modeling myths: On DICE and dynamic realism in integrated assessment models of climate change mitigation

Simulation of Climate Negotiation Strategies Between China and the U.S. Based on Game Theory

Will digital trade provisions in regional trade agreements effectively reduce CO2 emissions in member states?

Regional Integrated Environmental Modeling System: Development and Application

China's carbon emissions and energy demand under different methods of global mitigation cooperation: Application of an extended RICE model with energy details

Multi-agent low-carbon optimal dispatch of regional integrated energy system based on mixed game theory

Robust climate change research: a review on multi-model analysis

The impact of agricultural trade approaches on global economic modeling

Crafting desirable climate trajectories with RL explored socio-environmental simulations