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>

The Simulation of Technological Change and the Application in Climate Policy Models

Development Process of Modeling Impacts of Climate Change on Agricultural Productivity Based on Crop Models

Issue Tying-in of Technology Transfers and Clean Development Mechanism Using Game Model

Analysis of the economic impact of different Chinese climate policy options based on a CGE model incorporating endogenous technological change

Advanced technologies in energy-economy models for climate change assessment

Dynamic Modelling and Policy Analysis on Technological Progress and the Change of Industrial Structure

A Macroeconomic Model on Climate Change

The Method Innovation of Systematic Analysis Model in Technical Economics Research

Progress of Integrated Assessment Models for Climate Policy

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

Leverage Firm Technological Competence Via System Dynamics Modeling and Simulating Technique

On the evaluation of climate change impact models

Environmental impact assessment for climate change policy with the simulation-based integrated assessment model E3ME-FTT-GENIE

Creating Agent-Based Energy Transition Management Models That Can Uncover Profitable Pathways to Climate Change Mitigation

Enhancing the Quality of Climate Policy Analysis in China: Linking Bottom-Up and Top-Down Models

Technology Adoption and Carbon Emissions with Dynamic Trading among Heterogeneous Agents

A process for the development and application of simulation models in applied economics

Modeling technological change in energy systems – From optimization to agent-based modeling

Investment Game Model Analysis of Emission-Reduction Technology Based on Cost Sharing and Coordination under Cost Subsidy Policy

Forecasting the Changing Effect of Science and Technology Policy in China based on Computational Experiments

Analysis on the Technology Policies to Combating Climate Change