False Hopes, Missed Opportunities: How Economic Models Affect the IPCC Proposals in Special Report 15 “Global Warming of 1.5 °C” (2018). An Analysis From the Scientific Advisory Board of BUND
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2018 IPCC Special Report SR15 developed four scenarios how temperature increases could either be limited to 1.5°, or, in the case of overshoot, could be brought back to that level by 2100. However, the Carbon Dioxide Removal options discussed to achieve “negative emissions” will affect not only the climate system, but also biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides. Unfortunately, the Integrated Assessment Models, and in particular the economic models incorporated in them were capable of integrating only a selective fraction of these effects, and ignore potential tipping points triggering irreversible processes, policies beyond economic instruments and consumption changes to happen over the next 80 years. Our analysis is based on an interdisciplinary expert elicitation, analysing the options suggested by the IPCC one by one. We find that most of them are associated with biodiversity loss, hazardous chemicals dispersion, enhanced energy consumption and/or other severe other damages. We suggest which measures can be applied sustainably, which should be dropped, and which additional ones have been omitted by the report.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".