Accurately interpreting IPCC assessments

Kornelis Blok; Mustafa Babiker; Christopher Bataille; Brett Cohen; Aleksandra Novikova; Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho; Daniela Anahi Toribio Ramirez; Stephanie Roe; Masa Sugiyama

doi:10.1126/science.adp4153

Accurately interpreting IPCC assessments

Kornelis Blok^*, Mustafa Babiker, Christopher Bataille, Brett Cohen, Aleksandra Novikova, Sudarmanto Budi Nugroho, Daniela Anahi Toribio Ramirez, Stephanie Roe, Masa Sugiyama

^*Corresponding author for this work

Energy and Industry

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › Scientific › peer-review

Abstract

In their Policy Forum, “The costs of ‘costless’ climate mitigation” (1 December 2023, p. 1001), M. J. Kotchen et al. assert that the greenhouse gas mitigation potential identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest assessment report is larger and cheaper than what is found in widely used cost-benefit–based (as opposed to processbased) integrated assessment models such as DICE, FUND, and PAGE. They suggest that the IPCC report underestimates the costs of mitigation by excluding hidden or nonmonetary costs in various sectors. Their criticism of the IPCC assessment is unfounded.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	612-613
Number of pages	2
Journal	Science
Volume	385
Issue number	6709
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp4153
Publication status	Published - 2024

Bibliographical note

Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care
Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1126/science.adp4153

Cite this

@article{64b6e5a348c041e4a3dccadfcac7b79d,

title = "Accurately interpreting IPCC assessments",

abstract = "In their Policy Forum, “The costs of {\textquoteleft}costless{\textquoteright} climate mitigation” (1 December 2023, p. 1001), M. J. Kotchen et al. assert that the greenhouse gas mitigation potential identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest assessment report is larger and cheaper than what is found in widely used cost-benefit–based (as opposed to processbased) integrated assessment models such as DICE, FUND, and PAGE. They suggest that the IPCC report underestimates the costs of mitigation by excluding hidden or nonmonetary costs in various sectors. Their criticism of the IPCC assessment is unfounded.",

author = "Kornelis Blok and Mustafa Babiker and Christopher Bataille and Brett Cohen and Aleksandra Novikova and Nugroho, {Sudarmanto Budi} and {Toribio Ramirez}, {Daniela Anahi} and Stephanie Roe and Masa Sugiyama",

note = "Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.",

year = "2024",

doi = "10.1126/science.adp4153",

language = "English",

volume = "385",

pages = "612--613",

journal = "Science",

issn = "0036-8075",

publisher = "American Association for the Advancement of Science",

number = "6709",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accurately interpreting IPCC assessments

AU - Blok, Kornelis

AU - Babiker, Mustafa

AU - Bataille, Christopher

AU - Cohen, Brett

AU - Novikova, Aleksandra

AU - Nugroho, Sudarmanto Budi

AU - Toribio Ramirez, Daniela Anahi

AU - Roe, Stephanie

AU - Sugiyama, Masa

N1 - Green Open Access added to TU Delft Institutional Repository 'You share, we take care!' - Taverne project https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care Otherwise as indicated in the copyright section: the publisher is the copyright holder of this work and the author uses the Dutch legislation to make this work public.

PY - 2024

Y1 - 2024

N2 - In their Policy Forum, “The costs of ‘costless’ climate mitigation” (1 December 2023, p. 1001), M. J. Kotchen et al. assert that the greenhouse gas mitigation potential identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest assessment report is larger and cheaper than what is found in widely used cost-benefit–based (as opposed to processbased) integrated assessment models such as DICE, FUND, and PAGE. They suggest that the IPCC report underestimates the costs of mitigation by excluding hidden or nonmonetary costs in various sectors. Their criticism of the IPCC assessment is unfounded.

AB - In their Policy Forum, “The costs of ‘costless’ climate mitigation” (1 December 2023, p. 1001), M. J. Kotchen et al. assert that the greenhouse gas mitigation potential identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest assessment report is larger and cheaper than what is found in widely used cost-benefit–based (as opposed to processbased) integrated assessment models such as DICE, FUND, and PAGE. They suggest that the IPCC report underestimates the costs of mitigation by excluding hidden or nonmonetary costs in various sectors. Their criticism of the IPCC assessment is unfounded.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85200939491&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1126/science.adp4153

DO - 10.1126/science.adp4153

M3 - Letter

C2 - 39116242

AN - SCOPUS:85200939491

SN - 0036-8075

VL - 385

SP - 612

EP - 613

JO - Science

JF - Science

IS - 6709

ER -

Accurately interpreting IPCC assessments

Abstract

Bibliographical note

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Embargoed Document

Fingerprint

Cite this