Assessing Feasibility with Value-laden Models (Simon Hollnaicher) .pdf
大小:(3.32 MB)

只需: RMB 15元  马上下载

2025年最新资料，200多页的大型文档，极具参考价值！

Assessing Feasibility with Value-laden Models
Discussing the Normativity of Integrated Assessment Model
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Part I On the Concept of Feasibility
2 Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1 Four Examples of Feasibility Claims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2 An Initial Characterization of Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.3 The Conditional Probability Account of Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.4 Feasibility as Restricted Possibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3 The Value-Dimension of Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1 The Promise of Descriptivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 Existing Arguments for a Value Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3 In Favor of Thick Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.4 A Thick Conception of Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.5 Normative Role and the Asymmetry in Making Feasibility
Judgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Part II Modeling Feasibility
4 Integrated Assessment Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.1 A Short History of Integrated Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.2 Demarcating Process-based IAMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.3 A look into Process-based IAMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
viii Contents
4.4 The Case for IAMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.5 IAM’s Use of Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.6 Towards Assessing Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5 Assessing Feasibility with IAMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
5.1 IAMs’ Special Qualities Concerning Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5.2 Model Solvability as Evidence for the Feasibility
of Climate Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.3 Operationalizing Feasibility in Brutschin et al. (2021) . . . . . . . . . 98
5.4 The Need to Focus on Value Judgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
5.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Part III The Implicit Normativity of IAMs
6 Value Judgments in IAMs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
6.1 Choosing Feasibility Indicators and Thresholds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
6.2 Agenda-Setting: Producing Evidence and Ignorance . . . . . . . . . . . 115
6.3 Cost-Effectiveness and Burden Sharing Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
6.4 The Concept of Well-being . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
6.5 Representation of Social and Global Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
6.6 Intergenerational Burden Sharing and Discounting . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.7 Choice of Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
6.8 Handling Uncertainty and the Case of Carbon Dioxide
Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.9 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
7 Objective Assessments with Value-laden Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
7.1 Objectivity and Legitimacy in Scientific Assessments . . . . . . . . . . 148
7.2 Principle I: Making Value Judgments Explicit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.3 Principle II: Modeling a Diverse Array of Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
7.4 Principle III: Deliberating Values and Pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
7.5 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8 Applying the Principles: Biases and Ethically-explicit Scenarios . . . 169
8.1 Three Biases in IAM Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8.2 Perpetuating Injustice under the Guise of Feasibility . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.3 For Explicit Ethics in IAM Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
8.4 Being Mapmakers, Reconsidered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
9 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193