CLIMADA Climate Impact Assessment

• CLIMADA Climate Impact Assessment is a methodology that integrates dynamic climate, economic, and technology modules for robust, probabilistic scenario analysis.
• It employs ensemble-based simulation and explicit policy pathway testing to capture sectoral impacts and guide real-world adaptation planning.
• The framework delivers actionable insights on risk communication, policy evaluation, and technology diffusion by modeling complex system feedbacks.

CLIMADA Climate Impact Assessment is a methodology and set of computational tools for quantifying the impacts of climate-related hazards by dynamically coupling climate hazard, exposure, and vulnerability layers—often within probabilistic or ensemble frameworks. The approach is central to climate adaptation planning, risk analysis, and policy evaluation, leveraging diverse data sources and computational models to provide detailed, scenario-based assessments of physical and socio-economic consequences of climate change.

1. Integrated Model Structure and Module Interactions

CLIMADA-type assessments are characterized by tightly integrated, modular frameworks in which complex system interactions between the climate, the economy, technology, and society are simulated:

• Macroeconometric simulation: The E3ME module uses time-series regressions over historical global economic data (59 regions, 43 sectors) without enforced equilibrium. Its system of equations covers demand, supply, investment, government expenditures, trade, and energy demand, collectively shaping sectoral economic trajectories.
• Technology diffusion modeling: FTT modules (Future Technology Transformations) implement bottom-up, path-dependent technology adoption using nonlinear pairwise discrete choice models, operationalized through logistic curves. Their differential equations, influenced by cost differentials and agent heterogeneity, capture dynamic and endogenous technology transitions:

$$F_{ij} = 0.5 \left[1 + \tanh\left( \frac{1.25 \times (C_i - C_j)}{\sqrt{\sigma_i^2 + \sigma_j^2}} \right)\right]$$

where $C_i, C_j$ are technology costs and $\sigma$ terms encode agent heterogeneity.

• Earth-system modeling: GENIE-1 provides intermediate-complexity carbon cycle and atmospheric simulations. Emission time series generated by E3ME–FTT are input to GENIE-1, which, via ensemble modeling (e.g., 86-member), quantifies probabilistic peak warming and integrates the climate module with the economic-technology system.
• Dynamic feedbacks: Outputs from each module feed iteratively into the others, with E3ME supplying activity levels and E3ME–FTT determining emissions and technology stock turnover, ultimately constraining and being shaped by the simulated climate response.

This highly coupled, multi-temporal setup (quarterly for FTT, annual for E3ME) enables iterative convergence of economic, technological, and climate system evolution and supports detailed impact attribution and propagation analyses.

2. Policy Pathway Simulation and Ensemble Scenario Analysis

A distinguishing feature of the framework is its ability to encode and test explicit “policy baskets”—realistic, multifaceted climate policy mixes rather than synthetic single levers:

• Market-based instruments: Sector-wide carbon pricing is dynamically increased (up to $500/tCO₂ in 2008 USD), shifting demand and investment decisions at granular economic and energy system levels.
• Technology-targeted measures: FTT modules implement explicit policy supports (feed-in tariffs, direct renewables subsidies, efficiency mandates, scrappage schemes), directly altering technology-specific cost structures and hence discrete choice probabilities.
• Policy scenario ensemble: Ensemble runs translate parameter and policy uncertainties into probabilistic outcomes, explicitly quantifying the likelihood of achieving climate targets (e.g., >66% probability of holding global warming below 2°C in analyzed multi-policy packages).

The nonlinearity of the coupled system ensures multiple instrument combinations can yield similar macro-scale outcomes—a consequence of path-dependent technology diffusion, feedback across sectors, and agent heterogeneity. This greatly expands the scope for evaluating alternative, real-world-relevant intervention strategies in compliance with, for instance, the Paris Agreement.

3. Socio-Economic Impact Quantification

Unlike normative optimization-based IAMs, CLIMADA-style assessments do not prescribe “optimal” solutions. Instead, they characterize the consequences of proposed policy packages across a comprehensive suite of empirical, sectoral socio-economic indicators:

• Macroeconomic variables: GDP, employment, sector output, trade balances, price levels, and fiscal positions are projected using non-equilibrium economic modeling, capturing underutilization, credit creation, and demand-driven adjustments.
• Sectoral and distributional analysis: The granularity of E3ME (sectoral breakdown) in combination with FTT technology shares provides deep detail on sector-specific transition impacts.
• Countervailing effects: Higher carbon prices may elevate energy prices and dampen disposable income, but are offset via induced investment and “double dividend” employment expansion in low-carbon sectors.
• Uncertainty propagation: Extensive sensitivity analyses on behavioral and technological parameters demonstrate that while technology market shares remain sensitive to cost and learning assumptions, macroeconomic outcomes (e.g., percentage GDP or employment changes) are comparatively robust.

4. Probabilistic Impact Attribution and Model Validation

Robust probabilistic characterization of climate outcomes is central to the assessment framework:

• Ensemble-based risk quantification: GENIE-1’s ensemble propagation of emissions scenarios (varying 28 parameters) yields probability distributions of peak warming, clarifying risk under deep model and parametric uncertainty.
• Model calibration: E3ME uses 45 years of empirical data for calibration and hindcasting, comparing simulated trajectories for GDP, energy demand, and emissions to historical observations.
• Policy risk transparency: By quantifying the conditional probabilities of crossing climate thresholds (e.g., not exceeding the 2°C warming goal), the framework provides risk-based evidence for policymakers, explicitly acknowledging irreducible uncertainties in both technology transitions and system feedbacks.

5. Methodological Innovations and Conceptual Advances

CLIMADA-type impact assessment, as established in the E3ME–FTT–GENIE lineage, advances several methodological principles for applied climate risk and adaptation analysis:

• Descriptive, simulation-based philosophy: Rejecting static, top-down, cost-minimization paradigms, the approach embraces path dependency, agent heterogeneity, non-equilibrium economics, and empirical parameterization.
• Complex system feedbacks: Endogenous integration of economic shocks, technology adoption, and climate evolution enables the tracing of indirect, second-order, and emergent impacts not accessible in strictly top-down or decoupled models.
• Real-world policy realism: The ability to encode explicit, granular policy packages and run counterfactual, sector-specific scenarios bridges the gap between theoretical targets and actual policy design/evaluation.
• Validation and transparency: Thorough calibration, iterative feedback between submodules, and probabilistic ensemble analysis underpin the interpretability and credibility of impact projections.

6. Practical Applications and Policy Relevance

CLIMADA-type assessments support a wide array of real-world applications:

• Design and testing of robust, realistic transition pathways under explicit policy constraints.
• Sectoral transition risk evaluation, e.g., quantifying employment impacts of accelerated renewables deployment or internal combustion engine phaseout.
• International alignment with deep decarbonization goals (e.g., Paris Agreement), by probabilistically ensuring compliance under complex uncertainty.
• Risk communication through scenario-based stress testing and explicit quantification of climate target probabilities.
• Guidance for regulatory, fiscal, and innovation policy portfolios attuned to technological path dependence and socio-economic feedbacks.

7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Identified limitations include reliance on the structural validity of submodule models (e.g., learning curve or discrete choice parameterizations), challenges in capturing deep uncertainty in agent expectations, and limited granularity for certain adaptation processes. Future directions may focus on systematically expanding scenario ensembles, integrating adaptation cost modeling, and further exploring spatial or equity dimensions of climate policy impact.

---

In sum, CLIMADA-style Climate Impact Assessment, exemplified by the E3ME–FTT–GENIE framework, represents a descriptive, data-driven, and scenario-based simulation paradigm. By dynamically integrating economic, technological, and climate modules and enabling probabilistic, policy-realistic pathway analysis, it provides a foundation for nuanced climate risk quantification, robust socio-economic impact assessment, and actionable adaptation strategy evaluation.