Policy and social change are treated as "exogenous" in climate models. Modelers determine the values & feed them in; they do not interact dynamically with other parts of the model. I talk with one researcher who is trying to integrate these social variables more fully into climate analysis. This one's way more interesting than I'm making it sound!
Came across this paper while reading about biology applications of "machine scientists" (machine learning algorithms that generate symbolic equations representing complex datasets): "Automatic modeling of socioeconomic drivers of energy consumption and pollution using Bayesian symbolic regression" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550921003729?via%3Dihub
Wondering if Fran Moore has seen this work? (It is not cited in the Nature paper.)
As one whose job was to institutionalize change in various businesses, I needed to take into account the triad of people, process, and technology. Most often, the most difficult of the three legs was the people aspect. One can create or buy technology. And one can create processes. However, how do you get people to adopt a change or adapt to it? It is not mechanical. So I was interested in hearing about Dr. Moore's means of incorporating something that I saw as subjective.
I find Dr. Moore's framework a bold step forward to a significant and under-appreciated component in reaching our ambitious decarbonization goals (i.e. getting people to the needed changes in our future) and agree that "further work to enhance this modelling framework" is needed.
Regardless, I can't help but wonder...Can the Princeton Net-Zero America model and Dr. Moore's model be somehow combined to provide additional dials to a modeler's hands to produce more informative predictions for policy makers?
I haven't looked at her model, but is there anything to be said about fossil fuel producing countries realizing the onset of renewables is existential and shifting their behavior accordingly. Not thinking of anything in particular here....
Came across this paper while reading about biology applications of "machine scientists" (machine learning algorithms that generate symbolic equations representing complex datasets): "Automatic modeling of socioeconomic drivers of energy consumption and pollution using Bayesian symbolic regression" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550921003729?via%3Dihub
Wondering if Fran Moore has seen this work? (It is not cited in the Nature paper.)
As one whose job was to institutionalize change in various businesses, I needed to take into account the triad of people, process, and technology. Most often, the most difficult of the three legs was the people aspect. One can create or buy technology. And one can create processes. However, how do you get people to adopt a change or adapt to it? It is not mechanical. So I was interested in hearing about Dr. Moore's means of incorporating something that I saw as subjective.
I find Dr. Moore's framework a bold step forward to a significant and under-appreciated component in reaching our ambitious decarbonization goals (i.e. getting people to the needed changes in our future) and agree that "further work to enhance this modelling framework" is needed.
Regardless, I can't help but wonder...Can the Princeton Net-Zero America model and Dr. Moore's model be somehow combined to provide additional dials to a modeler's hands to produce more informative predictions for policy makers?
I haven't looked at her model, but is there anything to be said about fossil fuel producing countries realizing the onset of renewables is existential and shifting their behavior accordingly. Not thinking of anything in particular here....
Yes to a very appreciated effort. Seems that it comes back to practicing civics, participating in collective actions.
Fascinating to me as a retired psychologist. Thanks, Dave!