Feel free to pose your questions and ideas related to using EN-ROADS in your Community here! And here's answers to the most common question:
When Will En-ROADS be released?
Training Plan and Timing
If you're interested in finding out more, visit http://en-roads.org and sign-up to learn of news about the simulation and workshop.
- En-ROADS is almost ready to be Launch and Release within 2-3 weeks
- Sign up to attend a seven part webinar series to understand En-ROADS dynamics and gain confidence as workshop facilitator
- Watch Climate Interactive's Training: The Climate Leader to prepare.
- Once En-ROADS is released, experiment with the simulator, practice with friends, and watch or apprentice with someone who is leading workshops
I've received this from a member on our MailChimp mailing list who attended the last meeting. He thought it might be more useful if I forwarded his comments to "CCL Corporate" so I'm obliging. He may not have a Community Account. I think all such discussions can be relevant and deserve some kind of reply. What is the best way to address his questions?
forwarded from: Wilfred Candler
Margaret,
1. It makes a long email, but here it is.
Peace,
Will 21/7
0524.CCL-IPCCModelCritique.170714
1. At the Annapolis CCL meeting on Saturday 13th July, 2019 we were shown a preview of a computer model that has been written, and will soon be available, to help us judge the likely impact of alternative policy decisions on global temperature going forward.
2. I think the model is s simplification of several models that have been used in IPCC negotiations. So, to the extent that the following remarks can be interpreted as critical, it is probable that any criticisms apply equally to the IPCC models. In short, the promised CCL model looks to be in good (or perhaps bad?) company.
3 As an additional caveat, my remarks are based on the summary provided by CCL central, so may be a fault of the summary, rather than the model.
Problems:
4. My first concern is the the model appears to predict Global Warming, notably degrees centigrade above some base line. Although used widely in IPCC negotiations, this does not strike me as a very useful measure. What we do have is a good record of atmospheric CO2 (ACO2) or its “equivalent” (ACO2Eq) if other atmospheric gasses methane, nitrogen, sulphates, etc are added in. Gasses in the atmosphere are well mixed, and we have a good record of atmospheric gas concentrations since about 1960, observed at Moana Loa observatory in Hawaii; and can obtain good estimates back 800,000 years using ice-core data. The problem is that while there may be an average global temperature, it cannot be measured by direct observation, but has to be inferred from a myriad different individual observations. Moreover knowing global temperature has increased 2C from some base line does not tell us how much temperature has increased in Washington, DC, or Rome, Italy. True if we want to know temperature increases in individual cities, we have to make an adjustment from Global Temperature or ACO2. But ACO2 is a measure, and one for which we have estimates going back 800,000 years.
5. My second concern is that the few examples shown suggested to me that reduced emissions was modelled as leading immediately to reduced temperature increase. This is half-right, certainly reduced emissions will slow the rate of temperature increase (always assuming a feed-back has not been triggered), but temperature will not stabilize until incoming energy is equal to outgoing, and this will not happen until temperature increase is sufficient overcome the increased insulation due to increased ACO2…….. This will not happen until the heat imbalance has warmed the ocean so increasing infra-red radiation. …. That the CCL and IPCC models give similar results is no consolation… they may both be wrong!
6. It was not clear from yesterday's discussion if this was an American or global model?
7. Does the model include “feed-back” effects? As, if as temperature rises, methane in permafrost might be released, thus increasing atmospheric methane (until it decays to CO2 thus adding to ACO2) without any more use of fossil fuels.
8. How does the model treat ice melting? As sea-ice melts, it has no effect on ocean level, but once heating is limited to land-ice we can expect significant ocean level rise due to run-off.
9. The demonstration we saw, did not seem to include any guess as to the climate effects of higher global temperatures. Has it explored this?
10. I would also be interested to see how the model thinks adoption of CCL's policy recommendations in 2008 (when they were first made) would have affected average global temperature in the following decade.
It sounds like Wilfred Candler has a lot of questions about the tool itself. The En-ROADS tool was developed by Climate Interactive and has not been released to the public yet, so Citizens' Climate Lobby doesn't have all of these answers just yet. But the good news is that it will be incredibly transparent! Climate Interactive has built in many ways for users to see the data that is being used to develop the model and the estimates, see the assumptions being made by the top scientists who put it together, and even to alter those assumptions! I hope that Wilfred will dig deeper into the tool as soon as it is released!
And a couple of quick answers to some of the questions:
- Regarding the framing of the data in degrees C above baseline - He's right! They do this so that it can be referenced against the IPCC goals. Additionally, the IPCC and many other organizations reference degrees above average rather than units of CO2 because it is often easier for most people to conceptualize. However, the model should show the amount of CO2 as well if he is interested in those numbers.
- Is the model about American or global policy? - The model is global. Entering a policy assumes that that policy goes into affect across the globe.
- What does our policy look like in the model? - On the Saturday call, Climate Interactive showed us what it would look like if our proposal was enacted around the globe! You can find the recording and a written summary of that here.
I've highlighted a few of the recommendations for additional resources, including where to send specific questions that aren't addressed after viewing the training: info@climateinteractive.org.
When Will En-ROADS be released?
If you're interested in finding out more, visit http://en-roads.org and sign-up to learn of news about the simulation and workshop.
- En-ROADS is almost ready to be launched and released by mid-August.
- Sign up to attend a seven part webinar series to understand En-ROADS dynamics and gain confidence as workshop facilitator
- Watch Climate Interactive's Training: The Climate Leader to prepare.
- Once En-ROADS is released, experiment with the simulator, practice with friends, and watch or apprentice with someone who is leading workshops
Just saw the following email about an updated release date for En-ROADS:
Announcing the upcoming launch of the En-ROADS Climate Solutions Simulator!
On December 3, 2019, at the COP25 UN climate negotiations in Madrid, we will be releasing En-ROADS—a free, online model that explores actions to address climate change, developed by our team at Climate Interactive and the MIT Sloan Sustainability Initiative.
Sign up for a launch webinar
The power of En-ROADS stems from its ability to drive cross-sector conversations focused on climate solutions. Test the global impacts of efforts to scale up energy efficiency, enact carbon pricing, reduce deforestation, and much more.
Accompanying En-ROADS will be two new interactive experiences—a workshop and roleplaying game—for you to discover climate dynamics and foster productive conversations with groups.
Sign up for one of our online launch events to learn more:
Sign up for a launch webinar
We encourage you to invite friends and colleagues to gather, stream one of these webinars, and host local launch events! Sign up today, and discover how you can use En-ROADS to cultivate climate leadership in your community.
Drew Jones has passed on the update on the in-depth training on En-ROADS, all CCL volunteers are invited to attend if they're interested.
Registration link:
https://register.gotowebinar.
Details: This webinar meets 7 times for one hour each (all times listed at EST, adjust for local time zone):
- Tue, Jan 7, 2020 11:00 AM EST
- Thu, Jan 9, 2020 11:00 AM EST
- Tue, Jan 14, 2020 11:00 AM EST
- Thu, Jan 16, 2020 11:00 AM EST
- Tue, Jan 21, 2020 11:00 AM EST
- Thu, Jan 23, 2020 11:00 AM EST
- Fri, Jan 31, 2020 11:00 AM EST
Note: If you can't make all of the live trainings it's okay to attend some in part.
Description: Learn about the ground-breaking En-ROADS simulation model (https://enroads.
Throughout this course, we will run condensed versions of the workshop and game, create climate scenarios in En-ROADS together, dig deeply into the model, learn about advanced facilitation, and discuss what it means to make an impact with En-ROADS in the real world. We will explore the fascinating dynamics of this complex socio-economic-environmental system: its feedback loops, and interdependencies, and stock-and-flow structure. You will learn to explain to others why the model does what it does, and more importantly, how the world and climate respond to different solutions which address climate change. This course includes 7 total webinars, each running for 60 minutes (often with 10-30 minutes of informal post-webinar Q&A discussions).
If you can't make trainings live, recordings be available afterwards to watch archived here: https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/en-roads/
Questions? email: support@climateinteractive.org or see CCL's training page: Hosting Climate Simulations in Your Community
Speaking on behalf of my understanding re: why CCL is passing on the invitation to attend any of the upcoming En-ROADS training webinars. It doesn't signal CCL's change in approach from its laser-like focus, but rather provides an opportunity for interested groups/volunteers to use it as a tool to engage their community in broader dialogue about climate solutions. While the simulator is agnostic regarding recommending specific policies, it highlights two essential elements connected to CCL's goals: the transformative power and impact of a strong carbon price along with the training and support from a community of scholars for those interested in leveraging the simulator as an educational tool in their own communities to further dialogue about climate action.
Like any action/opportunity, local leadership is fully empowered to focus on other approaches deemed more effective and the forums where these training invitations were passed on can serve as a commons where those interested can pass on what's worked and where more support is needed.
If I recall correctly, carbon fee & dividend (CFD) was never promoted by CCL as a “silver bullet.” The EN-ROADS simulation highlights all the actions that will be needed to stay below +2C, while showing the goal is much easier to achieve with a rigorous carbon tax. In addition, EN-ROADS dispels a common theory by those on the right who state “climate change is real” but then conclude innovation will solve the problem.
In my opinion, a carbon tax will be a catalyst for action. In addition, although the sun and wind are free, the infrastructure necessary to move the energy around or to store it is not. Consequently, the CCL dividend is needed to help low income families cope with the higher costs to come.
If a stand-alone bill like the EICDA is put into law, then CCL can turn its attention all the other necessary measures that are pointed out by the EN-ROADS model. If a CFD is part of larger bill that addresses the other mitigation measures, I feel we have still fulfilled our mission.
Once I finish the EN-ROADS training, I hope I will be able to use it to promote the need for CFD to my local community.
Thanks
Jim Rine
CCL Detroit
I made one tweak from their training guide that I found helpful in a group of students. Instead of working through possible scenarios together the entire time, I broke them out into teams and had them develop a policy scenario that they would briefly present to the class after. They were allowed to use up to 3 levers in the Energy Supply category, up to 2 in the Transport category, and up to 1 in the Land and Industry Emissions category. When they reported back, we asked them to share how far they reduced the projected temperature from the Business as Usual scenario, which levers they used and why, and why their scenario was or wasn't realistic. They came up with some really interesting scenarios and arguments! (and most groups chose to use a carbon price because it was so effective 😁)
Thanks for this note. I have only used En-ROADS plots in talks and have not had an opportunity to host simulations.
A question, have you utilized "Cost of Energy" graphs? I have done some simple comparisons of regulations v. using a carbon tax and found the carbon tax is much more economical for the same temperature decrease.
Thanks again,
JIm Rine
CCL Detroit
We didn't get to that specific point (of comparing the effect of regulations vs. a carbon tax on cost of energy) but that's good to know! I found their user guide really helpful for questions like this too. It looks like under 'Renewables' it addresses why renewable subsidies will lead to higher energy prices like this: "- Although the price of renewable energy infrastructure continues to fall, many low-income communities remain unable to access the technology in both developed and developing countries. Working to ensure an equitable energy transition can help everyone to reap the benefits. - Policies in many developed countries limit solar and wind subsidy programs to homeowners, who often occupy higher income brackets."
From this Community page on En-ROADS:
See the En-ROADS FAQ: “How do I simulate a carbon price that increases over time, such as the carbon price structure in the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act?”
Additionally, as a starting point, here is the latest simulation that CCL Research Coordinator Rick Knight has created to come as close as possible to the H.R.763 pricing schedule. It accounts for the f-gas fee and also the price ‘ratchet’ that kicks in if targets are not met after 5 years. And if we assume the carbon fee induces a more significant impact on energy efficiency and electrification in both transport and buildings than En-ROADS assumes, here is the result of that. Finally, a simulation that adds a suite of ancillary policies which can further reduce the global temperature outcome to 1.5°C is given here. For more of an understanding behind these additional policies, see this PDF write-up by CCL Research Coordinator Rick Knight.
I used to be enthusiastic about using En-ROADS to show the advantages of carbon pricing, but no longer. Prior to March 2020, financial analyses with En-ROADS gave results similar to peer-reviewed studies, which showed use of strictly regulations resulted in twice the cost of energy (annual energy cost multiplied by annual energy usage) as using a carbon tax. In Paul et al. (2015; see Fig. 6) use of a carbon tax resulted in ½ the cost of energy. After March 2020, however, the results drastically changed.
In response to my query, Ellie Johnson of Climate Interactive stated “model adjustments we made to the price effects… as energy prices are higher (e.g., due to a carbon price), we see an increase in energy efficiency as a result. More energy efficiency results in reduced final energy consumption.”
Running the same analyses now show a carbon tax being more expensive than using regs. Costs only equate when the tax is subtracted (i.e., via a dividend). Consequently in my opinion, En-ROADS cannot be used to present an economic argument for carbon taxes.
Links to the En-ROADS scenarios I played with are below. My approach was to pick a target temp (+1.9C) and compare a rigorous carbon tax "plus other stuff” with a rigorous regulatory approach “plus other stuff6.”
As Drew Jones likes to say “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” I feel En-ROADS is only useful for showing a one approach alone is not sufficient to solve the problem.
GND 1.9C scenario
https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p196=100&p198=100&p200=100&p16=-0.02&p47=2.8&p50=2.8&p53=2.3&p55=2.3&p59=-55&p65=41&p67=22&g0=2&g1=62&v=2.7.36
CFD $15/ton 1.9C scenario:
https://en-roads.climateinteractive.org/scenario.html?p16=-0.02&p39=15&p40=2022&p41=1&p42=450&p43=2022&p44=28&p47=3&p50=2.4&p53=2.2&p55=2.1&p59=-56&p65=37&p67=28&g0=2&g1=29&v=2.7.36
Anyone interested in seeing Paul et al. (2015), contact me.
Jim Rine
Detroit, MI
Paul, A., K. Palmer, and M. Woerman, 2015, Incentives, margins, and cost effectiveness in comprehensive climate policy for the power sector: Climate Change Economics, v. 6, no. 4, 1550016, 27 p.
Many of the “policies” in En-Roads are not specific government actions -- like a carbon price path or a renewable subsidy path or specific quantity targets to be achieved through quotas – but rather aspirational benchmarks like energy efficiency without any specific government tool that would achieve the benchmark. Thus, it is hard to compare the costs of real policies like CF&D to those of benchmarks without mechanisms that get us there. The latter create perverse incentives that En-Roads cannot capture fully, because it does not try to model incentives in detail; and it sometimes requires government investments whose cost is not identified. Also, the relevant cost of different policies compares the SOCIAL cost of achieving a GIVEN emissions reduction. Since different policies in En-Roads give different emissions paths, and the program makes no attempt to estimate many dimensions of social costs, it isn’t well suited to questions of policy efficiency.
En-Roads shows “the cost of energy” under different scenarios. This “cost” is what consumers pay for energy, and not the SOCIAL cost of producing the energy they consume. The latter would incorporate many factors in addition to consumer expenditures on energy. To start, and especially, it would subtract any revenues from the power sector collected from a carbon tax and would add any subsidies to renewables. Thus, En-Roads energy costs are not directly relevant to comparing the efficiency of different scenarios.
2) James Rine says, “Running the same analyses now show a carbon tax being more expensive than using regs.” I assume he is looking at the graph: Financial > Cost of Energy.
Under the simulations he supplied, the Cost of Energy peaks at:
- Just under $40 per gigajoule with the CFD $15/ton 1.9C scenario
- $60 per gigajoule with the GND 1.9C scenario
3) Finally, as Michael Jones says in his post above, “It is hard to compare the costs of real policies like CF&D to those of benchmarks without mechanisms that get us there. Since different policies in En-Roads give different emissions paths, and the program makes no attempt to estimate many dimensions of social costs, it isn’t well suited to questions of policy efficiency. Thus, En-Roads energy costs are not directly relevant to comparing the efficiency of different scenarios.”
Hello team - two quick related updates I wanted to pass along:
- A week from tomorrow, ThursdayJuly 22nd at 8 pm ET we'll be hosting an update to how CCL is providing support for our En-ROADS training - see En-ROADS Update & Hosting Climate Simulations (details here).
- CCL Research Coordinator Rick Knight just published this CCL Blog today showing how the Energy Innovation Act stacks up using Energy Innovation, LLC's modeling software: Modeling carbon fees with the Energy Policy Simulator
Search Forums
Forum help
Select a question below
CCL Community Guidelines
- Discuss, ask and share
- Be respectful
- Respect confidentiality
- Protect privacy
CCL Blog Policy Area Categories
- Price on Carbon
- CBAM
- Clean Energy Permitting Reform
- Healthy Forests
- Building Electrification and Efficiency