4

Capacity Building and Collaboration

Workshop attendees participated in breakout groups on challenges and opportunities related to building capacity for interdisciplinary research. Participants discussed challenges that can arise in their approaches and how interdisciplinary collaboration may present opportunities for improved research. The breakout topics were (1) detailed geographic and sectoral information on adaptation, (2) detailed geographic and sectoral information on mitigation, (3) cascading effects and feedback loops, and (4) ethical and equity considerations. The groups were separated by virtual and in-person participation.

DETAILED GEOGRAPHIC AND SECTORAL INFORMATION ON ADAPTATION

Many crosscutting themes emerged from the discussions. One was the challenges of modeling at different scales. Participants from Uganda and Colombia highlighted issues such as limited data access, difficulties in obtaining well-curated data, and the absence of tools for fine-scale modeling. Several participants expressed an interest in enhancing data access and quality.

Although several participants acknowledged the success of modeling at a very local level, some noted challenges for the individual level. Despite success at the local level, some participants expressed concern about coordination in how information is perceived, used, and assessed by different localities and obtaining and ensuring the correct use at the individual level. Some participants highlighted the benefit of improved coordination with localities

to align perceptions from within and outside localities. Participants stressed the importance of ensuring that the information used by localities is aligned with the actions they are undertaking.

Furthermore, many participants highlighted the lack of understanding of the linkages between complex models and the absence of standardized processes for upscaling from fine to macro scales. Some participants suggested increased sharing of best practices and lessons learned among research groups, as each group often works with its unique local data.

Another theme from the discussions was the strategic collection of information. A few participants recognized the impracticality of obtaining all information for all circumstances. One suggested a strategic “backward engineering” approach from specific questions to determine the necessary information and modeling at a small scale to inform policy makers effectively.

Last, several participants commented on the benefits of more rigorous research to verify and validate the effectiveness of adaptation strategies. A few suggested future research to focus on developing better metrics and understanding the efficacy of adaptation efforts, pointing out the lack of systematic evaluation and validation of the success claims in adaptation research.

DETAILED GEOGRAPHIC AND SECTORAL INFORMATION ON MITIGATION

With no energy economists in the virtual breakout group, the discussion focused on quantifying the benefits of mitigation policies. Participants highlighted the challenge of aligning immediate benefits with the inertia of the energy system and the cumulative nature of climate responses to emissions. Moreover, some participants emphasized the importance of engaging with experts who consider near-term co-benefits, such as those who study air quality improvements, for a more comprehensive discussion.

The group also discussed a suggestion that assessing climate impacts using the social cost of greenhouse gases might be more effective than fine-tuning gross domestic product trajectories. Additionally, the group discussed the heterogeneous global impacts of U.S. policy adoption, touching on both geopolitical and economic aspects. For example, the group explored the geographic variability in labor market outcomes associated with climate policy. Many participants stressed the importance of research, in addition to analysis, to understand this heterogeneity better. Overall, many noted the benefit of an interdisciplinary approach to climate policy and mitigation benefits.

In the in-person breakout group, participants highlighted the importance of multilevel models to analyze individual behaviors embedded in

broader contexts, such as households, communities, and regions. For example, one participant highlighted individual fertility decisions as an input to macrolevel models to understand demographic trends. Some participants acknowledged the challenges of obtaining detailed behavioral data, especially for future individuals. Several recognized the significance of understanding where people are located for spatial variation, although they noted the difficulties in obtaining data at the necessary scale.

Some participants suggested clear communication about model limitations, with one raising concerns about policy makers potentially relying too heavily on econometric models without fully grasping their constraints. Several participants also underscored the opportunity for interdisciplinary conversations to identify the inputs required from various disciplines. Last, the group discussed several research questions, including investigating the alignment of technology futures with projections; exploring people’s willingness to adopt technology; and identifying the needs of climate scientists and macroeconomic modelers to enhance their work.

CASCADING EFFECTS AND FEEDBACK LOOPS

The two breakout groups on cascading effects and feedback loops discussed common challenges and potential areas of focus in understanding and modeling these complex systems. Both groups emphasized an interest in improved collaboration, timely adaptation of models, and exploration of advanced analytical methods. Participants in both groups highlighted model limitations. For example, some noted that although integrated assessment models (IAMs) can account for cascading effects of climate action, they can struggle to capture the cascading effects of climate impacts across different sectors. Similarly, some discussed how IAMs used to calculate the social cost of carbon often rely on inadequate damage functions. Additionally, they discussed the limitations of general equilibrium models in responding to large shocks or modeling nonlinear impacts. One group specifically noted challenges in accounting for cumulative shocks and addressing sociotemporal scales in modeling.

Another theme that emerged was the difficulty in effectively communicating cascading risks to policy makers. Some participants recognized the importance of improved communication, particularly when dealing with complex systems with potential cascading effects. Some suggested a bounding and prioritization exercise to expedite informing policy, citing concerns that model-building often lags behind the challenges arising during the accelerating energy transition.

Furthermore, several participants emphasized the importance of open data and open-source modeling to enhance the toolkit and collective understanding of a changing climate and energy system. Some suggested an

opportunity to advance understanding by learning from other jurisdictions and regions facing similar challenges but in different cultural or geographic contexts. A few participants also expressed interest in exploring data science and deep learning methods to establish causal interactions in network models. A few others suggested leveraging advanced analytical techniques to enhance understanding and prediction capabilities.

ETHICAL AND EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS

The groups on ethical and equity considerations in climate and economic modeling discussed how different disciplines incorporate equity, the limitations of a single disciplinary approach, and the crosscutting lessons that can be learned. Some participants expressed interest in more and improved interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approaches. In general, many participants emphasized the importance of addressing equity across disciplines and throughout the entire research process, from defining research questions to determining outcomes. Some participants noted that this holistic approach goes beyond viewing equity as an outcome and underscored the importance of ethically grounded research.

Both groups recognized the challenge of implementing ethical and equitable processes at different scales. Some participants noted that although equitable processes and participatory decision making often occur at the community scale, policies are typically implemented at a larger scale. Several participants recognized an opportunity for future research in bridging the microscale inputs with macroscale policy implementation.

A few participants noted that economic models already incorporate ethical considerations, with approach choices (e.g., simulation and disaggregation) having ethical implications. Although many economists are now moving toward disaggregating their analysis to address ethical issues, one participant stressed that who frames the question and conducts the modeling is crucial.

Several challenges in economic modeling were discussed, including difficulties in accessing disaggregated data, issues of spatial and temporal scales, and the consideration of hard-to-model realities, values, procedural equity, governance, and multiple externalities. These challenges raise questions about the appropriateness of certain policies, such as carbon pricing. Last, in a discussion about normative versus descriptive modeling, some participants questioned the suitability of certain policies and highlighted the challenges in translating procedural equity into models.