Description of the open-source MEDEAS integrated assessment modeling framework, which focuses on the biophysical and economic dimensions, restrictions and interactions arising during energy transitions.

The literature dedicated to the analysis of the different climate agreements has usually focused on the effectiveness of the aims for emissions in the light of the advance in climate change. This article quantifies the variation in emissions that the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) will entail and their financial allocation and policies country-by-country and regionally. The objective is evaluating the Paris Agreement feasibility regarding the INDCs and, economic and environmental constraints. The criteria through which the 161 INDCs are analysed are as follows: i/ socioeconomic impact of the transition; ii/ focus on energy management; iii/ substitution of non-renewable sources; iv/ the role of technology; v/ equality of the transition; vi/ compliance with emission reductions. The results obtained show that the Paris Agreement excessively relies on external financial support (41.4%). Moreover, its unilateralist approach, the socioeconomic and biophysical constraints could be the underlying cause of the ineffectiveness of the 2ºC objective. This way, each country would emit an average of 37.8% more than in the years 2005-2015. When this is weighted, the figure would be a 19.3% increase, due mainly to the increases in China and India. These figures would lead the temperatures up to 3º-4ºC.

Integrated Assessment Models provide a framework to study sustainability transitions and their economic impacts. Models seldom consider energy constraints, taking supply availability for granted and thus suggesting a mere change in the energy mix from non-renewables to renewables. In order to address these limitations, a macroeconomic module within a broader system dynamics model (MEDEAS) has been developed. The model has been run for the whole world from 1995 to 2050 under three different scenarios: Business as Usual (BAU), considering no further transition policies and keeping current trends; Green Growth (GG), undertaking the low-carbon transition according to the Paris Agreement set of policies and with high GDP growth standards; and Post-Growth (PG), testing the sustainability transition under a GDP nongrowth/degrowth approach. The results reveal the conflict between economic growth, climate policy and the sustainability of resources. Whereas a BAU approach would not even be an option to achieve climate goals, a GG view would not only face the downsizing of economic output, but neither would it be able to achieve the 2ºC objective. The success of the PG approach in meeting emissions objectives suggests a redirection from economic growth policies to an industrial policy that incorporates efficiency and redistribution.

No abstract