エネルギーシステムモデルにおける構造的グリーン成長前提が代替的転換戦略を覆い隠す
Structural green growth assumptions in energy system models obscure alternative transition strategies (原題)
Baxter Williams, Emily A. Grubert
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
IAMを中心とするエネルギーシステムモデルが、GDPの永続的成長を暗黙の前提としている点を批判的に検討したPerspective。歴史的に経済成長はGHG排出と資源採取を増やしており、グリーン成長による絶対的デカップリングは未達成だと指摘する。その結果、モデルは非現実的なネガティブエミッション技術に依存する経路を導きがちであると論じ、ウェルビーイングや最低限の生活水準・物質需要を軸とした代替経路の検討を提唱する。
English
This Perspective critiques integrated assessment models (IAMs) for embedding perpetual GDP growth as a structural assumption. Historically, growth has raised emissions and material extraction, and even successful green growth has not decoupled in absolute terms, pushing models toward unrealistic negative-emissions reliance. The authors argue IAMs should instead model service provision, decent-living material requirements and their distribution to yield more feasible mitigation pathways and better policy.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では政府の長期脱炭素シナリオやエネルギー基本計画の分析基盤がIAMに依存しており、成長前提の妥当性を問う本稿は国内シナリオ策定・政策対話の前提批判として読める。SSBJや有報開示への直接的示唆は乏しい。
In the global GX context
Globally, IAM outputs underpin IPCC assessments and national net-zero strategies, so questioning their growth assumptions bears directly on the credibility of transition pathways used in TCFD/ISSB scenario analysis and transition-finance planning. It adds a heterodox, wellbeing-oriented lens to mainstream disclosure-driven decarbonization narratives.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:IAMの構造的前提とシナリオ設計の限界を再考する材料になる。
🏢実務担当者:シナリオ分析で参照する外部モデル経路の前提を批判的に読む視点を提供する。
🏛政策担当者:長期脱炭素シナリオ策定において成長前提とネガティブエミッション依存を見直す論点を提示する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Energy system models, especially integrated assessment models (IAMs), define the solution space for climate change mitigation and are widely used to inform policymaking. However, most modeling efforts only consider scenarios assuming economic growth (conceptualized as perpetual increases in gross domestic product, GDP), which is strongly coupled with increasing energy and resource use. Even the most successful “green growth”, which aims to decouple the two through technological improvements, has been unsuccessful in absolute terms: historically, economic growth has increased greenhouse gas emissions and material extraction. As such, models assuming perpetual economic growth increasingly yield mitigation pathways requiring unrealistic assumptions for negative emissions technologies. I.e., evidence suggests perpetual growth is inconsistent with realistic climate change mitigation. In this Perspective, we present an overview of alternative economic and energy system pathways which directly prioritize wellbeing, rather than economic proxies, and summarize how IAMs consider economic growth and energy/resource use. We then argue IAMs should move beyond assuming perpetual economic growth by considering service provision and material requirements for decent living standards, and their distributions. This shift would increase their capacity to present feasible climate change mitigation strategies, and ultimately lead to policies better suited to preventing catastrophic climate change.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2026.1984182first seen 2026-11-07 04:38:30
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。