论文标题
IPCC和前政策评估的挑战
The IPCC and the challenge of ex post policy evaluation
论文作者
论文摘要
IPCC始于气候政策是对未来的愿望。在早期IPCC报告中评估的研究必然与潜在的气候政策有关，该政策总是风格化并经常优化。尽管现在有大量文献研究了实际的气候政策，但在其所有令人发指的细节，疣等方面都有大量文献来研究这一道路。四个案例研究表明，以当前形式的IPCC将无法成功从EXTE转换为EX POST POLID评估。这种过渡是关键的，因为AR7很可能必须面对未达到1.5K目标的情况。四个案例如下。 （1）该场景首先建立，后来又得到IPCC的认可，全部宁静的未来，甚至不是快速的经济增长，更像是政治宣言，而不是当地的事实。 （2）连续的IPCC报告已经谨慎地避免讨论大量的文献，这表明，减少温室气体排放的政治目标远非最佳，尽管这项工作的主要部分是在2018年获得诺贝尔奖的（3）IPCC AR5。 （利马）证明了这一点。 （4）IPCC AR6和总体上省略了有关\ textit {ex post}气候政策评估的新生文献。这些案件一起表明，IPCC发现自我批评很困难，并且离决策者太近了，无法批评过去和当前的政策错误。一种解决方案是将对IPCC的控制权转移到国家研究和高等教育的国家当局。
The IPCC started at a time when climate policy was an aspiration for the future. The research assessed in the early IPCC reports was necessarily about potential climate policies, always stylized and often optimized. The IPCC has continued on this path, even though there is now a considerable literature studying actual climate policy, in all its infuriating detail, warts and all. Four case studies suggest that the IPCC, in its current form, will not be able to successfully switch from ex ante to ex post policy evaluation. This transition is key as AR7 will most likely have to confront the failure to meet the 1.5K target. The four cases are as follows. (1) The scenarios first build and later endorsed by the IPCC all project a peaceful future with steady if not rapid economic growth everywhere, more closely resembling political manifestos than facts on the ground. (2) Successive IPCC reports have studiously avoided discussing the voluminous literature suggesting that political targets for greenhouse gas emission reduction are far from optimal, although a central part of that work was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2018. (3) IPCC AR5 found it impossible to acknowledge that the international climate policy negotiations from COP1 (Berlin) to COP19 (Warsaw) were bound to fail, just months before the radical overhaul at COP20 (Lima) proved that point. (4) IPCC AR6 by and large omitted the nascent literature on \textit{ex post} climate policy evaluation. Together, these cases suggest that the IPCC finds self-criticism difficult and is too close to policy makers to criticize past and current policy mistakes. One solution would be to move control over the IPCC to the national authorities on research and higher education.
