Creating an integrated UK energy-economy-emissions

model for the Tyndall Centre

E3MG-UK Project T3.2A

Terry Barker and Jonathan Köhler

2006

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research Technical Report 54

Creating an integrated UK energy-economy-emissions model
for the Tyndall Centre E3MG-UK Project T3.2A
Final Report, T3.17
Tyndall Technical report 54

Lead Investigator: Dr Terry Barker, Department of Applied Economics, University

of Cambridge Sidgwick Avenue Cambridge CB3 9DE, 01223
335289.
Email terry.barker@econ.cam.ac.uk
Co-investigator: Dr Jonathan Köhler, Department of Applied Economics,
University of Cambridge Sidgwick Avenue Cambridge CB3
9DE, 01223 335289. Email j.kohler@econ.cam.ac.uk

Section 1: Overview of project work and outcomes

Non-technical summary

Objectives
To develop a UK macroeconomic modelling capacity as a part of the E3MG model
under development in the round 2 Etech+ project (T2.12)

The macro-economic impacts of mitigation policy in the UK have been assessed, using
the Cambridge Econometrics MDM-E3 model. MDM-E3 is one of the best-established
macroeconomic models for the UK. It differentiates between industries, consumption
categories and regions. The global model (E3MG) being developed by Tyndall through
the ETech and Etech+ projects has drawn widely on the modelling techniques and
experience generated by work with MDM-E3, so that E3MG may be regarded as
coming from the same ‘family’ of models. The Tyndall ETech+ project is currently
developing the model to incorporate the effects of long-term technological changes
upon the economy, carbon emissions and mitigation potential.

In order to integrate Tyndall’s global and UK modelling work, it is desirable to develop

a UK model (E3MG-UK) that is fully compatible with E3MG and can be ‘nested’
within it. Because of the basic compatibilities between the modelling approaches taken
in E3MG and MDM-E3, it seems sensible to use MDM-E3 as the starting point from
which E3MG-UK can be derived. Tyndall would then have the capability to analyse
energy system/low-carbon developments at a UK level, which would in turn be linked
to the global level.

Work undertaken
The pilot version of E3MG, E3MG 1.3 was developed from the start of Tyndall Phase I
with a disaggregation into four regions – EU, USA, China and the ‘rest of the World’,
together with an equation system modelling 32 industrial sectors in each of these
regions. Together with matching effort from Cambridge Econometrics, a new, expanded
version of E3MG (version 2.0) has been developed. This version separately identifies
the UK as part of a 20-region structure. The industrial disaggregation has been
expanded to 42 industrial sectors to match with the industries in MDM-E3. Initial

1
results for three stabilisation scenarios, estimating the economic impact and technology
switching in power generation and in a simplified form, in road vehicles have been
completed.

Results

The results for the UK have been included within a global analysis for the first set of
model runs. The costs of stabilising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at
three levels 550ppm, 500ppm and 450ppm, with the emissions modelled to 2100 have
been assessed. Two policy instruments are used to achieve these targets: emission
trading permits for the energy industries and carbon taxes for the rest of the economy,
with the revenues recycled to maintain fiscal neutrality. These are applied at different
rates and at different times to allow for early action under the UNFCCC for three
regional groupings: the USA, the rest of the Annex I countries and all non-Annex I
countries. Extra investment is induced by the permit scheme and taxes since they lead to
substantial increases in the real cost of burning fossil fuels according to their carbon
content. This prompts a switch to low-carbon technologies. The ensuing world-wide
wave of extra investment over the century to 2100 raises the rate of economic growth,
which is endogenous in the model. There is a purely economic benefit in stabilisation,
which increases with more demanding targets. The effects of technological change
modelled this way turn out to be sufficiently large in a closed global model to account
for a substantial proportion (about 20%) of the long-run growth of the system.

Relevance to Tyndall Centre research strategy

Tyndall modelling capabilities are required at the UK scale as well as at the global
scale. To date, the Community integrated Assessment System (CIAS) and its modules
have been limited to the global scale. A principal aim of the Research Theme 1 is that it
should draw together work across the other themes at the Tyndall Centre. Theme 2 has
a UK focus and Theme 3 wishes to analyse adaptation at the UK scale. Thus, an
important aspect of integrating Themes 1, 2 and 3 is the building of tools to address the
UK scale.

Potential for further work

The E3MG model has been developed to enable economic projections of long-term
transitions to a low-carbon society. A wide range of policies can now be modelled.
These include carbon taxes, inter-industry and international carbon permit trading (e.g.
the EU and Kyoto schemes can be assessed). Policies for technological transitions can
be assessed. The UK element of the model can be used in combination with UK climate
change impacts assessments to provide analyses of the socio-economic impacts of
climate change for the UK in the global context.

Publications and outputs

There are no published outputs yet. The UK model will be used as a basis for providing
economic data for the integrated urban analysis in Tyndall phase 2 Q6.

2
Section 2: Technical Report

Background and objectives

Developing a UK macroeconomic modelling capacity as part of E3MG
The UK model MDM-E3 was originally developed under an ESRC project in the
Global Environmental Change Programme in the Department of Applied Economics,
University of Cambridge (Co-investigators Terry Barker and Paul Ekins). It has since
been taken over by Cambridge Econometrics (CE), and is the basis of CE’s Energy-
Environment Service, with regular six monthly updates of data, estimations and
projections. The model is being used and developed in research for the UKERC, under
an agreement between CE, University of Cambridge and PSI (UKERC).

The solution to having potentially inconsistent and incompatible models (E3MG,

MDM-E3 and the EU model E3ME) has been to unify the classifications, data
collection, estimation procedures and solution software and to distinguish the UK as a
region in all three models, so the Tyndall E3MG is in principle consistent with the other
models. Cambridge Econometrics has contributed considerable resources in kind to this
work, with a team spending some nine months on the classifications and data in 2004.
Thus the UK model (E3MG-UK) is essentially integrated within E3MG, allowing for
considerable synergies between the research for Tyndall and the UKERC. (The informal
agreement has been that the Tyndall research focuses on global issues relating to
climate change mitigation using E3MG, whilst the UKERC focuses on UK issues of
decarbonisation and energy policy using MDM-E3 and (in a TSEC project) E3ME.)

Methodology
Detailed discussions of the research and the results are provided in the Tyndall Working
Paper no. 77, Barker T., Kohler J., Pan H., Warren R., Winne S., (2005)
Avoiding dangerous climate change by inducing technological progress: scenarios
using a large-scale econometric model. A summary follows.
In modelling long-run economic growth and technological change, we have followed
the “history” approach 1 of cumulative causation (Kaldor, 1957), which focuses on gross
investment (Scott, 1989) and trade (McCombie and Thirwall, 1994, 2004), in which
technological progress is embodied in gross investment. Long-run growth and structural
change through socio-technical systems, called ‘Kondratiev waves’, are described by
Freeman and Louçã (2001) and modelled by Köhler (2005). Growth in this approach is
dependent on waves of investment in new technologies. The E3MG model is the first to
use a large-scale econometric model with a dynamic structure, which is both sector and
region specific, to model these processes. A treatment of substitution between fossil
and non-fossil fuel technologies is employed, accounting for non-linearities resulting
from investment in new technology, learning-by-doing, and innovation. It involves the
use of econometric estimation to identify the effects of endogenous technological
change (ETC) on exports and energy demand and embed these in a large neo-Keynesian
non-linear simulation model. This then allows policy measures for induced

1
This is contrast to the mainstream equilibrium approach adopted in most economic models of the costs
of climate stabilisation. See (DeCanio, 2003) for a critique and (Weyant, 2004) for a discussion of
technological change in this approach.

3
technological change 2 (ITC) to be modelled. The model has been developed in the
traditions of the Cambridge dynamic model of the UK economy (Barker and Peterson,
1987) and the European model E3ME (Barker, 1999). The effects of technological
change modelled this way turn out to be sufficiently large in a closed global model to
account for a substantial proportion (about 20%) of the long-run growth of the system.
The approach has been developed to include the bottom-up technology ETM model
within the top-down macroeconomic model, E3MG. Thus, like the studies
(Nakicenovic and Riahi, 2003; and McFarland, et al., 2004) which are also based on the
linkage of top-down and bottom-up models, our modelling approach avoids the typical
optimistic bias often attributed to a bottom-up engineering approach, and unduly
pessimistic bias of typical macroeconomic approaches. The advantages 3 of using this
combined approach have recently been reviewed (Grubb, Köhler and Anderson, 2002).
E3MG incorporates endogenous technological change in 3 ways: the sectoral energy
and export demand equations include indicators of technological progress in the form of
accumulated investment and R&D; the ETM incorporates learning curves through
regional investment in energy generation technologies that depend on global scale
economies; extra investment in new technologies, in relation to baseline investment
induces further output and therefore investment, trade, income, consumption and output
in the rest of the world economy through a Keynesian multiplier effect.
Table 1 Regional classification in E3MG 2.0
1 USA US
2 Japan JP
3 Germany DE
4 UK UK
5 France FR
6 Italy IT
7 Rest EU-15 ER
8 EU-10 EE
9 Canada CA
10 Australia AU
11 OECD nes (not elsewhere specified) RO
12 Russian Federation RS
13 Rest of Annex I RA
14 China CN
15 India IN
16 Mexico MX
17 Brazil BR
18 NICs NI
2
In the models, exogenous or autonomous technological change is that which is imposed from outside the
model, usually in the form of a time trend affecting energy demand or the growth of world output. If,
however, the choice of technologies is included within the models and affects energy demand and/or
economic growth, then the model includes endogenous technological change (ETC). With ETC, further
changes can generally be induced by economic policies, hence the term induced technological change
(ITC); this ITC implies ETC throughout the rest of this paper.
3
There are also disadvantages. The coupled model is highly non-linear with the possibility of instabilities,
multiple solutions and discontinuities. The solution is simplified by adopting the smooth transitions
assumed by Anderson and Winne (2004), but local instabilities remain. We are intending to tackle this
problem by using the multiple solution techniques of a Bayesian uncertainty analysis.

4
19 OPEC OP
20 Rest of world RW

5
Table 2 industrial classification in E3MG 2.0

NACE REV 1.1 E3ME3.0 GTAP UK IO headings

1 Agriculture etc AG 01,02,05 1 1 to14 1-3
2 Coal CO 10 6 15 4
3 Oil & gas extraction OG 11,12 7 16,17 5
4 Non-energy mining NE 13,14 2 18 6-7
5 Food, drink & tob. FD 15,16 9 19 to 26 8-20
6 Tex., cloth & footw. TC 17,18,19 10 27 to 29 21-30
7 Wood & paper WP 20,21 11 30 31-33
8 Printing & pub. PP 22 12 31 34
9 Manufactured fuels MF 23 8 32 35
10 Pharmaceuticals PH 24.4 13 incl in 33 43
11 Chemicals n.e.s. CH 24(ex24.4) 14 33 36-42, 44-46
12 Rubber & plastics RP 25 15 incl in 33 47-48
13 Non-metallic min.pr NM 26 16 34 49-53
14 Basic metals etc BM 27 17 35,36 54-56
15 Metal products MP 28 18 37 57-61
16 Machinery nes MA 29 19 incl in 41 62-68
17 Electronics IT 30,32 20 40 69, 73-75
18 Electrical & instruments EI 31,33 21 41 70-72, 76
19 Motor vehicles MV 34 22 38 77
20 Other transport equip. TE 35 23 39 78-80
21 Other manufactures OM 36,37 24 42 81-84
22 Electricity etc EL 40.1 5 43 85
23 Gas manu. & distribution GD 40.2,40.3 4 44 86
24 Water supply WA 41 3 45 87
25 Construction CN 45 25 46 88
26 Wholesale trade etc RT 50,51 26 incl in 47 89-90
27 Retail trade WT 52 27 incl in 47 91
28 Hotels & restaurants HR 55 28 incl in 47 92
29 Land transport etc LT 60,63 29,32 48 93-94, 97
30 Water transport WT 61 30 49 95
31 Air transport AT 62 31 50 96
32 Communication CM 64 33 51 98-99
33 Banking & finance BF 65,67 34 52 100, 102
34 Insurance IN 66 34 53 101
35 Computing services CS 72 35 incl in 54 107
36 Professional services etc PS 70,71,73,74.1-74.4 pt36 incl in 54 103-106, 108-113
37 Other business services OB 74.5-74.8 pt36 incl in 54 114
38 Public admin. & defence PA 75 38 56 115
39 Education ED 80 39 incl in 56 116
40 Health & social work HS 85 40 incl in 56 117-118
41 Other market services OS 90 to 93,95,99 37 55 119-123
42 Unallocated UN 41 57dwellings 124
Total

6
Initial stabilisation policy analysis
Cumulative emissions of CO2 to 2100 for different stabilisation levels are derived from
the MAGICC (a Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse gas Induced Climate Change)
model as used by the IPCC (Watson et al, 2001). The E3MG model is then used to
derive a cost-effective emission pathway which keeps cumulative emissions within
these limits prescribed by the MAGICC model. Costs of stabilisation are then calculated
relative to the baseline. The emission pathways that come from E3MG are then put
back into MAGICC to check that with the new profile, the same concentrations are
achieved. Many other studies of stabilisation costs (e.g. Nakicenovich and Riahi, 2003);
Van Vuuren, 2004) also use the MAGICC climate model to represent the relationship
between emissions and concentrations. It is a set of linked reduced form models
emulating the behaviour of a GCM. It consists of coupled gas-cycle, radiative forcing,
climate and ice-melt models integrated into a single package. It calculates the annual-
mean global surface air temperature and sea-level implications of emission scenarios for
greenhouse gases and sulphur dioxide. Although MAGICC and E3MG both model
emissions scenarios detailing non-CO2 greenhouse gases, we do not consider the costs
of reducing these gases and their effects in this analysis 4 .

CALIBRATION AND CRITICAL VARIABLES

The industrial and energy/emissions database 5 covering the years 1971-2001 is drawn
from OECD, IEA, GTAP, RIVM, and other national and international sources and
processed to provide comprehensive and consistent time-series of varying quality and
reliability across regions and sectors. It contains information about the historic changes
by region and sector in emissions, energy use, energy prices and taxes, input-output
coefficients, and industries’ output, trade, investment and employment. This is
supplemented by data on macroeconomic behaviour from the IMF and the World Bank.
These data are used to estimate a set of econometric equations using cointegration
techniques proposed originally by Engel and Granger (1987) and proposed by Abadir
(2004) as appropriate for neo-Keynesian modelling of non-clearing markets in which a
long-run solution is not necessarily in equilibrium. E3MG requires as inputs dynamic
profiles of population, energy supplies, baseline GDP, government expenditures, tax
and interest and exchange rates; and it derives outputs of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions, SO2 emissions, energy use and GDP and its expenditure and
industrial components.
The Common POLES-IMAGE (CPI) baseline has been taken as a starting point.
This baseline is derived from the IMAGE IPCC SRES A1B and B2 baselines. CPI
assumes continued globalisation, medium technology, continued development, and
strong dependence on fossil fuels. Population follows the UN medium projections for
2030, and the UN long-term medium projection between 2030 and 2100. Further
details may be found in Criqui et al. (2003). This baseline is used for the population
assumptions of E3MG and projections made for government expenditures and per

4
If the CO2 emission pathway does not result in stabilisation in the full integrated analysis, policy
parameters are adjusted in E3MG until a consistent solution is achieved. We judged that the
concentrations projected by MAGICC were sufficiently close to the targets given the uncertainties for the
conclusions of the paper to hold.
5
The database was constructed, and the equations estimated, by teams in Cambridge Econometrics
headed by Rachel Beaven and Sebastian De-Ramon, including Dijon Antony, Ole Lofnaes, Michele
Pacillo and Hector Pollitt.

7
capita household consumption for each region assuming the average growth rate will
slow after 2050. With other components of GDP endogenous in the model, GDP (in $ at
year 2000 prices and exchange rates) is calculated. Economic growth is near the historic
average at 2.3%pa 2000-2100, with higher rates to 2050 and lower rates thereafter.
The solution process is complicated. There are three baseline solutions, each
yielding closely similar results. The first is the calibrated solution of the model, in
which consumers’ expenditures are exogenous. A second un-calibrated solution is
derived by including equations explaining these expenditures, and calculating and
storing the residuals between the equation solution and the exogenous values. A third
endogenous solution then solves the equations with the residuals and so reproduces the
calibrated solution. The endogenous solution includes, for each sector and region,
sectoral output, employment, energy use and prices and emissions. It is the basis for two
baseline sets of carbon dioxide emissions, one in which E3MG and ETM allow
technological change, and another in which they do not. In these baseline solutions no
new permit schemes or carbon taxes are applied but technological change still occurs
and is modelled as a projection of the estimated effects and through learning by doing.

The main conclusion from initial runs of the full E3MG model including the UK is that general
technological change alone seems unlikely to lead to decarbonisation. Improvements in energy
efficiency are partly offset in their effects on CO2 emissions by the effects of higher growth in
exports, incomes and therefore the demand for energy. This phenomenon is a global,
macroeconomic counterpart to the rebound effect found in microeconomic studies of energy
policies. We conclude that the applications of current cost-effective technologies can
decarbonise the world economy, supporting the conclusions of Pacala and Socolow (2004),
provided they are specifically driven by increases in the real prices of carbon arising from
emission permit schemes and taxes. Our conclusion is conditional on model uncertainties and
assumptions, and on specific fiscal polices, with half the permits being freely allocated and the
other half auctioned and all government revenues from the permits and taxes recycled back to
consumers. If policies are successful in raising real carbon prices, under conditions of
macroeconomic stability (so that inflation is unaffected and governmental fiscal rules are
followed) then the extra investment is expected to lead to slightly higher global growth and
incomes, even for almost complete global decarbonisation.

REFERENCES
Abadir, Karim Maher (2004) “Cointegration theory, equilibrium and disequilibrium economics”, The
Manchester School 72 (1), 60-71.
Anderson, D., and Winne, S. (2004) “Modelling innovation and threshold effects in climate change
mitigation” Tyndall Working Paper 59, www.tyndall.ac.uk
Barker, Terry (1999) “Achieving a 10% cut in Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions using additional excise
duties: coordinated, uncoordinated and unilateral action using the econometric model E3ME”,
Economic Systems Research, Vol. 11, No. 4, 1999, pp. 401-421.
Barker Terry and William Peterson (1987) (eds) The Cambridge Multisectoral Dynamic Model of the
British Economy, Cambridge University Press.
Barker, Terry and Sebastian De-Ramon (2005) “Testing the representative agent assumption: the
distribution of parameters in a large-scale model of the EU 1972-1998”, Applied Economic Letters,
forthcoming.
Barker T., Kohler J., Pan H., Warren R., Winne S., (2005) Avoiding dangerous climate change by
inducing technological progress: scenarios using a large-scale econometric model: Tyndall Working
paper 77.
Barker, Terry and Knut Einer Rosendahl (2000) “Ancillary Benefits of GHG Mitigation in Europe: SO2,
NOx and PM10 reductions from policies to meet Kyoto targets using the E3ME model and EXTERNE
valuations’, Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, Proceedings of an IPCC Co-
Sponsored Workshop, March, 2000, OECD, Paris.

8
Criqui, P., Kitous, A., Berk, M., den Elzen, M, Eickhout, B., Lucas, P., van Vuuren, D., Kouvaritakis, N.,
and Vanregemorter D. (2003), Greenhouse gas emission reduction pathways in the UNFCCC process
up to 2025, Technical Report, study contract B4-3040/2001/325703/MAR/E.1 for DG Environment.
DeCanio, Stephen (2003) Economic Models of Climate Change A Critique, Palgrave-Macmillan, New
York.
Denison, E. F. (1985) Trends in American Economic Growth, 1929-1982, Brookings Institution.
Engle, R. F., Granger, C.W.J., (1987), "Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation
and Testing", Econometrica, 55
Fagerberg, J. (1988), ‘International Competitiveness.’ Economic Journal, 98, pp. 355-374.
Freeman, C. and Louçã, F. (2001) As Time Goes By. OUP, Oxford.
Gritsevskyi A. and Nakicenovic (2000) Modelling uncertainty of induced technological change, Energy
Policy 28 907-921.
Grubb M, Köhler J, Anderson D (2002) “Induced technical change in energy and environmental
modelling: analytical approached and policy implications”, Ann. Rev. Energy Environ. Vol. 27: 271-
308
Kaldor, N. (1957) “A model of economic growth”, Economic Journal 67: 591-624.
Köhler, Jonathan (2005) “Making (Kondratiev) waves: simulating long run technical change” in: Paul
Dewick, Marcela Miozzo and Ken Green (eds.) Technology, Knowledge and the Firm: Implications for
Strategy and Industrial Change, Edward Elgar, pp.404-426.
Lee, Kevin, Hashem Pesaran and Richard Pierce (1990) “Labour demand equations for the UK
economy”, in Disaggregation in Econometric Modelling (eds) Terry Barker and M Hashem Pesaran,
Routledge,1990.
Maddison, Angus (2001) The World Economy A Millenial Perspective, OECD, Paris.
McCombie, J. M. and A.P. Thirlwall (1994) Economic Growth and the Balance of Payments Constraint
(Macmillan 1994).
McCombie, J.M. and A.P. Thirlwall (2004) Essays on Balance of Payments Constrained Growth: Theory
and Evidence, Routledge Press.
McDonald, A. and L. Schrattenholzer (2001), “Learning Rates for Energy Technologies”, Energy Policy
29: 255-261
McFarland, J.R. et al. (2004), Representing energy technologies in top-down economic models using
bottom-up information. Energy Economics 26: 685 - 707.
Nakicenovich, N., and Riahi, K., Model runs with MESSAGE in the Context of the Further Development
of the Kyoto Protocol, WGBU, Berlin 2003. www.wgbu.de
Pacala, S. and R. Socolow (2004) “Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50
Years with Current Technologies.” Science, Vol. 305, August 13, 968-972.
Scott, Maurice (1989) A New View of Economic Growth, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Van Vuuren, D.P., de Vries B., Eickhout, B., and Kram, T. (2004) Responses to technology and taxes in a
simulated world. Energy Economics 26, 579-601
Wakelin, K (1998) “The role of innovation in bilateral OECD trade performance”, Applied Economics,
30, 10, 1335-1346
Watson et al. (2001) IPCC Third Assessment Report, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Summary for
Policymakers, IPCC/WMO, Geneva.
Weyant, John P. (2004) Introduction and overview: Energy Economics Special Issue EMF 19 study
Technology and Global Climate Change Policies. Energy Economics, 26, 501– 515.
Wolff, Edward (1994) "Technology, Capital Accumulation, and Long Run Growth", in Jan Fagerberg,
Bart Verspagen, and Nick von Tunzelmann eds., The Dynamics of Technology, Trade, and Growth,
Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, 1994, 53-74.
Wolff, Edward (1994) “Productivity Growth and Capital Intensity on the Sector and Industry Level:
Specialization among OECD Countries, 1970-1988", in Gerald Silverberg and Luc Soete eds., The
Economics of Growth and Technical Change: Technologies, Nations, Agents, Edward Elgar Publishing
Ltd.

9
The inter-disciplinary Tyndall Centre for Climate
Change Research undertakes integrated research into
the long-term consequences of climate change for
society and into the development of sustainable
responses that governments, business-leaders and
decision-makers can evaluate and implement.
Achieving these objectives brings together UK climate
scientists, social scientists, engineers and economists
in a unique collaborative research effort.
The Tyndall Centre is named after the 19th century UK
scientist John Tyndall, who was the first to prove the
Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that
slight changes in atmospheric composition could bring
about climate variations. In addition, he was
committed to improving the quality of science
education and knowledge.
The Tyndall Centre is a partnership of the following
institutions:
University of East Anglia
University of Manchester
University of Southampton
University of Sussex
University of Oxford
University of Newcastle
The Centre is core funded by the following
organisations:
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research
Council (EPSRC)
For more information, visit the Tyndall Centre Web site
(www.tyndall.ac.uk) or contact:
Communications Manager
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK
Phone: +44 (0) 1603 59 3906; Fax: +44 (0)
1603 59 3901
Email: tyndall@uea.ac.uk
Recent Tyndall Centre Technical Reports
Tyndall Centre Technical Reports are available online at
http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/publications/tech_r
eports/tech_reports.shtml
ƒ Anderson D., Barker T., Foxon T., Pan H.,
Warren R. and Winne S., (2007) Linking air
pollution with climate change: Tyndall
Centre Technical Report No. 53.
ƒ Arnell N. and Osborn T., (2007) Interfacing
climate and impacts models in integrated
assessment modelling: Tyndall Centre
Technical Report No. 52.
ƒ Warren R., de la Nava Santos S., Ford R., Riley
G., Bane M., Barton C., and Freeman L.,
(2007) SoftIAM: Integrated assessment
modelling using distributed software
components: Tyndall Centre Technical Report
No. 51.
ƒ Challenor, P., (2007) Estimating uncertainty
in future assessments of climate change:
Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 50.
ƒ O'Riordan T., Watkinson A., Milligan J, (2006)
Living with a changing coastline:
Exploring new forms of governance for
sustainable coastal futures:
Tyndall Centre Technical Report No. 49.
ƒ Anderson K., Bows A., Mander S, Shackley S.,
Agnolucci P., Ekins P., (2006) Decarbonising
Modern Societies:Integrated Scenarios
Process and Workshops, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 48.
ƒ Gough C., Shackley S. (2005) An integrated
Assesment of Carbon Dioxide Capture and
Storage in the UK. Tyndall Centre Technical
Report 47.

ƒ Nicholls R., Hanson S., Balson P., Brown I.,
French J., Spencer T., (2005) Capturing
Geomorphological Change in the Coastal
Simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 46
ƒ Weatherhead K, Knox J, Ramsden S, Gibbons
J, Arnell N. W., Odoni, N, Hiscock K, Sandhu C,
Saich A., Conway D, Warwick C, Bharwani S,
(2006) Sustainable water resources: A
framework for assessing adaptation
options in the rural sector, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 45
ƒ Weatherhead K, Knox J, Ramsden S, Gibbons
J, Arnell N. W., Odoni, N, Hiscock K, Sandhu C,
Saich A., Conway D, Warwick C, Bharwani S,
(2006) Sustainable water resources: A
framework for assessing adaptation
options in the rural sector, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 44
ƒ Lowe, T. (2006) Vicarious experience vs.
scientific information in climate change
risk perception and behaviour: a case
study of undergraduate students in
Norwich, UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report
43
ƒ Atkinson, P, (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise
in East Anglia: Part B3- Coastal simulator and
biodiversity - Modelling the change in
wintering Twite Carduelis flavirostris
populations in relation to changing saltmarsh
area, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42B3
ƒ Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and Sutherland, W.,
(2006) Towards an integrated coastal simulator
of the impact of sea level rise in East Anglia:
Part B2- Coastal simulator and biodiversity -
models of biodiversity responses to
environmental change Tyndall Centre Technical
Report 42B2
ƒ Ridley, J., Gill, J, Watkinson, A. and
Sutherland, W., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise
in East Anglia: Part B1- Coastal simulator and
biodiversity - Design and structure of the
coastal simulator Tyndall Centre Technical Report
42B1
ƒ Stansby, P., Launder B., Laurence, D., Kuang,
C., and Zhou, J., (2006) Towards an integrated
coastal simulator of the impact of sea level rise
in East Anglia: Part A- Coastal wave climate
prediction and sandbanks for coastal
protection Tyndall Centre Technical Report 42A
ƒ Lenton, T. M., Loutre, M. F, Williamson, M. S.,
Warren, R., Goodess, C., Swann, M., Cameron,
D. R., Hankin, R., Marsh, R. and Shepherd, J.
G., (2006) Climate change on the millennial
timescale, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 41
ƒ Bows, A., Anderson, K. and Upham, P. (2006)
Contraction & Convergence: UK carbon
emissions and the implications for UK air
traffic, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 40
ƒ Starkey R., Anderson K., (2005) Domestic
Tradeable Quotas: A policy instrument for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions from
energy use:, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 39
ƒ Pearson, S., Rees, J., Poulton, C., Dickson, M.,
Walkden, M., Hall, J., Nicholls, R., Mokrech, M.,
Koukoulas, S. and Spencer, T. (2005) Towards an
integrated coastal sediment dynamics and
shoreline response simulator, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 38
ƒ Sorrell, S. (2005) The contribution of energy
service contracting to a low carbon economy,
Tyndall Centre Technical Report 37
ƒ Tratalos, J. A., Gill, J. A., Jones, A., Showler, D.,
Bateman, A., Watkinson, A., Sugden, R., and
Sutherland, W. (2005) Interactions between
tourism, breeding birds and climate change
across a regional scale, Tyndall Centre Technical
Report 36
ƒ Thomas, D., Osbahr, H., Twyman, C., Adger, W. N.
and Hewitson, B., (2005) ADAPTIVE: Adaptations
to climate change amongst natural resource-
dependant societies in the developing world:
across the Southern African climate gradient,
Tyndall Centre Technical Report 35
ƒ Arnell, N. W., Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W. N. and
Delany, K. (2005) Vulnerability to abrupt climate
change in Europe, Tyndall Centre Technical Report
34
ƒ Shackley, S. and Anderson, K. et al. (2005)
Decarbonising the UK: Energy for a climate
conscious future, Tyndall Technical Report 33
ƒ Halliday, J., Ruddell, A., Powell, J. and Peters, M.
(2005) Fuel cells: Providing heat and power in
the urban environment, Tyndall Centre Technical
Report 32
ƒ Haxeltine, A., Turnpenny, J., O’Riordan, T., and
Warren, R (2005) The creation of a pilot phase
Interactive Integrated Assessment Process for
managing climate futures, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 31
ƒ Nedic, D. P., Shakoor, A. A., Strbac, G., Black, M.,
Watson, J., and Mitchell, C. (2005) Security
assessment of futures electricity scenarios,
Tyndall Centre Technical Report 30
ƒ Shepherd, J., Challenor, P., Marsh, B., Williamson,
M., Yool, W., Lenton, T., Huntingford, C., Ridgwell, A
and Raper, S. (2005) Planning and Prototyping a
Climate Module for the Tyndall Integrated
Assessment Model, Tyndall Centre Technical
Report 29
ƒ Lorenzoni, I., Lowe, T. and Pidgeon, N. (2005) A
strategic assessment of scientific and
behavioural perspectives on ‘dangerous’
climate change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report
28
ƒ Boardman, B., Killip, G., Darby S. and Sinden, G,
(2005) Lower Carbon Futures: the 40% House
Project, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 27
ƒ Dearing, J.A., Plater, A.J., Richmond, N., Prandle,
D. and Wolf , J. (2005) Towards a high resolution
cellular model for coastal simulation
(CEMCOS), Tyndall Centre Technical Report 26
ƒ Timms, P., Kelly, C., and Hodgson, F., (2005)
World transport scenarios project, Tyndall
Centre Technical Report 25
ƒ Brown, K., Few, R., Tompkins, E. L., Tsimplis, M.
and Sortti, (2005) Responding to climate
change: inclusive and integrated coastal
analysis, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 24
ƒ Anderson, D., Barker, T., Ekins, P., Green, K.,
Köhler, J., Warren, R., Agnolucci, P., Dewick, P.,
Foxon, T., Pan, H. and Winne, S. (2005) ETech+:
Technology policy and technical change, a
dynamic global and UK approach, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 23
ƒ Abu-Sharkh, S., Li, R., Markvart, T., Ross, N.,
Wilson, P., Yao, R., Steemers, K., Kohler, J. and
Arnold, R. (2005) Microgrids: distributed on-site
generation, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 22
ƒ Shepherd, D., Jickells, T., Andrews, J., Cave, R.,
Ledoux, L, Turner, R., Watkinson, A., Aldridge, J.
Malcolm, S, Parker, R., Young, E., Nedwell, D.
(2005) Integrated modelling of an estuarine
environment: an assessment of managed
realignment options, Tyndall Centre Technical
Report 21
ƒ Dlugolecki, A. and Mansley, M. (2005) Asset
management and climate change, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 20
ƒ Shackley, S., Bray, D. and Bleda, M., (2005)
Developing discourse coalitions to incorporate
stakeholder perceptions and responses within
the Tyndall Integrated Assessment, Tyndall
Centre Technical Report 19
ƒ Dutton, A. G., Bristow, A. L., Page, M. W., Kelly, C.
E., Watson, J. and Tetteh, A. (2005) The
Hydrogen energy economy: its long term role
in greenhouse gas reduction, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 18
ƒ Few, R. (2005) Health and flood risk: A strategic
assessment of adaptation processes and
policies, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 17
ƒ Brown, K., Boyd, E., Corbera-Elizalde, E., Adger, W.
N. and Shackley, S (2004) How do CDM projects
contribute to sustainable development? Tyndall
Centre Technical Report 16
ƒ Levermore, G, Chow, D., Jones, P. and Lister, D.
(2004) Accuracy of modelled extremes of
temperature and climate change and its
implications for the built environment in the
UK, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 14
ƒ Jenkins, N., Strbac G. and Watson J. (2004)
Connecting new and renewable energy sources
to the UK electricity system, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 13
ƒ Palutikof, J. and Hanson, C. (2004) Integrated
assessment of the potential for change in
storm activity over Europe: Implications for
insurance and forestry, Tyndall Centre Technical
Report 12
ƒ Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., and Arnell, N. (2004)
Business and Climate Change: Measuring and
Enhancing Adaptive Capacity, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 11
ƒ Tsimplis, S. et al (2004) Towards a vulnerability
assessment for the UK coastline, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 10
ƒ Gill, J., Watkinson, A. and Côté, I (2004). Linking
sea level rise, coastal biodiversity and
economic activity in Caribbean island states:
towards the development of a coastal island
simulator, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 9
ƒ Skinner, I., Fergusson, M., Kröger, K., Kelly, C. and
Bristow, A. (2004) Critical Issues in
Decarbonising Transport, Tyndall Centre
Technical Report 8
ƒ Adger W. N., Brooks, N., Kelly, M., Bentham, S. and ƒ Goodess, C.M. Osborn, T. J. and Hulme, M. (2003)
Eriksen, S. (2004) New indicators of The identification and evaluation of suitable
vulnerability and adaptive capacity, Tyndall scenario development methods for the
Centre Technical Report 7 estimation of future probabilities of extreme
weather events, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 4
ƒ Macmillan, S. and Köhler, J.H., (2004)
Modelling energy use in the global building ƒ Köhler, J.H. (2002). Modelling technological
stock: a pilot survey to identify available data, change, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 3
Tyndall Centre Technical Report 6
ƒ Gough, C., Shackley, S., Cannell, M.G.R. (2002).
ƒ Steemers, K. (2003) Establishing research Evaluating the options for carbon
directions in sustainable building design, sequestration, Tyndall Centre Technical Report 2
Tyndall Centre Technical Report 5
ƒ Warren, R. (2002). A blueprint for integrated
assessment of climate change, Tyndall
CentreTechnical Report 1