Van Beek and Versteeg investigate the convergence of Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) and climate fiction, a nexus previously underexplored in academic discourse. The authors articulate a vision of how these seemingly disparate domains — scientific modelling and literary narratives — can collaboratively contribute to the depiction of plausible future scenarios. Their exploration engages a comparative framework, dissecting the narrative structures inherent within both IAMs and climate fiction, thereby adding a significant dimension to the evolving field of futures studies and climate change research. The authors contend that the interplay of scientific and narrative storytelling methods is a crucial element in building a comprehensive understanding of potential future environments.
The focus of this comparative study is not to undermine the role of IAMs in developing climate change scenarios, but rather to shed light on the uncharted territory of potential complementarity between the narrative models employed by IAMs and climate fiction. Van Beek and Versteeg’s objective, as they posit, is to illuminate the manner in which storytelling techniques in IAMs and fiction can foster an engaging dialogue, promoting a shared understanding of the complexities surrounding climate change. They argue that such an intersection of disciplines can provide a platform for broader public engagement and democratic participation, thereby amplifying the impact of both IAMs and fiction within the realm of climate change policy and discourse. Their work constitutes a methodical examination of this interplay, its inherent potential, and its prospective contributions to the philosophy of futures studies.
Methodology and Comparative Framework
The authors engaged a comparative analysis of three climate change narratives, two from climate fiction and one from the IAMs. This approach illuminated the inherent narrative structures in IAMs and climate fiction, offering profound insights into the potential complementarity of the two domains. The selection criteria for the narratives rested on their capacity to portray future climate scenarios. It is notable that the authors viewed the IAM, despite being a mathematical model, as capable of narrative storytelling—a rather unconventional perspective that fortifies their comparative framework.
A pivotal element in their comparative framework is the application of Hayden White’s narrative theory. By viewing IAMs through this lens, the authors were able to decipher the hidden narratives within scientific models, thus challenging the traditional view of these models as purely objective and devoid of narrative elements. They used White’s theory as a basis for understanding the “storyline” in IAMs, juxtaposing it with narrative techniques used in climate fiction. The subtleties uncovered during this examination provided a foundation for the argument that IAMs, similar to works of fiction, employ specific storytelling techniques to illustrate future climate scenarios. This approach of incorporating a literary theory into the analysis of scientific models reflects a compelling methodological innovation in the field of futures studies.
Storyline and Physical Setting
In their analysis, the authors found that while both IAMs and climate fiction share a common goal of illustrating potential climate outcomes, they diverge in the ways they construct their storylines and depict their settings. Climate fiction, as exemplified by the chosen narratives, heavily draws upon human experiences and emotions, whereas IAMs provide a more abstract, numerical portrayal of potential futures. Furthermore, in the aspect of physical setting, IAMs tend to remain global in scope, offering a broad, aggregate view of future climate changes. In contrast, climate fiction places its narrative within specific, recognizable locales, thus making the potential impacts of climate change more relatable to the reader. This differential in perspective between the local and the global, the personal and the aggregate, provides a powerful insight into how the medium influences the message in climate change narratives.
IAMs’ strengths reside primarily in providing quantifiable, wide-scale predictions, a feature that is largely absent in the more narrative-driven climate fiction. However, both mediums converge in their objective of projecting climate futures, albeit through contrasting modalities. While climate fiction is rooted in the narrative tradition of storytelling, emphasizing personal experiences and emotional resonance, IAMs adhere to an empirical, numerical approach. This dichotomy, as Van Beek and Versteeg propose, is not a barrier but rather a source of complementarity. The humanization of climate change through fiction can aid in the comprehension and internalization of the statistical data presented by IAMs. Conversely, the empirical grounding provided by IAMs serves as a counterpoint to the speculative narratives of climate fiction, thereby creating a comprehensive and multi-dimensional approach to envisaging future climate scenarios.
Bridging IAMs and Climate Fiction
Van Beek and Versteeg reason that the numerical and probabilistic nature of IAMs, coupled with the narrative, emotionally resonant strength of climate fiction, can create a comprehensive model that leverages the strengths of both. The authors argue that the merger of these modalities not only broadens the bandwidth of climate change representation, but also intensifies public engagement and understanding. Their suggestion to embed narratives into IAMs outlines a potential pathway towards achieving this symbiosis. The hypothetical, yet grounded, scenarios provided by climate fiction narratives can, as per Van Beek and Versteeg, humanize and add depth to the statistical information presented by IAMs, thereby enriching the discourse and future study of climate change.
The authors emphasize the novel notion that an amalgamation of data-driven IAMs and emotive narratives from climate fiction holds the potential to significantly enrich our comprehension of future climate scenarios, as well as galvanize a wider engagement from the public. Moreover, they suggest that their approach, if effectively implemented, could establish a more nuanced, accessible, and comprehensive climate discourse, thereby facilitating greater societal understanding and action. The implications of their research are profound; it paves the way for a unique and interdisciplinary trajectory within the philosophy of futures studies, urging scholars to explore the compelling intersection of quantitative models and narrative storytelling in the context of climate change.
Abstract
Integrated assessment models (IAMs) are critical tools to explore possible pathways to a low-carbon future. By simulating complex interactions between social and climatic processes, they help policymakers to systematically compare mitigation policies. However, their authoritative projections of cost-effective and technically feasible pathways restrict more transformative low-carbon imaginaries, especially because IAM pathways are often understood in terms of probability rather than plausibility. We suggest an interaction with climate fiction could be helpful to address this situation. Despite fundamental differences, we argue that both IAMs and climate fiction can be seen as practices of storytelling about plausible future worlds. For this exploratory article, we staged conversations between modellers and climate fiction writers to compare their respective processes of storytelling and the content of both their stories and story-worlds, focusing specifically on how they build plausibility. Whereas modellers rely on historical observations, expert judgment, transparency and rationality to build plausibility, fiction writers build plausibility by engaging with readers’ life worlds and experience, concreteness and emotionally meaningful details. Key similarities were that both modellers and fiction writers work with what-if questions, a causally connected story and build their stories through an iterative process. Based on this comparison, we suggest that an interaction between IAMs and climate fiction could be useful for improving the democratic and epistemic qualities of the IAM practice by 1) enabling a more equal dialogue between modellers and societal actors on plausible futures and 2) critically reflecting upon and broadening the spectrum of plausible futures provided by IAMs.
Plausibility in models and fiction: What integrated assessment modellers can learn from an interaction with climate fiction