#### Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Options

# Blog - Markov models of social change (part 2)

Yay! Vanessa Schweizer has delivered her blog post, a companion to Alastair Jamieson-Lane's post on stochastic cross-impact balance analysis.

She calls it "Wanted: Intrepid explorers of large sets of future possibilities", but for now, just to make the logic clear, I'm putting it here:

What's a better title?

I think it would help readers keep track of the logic if Vanessa's post and Jamie's were called "Part 1" and "Part 2" of some post with a short, exciting, yet clear title. "Stochastic cross-impact balance analysis" will feel a bit dry except for nerds like me. "Wanted: Intrepid explorers of large sets of future possibilities" is, alas,too long for the skinny-column format of the blog.

Let's see... how about "Exploring self-consistent futures"? "Exploring possible futures"?

• Options
1.

I'm tantalized by this sentence:

For example, international trends for quality of governance may play an important role in tempering or exacerbating global trends for socio-economic conditions that would make adaptation to climate change more difficult.

This sounds like it could be really interesting if rewritten in a more conversational style, and (more importantly) followed it by 1 or 2 vivid concrete examples.

Also: I've made some small changes in wording, like "coherent" for "cohesive", deleting "obscure", and breaking the paragraphs into shorter ones (as typical for a newspaper that has skinny columns and readers with short attention spans). Usually one can see what these changes were by hitting a button at the bottom of the page, but I'm not seeing that for some reason now!

Comment Source:I'm tantalized by this sentence: > For example, international trends for quality of governance may play an important role in tempering or exacerbating global trends for socio-economic conditions that would make adaptation to climate change more difficult. This sounds like it could be really interesting if rewritten in a more conversational style, and (more importantly) followed it by 1 or 2 vivid concrete examples. Also: I've made some small changes in wording, like "coherent" for "cohesive", deleting "obscure", and breaking the paragraphs into shorter ones (as typical for a newspaper that has skinny columns and readers with short attention spans). Usually one can see what these changes were by hitting a button at the bottom of the page, but I'm not seeing that for some reason now!
• Options
2.

I would also like to change

The problem with waiting is that the greenhouse gases that scientists are most concerned about are well mixed; they stay in the atmosphere for decades or centuries.

to

The problem with waiting is that the greenhouse gases that scientists are most concerned about stay in the atmosphere for decades or centuries.

I believe a gas could be well mixed yet leave the atmosphere in a few years, so I don't think the two phrases mean the same thing. It's the latter part that really matters; I'm afraid the phrase "well mixed" will just raise irrelevant questions in the reader's mind (as it just did for me).

Comment Source:I would also like to change > The problem with waiting is that the greenhouse gases that scientists are most concerned about are well mixed; they stay in the atmosphere for decades or centuries. to > The problem with waiting is that the greenhouse gases that scientists are most concerned about stay in the atmosphere for decades or centuries. I believe a gas could be well mixed yet leave the atmosphere in a few years, so I don't think the two phrases mean the same thing. It's the latter part that really matters; I'm afraid the phrase "well mixed" will just raise irrelevant questions in the reader's mind (as it just did for me).
• Options
3.
edited February 2014

It is interesting to hear someone here from the community of policy design and knowledge integration! Maybe Vanessa Schweizer may explain also something about concrete example of future strategies?

Like I was recently trying to learn a bit about the EU Emissions Trading System and I have a question. The newest (?) REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL seems to have been partially based on a COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 234 (at least I interpreted the wording "Source: SWD(2012) 234 final" on page 6 under Figure 2 together with the remarks above it as such). In particular Figure 2 seems to be cited as Figure 6 in the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT in Chapter 5. "PHASE 3 PROFILE OF AUCTIONING, FREE ALLOCATION AND USE OF INTERNATIONAL CREDITS" (page 20). In that chapter it is written that:

Regulatory changes starting in phase 3 have as explained above an important impact on supply of allowances and international credits. The figure below gives an overview of the issuance profile of allowances and the use of international credits in the coming years. Whereas this profile is naturally subject to simplifications and uncertainty (footnote: For more information on the assumptions made in the above figure (I think they mean below figure), see annex 6.4.2 and 6.5)......

In annex 6.4.2 one finds:

The total amount of allowances to be issued in the period 2013-2020 for sectors other than aviation depends on the total amount of allowances issued in the period 2008–2012. This 2008-2012 issuance is not yet fully known, for instance due to uncertainties related to the treatment of unused allowances in the national new entrants reserves for the period 2008-2012. But an estimate for the total potential issuance in the period 2013-2020 was made in the Staff Working Document 'Preparing the EU's Quantified Emission Limitation or Reduction Objective (QELRO) based on the EU Climate and Energy Package

the Staff Working Document 'Preparing the EU's Quantified Emission Limitation or Reduction Objective (QELRO) based on the EU Climate and Energy Package can be found here.

There on page 6 on finds:

To calculate the maximum allowed emissions in the EU under the Package over the period 2013 to 2020, the allowed emissions budgets under the three target trajectories need to be determined and added up. The method to determine these budgets is defined in the Package. An exact calculation can however only be made when the final allocation in the ETS is known for the period 2008-2012 and the 2010 emissions from sect ors not included in the ETS are known. The calculations in this Staff Working Document are therefore based on a best estimate.

So based on that best estimates the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 234 displays future auctioning scenarios until 2020 in the Figures 7,8,9 and (if I understand correctly ) and it is assumed that:

The options outlined in the table below assume that the allowances would be returned in the period 2016-2020 with equal amounts in each year.

I am not sure but on a first glance that sounds like a very specific assumption to me, but I am not an expert. So a question to Vanessa Schweizer could be for example wether there exists other assumptions and if yes why those haven't been chosen, like have they been ruled out in a stochastic cross-imbalance analysis?

Comment Source:It is interesting to hear someone here from the community of policy design and knowledge integration! Maybe Vanessa Schweizer may explain also something about concrete example of future strategies? Like I was recently trying to learn a bit about the EU Emissions Trading System and I have a question. The newest (?) <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/reform/docs/com_2012_652_en.pdf">REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL</a> seems to have been partially based on a <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/cap/auctioning/docs/swd_2012_234_en.pdf">COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 234</a> (at least I interpreted the wording "Source: SWD(2012) 234 final" on page 6 under Figure 2 together with the remarks above it as such). In particular Figure 2 seems to be cited as Figure 6 in the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT in Chapter 5. "PHASE 3 PROFILE OF AUCTIONING, FREE ALLOCATION AND USE OF INTERNATIONAL CREDITS" (page 20). In that chapter it is written that: >Regulatory changes starting in phase 3 have as explained above an important impact on supply of allowances and international credits. The figure below gives an overview of the issuance profile of allowances and the use of international credits in the coming years. Whereas this profile is naturally subject to simplifications and uncertainty (footnote: For more information on the assumptions made in the above figure (I think they mean below figure), see annex 6.4.2 and 6.5)...... In annex 6.4.2 one finds: >The total amount of allowances to be issued in the period 2013-2020 for sectors other than aviation depends on the total amount of allowances issued in the period 2008–2012. This 2008-2012 issuance is not yet fully known, for instance due to uncertainties related to the treatment of unused allowances in the national new entrants reserves for the period 2008-2012. But an estimate for the total potential issuance in the period 2013-2020 was made in the Staff Working Document 'Preparing the EU's Quantified Emission Limitation or Reduction Objective (QELRO) based on the EU Climate and Energy Package the Staff Working Document 'Preparing the EU's Quantified Emission Limitation or Reduction Objective (QELRO) based on the EU Climate and Energy Package can be found <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/docs/swd_13022012_en.pdf">here.</a> There on page 6 on finds: >To calculate the maximum allowed emissions in the EU under the Package over the period 2013 to 2020, the allowed emissions budgets under the three target trajectories need to be determined and added up. The method to determine these budgets is defined in the Package. An exact calculation can however only be made when the final allocation in the ETS is known for the period 2008-2012 and the 2010 emissions from sect ors not included in the ETS are known. The calculations in this Staff Working Document are therefore based on a best estimate. So based on that best estimates the COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 234 displays future auctioning scenarios until 2020 in the Figures 7,8,9 and (if I understand correctly ) and it is assumed that: >The options outlined in the table below assume that the allowances would be returned in the period 2016-2020 with equal amounts in each year. I am not sure but on a first glance that sounds like a very specific assumption to me, but I am not an expert. So a question to Vanessa Schweizer could be for example wether there exists other assumptions and if yes why those haven't been chosen, like have they been ruled out in a stochastic cross-imbalance analysis?
• Options
4.
edited February 2014

By the way in the diagram which is displayed in Vanessa Schweizers post which displays the "Fossil Fuel and Cement CO2 emissions" it looks as if the CO2 emissions of cement are in the range of 20%. However in the report of the Cement Sustainability Initiative (via wikipedia) it is said under the topic "Climate protection" that:

the cement industry is responsible for about 5% of all man-made cO2 emissions. climate protection has therefore always been high on the cSI’s agenda.

They don't say what man-made means, but there seems to be eventually some interpretational disparity, so alone for this reason it would eventually be good to mention where the diagram data comes from.

Comment Source:By the way in the diagram which is displayed in Vanessa Schweizers post which displays the "Fossil Fuel and Cement CO2 emissions" it looks as if the CO2 emissions of cement are in the range of 20%. However in the report of the <a href="http://csiprogress2012.org/CSI_ProgressReport_Summary.pdf">Cement Sustainability Initiative</a> (via wikipedia) it is said under the topic "Climate protection" that: >the cement industry is responsible for about 5% of all man-made cO2 emissions. climate protection has therefore always been high on the cSI’s agenda. They don't say what man-made means, but there seems to be eventually some interpretational disparity, so alone for this reason it would eventually be good to mention where the diagram data comes from.
• Options
5.

Hmmmm... titles. Titles titles titles.

How about "In search of an oracle" or "constructing an oracle"... hmmm... that links more to mine than yours.

"Methods of foresight"

Hmmm..
Also, I'm not sure, but you might have a more conversational tone by not putting your references midway through the blog- just put a link on the relevant sentence, and then have a collection of references at the end (also with links)
You don't seem to be aiming for a conversational style, but it might read easier.
Comment Source:Awesome- Hi Vanessa- just read over your post.... Hmmmm... titles. Titles titles titles. How about "In search of an oracle" or "constructing an oracle"... hmmm... that links more to mine than yours. "Methods of foresight" Hmmm.. Also, I'm not sure, but you might have a more conversational tone by not putting your references midway through the blog- just put a link on the relevant sentence, and then have a collection of references at the end (also with links) You don't seem to be aiming for a conversational style, but it might read easier.
• Options
6.
edited February 2014

1) As soon as we can settle on titles I'm ready to post your article, Alastair. I've uploaded it to the blog where it awaits publication. If you and Vanessa don't want to find a common title, I can just go ahead with yours now... but hers, I'm afraid, really needs to be shortened, because it physically won't fit well in the blog.

2) I would be happy to move the references down to the end... or you can do it.

3) Indeed, Vanessa's tone was not chatty and conversational. I love it when blog articles to have a conversational tone like yours, Alastair, since I believe this attracts readers and gets conversations going. But as I seek to pull more people into blogging on Azimuth I've decided it's unwise to push people too hard into adopting a new style of writing. It's a lot of work, and they may not even like it. I can easily "Baezify" any post, using my standard tricks, but I shouldn't force this on people.

Comment Source:1) As soon as we can settle on titles I'm ready to post your article, Alastair. I've uploaded it to the blog where it awaits publication. If you and Vanessa don't want to find a common title, I can just go ahead with yours now... but hers, I'm afraid, really needs to be shortened, because it physically won't fit well in the blog. 2) I would be happy to move the references down to the end... or you can do it. 3) Indeed, Vanessa's tone was not chatty and conversational. I love it when blog articles to have a conversational tone like yours, Alastair, since I believe this attracts readers and gets conversations going. But as I seek to pull more people into blogging on Azimuth I've decided it's unwise to push people too hard into adopting a new style of writing. It's a lot of work, and they may not even like it. I can easily "Baezify" any post, using my standard tricks, but I shouldn't force this on people.
• Options
7.
Sorry to not be html savvy... I tried to edit the citations/references as Alastair recommended with a style that makes use of numbered citations, e.g. [1]. Is that a bad style for html? I guess the brackets usually signify a command. Would Alastair or John be able to fix what I tried to to do? I like the bracket style if we can manage to keep it.

I also adopted John's edit of removing the term "well mixed." It's fine to remove "obscure," but the counter-intuitive finding is bolstered by the other finding that I previously called "obscure." Basically the important finding is how significant quality of governance may be for all sorts of other socioeconomic outcomes. I'm working on how to elaborate on this without being too... elaborate.

Finally, I'm sorry to disappoint with my attempt at being conversational. I guess I still speak like an encyclopedia.
Comment Source:Sorry to not be html savvy... I tried to edit the citations/references as Alastair recommended with a style that makes use of numbered citations, e.g. [1]. Is that a bad style for html? I guess the brackets usually signify a command. Would Alastair or John be able to fix what I tried to to do? I like the bracket style if we can manage to keep it. I also adopted John's edit of removing the term "well mixed." It's fine to remove "obscure," but the counter-intuitive finding is bolstered by the other finding that I previously called "obscure." Basically the important finding is how significant quality of governance may be for all sorts of other socioeconomic outcomes. I'm working on how to elaborate on this without being too... elaborate. Finally, I'm sorry to disappoint with my attempt at being conversational. I guess I still speak like an encyclopedia.
• Options
8.
To be fair, I never said you SHOULD have a particular style.
Reference links work beautifully now. Awesome.

As for titles...
"Markov models of possible futures"
Hmmm..... not as snappy as I'd like, but probably more accurate/specific than anything I've suggested.
"Markov chains of social change" works better in my head, but I have no idea why.
"Of prediction and chance"
Hmmmmm.... Oh well... I'd say either of the first two will work.

Also, would you guys like me to add a note to the end of mine referencing Vanessa's forthcoming article, or am I too late due to blogification.
Comment Source:To be fair, I never said you SHOULD have a particular style. Reference links work beautifully now. Awesome. As for titles... "Markov models of possible futures" Hmmm..... not as snappy as I'd like, but probably more accurate/specific than anything I've suggested. "Markov chains of social change" works better in my head, but I have no idea why. "Of prediction and chance" Hmmmmm.... Oh well... I'd say either of the first two will work. Also, would you guys like me to add a note to the end of mine referencing Vanessa's forthcoming article, or am I too late due to blogification.
• Options
9.
Regarding the title, do we like “Markov models of social change”? I think John has a good point that not everyone will know what Markov chains are.

In an attempt to address John’s intrigue, I have revised the paragraph before the “Wanted” section. It is now two paragraphs. I’m not sure my revisions do the job, since I’m trying to be concise in the face of multiple layers of explanation.

On this note, nad’s questions re: specific policy assumptions in the analysis of the EU ETS reflect the multiple layers of policy questions and actors that have been engaged (and remain to be engaged) in making economic practices more sustainable. The CIB studies featured in these blog posts were not performed at the level of nations nor country groups. Instead, the CIB studies were at the global level. This means that they considered long-term global trends for highly aggregated drivers of emissions, such as gross figures for energy- and carbon-intensity. Emissions due to the EU cement sector, for instance, may be a decimal point in the data used for these CIB analyses.

On nad’s comments about the global cement sector, I agree that a source for the figure should be included, so I have added a note about that. John, would it be possible for you to adjust the font on the source note so that it looks more like a caption?

Returning to nad’s question about why the cement sector appears to be responsible for 20% of emissions in the figure, by my read, the figure is consistent with the 5% figures nad uncovered. In the upper portion of the figure, cement emissions are the thin light-gray line (almost white), while natural gas is the gray area.

Finally, although I figured how to get the citations to show up, I am still without brackets in the References section. John, would you be able to fix that? Additionally, I added two new references (ref. [2] and [6]). I tried to follow the style of the existing references, but I’m not sure I got everything right.

Thanks for the edits and comments!
Comment Source:Regarding the title, do we like “Markov models of social change”? I think John has a good point that not everyone will know what Markov chains are. In an attempt to address John’s intrigue, I have revised the paragraph before the “Wanted” section. It is now two paragraphs. I’m not sure my revisions do the job, since I’m trying to be concise in the face of multiple layers of explanation. On this note, nad’s questions re: specific policy assumptions in the analysis of the EU ETS reflect the multiple layers of policy questions and actors that have been engaged (and remain to be engaged) in making economic practices more sustainable. The CIB studies featured in these blog posts were not performed at the level of nations nor country groups. Instead, the CIB studies were at the global level. This means that they considered long-term global trends for highly aggregated drivers of emissions, such as gross figures for energy- and carbon-intensity. Emissions due to the EU cement sector, for instance, may be a decimal point in the data used for these CIB analyses. On nad’s comments about the global cement sector, I agree that a source for the figure should be included, so I have added a note about that. John, would it be possible for you to adjust the font on the source note so that it looks more like a caption? Returning to nad’s question about why the cement sector appears to be responsible for 20% of emissions in the figure, by my read, the figure is consistent with the 5% figures nad uncovered. In the upper portion of the figure, cement emissions are the thin light-gray line (almost white), while natural gas is the gray area. Finally, although I figured how to get the citations to show up, I am still without brackets in the References section. John, would you be able to fix that? Additionally, I added two new references (ref. [2] and [6]). I tried to follow the style of the existing references, but I’m not sure I got everything right. Thanks for the edits and comments!
• Options
10.

@Vanessa

Returning to nad’s question about why the cement sector appears to be responsible for 20% of emissions in the figure, by my read, the figure is consistent with the 5% figures nad uncovered. In the upper portion of the figure, cement emissions are the thin light-gray line (almost white), while natural gas is the gray area.

Right, sorry I read the light grey of gas falsely as the lightlightgrey of the cement. However - at least in my browser- there is basically no lightlightgrey (for cement) but just a rather thick black line, which seems to be some contour which covers the lightlightgrey, or in other words the lightlightgrey line is at least here basically nonvisible thats why I felt into that trap. If I look now very carefully I might though now detect some small white looking sprinkles between the light grey (of gas) and the black contour line, which seems to be the rest of the cement. However due to a light presbyopia it's better to take the eyeglasses down for that.

What about my other question with the EU (sorry for talking about you in the third person in the comment above, but I wasn't sure wether you read this forum)?

Comment Source:@Vanessa >Returning to nad’s question about why the cement sector appears to be responsible for 20% of emissions in the figure, by my read, the figure is consistent with the 5% figures nad uncovered. In the upper portion of the figure, cement emissions are the thin light-gray line (almost white), while natural gas is the gray area. Right, sorry I read the light grey of gas falsely as the lightlightgrey of the cement. However - at least in my browser- there is basically no lightlightgrey (for cement) but just a rather thick black line, which seems to be some contour which covers the lightlightgrey, or in other words the lightlightgrey line is at least here basically nonvisible thats why I felt into that trap. If I look now very carefully I might though now detect some small white looking sprinkles between the light grey (of gas) and the black contour line, which seems to be the rest of the cement. However due to a light presbyopia it's better to take the eyeglasses down for that. What about my other question with the EU (sorry for talking about you in the third person in the comment above, but I wasn't sure wether you read this forum)?
• Options
11.

Sorry I don't really use html, so you'll have to bear with my lack of formatting. Previously you wrote:

"... [A] question to Vanessa Schweizer could be for example wether there exists other assumptions and if yes why those haven’t been chosen, like have they been ruled out in a stochastic cross-imbalance analysis?"

Then I wrote:

"[S]pecific policy assumptions in the analysis of the EU ETS reflect the multiple layers of policy questions and actors that have been engaged (and remain to be engaged) in making economic practices more sustainable. The CIB studies featured in these blog posts were not performed at the level of nations nor country groups. Instead, the CIB studies were at the global level. This means that they considered long-term global trends for highly aggregated drivers of emissions, such as gross figures for energy- and carbon-intensity. Emissions due to the EU cement sector, for instance, may be a decimal point in the data used for these CIB analyses."

To point a finer point on my response, if we were to use human health as an analogy, your question appears to be akin to a discussion of what neurotransmitters are responsible for making the act of smoking pleasurable, while I'm speaking at the level of a public health official who has data on the monetary value of the cigarette industry and how it has changed over time, market data on who smokes and how this has changed over time, data on long-term trends in lung cancer deaths, etc. Although we are both talking about smoking, the data used and analytical questions are quite different, which is why I cannot provide you a more specific answer.

If you had a different question, I'm afraid you'll have to restate it.
Comment Source:@nad Sorry I don't really use html, so you'll have to bear with my lack of formatting. Previously you wrote: "... [A] question to Vanessa Schweizer could be for example wether there exists other assumptions and if yes why those haven’t been chosen, like have they been ruled out in a stochastic cross-imbalance analysis?" Then I wrote: "[S]pecific policy assumptions in the analysis of the EU ETS reflect the multiple layers of policy questions and actors that have been engaged (and remain to be engaged) in making economic practices more sustainable. The CIB studies featured in these blog posts were not performed at the level of nations nor country groups. Instead, the CIB studies were at the global level. This means that they considered long-term global trends for highly aggregated drivers of emissions, such as gross figures for energy- and carbon-intensity. Emissions due to the EU cement sector, for instance, may be a decimal point in the data used for these CIB analyses." To point a finer point on my response, if we were to use human health as an analogy, your question appears to be akin to a discussion of what neurotransmitters are responsible for making the act of smoking pleasurable, while I'm speaking at the level of a public health official who has data on the monetary value of the cigarette industry and how it has changed over time, market data on who smokes and how this has changed over time, data on long-term trends in lung cancer deaths, etc. Although we are both talking about smoking, the data used and analytical questions are quite different, which is why I cannot provide you a more specific answer. If you had a different question, I'm afraid you'll have to restate it.
• Options
12.
edited February 2014

Hi! I was without wireless this weekend, staying at an old Oxford college where I couldn't get it to work. The withdrawal symptoms from my internet addiction were severe.

I will get to work on this article soon... but even sooner, I will publish Jamie's.

I will go with "Markov models of social change" as a title for both.

It's fine to remove "obscure," but the counter-intuitive finding is bolstered by the other finding that I previously called "obscure." Basically the important finding is how significant quality of governance may be for all sorts of other socioeconomic outcomes. I'm working on how to elaborate on this without being too... elaborate.

One snappy example illustrating this important finding would be fun. But of course you're trying for a methodology that's more scientific than relying on "one snappy example". So, if anecdotal evidence is something you're deliberately trying to avoid, you could say a bit about how you reached this finding.

This stuff sounds exciting to me, not obscure. Maybe I'm missing the obscure aspect because you didn't detail it?

Comment Source:Hi! I was without wireless this weekend, staying at an old Oxford college where I couldn't get it to work. The withdrawal symptoms from my internet addiction were severe. I will get to work on this article soon... but even sooner, I will publish Jamie's. I will go with "Markov models of social change" as a title for both. > It's fine to remove "obscure," but the counter-intuitive finding is bolstered by the other finding that I previously called "obscure." Basically the important finding is how significant quality of governance may be for all sorts of other socioeconomic outcomes. I'm working on how to elaborate on this without being too... elaborate. One snappy _example_ illustrating this important finding would be fun. But of course you're trying for a methodology that's more scientific than relying on "one snappy example". So, if anecdotal evidence is something you're deliberately trying to avoid, you could say a bit about how you reached this finding. This stuff sounds _exciting_ to me, not obscure. Maybe I'm missing the obscure aspect because you didn't detail it?
• Options
13.
edited February 2014

I would like to see tables along the lines of Alistair's ant farm. My crude summary of Part 2 is that this:

influence \ target economic growth energy efficiency mitigation and adaptation
economic growth
energy efficiency

wasn't good enough.This:

influence \ target economic growth energy efficiency mitigation adaptation
economic growth
energy efficiency
mitigation

was better but this:

influence \ target economic growth energy efficiency mitigation adaptation governance
economic growth
energy efficiency
mitigation
governance

is what you really need.

Comment Source:I would like to see tables along the lines of Alistair's ant farm. My crude summary of Part 2 is that this: influence \ target | economic growth | energy efficiency | mitigation and adaptation --------------------------|:---------------:|------------------:|-------------------------:| economic growth | | | energy efficiency | | | mitigation and adaptation | | | wasn't good enough.This: influence \ target | economic growth | energy efficiency | mitigation | adaptation --------------------------|:---------------:|------------------:|-----------:|------------:| economic growth | | | | energy efficiency | | | | mitigation | | | | adaptation | | | | was better but this: influence \ target | economic growth | energy efficiency | mitigation | adaptation | governance --------------------------|:---------------:|------------------:|-----------:|------------:| economic growth | | | | | energy efficiency | | | | | mitigation | | | | | adaptation | | | | | governance | | | | | is what you really need.
• Options
14.
edited February 2014

Graham: Vanessa has now given me a table along the lines of what you want, and I added it to her article.

I said to her:

As you'll see, the words on the image are hard to read when it's just 450 pixels wide, the maximum width of the blog. I wrote "click to enlarge" underneath, but that requires extra effort so it's a bit suboptimal. As an alternative, I included a version where I chopped out a portion of the matrix and showed just that. This makes it easier to read and maybe a bit less intimidating. But, then I noticed that it omits "governance", which is important to your discussion!

So, pick the one you want and delete the other on the wiki.

One thing you don't explain is what light gray, dark gray and pink squares mean. I think everyone will want to know that. I think I sorta know: light gray is the diagonal, which is "meaningless". Dark gray means a lot of influence (positive? negative? either?) Pink is there just to make us look at those rows.

Comment Source:Graham: Vanessa has now given me a table along the lines of what you want, and I added it to [her article](http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Blog+-+Markov+models+of+social+change+%28part+2%29). I said to her: > I added the image. > As you'll see, the words on the image are hard to read when it's just 450 pixels wide, the maximum width of the blog. I wrote "click to enlarge" underneath, but that requires extra effort so it's a bit suboptimal. As an alternative, I included a version where I chopped out a portion of the matrix and showed just that. This makes it easier to read and maybe a bit less intimidating. But, then I noticed that it omits "governance", which is important to your discussion! > So, pick the one you want and delete the other on the wiki. > One thing you don't explain is what light gray, dark gray and pink squares mean. I think everyone will want to know that. I think I sorta know: light gray is the diagonal, which is "meaningless". Dark gray means a lot of influence (positive? negative? either?) Pink is there just to make us look at those rows. > I could add a remark about this, if you answer my parenthetical question. Or you could add it.
• Options
15.

Nice! I prefer “click to enlarge”.

Comment Source:Nice! I prefer “click to enlarge”.
• Options
16.

It looks like Vanessa may make a picture combining the best of both worlds.

Comment Source:It looks like Vanessa may make a picture combining the best of both worlds.
• Options
17.
@ Graham and John

Glad to hear that Graham finds the full matrix informative. I think the truncated matrix doesn't convey everything, but I agree with John that some folks might need more incentive to "click to enlarge". My recommendation is to show both matrices, where the smaller matrix can be read more easily without clicking anything, while the larger matrix gives the discussion its punch. John should help me with uploading revised matrices shortly.
Comment Source:@ Graham and John Glad to hear that Graham finds the full matrix informative. I think the truncated matrix doesn't convey everything, but I agree with John that some folks might need more incentive to "click to enlarge". My recommendation is to show both matrices, where the smaller matrix can be read more easily without clicking anything, while the larger matrix gives the discussion its punch. John should help me with uploading revised matrices shortly.
• Options
18.

Okay, the article is published! Congratulations to everyone, especially Vanessa, for making this happen... and making it so good!

Comment Source:Okay, the article is published! Congratulations to everyone, especially Vanessa, for making this happen... and making it so good! * [Markov models of social change (part 2)](http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2014/03/05/markov-models-of-social-change-part-2/).
• Options
19.

Vanessa wrote in response to my question about specific policy future scenarios within EU regulations

To point a finer point on my response, if we were to use human health as an analogy, your question appears to be akin to a discussion of what neurotransmitters are responsible for making the act of smoking pleasurable, while I'm speaking at the level of a public health official who has data on the monetary value of the cigarette industry and how it has changed over time, market data on who smokes and how this has changed over time, data on long-term trends in lung cancer deaths, etc. Although we are both talking about smoking, the data used and analytical questions are quite different, which is why I cannot provide you a more specific answer.

I see this a little different. That is I can't see at the moment wether your methodology can be applied to assessing the needed questions in the EU regulations (partially because I am not sure wether I understood all the EU terminology, which is often rather nightmarish I find), nevertheless I do think that the data (analogy of the data of the "health official") is at least partially available and that the working staff took it probably already into consideration. The assessment of the working staff is very important, last but not least the politicians make their decisions based on it. Let's put it this way I think it could be more advisable if policy directives would describe the broad overall direction for such a long time span (like it is in some sense already partially given in the goals for CO2 reduction, the envisaged upgrade of renewables) and that a economic-technical informed board would be concerned with the fine-structure of adapting the certificates accordingly and in a timely manner. That is I don't know how good such an adaption of a market regulation can be accomplished within the range of a parliamentary workflow and it seems very hard to make economic predictions for long time spans. The boards decisions should however be under political control, especially if things go wrong. Anyways but if one does such long term predictions (as here until 2020) then it could be helpful to discuss the involved predictive methodologies and used tools (if applicable) and researchers who think their prediction analysis works for the case in question should have a chance to display that. Finally the diversity in predictions may eventually give politicians some clue one what grounds their decision is based.

Comment Source:Vanessa <a ref="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1305/blog-markov-models-of-social-change-part-2/?Focus=10092#Comment_10092">wrote</a> in response to <a href="http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1305/blog-markov-models-of-social-change-part-2/?Focus=10083#Comment_10083">my question about specific policy future scenarios within EU regulations</a> >To point a finer point on my response, if we were to use human health as an analogy, your question appears to be akin to a discussion of what neurotransmitters are responsible for making the act of smoking pleasurable, while I'm speaking at the level of a public health official who has data on the monetary value of the cigarette industry and how it has changed over time, market data on who smokes and how this has changed over time, data on long-term trends in lung cancer deaths, etc. Although we are both talking about smoking, the data used and analytical questions are quite different, which is why I cannot provide you a more specific answer. I see this a little different. That is I can't see at the moment wether your methodology can be applied to assessing the needed questions in the EU regulations (partially because I am not sure wether I understood all the EU terminology, which is often rather nightmarish I find), nevertheless I do think that the data (analogy of the data of the "health official") is at least partially available and that the working staff took it probably already into consideration. The assessment of the working staff is very important, last but not least the politicians make their decisions based on it. Let's put it this way I think it could be more advisable if policy directives would describe the broad overall direction for such a long time span (like it is in some sense already partially given in the goals for CO2 reduction, the envisaged upgrade of renewables) and that a economic-technical informed board would be concerned with the fine-structure of adapting the certificates accordingly and in a timely manner. That is I don't know how good such an adaption of a market regulation can be accomplished within the range of a parliamentary workflow and it seems very hard to make economic predictions for long time spans. The boards decisions should however be under political control, especially if things go wrong. Anyways but if one does such long term predictions (as here until 2020) then it could be helpful to discuss the involved predictive methodologies and used tools (if applicable) and researchers who think their prediction analysis works for the case in question should have a chance to display that. Finally the diversity in predictions may eventually give politicians some clue one what grounds their decision is based.