# NiGEM Global Scenario — Methodology
# Model ID: nigem-global
# Version: 3.7.0
# Last updated: 2026-05-17
# Type: economic
# Geography: Multi-country (50+ country models, bilateral trade flows)
# Horizon: 2025–2035

## Summary
International propagation model suited to multi-country shock analysis.

## Methodology Detail
The National Institute Global Econometric Model (NiGEM) is a multi-country model maintained by NIESR, designed for international spillover analysis and stress testing across 50+ country models. It explicitly models cross-border trade flows, commodity price transmission, exchange rate dynamics, and sovereign balance sheet linkages. CE uses NiGEM as the primary cross-border fragmentation tool — under the trade fragmentation scenario, it captures how supply chain disruption, commodity repricing, and capital flow reversals propagate differently across industries with varying export/import intensity. The model is particularly valuable for scenarios where policy incoherence creates divergent competitive regimes across major economies.

## Key Mechanisms
- Multi-country linkages: bilateral trade flows, commodity prices, and financial conditions propagate shocks across 50+ country models simultaneously
- Exchange rate dynamics: floating exchange rates adjust in response to policy divergence, creating competitiveness effects for trade-exposed sectors
- Commodity price transmission: oil, gas, food, and metals prices are endogenous — a supply shock in one region affects all importing countries
- Capital flow reversal: sudden stops in cross-border capital flows affect financing costs differently in emerging vs. developed markets
- Trade fragmentation scenario: tariff escalation, supply chain reshoring, and market access restrictions are explicitly modelled as policy interventions
- Sovereign spread dynamics: sovereign risk premia respond endogenously to fiscal deterioration and climate vulnerability — affects emerging market transition financing costs and creates asymmetric adjustment across debtor and creditor countries
- Supply chain disruption propagation: input-output linkages between countries transmit supply shocks (critical minerals, energy) across borders — a cobalt supply disruption in DRC flows through EV supply chains to auto sector output in Germany and China
- Green technology spillover: productivity gains from clean technology deployment in leading countries diffuse internationally through trade, FDI, and technology licensing — endogenous technology diffusion unique to NiGEM among macro models

## Strengths
- Best-in-class for cross-border spillovers — uniquely captures how a policy shock in one country propagates to others through trade and finance
- Commodity price endogeneity: energy, food, and materials prices respond to supply and demand dynamics, not just held constant
- Explicit trade fragmentation stress scenario framework aligned with NGFS and FSB climate stress testing protocols
- Best-suited for NGFS Phase IV cross-border scenario analysis — the only CE macro model explicitly tracking how delayed action in one regional bloc exports transition risk to others through trade and capital flows
- Critical minerals endogeneity: copper, lithium, nickel, and cobalt demand from electrification propagates to mining-dependent emerging markets — unique capability for EM portfolio stress in transition scenarios
- Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) modelling: tariff escalation, retaliation scenarios, and supply chain reshoring are explicitly supported — directly relevant for EU-Asia trade flow analysis

## Limitations
- Less detailed on domestic financial conditions within each country — FRB/US is superior for US policy transmission mechanisms
- Country-level models are less granular than the IMF WEO for sector decomposition within individual economies
- Green transition investment dynamics are less explicitly modelled than in IMF WEO's Climate Transition Risk module
- Domestic financial sector transmission is less granular than FRB/US — banking system, capital market, and insurance sector dynamics within each country are stylised rather than structurally modelled
- Technology adoption within sectors uses stylised cost curves rather than the bottom-up TRL-stratified deployment modelling available in energy-system IAMs like GCAM or MESSAGE-GLOBIOM

## Terminology Note
- '52 Gt total abatement required' (KPI): net reduction from 57 GtCO2e/yr baseline to 5 GtCO2e/yr net-zero residual.
- 'G_2050 = 47 Gt annual gap': annual policy-to-NZ gap at 2050, because under current policy
  the trajectory reaches only ~52 GtCO2e/yr by 2050 (not the 57 Gt baseline).
  G_t = CURRENT_POLICY[t] - NET_ZERO_PATH[t]; at t=2050: 52 - 5 = 47 Gt.

## Core Equations
G_t = E_t_policy - E_t_NZ                               (annual abatement gap)
T_t_s = sum(A_i_t_s for i in 1..N) * (1 - delta)       (tech coverage; delta=0.15)
B_t_s = max(G_t - T_t_s, 0)                            (breakthrough gap)
tau = min{t | sum(E_y_policy, y=2025..t) >= C}         (budget exhaustion year)
G_t_j = w_j * G_t                                       (sector decomposition)

## De-duplication Discount
delta=0.15 is a central estimate for cross-sector emission overlap.
Primary overlap sources: (i) green H2 and SAF both reduce transport fossil demand (~2-3%);
(ii) BECCS and enhanced weathering both draw on land-based biological carbon sinks (~3-4%);
(iii) ocean iron fertilisation and enhanced weathering compete for ocean sink capacity (~2%);
(iv) green steel and recycling address overlapping industrial-process emissions (~2-3%).
Estimated total overlap range: 13-18%; 15% used as central estimate.
Sensitivity: ±5pp change in delta shifts B_2050_base by approximately ±2 Gt.

## Data Sources
- UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024 (baseline 57 GtCO2e/yr)
- IPCC AR6 WG3 SPM Table 3.2 (net-zero C1 pathway)
- IPCC AR6 WG1 Table SPM.2 (carbon budgets; original 2020 reference: 400 Gt for 1.5C at 67%;
  adjusted to ~250 Gt from 2025 by deducting ~150 Gt emitted 2020-2024; AR6-adjusted illustrative
  budget, uncertainty ±50 Gt. Independent check: GCB 2024 (ESSD 2025) gives ~235 Gt from Jan 2025
  at 50% probability — consistent within uncertainty bounds given different probability threshold.)
- IPCC AR6 WG3 Chapter 6 (sector abatement proportions)
- IEA Net Zero by 2050 NZE 2023 (mature technology ceilings)
- CE Emerging Technology Library v3.1.0 (12 technology abatement ranges; public provenance table
  at /models/ce-solution-scale — sources, TRL, EROI, counterfactuals, overlap deps, feasibility ceilings per technology)
  Machine-readable constants: /models/ce-solution-scale/assumptions.json

## Uncertainty Quantification
Scenario probabilities: P(optimistic)=0.25, P(base)=0.50, P(pessimistic)=0.25.
Expected value: E[B_2050] = 0.25*B_opt + 0.50*B_base + 0.25*B_pes.
Monte Carlo CI: delta~N(0.15,0.03), per-tech abatement perturbation drawn from a 3-factor co-variance model.
Factors: global transition momentum (bGlobal=0.35*sigma), electricity/grid sector (bElec=0.30*sigma),
CDR governance (bCDR=0.35*sigma). Variance-preserving: idiosyncratic sigma = sigma*sqrt(1-bG^2-bE^2-bC^2).
Implied cross-tech correlations: rho(elec pairs)~0.21, rho(CDR pairs)~0.25.
Positive co-variance widens CI vs independent draws (correct direction: shared policy/finance shocks
cause portfolio-level fat tails). sigma_i=0.30 for fusion/DAC/ocean_iron; 0.15 for other 9 techs. N=600.
Output: 80% CI on breakthrough gap (P10/P90).

## Deployment Constraints (v2.2.0+)
Interactive sliders model four institutional deployment barriers:
1. Permitting/build delay (0-10 yr): shifts each tech trajectory right in time.
2. Grid interconnection queue (0/3/6 yr): extra delay for grid-dependent techs.
3. Political continuity risk: post-reversal-year values switch to pessimistic scenario.
4. Cost-of-capital stress (+100/200/400 bps): global finance multiplier 0.95/0.88/0.78.

## Transition Economics (v2.2.0+)
Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) ranges per technology at 2040+ deployment scale.
Sources: IEA WEO 2024, IRENA 2023, IEA GHR 2023, IEA DAC 2022, IPCC AR6 WG3.
NPV calculated at SCC=$190/tCO2 (US EPA 2023). Discount rates: 2%, 5%, 10%.
All NPV estimates positive across full range of mainstream discount rates.

## Workforce Impact (v2.4.0+)
Per-technology direct employment estimates at CE base-scenario 2050 deployment scale.
Sources: IRENA WESO 2024; IEA WEO 2024; ILO WESO 2022; IEA DAC 2022; IPCC AR6 WG3 Ch.17.
Peak deploy jobs (M): construction/manufacturing surge 2025-2040 (temporary).
Ops/mfg 2050 (M/yr): permanent direct ops, maintenance, and ongoing manufacturing.
Direct displaced (M): job losses in directly substituted incumbent sectors only.
Portfolio net: ~+12M direct ops jobs; separate fossil at-risk: ~10M (coal ~7M + oil/gas ~3M).
Economy-wide net (before supply-chain multipliers 1.5-3x): ~+9 to +12M by 2050.
All estimates carry +/-40-60% uncertainty at global scale.

## Infrastructure Sequencing (v2.5.0+)
9 foundational infrastructure investments mapped to must-start and must-complete years for 2050 critical path.
Urgency tiers: Critical (must start <=2026), Soon (2026-2028), Planned (2028+).
Critical: permitting reform, grid transmission expansion, MRV standards (CDR), nuclear regulatory pathway.
Soon: critical minerals supply chain, sustainable biomass supply, CO2 transport & storage network, green H2 hubs.
Planned: ocean governance framework (London Protocol+).
Sources: IEA NZE 2023; IPCC AR6 WG3 Ch.6; BloombergNEF ETI 2024; IRENA 2024.

## State Capacity Index (v2.5.0+)
Per-country implementation readiness for top 20 emitters (~77% of global GHG emissions).
WGI Government Effectiveness percentile rank (World Bank 2022/2023).
Tier 1 (>=75): USA, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Canada, Australia, S. Korea -- ~25% of emissions.
Tier 2 (40-74): China, India, Indonesia + 7 others -- ~45% of emissions.
Tier 3 (<40): Russia, Iran -- ~7% of emissions.
Source: World Bank WGI 2022; IEA 2023; Global Carbon Budget 2024.

## Model Assumptions Registry (v2.6.0+)
All structural constants with tested range and B_2050 sensitivity documented in-page.
Key sensitivities: baseline +-2 Gt -> +-2 Gt; delta +-5pp -> +-2 Gt; sigma(high) +-0.10 -> +-2 Gt P90.
Full table at /models/ce-solution-scale (Model Assumptions Registry section).

## Geographic Resource & State Capacity Cross-Link (v2.6.0+)
10 technologies mapped to critical resource geographies and State Capacity tier.
Key findings: DRC cobalt (BEV batteries) is Tier 3 equivalent -- governance deficit flagged.
Perovskite solar: ~85% manufacturing in China (Tier 2) -- supply-chain concentration risk.
Ocean iron fertilisation: multi-jurisdictional governance (London Protocol) -- T3/N/A tier.
BECCS/SAF bio-feedstock: Brazil and Indonesia Tier 2 -- deforestation governance risk.

## Policy Effectiveness Validation Backtest (v2.6.0+)
7 major climate policies benchmarked against 2020-2025 observed delivery:
- Paris NDCs aggregate: ~50% delivery (15% vs 30% below BAU) -- consistent with CE near-flat baseline.
- EU Green Deal: ~78% delivery -- CE Tier 1 capacity assumption validated.
- US IRA: ~68% delivery -- consistent with CE optimistic scenario demand-side pull.
- China Dual Carbon: <50% delivery -- consistent with CE near-flat China baseline.
- IEA NZE solar target: ~67% delivery but pace accelerating -- supports CE optimistic perovskite ramp.
- Global EV targets: ~30% delivery -- CE BEV base scenario consistent with observed trajectory.
- EU ETS carbon price: >100% (exceeded target price) -- validates CE NPV framework direction.

## Sensitivity Tornado Chart (v2.7.0+)
6-parameter B_2050 impact ranking (Chart.js horizontal floating bars).
Technology opt-pes spread: +-8.5 Gt (dominant, 4x all others combined).
Baseline emissions +-2 Gt -> +-2 Gt; De-dup delta +-5pp -> +-2 Gt.
Scenario probs P(opt) +-0.10 -> +-1.5 Gt; MC co-variance rho 0->0.4 -> +1.5 Gt CI widening.
Net-zero residual +-1 Gt -> +-1 Gt.

## EROI-Adjusted Abatement (v2.7.0+)
Grid carbon intensity penalty for energy-intensive removal technologies.
DAC (2000 kWh/tCO2): current grid (0.42 kgCO2/kWh) reduces 1.8 Gt gross to 0.36 Gt net (-80%).
DAC at 2035 grid (0.15): net 1.53 Gt (-15%); at 2050 clean grid (0.02): net 1.73 Gt (-4%).
BECCS (~200 kWh/tCO2): current grid -8%; 2050 grid 0%. Enhanced Weathering ~140 kWh: current -6%.
Key finding: DAC only viable at scale on near-zero-carbon grid (post-2035 deployment preferred).

## Investment Gap Panel (v2.7.0+)
Current 2024 vs required 2035 capital deployment by technology ($B/yr).
Portfolio current: ~$470B/yr; required 2035: ~$1.3-2.0T/yr; whole-portfolio gap: ~3-4x.
Largest relative gaps: Enhanced Weathering 200-400x; Ocean Iron 40-100x; Perovskite 16-30x.
Sources: IEA WEI 2024; BloombergNEF 2024; IRENA 2023; IEA GHR 2023; IEA DAC 2022.

## Carbon Budget Delay Cost (v2.7.0+)
Cumulative GtCO2 consumed by 5yr or 10yr deployment slip per technology.
Formula: 5yr cost = (b[4]+b[5]-b[0])*2.5*(1-delta); sorted descending by 5yr cost.
Highest delay cost: Perovskite 24.4 Gt (5yr); BEV 18.9 Gt; BECCS 17.9 Gt; Green H2 17.0 Gt.

## Technology Cliff Dates (v2.7.0+)
Latest year to make binding go/no-go deployment commitment per technology.
At cliff now (2026): Green H2 (electrolyzer orders), High-Albedo (building codes), Recycling (EPR regs).
1yr window (2027): Perovskite, DAC, BECCS, Enhanced Weathering, SAF, Green Steel.
2yr window (2028): Nuclear Fusion (SPARC ignition -> FOAK decision).
Committed: BEV. Governance-gated: Ocean Iron (London Protocol amendment first).

## IPCC Scenario Band Mapping (v2.7.0+)
CE portfolio scenarios mapped to IPCC AR6 WG3 C1-C7 pathway categories.
CE Optimistic: ~9.6 Gt residual -> C2 (1.5C limited overshoot) -- with mature tech could reach C1.
CE Base: ~25.2 Gt residual -> C4 (below 2C ~66%).
CE Pessimistic: ~38.5 Gt residual -> C5 (below 2.5C).
Current policy (no emerging tech): 57 Gt -> C7 (above 3C median).
Sources: IPCC AR6 WG3 Table SPM.1 (2022) for C-category thresholds.

## Scientific Precision Corrections (v3.0.0+)
CCS injection ceiling: previously stated as '8-10 Gt/yr geological storage capacity (IPCC)'. Corrected:
  IPCC AR6 WG3 C1 scenario range is 4-15 Gt/yr for CO2 injection rates; CE uses 8-10 Gt/yr as mid-range.
  Physical geological storage volume (hundreds of Gt) is NOT the binding constraint -- injection rate infrastructure is.
Committed emissions: primary citation added -- Tong et al. 2019 (Nature 572, 373-377): 658 GtCO2 from 2018
  operating fossil-fuel infrastructure (operating assets only, excl. planned/permitted pipeline).
  CE 680 Gt figure adds ~22 Gt additional 2018-2025 committed build; consistent with Tong upper bound.
BECCS biomass: 3.5-5.5 EJ/yr is a conservative no-regrets floor (zero food/land conflict scenarios).
  Full IPCC AR6 WG3 Ch.7 sustainable bioenergy range: 50-250 EJ/yr (wide, heavily sustainability-constrained).
  CE does not use the upper end; 3.5-5.5 EJ/yr represents lowest-controversy deployment ceiling only.
Carbon budget: AR6 WG1 Table SPM.2 400 Gt (67% probability, 2020 reference) cross-checked against
  GCB 2024 (ESSD 2025) ~235 Gt from Jan 2025 at 50% probability. CE 250 Gt figure is consistent
  within stated uncertainty bounds given the different probability threshold (67% vs 50%).

## Assumptions API (v3.0.0+)
All 10 structural constants with source lineage, uncertainty ranges, and scope notes available at:
  GET /models/ce-solution-scale/assumptions.json
  Returns: model_id, version, generated date, epistemic_status, comparable_to / not_comparable_to lists,
  assumptions array (constant, value, unit, source, scope, uncertainty, last_reviewed per entry),
  scenario_probabilities, and reproducibility links.
Machine-readable; CORS open (*); suitable for programmatic audit by institutional users.

## Platform Positioning (v3.0.0+)
CE is a TRANSPARENT TRANSITION DIAGNOSTIC platform, not a predictive IAM.
Methodology class: bottom-up gap accounting -- same as UNEP Emissions Gap Report and IEA NZE scenario accounting.
CE does NOT produce: equilibrium temperature projections, macro-economic forecasts, probabilistic damage estimates.
CE DOES produce: technology portfolio coverage quantification, committed-emissions accounting,
  breakthrough gap sizing, deployment-ceiling analysis, and cross-sector de-duplication.
Appropriate use: institutional transition planning, policy gap analysis, technology prioritisation,
  portfolio stress-testing, and complementary analysis alongside NGFS scenarios.
Not appropriate as a standalone substitute for: NGFS scenario sets, IPCC AR6 physical science,
  probabilistic IAM runs (DICE, PAGE, MESSAGE-GLOBIOM, REMIND), or national GHG inventories.

Structural accounting / gap model. Not a probabilistic forecast.
Outputs are scenarios conditioned on IPCC pathway assumptions.
Comparable to IEA NZE scenario accounting and UNEP Emissions Gap Report methodology,
not to predictive IAMs (DICE, PAGE, FUND, MESSAGE).
Computation is client-side JavaScript; fully reproducible from cited sources.