Limitations and Solution of the MACC
According to Inness et al (2013), the complexity of changes in climate and other factors such as practicality, internal cost, assumptions, and external cost has been deemed to be the factor that has resulted in critics of the MACCs. This has been one of the limitations, and since the interpretation of the MACCs is based on personal assessment of the mitigation measures and are deemed to contain classified information, the information relating to the emission savings potential and cost are not available to the public (Ackerman and Bueno, 2011). Kesicki and Ekins (2012) highlight several factors that contribute to the limitation of the MACCs. The researchers pointed to the omission of ancillary profits of abatement of GHG emission, treatment of uncertainties in a shallow manner, exclusion of inter-temporal changes, and absence of transparency while making assumptions, as the major inhibitor in the generation and presenting of the MACCs.
In efforts to try to minimize the effects posed by MACC’s limitations, Kesicki and Strachan (2011) suggested the consideration of ancillary benefits while generating and presenting the MACCs. The researchers also proposed the inclusion of better methods of representing overall emissions abatements and uncertainties so that it may address interactions at different times.