Misusing the Future
Roger A. Pielke, Jr.
University of Colorado
9 February 2018
ALPS Symposium
Tokyo, JapanCENTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY RESEARCHCIRES/University of Colorado at Boulder
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu

Overview of the talk This talk is about how we use the future to think

about the present; Specifically, how we use scenarios of the future tofocus attention on some policy options and lessen
attention on others; Scenarios are important and necessary. Muchexcellent work has been done on climate andenergy scenarios over decades, especially underthe IPCC;
 But like any technology, scenarios can be well or
poorly used in practice;slide 2

Outline: Three examples and an alternative
1.

The magnitude of the challenge– Spontaneous decarbonization

2.

The costs of inaction– RCP 8.5

3.

Policy feasibility– BECCS

4.

An alternative approach– Today-Forward planning– Focused on increasing the proportion of carbon-freeenergy consumption

slide 3

The problem: emissions continue to increase

Source: Global Carbon Projectslide 4

Where do emissions come from?
Peopleengage in economic activity thatuses energy
from carbon emitting generation

slide 5

Where do emissions come from?
PeoplePopulation

P

Engage in economic activity that

GDP per capita

GDP/P

Uses energy fromEnergy intensity of the economy TE/GDP

Carbon emitting generation

Carbon intensity of energy

Carbon emissions = C =P * GDP-----P*TE---GDPC/TE* C---TE

The “Kaya Identity”
slide 6

Where do emissions come from?
PeoplePopulation

P

Engage in economic activity that

GDP per capita

GDP/P

Uses energy fromEnergy intensity of the economy TE/GDP

Carbon emitting generation

Carbon intensity of energy

Carbon emissions = C =P * GDP-----P

energy intensity*TE---GDPC/TE* C---TEcarbon intensity

slide 7

No acceleration in rates of change of CI or EI

Carbon Intensity
Energy Intensity

Source: Global Carbon Project 2017
slide 8

Example 1. Spontaneous decarbonization

slide 9Spontaneous decarbonization does most of the work inthe IPCC SRES scenarios

slide 10

Short-term reality fell outside all SRES scenarios forassumed spontaneous decarbonization

Pielke Jr, R., Wigley, T., & Green, C. (2008). Dangerousassumptions. Nature, 452(7187), 531.

slide 11

Also through 2010

Pretis, F., & Roser, M. (2017). Carbon dioxide emission-intensity inclimate projections: Comparing the observational record to socioeconomic scenarios. Energy, 135, 718-725.

slide 12Heroic assumptions were repeated in RCPs

Stevenson, S., & Pielke Jr, R. 2015. Assumptions of Spontaneous
Decarbonization in the IPCC AR5 Baseline Scenarios. Center for Science andTechnology Policy Research, University of Colorado.

slide 13

Surprise because reality didn’t match assumptions”One surprise over the past 15 years is how little change there has
been in the CO2 emissions per unit of primary energy consumption”
Jackson, R. B., Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Peters, G.
P., Roy, J., & Wu, L. (2017). Warning signs for stabilizing global CO2emissions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(11), 110202.

Little change

Source: Global Carbon Project 2017

slide 14

Projections continue to assume near-term historically
unprecedented rates of decarbonization

Loftus, P. J., Cohen, A. M., Long, J., & Jenkins, J. D. (2015). A criticalreview of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about
feasibility?. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(1), 93112.
slide 15

Heroic assumptions in the new IPCC SSPs?

Riahi, Keywan, et al. "The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy,
land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview." Global
Environmental Change 42 (2017): 153-168.
slide 16

Fudge factors are larger than policy impact“as a practical matter the[assumedenergy
efficiency
improvement]isa“fudgefactor” which allows the resultsof climate-economy simulations
to be tuned according to theanalyst’s sense of plausibility.”
Sue Wing, I., & Eckaus, R. S. (2007). The decline in US
energy intensity: Its origins and implications for long-run
CO2 emission projections. Energy Policy, 35(5267),
U5286.

• Assumed spontaneous decarbonization generally has a larger
impact on future emissions than do explicit climate policies;• To produce scenarios assumptions must be made;• Policy options should be generated to cover a broader
scenario space in both short and long terms

slide 17

Example 2. Costs of Inaction“[E]vidence indicates RCP8.5 does not provide a physicallyconsistent worst case BAU trajectory that warrants continued
emphasis in scientific research. Accordingly, it does not provide a
useful benchmark for policy studies.”

Ritchie, J., & Dowlatabadi, H. (2017). Why
do climate change scenarios return tocoal?. Energy, 140, 1276-1291.

RCPs are the mostrecent scenarios.
RCP 8.5 is themost popular for
use in climate
impact studies.

slide 18

Studies citing each RCP scenario

Source: Google Scholarslide 19

How to misuse RCP 8.5 in climate impact studies1. Project future climate impacts from 2000 to 2100
using RCP 8.5
2. Document large climate impacts in 2100 under
RCP 8.5
3. Divide impacts by 6 (2017 is 1/6th of the way
until 2100), the impacts will still be large
4. Publish in a journal
5. Get headlines
6. Watch this questionable scientific work becomeroutinely cited by other climate researchers, inthe media and in policy debates

slide 20

Example of the (mis)use of RCP 8.5“For each model, 100 eventswere run for each of the years
1981–2000 from the historicalclimate simulations, and again
for the period 2081–2100
under Representative
Concentration Pathway RCP8.5”

November 2017

Emanuel, K. (2017). Assessing the present and future probability of Hurricane
Harvey’s rainfall. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201716222.
slide 21

Why use RCP 8.5 as a primary scenario?

“For each model, 100 events were runfor each of the years 1981–2000 fromthe historical climate simulations, andagain for the period 2081–2100 under
Representative Concentration Pathway
RCP 8.5”

November 2017
Emanuel, K. (2017). Assessing the present and futureprobability of Hurricane Harvey’s rainfall. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 201716222.

January 2017
“As the SSPs systematically coverplausible combinations of theprimary drivers of emissions, thisfinding suggests that 8.5 W/m2
can only emerge under arelatively narrow range ofcircumstances.”(in only 1 of >100 scenarios)
Riahi, Keywan, et al. "The shared socioeconomic pathways
and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions
implications: an overview." Global Environmental Change 42(2017): 153-168.

slide 22

Example 3. Policy feasibility and BECCS“[Bioenergy with carbon
capture and storage] is
explicitly being put forth as animportant mitigation option by
the majority of integrated
assessment model (IAM)
scenarios aimed at keeping
warming below 2°C in the IPCC’s
fifth assessment report (AR5).
Indeed, in these scenarios, IAMs
often foresee absorption of CO2 via
BECCS up to (and in some casesexceeding) 1,000 Gt CO2 over thecourse of the century, effectively
doubling the available carbon
quota.”

http://cicero.uio.no/no/posts/klima/love-it-or-hate-it-heres-three-reasons-why-we-still-need-ccsFuss, Sabine, et al. "Betting on negativeemissions." Nature Climate Change 4.10 (2014): 850.

slide 23

Policy lock-in based on a constrained scenario space
1.

The costs of action are reasonable– Spontaneous decarbonization

2.

The costs of inaction are high
– RCP 8.5

3.

Policy action is feasible– BECCS

But what if these assumptions are wrong?

slide 24

4. An alternative approach: Back to Kaya
FactorLever

Approach to Policy

P

Population

Less people

Population management

GDP/PGDP per capita

Smaller economy

Limit generation of wealth

TE/GDP

Energy intensity

Increase efficiency

Do same or more with lessenergy

C/TE

Carbon intensity

Switch energy sources

Carbon emissions = C =Generate energy with lessemissions

P * GDP * TE
* C-----------PGDPTE

GDP Technology
slide 25

The Iron Law of climate policy

A Boundary Condition for Policy Design:
Climate policies must not cost too much, better
yet, they should foster economic growthslide 26

If we focus only on emissions, we have already lost
Carbon emissions = C =P * GDP-----P*TE---GDP* C---TE

Emissions= GDP x TechnologyEmissions________
GDP=Technology
A reduction in this ratio
is decarbonization
slide 27

How are we doing? (from PwC 2017)https://www.pwc.co.uk/services/sustainability-climate-change/insights/low-carbon-economy-index.html

slide 28

slide 29

Global carbon-free energy

slide 30

How do we go from here to there?

slide 31The scale of the challenge

slide 32

Final words: A need to open up climate policy
 Scenarios of the future have the power to open up

possibilities and close them down; The use of climate scenarios has arguably helped
to reinforce a climate policy status quo,characterized by very little progress;
 An alternative is to focus on today-forward
planning– We are at 16% carbon-free global energy consumption,
how do we get to >90%?
– We consume 11,000 mtoe of fossil fuels per year, how do
we get close to zero?

 Climate policy needs more options, more debate

slide 33

How to provide feedback!
 pielke@colorado.edu

 Papers etc. can be downloaded from:http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu
 http://theclimatefix.wordpress.com

Thank you!

slide 34