Climate Change Scenarios: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|'''Est. implied temp. rise''' | |'''Est. implied temp. rise''' | ||
|'''Basis''' | |'''Basis''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| rowspan="5" |IEA World Energy Outlook (WEO) | | rowspan="5" |IEA World Energy Outlook (WEO) | ||
| Line 20: | Line 19: | ||
|1.5°C | |1.5°C | ||
|Outlines the technology, policies, and behaviour change necessary to bring about net-zero emissions by 2050 and includes key energy related UN SDGs. | |Outlines the technology, policies, and behaviour change necessary to bring about net-zero emissions by 2050 and includes key energy related UN SDGs. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|SDS 2020 (Sustain- able Development Scenario) | |SDS 2020 (Sustain- able Development Scenario) | ||
| Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
|1.8°C (66%) 1.5°C (50%) | |1.8°C (66%) 1.5°C (50%) | ||
|Considers social (SDG) and climate goals | |Considers social (SDG) and climate goals | ||
|- | |- | ||
|STEPS (Stated Poli- cies Scenario) | |STEPS (Stated Poli- cies Scenario) | ||
| Line 32: | Line 29: | ||
|Around~2.5°C | |Around~2.5°C | ||
|Accounts for stated policies and measures in place or under develop- ment in each sector (replaces the New Policies Scenario, NPS) | |Accounts for stated policies and measures in place or under develop- ment in each sector (replaces the New Policies Scenario, NPS) | ||
|- | |- | ||
|APS (Announced Pledges Scenario) | |APS (Announced Pledges Scenario) | ||
| Line 38: | Line 34: | ||
|1.7°C | |1.7°C | ||
|Assumes that governments will meet fully and on-time all climate-related commitments made, and includes related pledges made by the private sector and NGOs; does not achieve outcomes targeted in SDS 2020. | |Assumes that governments will meet fully and on-time all climate-related commitments made, and includes related pledges made by the private sector and NGOs; does not achieve outcomes targeted in SDS 2020. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Delayed Recovery Scenario (DRS) | |Delayed Recovery Scenario (DRS) | ||
| Line 44: | Line 39: | ||
|<2.7°C | |<2.7°C | ||
|STEPS with a delayed recovery from pandemic | |STEPS with a delayed recovery from pandemic | ||
|- | |- | ||
| colspan="1" rowspan="3" |IEA Energy Technology | | colspan="1" rowspan="3" |IEA Energy Technology | ||
| Line 54: | Line 48: | ||
|2°C | |2°C | ||
|Rapid decarbonisation pathway in line with the Paris Agreement | |Rapid decarbonisation pathway in line with the Paris Agreement | ||
|- | |- | ||
| colspan="1" |B2DS (Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario) | | colspan="1" |B2DS (Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario) | ||
| Line 60: | Line 53: | ||
|1.75°C | |1.75°C | ||
|Includes the extent of clean energy technologies if pushed to their practical limits, in line with ambitious aspirations of the Paris Agreement | |Includes the extent of clean energy technologies if pushed to their practical limits, in line with ambitious aspirations of the Paris Agreement | ||
|- | |- | ||
|RTS (Reference Technology | |RTS (Reference Technology | ||
| Line 68: | Line 60: | ||
|2.75°C | |2.75°C | ||
|Takes into account existing energy and climate-related pledges, including NDCs. | |Takes into account existing energy and climate-related pledges, including NDCs. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|IPCC | |IPCC | ||
| Line 75: | Line 66: | ||
|1.0°C (RCP 2.6) 1.8°C (RCP 4.5) 2.2°C (RCP 6.0) 3.7°C (RCP 8.5) | |1.0°C (RCP 2.6) 1.8°C (RCP 4.5) 2.2°C (RCP 6.0) 3.7°C (RCP 8.5) | ||
|RCPs outline pathways according to different levels of radiative forcing in the CMIP5 | |RCPs outline pathways according to different levels of radiative forcing in the CMIP5 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|IPCC | |IPCC | ||
| Line 82: | Line 72: | ||
|1.5°C | |1.5°C | ||
|Set of P1–4 pathways to meet 1.5°C target, building on RCP 1.9 | |Set of P1–4 pathways to meet 1.5°C target, building on RCP 1.9 | ||
|- | |- | ||
|IPCC | |IPCC | ||
| Line 99: | Line 88: | ||
(mid-term estimates 2041–2060) | (mid-term estimates 2041–2060) | ||
|Assesses results from the CMIP6 proj- ect in 5 SSP scenarios, with a broader range of GHG, land-use, air-pollutant futures than AR5, and accounts for solar activity and background forcing from volcanoes | |Assesses results from the CMIP6 proj- ect in 5 SSP scenarios, with a broader range of GHG, land-use, air-pollutant futures than AR5, and accounts for solar activity and background forcing from volcanoes | ||
|- | |- | ||
| colspan="1" rowspan="3" |NGFS | | colspan="1" rowspan="3" |NGFS | ||
| Line 108: | Line 96: | ||
1.6°C (Below 2°C) | 1.6°C (Below 2°C) | ||
|Transition Risks include policy reactions, technology change, CO2 removal, and regional policy variation. Both orderly and disorderly have alternate scenarios with limited or full CDR | |Transition Risks include policy reactions, technology change, CO2 removal, and regional policy variation. Both orderly and disorderly have alternate scenarios with limited or full CDR | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Disorderly (Diver- gent NZ and Delayed Transition) | |Disorderly (Diver- gent NZ and Delayed Transition) | ||
| Line 116: | Line 103: | ||
1.6°C (Delayed Transition) | 1.6°C (Delayed Transition) | ||
|Higher transition risk than for Orderly scenario | |Higher transition risk than for Orderly scenario | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Hot-house World (NDCs and Current Policies) | |Hot-house World (NDCs and Current Policies) | ||
| Line 124: | Line 110: | ||
3°C+ (Current Policies) | 3°C+ (Current Policies) | ||
|Only current policies implemented, not NDCs, i.e. equivalent to IEA STEPS | |Only current policies implemented, not NDCs, i.e. equivalent to IEA STEPS | ||
|- | |- | ||
|OECM | |OECM | ||
| Line 135: | Line 120: | ||
Sectoral decarbonisation pathways and targets broken into Scope 1, 2, and 3 for industry sectors defined by CIGS standard | Sectoral decarbonisation pathways and targets broken into Scope 1, 2, and 3 for industry sectors defined by CIGS standard | ||
|- | |- | ||
| colspan="1" rowspan="3" |UNPRI Inev- itable Policy Response (IPR) | | colspan="1" rowspan="3" |UNPRI Inev- itable Policy Response (IPR) | ||
| Line 142: | Line 126: | ||
|1.8°C | |1.8°C | ||
|Based on the anticipated policy response to meeting the Paris Agree- ment and subsequent impact on emissions reduction and temperature outcomes | |Based on the anticipated policy response to meeting the Paris Agree- ment and subsequent impact on emissions reduction and temperature outcomes | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Forecast Policy Scenario + Nature | |Forecast Policy Scenario + Nature | ||
| Line 148: | Line 131: | ||
|Currently no agreed upon target for biodi- versity levels analogous to 1.5°C | |Currently no agreed upon target for biodi- versity levels analogous to 1.5°C | ||
|Focused on climate policy trends and their interaction with land use, including nature-related policy action. | |Focused on climate policy trends and their interaction with land use, including nature-related policy action. | ||
|- | |- | ||
|Required Policy Scenario | |Required Policy Scenario | ||
| Line 154: | Line 136: | ||
|1.5°C | |1.5°C | ||
|Current assessment of future policy developments needed to deliver 1.5°C outcome | |Current assessment of future policy developments needed to deliver 1.5°C outcome | ||
|} | |} | ||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 12:56, 16 October 2024
Due to the complex interplay of climatic and socioeconomic systems, it is impossible to accurately predict the future, including the frequency, severity, impacts of climate hazards and the transition pathways. To address this inherent uncertainty in modeling climate-related macroeconomic and financial risks, TCFD recommends the adoption of scenario analysis to explore a range of plausible outcomes of climate change’s impacts on the financial system[1].
The selection of climate change scenarios determines the range of impacts expected. Various organizations, including the TCFD[1], IPCC[2], NGFS[3], and third-party vendors, provide climate scenarios that outline different pathways, from low-carbon transitions to high-emissions futures. Most of them are built around a global temperature target or emission pathways and follow four common pathways: (i) ambitious Paris Agreement-aligned action; (ii) delayed Paris Agreement-aligned action; (iii) current policy commitments; and (iv) business as usual.[4]
Appendix A (reproduced below) of the landscape report by UNEP FI[4] listed the most commonly used scenarios, namely, IPCC, IEA, and NGFS, as of December 2022. In this section, we focus on NGFS scenarios [5] which are frequently used by central banks and financial supervisors (ref the ECB and Moroccan report). The NGFS provides a comprehensive suite of models, including data, scripts, tools, and detailed documentation. For users seeking more information, the NGFS technical documentation (ref.) and presentation (ref. here) offer further insights, including comparisons with IEA and IPCC scenarios."
| Scenario Provider | Name | Sector | Est. implied temp. rise | Basis |
| IEA World Energy Outlook (WEO)
[updated annu- ally] |
NZE2050 (Net-zero emissions by 2050) | Energy | 1.5°C | Outlines the technology, policies, and behaviour change necessary to bring about net-zero emissions by 2050 and includes key energy related UN SDGs. |
| SDS 2020 (Sustain- able Development Scenario) | Energy | 1.8°C (66%) 1.5°C (50%) | Considers social (SDG) and climate goals | |
| STEPS (Stated Poli- cies Scenario) | Energy | Around~2.5°C | Accounts for stated policies and measures in place or under develop- ment in each sector (replaces the New Policies Scenario, NPS) | |
| APS (Announced Pledges Scenario) | All sectors | 1.7°C | Assumes that governments will meet fully and on-time all climate-related commitments made, and includes related pledges made by the private sector and NGOs; does not achieve outcomes targeted in SDS 2020. | |
| Delayed Recovery Scenario (DRS) | Energy | <2.7°C | STEPS with a delayed recovery from pandemic | |
| IEA Energy Technology
Perspectives (ETP) [2020 release feeds into SDS scenario] |
2DS (2 Degrees Scenario) | Energy | 2°C | Rapid decarbonisation pathway in line with the Paris Agreement |
| B2DS (Beyond 2 Degrees Scenario) | Energy | 1.75°C | Includes the extent of clean energy technologies if pushed to their practical limits, in line with ambitious aspirations of the Paris Agreement | |
| RTS (Reference Technology
Scenario) |
Energy | 2.75°C | Takes into account existing energy and climate-related pledges, including NDCs. | |
| IPCC | RCP (Representa- tive Concentration Pathways) | All sectors | 1.0°C (RCP 2.6) 1.8°C (RCP 4.5) 2.2°C (RCP 6.0) 3.7°C (RCP 8.5) | RCPs outline pathways according to different levels of radiative forcing in the CMIP5 |
| IPCC | SR15 | All sectors | 1.5°C | Set of P1–4 pathways to meet 1.5°C target, building on RCP 1.9 |
| IPCC | AR6 | All sectors | 1.6°C (SSP1– 1.9)
1.7°C (SSP1– 2.6) 2.0°C (SSP2– 4.5) 2.1°C (SSP3– 7.0) 2.4°C (SSP5– 8.5) (mid-term estimates 2041–2060) |
Assesses results from the CMIP6 proj- ect in 5 SSP scenarios, with a broader range of GHG, land-use, air-pollutant futures than AR5, and accounts for solar activity and background forcing from volcanoes |
| NGFS | Orderly (NZ 2050 and Below 2°C) | All sectors | 1.4°C (NZ 2050)
1.6°C (Below 2°C) |
Transition Risks include policy reactions, technology change, CO2 removal, and regional policy variation. Both orderly and disorderly have alternate scenarios with limited or full CDR |
| Disorderly (Diver- gent NZ and Delayed Transition) | All sectors | 1.4°C (Diver- gent NZ)
1.6°C (Delayed Transition) |
Higher transition risk than for Orderly scenario | |
| Hot-house World (NDCs and Current Policies) | All sectors | 2.6°C (NDCs)
3°C+ (Current Policies) |
Only current policies implemented, not NDCs, i.e. equivalent to IEA STEPS | |
| OECM | One Climate Earth Model (OECM 1.0)
OECM 2.0 (2022) |
All sectors | 1.5°C | 1.5°C trajectory in 10 world regions without the continued use of fossil fuels
Sectoral decarbonisation pathways and targets broken into Scope 1, 2, and 3 for industry sectors defined by CIGS standard |
| UNPRI Inev- itable Policy Response (IPR) | Forecast Policy Scenario | All sectors | 1.8°C | Based on the anticipated policy response to meeting the Paris Agree- ment and subsequent impact on emissions reduction and temperature outcomes |
| Forecast Policy Scenario + Nature | All sectors | Currently no agreed upon target for biodi- versity levels analogous to 1.5°C | Focused on climate policy trends and their interaction with land use, including nature-related policy action. | |
| Required Policy Scenario | All sectors | 1.5°C | Current assessment of future policy developments needed to deliver 1.5°C outcome |
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (June 2017). “Recommendations of the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures: Final Report.” Available at: https://assets.bbhub.io/company/sites/60/2021/10/FINAL-2017-TCFD-Report.pdf
- ↑ IPCC, 2023: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, H. Lee and J. Romero (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 35-115, doi: 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647.
- ↑ NGFS, 2020: Guide to climate scenario analysis for central banks and supervisors.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 UNEP FI (2023). The Climate Risk Landscape. Available at: https://www.unepfi.org/themes/climate-change/2023-climate-risk-landscape/
- ↑ NGFS (2023). NGFS Scenarios for central banks and supervisors. Available at: https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/ngfs_climate_scenarios_for_central_banks_and_supervisors_phase_iv.pdf