Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
1.5 C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation pathways
Abstract
1.5??°C scenarios reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rely on combinations of controversial negative emissions and unprecedented technological change, while assuming continued growth in gross domestic product (GDP). Thus far, the integrated assessment modelling community and the IPCC have neglected to consider degrowth scenarios, where economic output declines due to stringent climate mitigation. Hence, their potential to avoid reliance on negative emissions and speculative rates of technological change remains unexplored. As a first step to address this gap, this paper compares 1.5??°C degrowth scenarios with IPCC archetype scenarios, using a simplified quantitative representation of the fuel-energy-emissions nexus. Here we find that the degrowth scenarios minimize many key risks for feasibility and sustainability compared totechnology-driven pathways, such as the reliance on high energy-GDP decoupling, large-scale carbon dioxide removal and large-scale and high-speed renewable energy transformation. However, substantial challenges remain regarding political feasibility. Nevertheless, degrowth pathways should be thoroughly considered.
Introduction
Five years after the Paris Agreement, CO2 emissions are still rising1, and mitigation timelines for the 1.5?°C and 2?°C climate target become ever more stringent2. Meanwhile, integrated assessment model (IAM) mitigation scenarios reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on 1.5?°C (SR1.5) rely on controversial amounts of carbon dioxide removal and/or on unprecedented technological changes2,3. Simultaneously, all of them assume continued growth in gross domestic product (GDP), among other reasons because this is deemed necessary to support societal wellbeing4. However, continued GDP growth is widely associated with increasing mitigation challenges...
1.5??°C scenarios reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rely on combinations of controversial negative emissions and unprecedented technological change, while assuming continued growth in gross domestic product (GDP). Thus far, the integrated assessment modelling community and the IPCC have neglected to consider degrowth scenarios, where economic output declines due to stringent climate mitigation. Hence, their potential to avoid reliance on negative emissions and speculative rates of technological change remains unexplored. As a first step to address this gap, this paper compares 1.5??°C degrowth scenarios with IPCC archetype scenarios, using a simplified quantitative representation of the fuel-energy-emissions nexus. Here we find that the degrowth scenarios minimize many key risks for feasibility and sustainability compared totechnology-driven pathways, such as the reliance on high energy-GDP decoupling, large-scale carbon dioxide removal and large-scale and high-speed renewable energy transformation. However, substantial challenges remain regarding political feasibility. Nevertheless, degrowth pathways should be thoroughly considered.
Introduction
Five years after the Paris Agreement, CO2 emissions are still rising1, and mitigation timelines for the 1.5?°C and 2?°C climate target become ever more stringent2. Meanwhile, integrated assessment model (IAM) mitigation scenarios reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on 1.5?°C (SR1.5) rely on controversial amounts of carbon dioxide removal and/or on unprecedented technological changes2,3. Simultaneously, all of them assume continued growth in gross domestic product (GDP), among other reasons because this is deemed necessary to support societal wellbeing4. However, continued GDP growth is widely associated with increasing mitigation challenges...
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22884-9
Personally, I would like to see degrowth become part of the mainstream conversation about climate change and ecological breakdown. In my opinion, it's a necessary path to take if we want a just and livable world.
