Sailing blindly on the IPCC's solutions undermines real change

With a three-day delay, the latest report from the IPCC, the United Nations scientific climate panel, was published on April 4th. With conclusions about what is feasible, what needs to be done and warnings that we really need to get going. Lisette van Beek researches the role of climate models and artistic forms of representation at the Urban Futures Studio, Utrecht University. Jeroen Oomen is a researcher at the Urban Futures Studio, Utrecht University. He investigates the relationship between climate science, climate policy, and images of the future.

Yes, climate change is a huge problem. And yes, we will have to reduce our emissions at an unprecedented rate. But when it comes to directions for solutions - which is what this latest report writes about - the interpretation of the conclusion often goes a long way. The IPCC explicitly does not provide policy prescriptions, but in practice this is how the reports are interpreted.

Although the IPCC tries to offer a broad range of possible solutions, they certainly do not present all the options. The scenarios in the report do not deal with political questions - they are purely about what is technically feasible within the boundaries of the current capitalist market economy. In fact, almost all scenarios of the IPCC revolve around system preservation, whereas system change is precisely what is needed.

Indeed, more than the other two reports, the Working Group 3 report is a policy s document, the result of negotiations between different countries with very different visions of climate policy. The scenarios on which authors rely are not neutral explorations. They are the result of assumptions about what is realistic, what is politically acceptable, and what fits within the current system. What does not fit into those dominant assumptions is not given a place in IPCC scenarios.

Illustrative examples

Those scenarios are intended to help policymakers make choices to meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement. To scientists, these scenarios are merely "illustrative examples. In political practice, however, they do much more. Implicitly, they have a guiding effect on the climate debate, because politicians assume that these are the only options for meeting climate goals. Look at the 2018 1.5-degree report. A key insight from these 1.5-degree scenarios was that the world should have "net zero" emissions by 2050. Globally, governments and businesses adopted this net-zero by 2050 as a seemingly ambitious goal. But is this really so ambitious?

In the logic of IPCC scenarios and the underlying models, climate policy must above all be 'cost-efficient', i.e. as cheap as possible. Depreciating coal plants prematurely: impossible. Radical government control: unlikely. Technological progress: linear and economically optimal. The view is limited to the limits of the current capitalist market economy

And so "net-zero" scenarios assumed that technologies to capture greenhouse gases from the air would be available in the future. These technologies should provide needed 'negative emissions' in the (short) term. But these technologies do not yet exist at all on a large scale - indeed, no one knows whether they are possible on that scale. To say nothing of the possible effects on biodiversity and agricultural land.

If politicians blindly trust IPCC scenarios, a kind of magical thinking emerges: the hope of magical technologies that ease the pain of real climate policy. This leads to procrastination. Reducing emissions is always possible, so why invest heavily now if these future technologies can absorb our emissions anyway?

IPCC scenarios have a selective view on what is possible in the future. Only what fits within the current economic and political system is included. In creating scenarios, modelers anticipate what they think politicians and policymakers will accept, for fear of being found irrelevant. Politically sensitive topics, such as no-growth or drastic lifestyle changes are therefore preferred to be avoided. This limits the view to the boundaries of the current capitalist market economy. There is no alternative', Margaret Thatcher would say.

Clinging to models

The result of this narrow view, of clinging to IPCC models, is a convulsive belief in the promises of technology and the market. Clingy because it clings to a system that no longer works. The wildfires, floods, disappearing coral reefs, and dwindling biodiversity tell a different story: it's time for a radical change.

But if we blindly follow the suggestions of Working Group 3 of the IPCC, we will end up with a shabby climate policy. Poor, because it avoids all real political choices, because it pretends that we can manage ourselves technocratically out of this crisis. Business-as-usual, more of the same, more of what has not worked for thirty years.