The scenario frameworks of the IPCC have been primarily developed and used to explore the space of plausible futures. These scenario frameworks, the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP), do not impose goals or normative visions of desirable futures. Such an approach avoids issues associated with (1) differing perspectives of what is ‘desirable,’ (2) questions of how to deal with the many inherent trade-offs ( spatial, temporal, and/or social) with any action or future state, or (3) how a ‘safe future climate’ can be achieved. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) is taking the opposite approach and largely starting with desirable goals in their Nature Future Framework (NFF), although modeling and more detailed global scenarios have yet to be developed. Due to past focus on the SSP/RCP exploratory scenario frameworks, there remains a substantial gap for the climate research community to define the normative goals of a ‘safe future climate’ (beyond overarching aims of substantially limiting warming). Detailed pathways need to be identified that achieve required climate mitigation while supporting adaptation measures to reduce impacts from the changes that occur, and that simultaneously do not further jeopardize other sustainability measures.
Program:
Links to the speaker’s slides are provided below.
- Welcome – Kevin Reed (Chair, Safe Landing Pathways Working Group)
- Overview Presentation – The SSP-RCP scenario framework: status and next steps – Brian O’Neill (20 mins)
- Panelist Presentation – What is the social plausibility assessment, and how can it contribute to the discussion of desirable scenarios? – Anita Engels (10 mins)
- Panelist Presentation – Climate scenarios in the wild – Kate Mackenzie (10 mins)
- Panel Discussion – Brian O’Neill, Anita Engels, Kate Mackenzie
Moderated by Lisa Miller (Safe Landing Pathways).
Link to recording: https://youtu.be/p4T5D2Jvsko
