Especially if it means industry, power generation and transport sectors burning coal at the rate they did throughout the 20 th century. In our post-COP21 world, where governments have made huge commitments to stymie climate change, and public pressure is at its highest, it seems unlikely that a business-as-usual future is even possible. Business-as-usual has sometimes been shown to be so discordant with reality that when one retrospectively assesses the system outcomes, it was in fact the furthest from the truth out of all hypothesised cases. The debate as to what that reference case should be is a precarious one though. Note that even this scenario shows a big discrepancy compared with the two degrees scenario (2DS), which is meant to represent the trajectory needed to avoid dangerous climate change and limit temerature rise to two degrees centigrade. That’s why some authoritative forecasts, like the International Energy Agency’s Energy Technology Perspectives, now uses the term Reference Technology Scenario (RTS) to describe how the energy system could evolve if we implement the current commitments on energy policy – with the nationally determined contribution (NDC) mitigation targets already included.
The trajectory we are most interested in is what is most likely to happen given today’s commitments to future policies, business practices and social behaviours – not one that assumes that we go on as we have in the last year or the last century. So perhaps the name “business-as-usual” needs a rethink, too.Ĭonsider a curve showing carbon dioxide emissions over time. Instead, it should represent a consensus among experts about what the most likely course of events is going to be (however wrong they turn out to be). That’s why scenarios presented to the world should be rooted in the current reality, and not based on historical events.Īny reference scenario we use should not imply a modus operandi for the global economy. Continuing to present such scenarios gives the impression that modellers themselves believe such a course of action remains a likely, and perhaps acceptable, future. In addition, although the likelihood of such scenarios becoming a reality is questionable, the message they project to the wider community could have far reaching consequences. This makes many business-as-usual scenarios seem obsolete. Yet in recent years, the international community has pledged sustained climate action – committing to substantially reduce carbon emissions and implementing various policies to do so, such as emission-trading schemes and carbon pricing. For example, those of us not immersed in the world of energy technologies may not have perceived the revolution in electric vehicles that is just around the corner just as at the turn of last century, customers of the horse and cart may not have predicted the imminent abundance of the motorcar.Ĭurrent business-as-usual scenarios tend to employ little or no efforts to limit carbon dioxide emissions, often resulting in scenarios with a high reliance on fossil fuels up to and beyond 2050. However, given the pace of technological innovation – and the transformational change necessary to reach a sustainable energy system – what is the value of using archaic assumptions to inform future scenarios? If we only use reference scenarios that include social, technological and policy norms that have already happened, we may miss the changes that will significantly alter the trajectory of the future energy system. In the energy industry, business-as-usual scenarios are based on a set of assumptions that build on historical norms, projecting the configuration of the energy system 10-50 years into the future. Following an energy modelling workshop with academics, industry leaders and policymakers, research postgraduates Jonathan Bosch and Clara Heuberger reflect on its conclusions, analysing what business-as-usual means today, and the future of energy models.īusiness-as-usual scenarios have long been considered an essential point of reference in policymaking, planning and investment – a baseline to compare alternative scenarios, or a starting point for analysis of a system. However, the energy transition is already underway: basing future energy models on such scenarios could be highly risky. Conventionally, such models are based on business-as-usual scenarios – points of reference informed by historical norms. Energy models are a vital tool to help predict what the future energy system could look like.
0 kommentar(er)
