Thread by @Peters_Glen

THREAD on IEA, IPCC, & 1.5°C scenarios

The @IEA is getting pressure to do a 1.5°C scenario. We have an #IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C #SR15, so why not do a comparison...

As it happens, some IEA scenarios fall in the envelope of 1.5°C scenarios...

1/ ipcc.ch/sr15/

What are the IEA scenarios?
* Energy Technology Perspectives 2°C scenario (2DS, not in #SR15 database)
* ETP Beyond 2°C Scenario (B2DS, in database)
* IEA Sustainable Development Scenario (SDS, not in database)
* IEA Faster Transition Scenarios (SDS to net-zero, in database)
2/

The CO₂ emissions from energy & industry (not LUC) for the two IEA scenarios are rather similar to the 1.5°C with no or low overshoot
* IEA B2DS is roughly consistent with 1.75°C warming in 2100 (though, #SR15 does not assess this)
* IEA Faster Transition is assessed as 2°C
3/

Out to 2030, the IEA 1.75°C scenarios & IPCC 1.5°C no & low overshoot scenarios have very similar declines in coal, though the declines in IEA slowdown after 2040.
4/

IEA is critiqued for being very fossil fuel friendly, particularly for oil. Well, the data shows that the IEA 1.75°C scenarios & IPCC 1.5°C no & low overshoot scenarios are very similar for global oil use. If IEA is called oil friendly, what is the IPCC?
5/

The IEA 1.75°C scenarios use more gas than the IPCC 1.5°C no & low overshoot scenarios, though, IEA scenarios are still well within the range of IPCC scenarios.
6/

The IEA 1.75°C scenarios & IPCC 1.5°C no & low overshoot scenarios are very similar when it comes to non-biomass renewables (hydro, wind, solar). I guess the IEA critiques from @AukeHoekstra would apply equally to all other scenario producers...
7/

Biomass use is high in both the IEA 1.75°C scenarios & IPCC 1.5°C no & low overshoot scenarios. Though, I think the IEA Sustainable Development Scenarios (SDS, not shown) is much more conservative on bioenergy use...
8/

The IEA 1.75°C scenarios generally use much less CCS than the IPCC 1.5°C no & low overshoot scenarios, which will surprise many people. I think the IEA Sustainable Development Scenario uses less CCS, ~3GtCO2/yr in 2040).
9/

The IEA has generally been a bit more skeptical towards BECCS (negative emissions) than many other scenario producers (assessed by the IPCC), but the ETP does use a lot of BECCS. The IEA Sustainable Development Scenario doesn't use any BECCS as far as I am aware.
10/

The #IPCC #SR15 notes that the IEA is much more conservative with BECCS...
11/

Final energy use (for those that don't like primary energy) is much the same in the IEA 1.75°C scenarios & IPCC 1.5°C no & low overshoot scenarios.
12/

So, it looks like a IEA 1.75°C scenario uses less oil, CCS, & BECCS (negative emissions) than the IPCC no or low overshoot 1.5°C scenarios! On most other dimensions the scenarios are similar. Why the push back on the IEA, & not the IPCC? 13/

Many argue the IEA is the leading authority on energy scenarios, therefore they must do a 1.5°C scenario. If the IEA is the leading authority, "competitors" (e.g., IPCC), should ponder why IEA scenarios have so much traction in the energy community. 14/

The IEA ~1.75°C scenarios are interpreted as consistent with the Paris Agreement "well below 2°C". The IEA highlights a "New Policies Scenarios", which shows the lack of progress towards Paris. The biggest crime the IEA makes is one of communication, not one of scenarios. 15/15