, 15 tweets, 7 min read Read on Twitter
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)
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
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.
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?
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.
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...
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...
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).
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.
The #IPCC #SR15 notes that the IEA is much more conservative with BECCS...
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.
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
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Glen Peters
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!