The @IEA is often critiqued for not having a 1.5°C scenario, in #WEO19 they come a step closer.
It is possible to extend the Sustainable Development Scenario to 1.5°C, but it requires large-scale negative emissions (as in nearly all 1.5°C scenarios)!
1/
iea.org/newsroom/news/…
It is possible to extend the Sustainable Development Scenario to 1.5°C, but it requires large-scale negative emissions (as in nearly all 1.5°C scenarios)!
1/
iea.org/newsroom/news/…
The SDS is consistent with about 1.65°C of global warming in 2100 when compared with scenarios assessed by the IPCC, but the big different is the scale of negative emissions.
2/
2/
BECCS "may yet play a critical role, but the level at which they are deployed in the Sustainable Development Scenario (0.25GtCO₂ in 2050) is lower than nearly all of the 1.5°C scenarios assessed by the IPCC."
Figures show BECCS in #SR15 scenarios, 1.5°C & <2°C.
3/
Figures show BECCS in #SR15 scenarios, 1.5°C & <2°C.
3/
"If negative emissions technologies of the sort mentioned above could be deployed at scale, then emissions could actually go below zero – meaning that CO₂ is being withdrawn from the atmosphere on a net basis."
4/
4/
"[Large-scale negative emissions] is a very common feature of the scenarios assessed by the IPCC in its special report: 88 out of the 90 scenarios in the IPCC’s report assume some level of net negative emissions."
[Yes, the IEA is implying this is a problem]
5/
[Yes, the IEA is implying this is a problem]
5/
"A level of net negative emissions significantly smaller than that used in most scenarios assessed by the IPCC would give the Sustainable Development Scenario a 50% probability of limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 °C."
6/
6/
"As we have pointed out in previous WEOs, when designing deep decarbonisation scenarios, there are reasons to limit reliance on early-stage technologies for which future rates of deployment are highly uncertain"
[Take note those doing IPCC assessments...]
7/
[Take note those doing IPCC assessments...]
7/
"[To limit the over-reliance on early stage technologies] is why the WEO has always emphasised the importance of early policy action: the pathway followed by the Sustainable Development Scenario relies on an immediate and rapid acceleration in energy transitions."
8/
8/
Basically, the IEA is rather skeptical of large-scale negative & hence rather skeptical of keeping below 1.5°C.
Pushing harder & harder for 1.5°C, which is valid in terms of climate impacts, also means more & more pressure for negative emissions.
9/
Pushing harder & harder for 1.5°C, which is valid in terms of climate impacts, also means more & more pressure for negative emissions.
9/
And, I am sure many will note that you can have more rapid short-term reductions. Yes, but IEA is pretty good at that (as noted above). Before making that claim, worth comparing IEA with other scenarios (thread is not on WEO though).
10/10
10/10
