1. GDP grows 10-fold from 2020 to 2100 in SSP5 (high-growth world), while only 2-fold in SSP3 (fragmentated world).
SSP1 (sustainability) & SSP2 (middle-of-the-road) have 5-fold growth.
But, is this growth driven by growth in population or GDP/capita?
SSP1 (sustainability) & SSP2 (middle-of-the-road) have 5-fold growth.
But, is this growth driven by growth in population or GDP/capita?
2. Population growth is lowest in SSP1 & SSP5, while highest in SSP3.
SSP3 is not particularly high in terms of population growth either, some UN scenarios are higher.
SSP3 is not particularly high in terms of population growth either, some UN scenarios are higher.
3. SSP5 gets high GDP growth via high GDP/capita growth (10-fold increase). While SSP3 has low GDP with high population & low GDP/capita.
These relationships are specific to the SSPs (low population, links to high GDP/capita), not a rule that this has to happen.
These relationships are specific to the SSPs (low population, links to high GDP/capita), not a rule that this has to happen.
4. It is "easiest" to keep well below 2°C in the SSPs with the highest GDP growth (SSP1, SSP2, then SSP5).
It is not possible to get well below 2°C in SSP3, with by far the lowest GDP growth!
doi.org/10.1038/s41558…
It is not possible to get well below 2°C in SSP3, with by far the lowest GDP growth!
doi.org/10.1038/s41558…
5. The strength of the SSP framework is to explore these aspects under consistent assumptions.
Though, it is important to note, that the SSPs only explore a limited part of the scenario space. It is possible to have high population & high GDP/capita, or degrowth scenarios, etc.
Though, it is important to note, that the SSPs only explore a limited part of the scenario space. It is possible to have high population & high GDP/capita, or degrowth scenarios, etc.
