Thread by @standupecon

I’m writing a #CartoonClimate 2nd ed, and the draft has our best guess for BAU as SSP3-7.0. Here’s my case, but I invite #ClimateTwitter and #EnergyTwitter to disagree! @hausfath @ramez @DrKateMarvel @AdrianRaftery1 @RogerPielkeJr @KHayhoe @JosephMajkut @RobertStavins [Thread]

2/ Context: The draft mentions the possibility of a low-emissions future (“electrify everything”) and a high-emissions future (fossil-fueled catch-up) and specifies key issues—economic growth, technology, policy—before laying out our best guess for a no-more-policy BAU.

3/ A good part of my case comes from this chart from EIA’s IEO 1994, modified to include 2010 actuals. One modification was to move the legend because China 2010 was almost off the chart! (Note that this shows C; multiply by 3.67 to get CO2.) Take-off growth is unpredictable.

4/ So: Argument #1a is that lots of countries could be the next China. Here’s @WorldBank per-capita GDP 1990 – 2020 in China and in India, Pakistan, Nigeria, and Bangladesh (all Top 10 countries in terms of population). Per-capita CO2 looks qualitatively similar.

5/ Argument #1b is that *China* could be the next China: it’s still less than 1/3 of U.S. in @WorldBank per-capita GDP (and about 1/2 in per-capita CO2). The other Top 10s (Indonesia, Brazil, Russia and Mexico) have per-capita GDP fairly similar to China. Lots of room for growth.

6/ The response to Argument #1 is hopefully that they’re going to grow with renewables, but where’s the evidence that this is happening in China, India, or Indonesia (all coal-heavy)?

7/ Or in Nigeria or Mexico (both gas-dominant) or Pakistan? (To round out the Top 10, Brazil is mostly hydro, Russia is mostly stagnant, and the U.S. is discussed below.)

8/ I’ve seen lots of arguments about how great renewables are etc. etc. but it looks to me like it may be a classic case of “next time”; until I see it in the data I’m inclined to be skeptical.

9/ Of the Top 10, only the USA has shown a big fuel-mix shift toward lower CO2, owing primarily to replacing coal with gas and secondarily to wind and solar. But many people in the USA have been lowering their expectations for strong federal climate policy. Hence Argument #2...

10/ Argument #2 is that rich world CO2 emissions may not come down fast. Electricity is proving to be hard; buildings will be harder; and EVs have only a 2% market share in the U.S. (I hope to learn more at @RFF’s Friday webinar on “Driving Decarbonization” w/ @starbeia et al.)

11/ Argument #3: Let’s say the rich world adopts EVs. What will happen to the 1.4 billion cars and trucks currently on the road? I have a friend in Ghana who says that many cars there are older cars brought over from the U.S. Will it be Whac-A-Mole?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_veh…

12/ Argument #4: Let’s say Ghana starts to adopt EVs too. Well, @WSJ suggests the Middle East can compete by cutting prices to as little as $10 a barrel (25 cents a gallon) on the 800b barrels of oil there. Bottom line: Politically and economically, the empire can strike back.

13/ Argument #5: The Paris Agreement sounds great, but there’s no teeth, and what’s the evidence that countries will make hard choices to meet their pledges? Put it all together and it seems to me that a no-more-policy Business As Usual is plausibly SSP3-7.0.

14/ That’s not too far from EIA’s IEO 2021. (Land use CO2 has been about 6b tons/year.) Yes, EIA might be underestimating the rise of renewables. But remember: they also underestimated the rise of China.

15/ Those 5 arguments are my case for BAU plausibly being SSP3-7.0, so the draft #CartoonClimate 2nd edition goes on to explore a world of 4C by 2100. It would be relatively easy to edit the draft to SSP2-4.5 and/or to 3C, etc. So... I welcome comments! /end