Low-Energy Fridays: Are we on track for a climate disaster or not?
Bill Gates recently released a memo calling for a shift in the way climate hawks discuss climate change. He argued that rhetoric about climate catastrophes is unhelpful and that climate change should be discussed within the broader context of human welfare. He has caught considerable flak from this statement, as he himself wrote a book titled “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster.” However, Gates is right to modify his position in light of evolving information.
When climate change first emerged as an issue, one fundamental challenge was the extraordinary uncertainty surrounding it. Not only was it hard to predict how increased emissions might affect global temperatures and resulting environmental conditions, it was also hard to predict which types of energy would power the future. This led to the consideration of a variety of climate scenarios known as Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs).
The most extreme of these is RCP 8.5, which would increase mean global temperatures by 2.6 to 4.8 degrees Celsius. Most concerns surrounding climate issues are based on the assumptions of RCP 8.5. Notably, the fourth National Climate Assessment (2018) leaned heavily upon worst-case scenarios under RCP 8.5, predicting extraordinary climate devastation to the United States. RCP 8.5 is useful for policymakers as an explanation of how bad things could potentially get; however, more recent global emissions projections do not align with it, reflecting more moderate scenarios instead. While historical emissions have largely tracked with RCP 8.5, projections show lower emissions than needed for RCP 8.5 to be the probable scenario. In Gates’ memo, improving emission trajectories are his explanation for a more optimistic outlook.
When framing these discussions at R Street, we’ve pointed to scientific improvements and how changes in technology are influencing future emissions. In terms of climate outcomes, the most recent assessment report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted that while the best-case climate outcomes are firmly out of reach, some of the worst-case outcomes are now considered very unlikely. Global emissions remain high, but some big emitters like the United States and Europe have been decarbonizing faster than expected.
But the climate news is largely mixed. Some emitters—most notably, China—are increasing emissions faster than anticipated, wiping out some of the gains elsewhere.
All this is to say that many potential climate change impacts are hard to predict. However, Gates’ framing of climate change as one of several issues central to human welfare is more accurate and beneficial to policy discourse than catastrophist narratives. Some have argued that focusing on extreme climate outcomes is important for galvanizing action. Personally, I would argue that such posturing has eroded the credibility of climate messengers, as evidenced by a resurgence of arguments downplaying the impacts of climate change.
From a policy perspective, climate change isn’t a solved problem, nor is it one on which zero progress has been made. It’s not so serious that policy intervention is justifiable at any cost, but there are still considerable benefits to be gained from further climate progress. From a policy perspective, the growing recognition that climate policy is better weighed in the context of tradeoffs is a good thing. Catastrophist narratives have always been problematic because they downplay the need to compare policy effectiveness appropriately. The upshot to all this is that additional scrutiny from notable climate champions like Gates may help us to get more efficient climate policies in the future than were pursued in the past.