Note: This is a somewhat revised version of a previous post.

—

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a range of global warming scenarios based on hypothetical concentrations of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere at certain points in time. Depending on the scenario, average global temperatures may rise anywhere from less than 2°F to over 9°F by 2100 (.9°C – 5.4°C). The question is how to plan for such a range of possible climate futures?

I offer some thoughts from people who make a living pondering this very question:

  • Uncertain changes in climate, technological, socio-economic and political situations, and the dynamic interaction among these changes, and between these changes and interventions, pose a challenge to planners and decision-makers. Due to these uncertainties, there is a risk of making an inappropriate decision (too little, too much, too soon, or too late). Kwakkel, J. H., M. Haasnoot, et al., 2016.

  • A policy prescription that overpromises on the benefits of relying on a narrower portfolio of technologies options could be counterproductive, seriously impeding the move to a cost effective decarbonized energy system. - Clack, C. T. M., S. A. Qvist, et al. 2017.

  • Regulatory lock-in is undesirable. If the regulation commands a specific device or technology, the lock-in effect may hinder progress on  other technologies that might have been superior. Yang, C.-Y., Oppenheimer, M., 2007.

  • [Our approach] explicitly includes decision making over time. The essence is proactive and dynamic planning in response to how the future actually unfolds. Haasnoot, M., A. Warren, et al., 2019.

  • … banking only on solar and wind would be a “mistake…. Given the high stakes…it would be prudent to expand and improve a wide set of clean energy resources, each of which may fill the critical niche for firm, low-carbon power should other technologies falter. If we’re really in a ‘climate crisis,’ then you go to war with your full arsenal,” Jenkins said. “You don’t hold anything back. And you don’t purposefully make this crisis harder by limiting our already limited options.” - Jessica McDonald/ FactCheck.org, 2019, quoting Jesse Jenkins, energy systems engineer and professor at Princeton University

  • Lock-in refers to the dominance of an inferior incumbent technology at the expense of a superior contender technology. - Kalkuhl, M., O. Edenhofer, et al., 2012

  • Lock-in…describes how particular technologies—through their co-evolution with social, institutional, cultural, and political systems—may become resistant to change, ‘closing down’ or constraining possibilities for the development of alternative (possibly superior or more socially/environmentally desirable) socio-technical configurations. -Cairns, 2014

Bottom-line: We live in a world of political constraints and scarce resources, eg, time, money, labor. Putting the lion’s share of resources into just a few technologies and imposing artificial deadlines (“must be net-zero by 2050!”) means fewer political and material resources would be available to develop alternative approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation. A sense of panic rarely leads to thoughtful planning. More often panic leads to bad policies, rushed implementation, poor outcomes, and political backlash. Better to tread carefully and self-correct as necessary.

-

References:

Cairns, R.C. (2014), Climate geoengineering: issues of path‐dependence and socio‐technical lock-in. WIREs Clim Change, 5: 649-661. doi:10.1002/wcc.296 : lock-in per se is not the problem; it is rather the depth of lock-in which creates problems because deeper lock-in reduces flexibility and increases the ‘error cost’ (i.e. the cost of a decision which turns out to be based on incorrect understanding) and should be avoided.48

Clack, C. T. M., S. A. Qvist, et al. (2017). "Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(26): 6722-6727. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full

Haasnoot, M., A. Warren, et al. (2019). Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways (DAPP). Decision Making under Deep Uncertainty: From Theory to Practice. V. A. W. J. Marchau, W. E. Walker, P. J. T. M. Bloemen and S. W. Popper. Cham, Springer International Publishing: 71-92. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-05252-2_4  

Kalkuhl, M., O. Edenhofer, et al. (2012). "Learning or lock-in: Optimal technology policies to support mitigation." Resource and Energy Economics 34(1): 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reseneeco.2011.08.001

Kwakkel, J. H., M. Haasnoot, et al. (2016). "Comparing Robust Decision-Making and Dynamic Adaptive Policy Pathways for model-based decision support under deep uncertainty." Environmental Modelling & Software 86: 168-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.09.017

Planning for Climate Change Under Conditions of Deep Uncertainty, Part I: What's Uncertain Exploring the Problem Space. January 2020

What Does Science Say About the Need for Nuclear? Jessica McDonald/ FactCheck.org Posted on November 1, 2019

Yang, C.-Y., Oppenheimer, M., 2007. A ‘Manhattan Project’ for climate change? Climatic Change 80, 199–204.