Scientists long ago envisioned the end of climate cooperation
Scientists previously modelled various impacts on climate change and other global challenges
By Kelly MacNAMARA
They warned it could happen: a world of surging nationalism, stalling economic development and the unravelling of decades of international cooperation on climate change and other global challenges.
Long before Donald Trump lurched away from diplomatic norms and the international rules-based order, scientists mapped out different potential futures to understand the possible implications for greenhouse gas emissions.
Developed a decade ago, five of these "pathways" became crucial to the work of the United Nations' IPCC climate expert panel.
These are not predictions for the 21st century. Rather, they envision what could happen with various societal changes including for trade, economic development, technological innovation and global population.
The most optimistic narrative foresees sustainable growth and improved equality. A second "middle-of-the-road" scenario is an extension of current trends.
The third is a world riven by rivalries, a fourth is blighted by increasing inequality, and the fifth assumes supercharged economic growth grounded in expanding fossil fuel use.
Keywan Riahi, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, who coordinated the development of the so-called Shared Socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), said the world has largely developed in line with the third scenario in recent years.
While it is certainly not a perfect fit, what we see now "is a much more fragmented world," Riahi told AFP. "Collaboration is more difficult, economic development is actually also not so optimistic."
Scientists' original description of the SSP3 scenario was: "A resurgent nationalism, concerns about competitiveness and security, and regional conflicts push countries to increasingly focus on domestic or, at most, regional issues."
This "rocky road" is arguably the worst of all the hypothetical futures.
Planet-heating emissions are second only to economic expansion driven by oil, gas and coal.
But the fractured SSP3 world ranks first when it comes to damages from climate change, showing the largest population boom, and the weakest economic growth.
This scenario "reflects a current strain of populist isolationist politics that is ascendent today", climate scientist Zeke Hausfather noted in a recent newsletter post.
In 2021, Hausfather got blowback for calling SSP3 "Trump World". But "the actions in his second term around energy and trade seem to be playing out much more closely to SSP3 than other pathways", he said.
The U.S. has ditched the Paris climate treaty, turned its back on global cooperation on science, trade and health, and eviscerating its international development budget.
Washington has lambasted U.N. sustainable development goals, especially related to climate change and women's rights.
Domestically, the world's second biggest carbon polluter has undermined progress on low-carbon technology, cancelled climate research, and even stymied weather data collection.
World leaders have expressed their disquiet.
"The global economy thrived on a foundation of openness and multilateralism underpinned by U.S. leadership... but today it is fracturing," said European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde in late May.
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney declared the global trade system in place for 80 years "over", and China's Xi Jinping urged the preservation of "the international order based on international law, and global fairness and justice".
Not destiny
There are important ways in which today's reality differs from the hypothetical SSP3 world.
World population projections are significantly lower, for instance. And the development of climate tech has been "much more successful", Riahi said.
A dramatic drop in the cost of solar and wind power, as well as electric vehicles and batteries, has boosted the growth of low-carbon technologies.
Carbon dioxide emissions have also slowed, while predicted warming for the end of the century is lower than a decade ago -- albeit still reaching catastrophic levels.
Scientists are currently updating SSP projections and crafting a new set of climate narratives. They have much to unpack.
Riahi said that even if there was a "complete collapse of climate policies globally", the previous worst-case emissions projections will likely not materialise because clean energy has become so cheap.
At the same time, he said, the world will almost certainly overshoot the Paris deal's aspirational goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in the coming years.
This has forced scientists to consider a new set of questions.
What is the new best-case scenario for bending emissions down to zero?
If current policies persist, will emissions stay high for a longer period, causing temperatures to keep rising in the coming decades?
"What are the implications climatically of this high overshoot, which is unfortunately a more and more likely scenario if you extrapolate what we see at the moment?" said Riahi.
© 2025 AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
2 hours ago
- NHK
Pakistan, Taliban condemn US strikes on Iran
Pakistan and the Taliban have condemned US attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. On Sunday, thousands of protesters marched in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, and in the capital, Islamabad, denouncing the US airstrikes and what they called Israeli aggression in the Middle East. Pakistan's foreign ministry said in a statement on the same day that there is an "imperative need to respect civilian lives and immediately bring the conflict to end." It marked a shift in tone from Islamabad, which just a day earlier said it would nominate Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize for helping end a four-day conflict between Pakistan and India. Afghanistan's Taliban interim government also condemned the strikes, calling them a violation of Iran's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Asahi Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Asahi Shimbun
EDITORIAL: Efforts, restraint needed to avoid all-out war in Middle East
Demonstrators in the United States on June 22 protest the attack on Iran. (Reuters photo) The world stands at a crossroads over whether a quagmire of war will once again erupt in the Middle East. The U.S. military joined in Israel's attack on Iran and bombed three nuclear facilities. If Iran should retaliate and attack U.S. military bases scattered around the Persian Gulf, it could escalate into an all-out war involving the United States and other Middle Eastern nations. That would have an enormous effect on the security and economy of the world. We call on all relevant nations to exercise the maximum level of restraint. There is a need for the global community to make every diplomatic effort to calm the situation. JOINING THE WAR CANNOT BE LEGITIMIZED We are reminded of another act of force by the United States in the Middle East--the 2003 war on Iraq. Washington presented evidence to the U.N. Security Council that claimed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had hidden possession of weapons of mass destruction. But the United States was unable to obtain the support of many nations for a resolution authorizing the use of force. It proceeded with an attack with only a few allies, such as Britain. It was later made clear that the evidence presented was false. In the latest case, there was not even debate within the Security Council. Israel launched a first-strike attack on Iran with its one-sided argument that Tehran was close to possessing nuclear weapons. The United States then cooperated with an attack on underground facilities that Israel by itself could not destroy. In March, the head of U.S. national intelligence testified before a U.S. Senate committee session and said Iran had not manufactured nuclear weapons. But U.S. President Donald Trump called that assessment wrong in order to legitimize the attack. That was a violation of the U.N. Charter, which bans the use of force to resolve conflicts except in cases of self-defense. It was to be expected that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres criticized the U.S. move as a 'direct threat' to international peace and security. Two days after Trump announced he would make a decision on Iran within two weeks, what can be described as a surprise attack was carried out. It also came while the foreign ministers of U.S. allies, including Britain, France and Germany, were meeting with the Iranian foreign minister to seek a diplomatic resolution. We are disheartened by the self-centered act of a superpower. Washington tried to destroy Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons. If so, it should also try to convince Israel to refrain from further attacks on Iran. Hard-line views within the Iranian leadership will likely strengthen. But we hope it makes a wise decision to avoid further sacrifice from its people. CRISES FOR NPT REGIME It can also be said that what was also destroyed by the attack was the trust in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that has played an important role for more than half a century in nuclear arms reduction. The NPT allows only the five nations of the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia to possess nuclear weapons. While it is unequal, almost all U.N. member nations have ratified it not only due to concerns about the proliferation of nuclear weapons, but also because member nations were allowed the right to peaceful use of nuclear power in return. But Israel, which is not a party to the NPT but is said to possess nuclear weapons, attacked nuclear-related facilities of Iran, which has signed the NPT. The superpower United States also joined in the offensive. Iran is not without fault. It continues to increase the volume stored of highly enriched uranium that goes well beyond the level needed for use as fuel in nuclear plants. That led to concerns raised by Europe, which had distanced itself from the Trump administration, and provided Israel with the excuse to carry out its attack. Still, the act of taking away by force a right guaranteed by the NPT must certainly have come as a major shock to non-nuclear nations. This is also an issue that Japan, an NPT member that has operated nuclear plants while accepting inspections by international organizations, cannot brush off as someone else's problem. Not only have the nuclear powers failed to fulfill their obligation under the NPT to make efforts at arms reduction, but have instead moved toward a nuclear buildup. We are gravely concerned about a heightening of the trend toward thinking that it would be more advantageous to leave the NPT and seek to possess nuclear weapons as a means of protecting the security of one's nation. NEW MULTILATERAL COOPERATION NEEDED In addition to Russia, which continues its invasive war, the United States, another permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, has violated international law. The wavering in the rule of law is serious. Western European nations that together supported the postwar order also did not demonstrate the autonomy shown prior to the start of the Iraq War. Not only did the Group of Seven summit not ask Israel to refrain from further expanding the war front, but it even recognized its right to protect itself. Europe, Canada and Japan must fully realize it has shouldered a major responsibility for giving priority to consideration to the Israel-leaning United States rather than to concerns about the ravages of war. Giving tacit consent to an unilateral attack on a major nation is nothing but a double standard and nations will lose the basis for criticizing Russia in the future. In addition to military conflicts in Europe, the Middle East and Africa, a military encounter developed in May between India and Pakistan, which both possess nuclear weapons. In Japan's backyard of East Asia, tensions continue in the Taiwan Strait and on the Korean Peninsula. In this year, the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, the global community is progressing toward an unprecedented crisis zone. While Trump said now was the time to build peace, listening to his announcement that only heaped praise on the attack, it is difficult to believe he has some plan to bring an end to the situation. The international issues unresolved since the Iraq War are a sign not only of the confusion in the Middle East, but also an indication that the world has not yet found a way to deal with an out-of-control United States. Now is a period when the three major powers of the United States, Russia and China are challenging the existing order. What is called for in order not to create a new interwar period is for middle powers such as Western European nations and Japan to hold the resolve to construct a multilateral cooperation structure. --The Asahi Shimbun, June 23
The Mainichi
4 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Editorial: US attack on Iran facilities a high-handed use of force going against reason
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has launched attacks on three nuclear facilities in Iran, saying its goal is to destroy Iran's nuclear development capabilities and prevent a nuclear threat. Intervention by the U.S. military could lead to the spread of war in the Middle East, deepening global chaos. It is imperative to put an end to the conflict as soon as possible. Several large "bunker buster" bombs designed to penetrate deep in the ground before exploding were used to strike the underground Fordo nuclear facility in central Iran. In an announcement, Trump said the strikes "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities, and threatened continued attacks unless Iran makes peace with Israel. He also hinted at the possibility of a regime change in Iran. Two days before the strikes, Trump had said he would decide whether or not to attack Iran within two weeks, leaving room for negotiations with the country, but went ahead with military action without waiting for direct talks. Israel had requested the U.S. military's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. In a video message, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu praised Trump's "bold decision" to target the facilities, and stated that in its action, "America has been truly unsurpassed." Fostering further confusion The strikes drew a backlash from Iran, which criticized them as "outrageous." Iran downplayed the damage as being limited, and revealed its intention to continue nuclear development. Admittedly, while Iran claims that its nuclear development is for "peaceful use," it has taken actions raising suspicions of nuclear weapons development. It is said to be producing highly enriched uranium close to weapons-grade levels. The facility at Fordo is built deep underground, protected by bedrock, and is believed to house highly enriched uranium. However, this does not justify the U.S. attacks. Under international law, the use of force against another country is only permitted in cases of self-defense or if there is a United Nations Security Council resolution. The exercise of self-defense is premised on either retaliating after being attacked or facing an imminent threat, but neither applies here. In the first place, Israel's preemptive strike against Iran violates international law. The U.S. military's attack is tantamount to complicity in this illegal act. Trump has stressed that Iran's nuclear development poses a serious threat to international society. If that's indeed the case, then the logical thing for him to do would be to go to the United Nations Security Council and present evidence of it. Trump's actions, completely disregarding rules and procedures to attack another country's territory at will, go against reason and cannot be overlooked. Attacks on nuclear facilities carry the risk of radioactive leaks and are ethically unacceptable. Previously during the Iraq War, which was initiated under the pretext of removing weapons of mass destruction, the Saddam Hussein regime was toppled, yet no evidence of such weapons was found. Even within the ruling Republican Party, there have arisen claims that not consulting Congress on the use of force is unconstitutional. It is only natural that U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated he was "gravely alarmed" by the use of force by the United States against Iran and warned that it poses a "direct threat to international peace and security." The concern is that the entire Middle East could be plunged into war, severely impacting the world. Diplomacy as a means of resolution Iran has indicated it could retaliate with strikes against U.S. military bases in the Middle East. There is a risk that pro-Iranian armed groups rooted across the Middle East could join the conflict. If that happens, Western nations and Israel's confrontation with Arab and Islamic countries will intensify. Russia and China are likely to harden their stance against the West. Iran has suggested that it could close the Strait of Hormuz leading to the Persian Gulf, a vital artery for oil transportation. The surge in oil prices would severely impact a world already suffering from inflation. The wars in Europe and the Middle East are likely to increase distrust among emerging and developing countries collectively known as the Global South, which are already bearing the economic brunt of the conflicts. Japan's position is also under scrutiny. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba condemned Israel's attack on Iran as "absolutely unacceptable," but regarding the U.S. attack, only stated that "early stabilization is of utmost importance." In Asia, North Korea is manufacturing nuclear warheads and deploying numerous ballistic missiles capable of carrying them. The threat level is more severe than that of Iran. The U.S. previously considered attacking North Korean nuclear facilities but refrained from doing so due to the risk of Asia plunging into chaos. As an ally, Japan must not overlook the United States' unilateral use of military force. It should collaborate with Europe to encourage restraint. Solutions by force create future sources of trouble, leading to repeated tragedies. Only a diplomatic resolution can fundamentally address the root issues.
