Abstract
The issue of climate change required the development of the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES) by the IPCC. The complexity of the subject and the unique science-policy relation resulted in confusion and discussions appeared in popular media like The Economist. This paper reviews scenario literature and SRES, identifies the most vulnerable elements in the communication of SRES. In the communication of GHG emission scenarios through SRES, the weaknesses that have been identified by the authors of this paper are the normative character of climate change assessment, the plausibility of the scenarios, and the risk of simplification of complex messages. The causes of these communicative issues have been identified as the intrinsic difficulties of interdisciplinary science, the uniqueness of the science-policy relation, and the need for a high degree of transparency. This paper suggests improving future communication of complex messages from scientists to their audience by means of clear reasoning when communicating with non-scientists, explicitly normative emission scenarios, and increased stakeholder participation in scenario development.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Alcamo J, Bouwman A, Edmonds J, Grübler A, Morita T, Sugandhy A (1995) An evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emission scenarios. In: Houghton JT, Meira Filho LG, Bruce J, Lee H, Callander BA, Haites E, Harris N, Maskell K (eds) Radiative forcing of climate change and an evaluation of the IPCC IS92 emission scenarios. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 233–304
Allen M (2003) Possible or probable?. Nature 425:242 (18 SEPTEMBER)
Bakkes J, Henrichs T, Kemp-Benedict E, Masui T, Nellemann C, Potting JMB, Rana A, Raskin P, and Rothman DS (2004) The GEO-3 scenarios 2002–2032: quantification and analysis of environmental impacts’. No. UNEP/DEWA/RS.03–4 and RIVM 402001022, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)
Bhagwati J (2004) In defense of globalization. Oxford University Press, New York
Brinkhorst LJ (2004) Hoe meer groei, hoe beter voor het milieu (the more growth, the better for the environment). De Volkskrant (6 September)
Carlsson-Kanyama A, Dreborg KH, Eenkorn BR, Engström R, Falkena HJ, Gatersleben B, Hendriksson G, Kok R, Moll HC, Padovan D, Rigoni F, Stø E, Throne-Holst H, Tite L, and Vittersø G (2003) Images of everyday life in the future sustainable city: experiences of back-casting with stakeholders in five European cities. No. 19, Forskningsgruppen för Miljöstrategiska Studier (FMS), Stockholm, Sweden
Castles I, Henderson D (2003a) Economics, emissions scenarios and the work of the IPCC. Energy Environ 14(4):415–435
Castles I, Henderson D (2003b) The IPCC emission scenarios: an economic-statistical critique. Energy Environ 14(2&3):159–185
Chua S (1999) Economic growth, liberalization, and the environment: a review of the economic evidence. Annu Rev Energy Environ 24:391–430
Craig PP, Gadgil A, Koomey JG (2002) What can history teach us? a retrospective examination of long-term energy forecasts for the United States. Annu Rev Energy Environ 27:83–118
de Vries HJM (2001) Objective science? The case of climate change models. In: Goujon P, Heriard Dubreuil B (eds) Technology and ethics, a European quest for responsible engineering. Peeters, Leuven, Belgium, pp 485–510
de Vries B, Bollen J, Bouwman L, den Elzen M, Janssen M, Kreileman E (2000) Greenhouse gas emissions in an equity- , environment- and service-oriented world: an IMAGE-based scenario for the 21st century. Technol Forecast Soc Change 63(2–3):137–174
EEA (2004) Impacts of Europe’s changing climate – an indicator-based assessment. EEA Report, No. 2/2004, European Environmental Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark
Ehrlich PR, Holdren JP (1971) Impact of population growth. Science 171:1212–1217
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25(7):739–755
Greene R (1998) The 48 laws of power. Viking, New York
Grübler A, Nakicenovic N (2001) Identifying dangers in an uncertain climate. Nature 412(6842):15
Grübler A, Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, Fenhann J, Hare M, Mori S, Pepper B, Pitcher H, Riahi K, Rogner HH, La Rovere EL, Sankovski A, Schlesinger ME, Shukla P, Swart R, Victor DG, Jung TY (2004) Emission scenarios: a final response. Energy Environ 15(1):11–24
Hertz N (2004) I.O.U. : the debt threat and why we must defuse it. Harper Perennial, London, UK
Hillman M (2004) How we can save the planet. Penguin, London, UK
IPCC (2004) Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report, Annex B. Glossary of Terms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp365–388 On-line available: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/syrgloss.pdf
Kaiser J (2005) Climate change: scientist quits IPCC panel over comments. Science 307(5709):501b
Kaya Y (1990) Impact of carbon dioxide emission control on GNP growth: interpretation of proposed scenarios. Paper presented to the IPCC Energy and Industry Subgroup, Response Strategies Working Group, Paris, France
Keepin B, Wynne B (1984) Technical analysis of IIASA energy scenarios. Nature 312:691–695
Kemp-Benedict E, Raskin P (2001) Global environmental scenarios: technical notes on use of PoleStar for the OECD Environmental Outlook (Background document for the OECD Environmental Outlook For Modelling and Assessments), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France
Kram T, Morita T, Riahi K, Roehrl RA, Van Rooijen S, Sankovski A, de Vries B (2000) Global and regional greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Technol Forecast Soc Change 63(2–3):335–371
Kriegler E, Bruckner T (2004) Sensitivity analysis of emissions corridors for the 21st century. Clim Change 66(3):345–387
Lempert R, Nakicenovic N, Sarewitz D, Schlesinger ME (2004) Characterizing climate-change uncertainties for decision-makers: an editorial essay. Clim Change 65:1–9
Lomborg B (2001) The sceptical environmentalist – measuring the real state of the world. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Maddison A (2001) The world economy: a millennial perspective. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France
Maddison A, 2004. The PPPrice is right. Economist 372(8383):14
Manne A, Richels R, Edmonds J (2005) Market exchange rates or purchasing power parity: does the choice make a difference to the climate debate? Clim Change 71(1–2):1–8
Mastrandrea MD, Schneider SH (2004) Probabilistic integrated assessment of dangerous climate change. Science 304(5670):571–575
McKibbin WJ, Pearce D, Stegman A (2004a) Can the IPCC SRES be improved? Energy Environ 15(3):351–362
McKibbin WJ, Pearce D, Stegman A (2004b) Long run projections for climate change scenarios. Brookings Discussion Papers in International Economics, No. 160, The Brookings Institution, Washington (DC). On-line available: http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/20040415_bdpie160.htm
Miketa A (2004) The use of purchasing power parities in long-term economic growth scenarios, presentation at IIASA. International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria
Moll HC (1993) Energy counts and materials matter in models for sustainable development. Ph.D. Thesis: Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (IVEM), University of Groningen, The Netherlands
Muskulus M, Jacob D (2005) Tracking cyclones in regional model data: the future of Mediterranean storms. Advances in Geosciences 2:13–19
Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries HJM, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grübler A, Jung TY, Kram T, La Rovere EL, Michaelis L, Mori S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher H, Price L, Riahi K, Roehrl A, Rogner HH, Sankovski A, Schlesinger ME, Shukla P, Smith S, Swart R, van Rooijen S, Victor N, Dadi Z (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios, international panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Nakicenovic N, Grübler A, Gaffin S, Jung TT, Kram T, Morita T, Pitcher H, Riahi K, Schlesinger ME, Shuka PR, van Vuuren DP, Davis G, Michaelis L, Swart R, Victor N (2003) The IPCC emission scenarios: a response. Energy Environ 14(2&3):187–214
Noorman KJ (1995) Exploring futures from an energy perspective – a Natural Capital Accounting model study into the long-term economic development potential of The Netherlands. Ph.D. Thesis: Center for Energy and Environmental Studies (IVEM), University of Groningen, The Netherlands
OECD (2001a) Environmental Strategy for the First Decade of the 21st Century. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France
OECD (2001b) OECD environmental outlook. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France
OECD (2005) Purchasing Power Parities (PPP), About, Statistics Directorate. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: http://www.oecd.org/about/0,2337,en_2649_34357_1_1_1_1_1,00.html accessed on 11 October 2005
Parikh JK (1992) IPCC strategies unfair to the south. Nature 360:507–508
Pittock AB (2002) What we know and don’t know about climate change: reflections on the IPCC TAR. Clim Change 53:393–411
Pittock AB, Jones RN, Mitchell CD (2001) Probabilities will help us plan for climate change. Nature 413(6853):249
Reilly J, Stone PH, Forest CE, Webster MD, Jacoby HD, Prinn RG (2001) Climate change: uncertainty and climate change assessments. Science 293(5529):430a–4433
Riahi K, Roehrl RA (2000) Greenhouse gas emissions in a dynamics-as-usual scenario of economic and energy development. Technol Forecast Soc Change 63(2–3):175–205
Ringland G (1998) Scenario planning. Wiley, Chicester, England
RIVM (2004) Kwaliteit en toekomst: verkenning van duurzaamheid (Quality and future: sustainability outlook). Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM), Bilthoven. On-line available: http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/duve04001.html
Schenk NJ (2000) Modelling in the EOS Project, presentation for the Advisory Panel of the OECD Environmental Outlook and Strategy (EOS) Project. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France
Schipper L, Unander F, Murtishaw S, Ting M (2001) Indicators of energy use and carbon emissions: explaining the energy economy link. Annu Rev Energy Environ 26:49–81
Schneider SH (2001) What is ‘dangerous’ climate change? Nature 411(6833):17–19
Schneider SH, Mastrandrea MD (2005). Probabilistic assessment of “dangerous” climate change and emissions pathways. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102(2):15728–15735
Schwartz P (1998) The art of the long view-planning for the future in an uncertain world. Wiley, West Sussex, England
Smil V (2000) Energy in the twentieth century: resources, conversions, costs, uses, and consequences. Annu Rev Energy Environ 25:21–51
Smith SJ, Wigley TML, Edmonds J (2000) Climate: a new route toward limiting climate change? Science 290(5494):1109–1110
Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future: sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ Change Part A 14(2):137–146
The Economist (2003a) A greener Bush. Economist 366(8311):12–13
The Economist (2003b) Hot potato – the International Panel on Climate Change had better check its calculations. Economist 366(8311):72
The Economist (2003c) Hot potato revisited. Economist 369(8349):76
Trnka M, Dubrovský M, Semerádová D, Zcaronalud Z (2004) Projections of uncertainties in climate change scenarios into expected winter wheat yields. Theor Appl Climatol 77(3–4):229–249
Tuinstra W, Hordijk L, Amann M (1999) Using computer models in international negotiations – the case of acidification in Europe. Environment 41(9):33–42
Turkenburg WC (1993) Forecasting, toegepast op onze energievoorziening (Forecasting, applied to our energy supply). In: Ruiter Wd (ed), Dictaat energie en milieu (Syllabus energy and the environment). University of Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
UNCED (1992) The Earth summit. United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, New York
UNFCCC (1997) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations, New York
van der Sluijs JP, Potting JMB, Risbey J, van Vuuren DP, de Vries HJM, Beusen A, Heuberger P, Quintana SC, Funtowicz S, Kloprogge P, Nuijten D, Petersen A, Ravetz J (2001) Uncertainty assessment of the IMAGE/TIMER B1 CO2 emissions scenario, using the NUSAP method’. No. 410 200 104, Dutch National Research Program on Climate Change
van Vuuren DP, de Vries HJM (2001) Mitigation scenarios in a world oriented at sustainable development: the role of technology, efficiency and timing. Climate Policy 1(2):189–210
Watson RT (2002) The future of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Climate Policy 2(4):269–271
Webster MD, Forest CE, Reilly J, Babiker MH, Kicklighter D, Mayer M, Prinn RG, Sarofim M, Sokolov A, Stone PH, Wang C (2003) Uncertainty analysis of climate change and policy response. Clim Change 61:295–320
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Based on a presentation at the “IIASA-YSSP uncertainty seminars,” 22 July 2004, and the discussions thereafter.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0 ), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Schenk, N.J., Lensink, S.M. Communicating uncertainty in the IPCC’s greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Climatic Change 82, 293–308 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9194-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9194-3