Planning Future Pathways: Implications and Outcomes of Scenario Studies

  • Peadar Kirby
  • Tadhg O’Mahony
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the International Political Economy Series book series (IPES)

Abstract

This chapter turns to the use of scenarios for insight into the future, and how they have come to dominate approaches to the low-carbon transition. It reviews different techniques used and discusses what environmental and emissions scenarios tell us. Discussion of the practice of transition and transformation follows, including a review of some of the key outcomes from such studies, and examples of influential scenarios. It is argued that a more fundamental transformation beyond the limited reliance on techno-economic measures is needed, to look at development pathways, sustainability and social, cultural and political drivers. Political economy is highlighted as a lens on the many variables of power and politics that are central to the prospects for a social transformation on the scale necessary.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alcamo, J., ed. 2008. Environmental Futures. The Practice of Environmental Scenario Analysis. Developments in Integrated Environmental Assessment 2. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, K. 2015. Duality in Climate Science. Nature Geoscience 8: 898–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, K., and A. Bows. 2012. A New Paradigm for Climate Change. Nature Climate Change 2: 639–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carpenter, S.R., P.L. Pingali, E.M. Bennett, and M.B. Zurek. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Scenarios, Volume 2. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  5. CAT/Track 0. 2015. Who’s Getting Ready for Zero? Centre for Alternative Technology and Track 0. Accessed 24 March 2017. http://zerocarbonbritain.org/images/pdfs/wgrz-full-report.pdf
  6. Chappin, E.J.L., and Andreas Ligtvoet. 2014. Transition and Transformation: A Bibliometric Analysis of Two Scientific Networks Researching Socio-technical Change. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 30: 715–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Jouvenel, H. 2000. A Brief Methodological Guide to Scenario Building. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 65: 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Delucchi, M.A., and M.Z. Jacobson. 2011. Providing All Global Energy with Wind, Water, and Solar Power, Part II: Reliability, System and Transmission Costs, and Policies. Energy Policy 39: 1170–1190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EC. 2011. A Roadmap for Moving to a Competitive Low Carbon Economy in 2050. Communication from the European Commission COM(2011) 112. eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0112&from=EN
  10. Fisher, B.S., N. Nakicenovic, K. Alfsen, J. Corfee Morlot, F. de la Chesnaye, J.-Ch. Hourcade, K. Jiang, et al. 2007. Issues Related to Mitigation in the Long Term Context. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fleurbaey, M., S. Kartha, S. Bolwig, Y.L. Chee, Y. Chen, E. Corbera, F. Lecocq, et al. 2014. Sustainable Development and Equity. In Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, and J.C. Minx. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hughes, N., J. Mers, and N. Strachan. 2009. Review and Analysis of UK and International Low Carbon Energy Scenarios. A Joint Working Paper of the UKERC and the EON.UK/EPSRC Transition Pathways Project. http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/asset/CF4C4FA6%2D3977%2D4138%2D9CE618FA1D842534/
  13. IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. 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 (mimeo).Google Scholar
  15. Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers, and W.W. Behrens III. 1972. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  16. Midttun, A., and T. Baumgartner. 1986. Negotiating Energy Futures: The Politics of Energy Forecasting. Energy Policy 14: 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nakicenovic, N., J. Alcamo, G. Davis, B. de Vries, J. Fenham, S. Gaffin, K. Gregory, et al. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. Working Group III, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Nielsen, S.K., and K. Karlsson. 2007. Energy Scenarios: A Review of Methods, Uses and Suggestions for Improvement. International Journal of Global Energy 27 (3): 302–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Mahony, T. 2013. The Future of Ireland to 2020. Putting the Story in Emission Scenarios. Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. ———. 2014. Integrated Scenarios for Energy: A Methodology for the Short Term. Futures 55: 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Mahony, T., and J. Dufour. 2015. Tracking Development Paths: Monitoring Driving Forces and the Impact of Carbon-free Energy Sources in Spain. Environmental Science and Policy 50: 62–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Mahony, T., P. Zhou, and J. Sweeney. 2013. Integrated Scenarios of Energy-related CO2 Emissions in Ireland: A Multi-sectoral Analysis to 2020. Ecological Economics 93: 385–397.Google Scholar
  23. O’Neill, B., E. Kriegler, and K. Ebi. 2015. The Roads Ahead: Narratives for Shared Socioeconomic Pathways Describing World Futures in the 21st Century. Global Environmental Change 42: 169–180.Google Scholar
  24. Patterson, J., K. Schulz, J. Vervoort, S. van der Held, O. Widerberg, C. Adlere, M. Hurlbert, K. Anderton, M. Sethih, and A. Barauja. 2016. Exploring the Governance and Politics of Transformations Towards Sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422416300843
  25. Raskin, P., C. Electris, and R.A. Rosen. 2010. The Century Ahead: Searching for Sustainability. Sustainability 2: 2626–2651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raskin, P., F. Monks, T. Ribeiro, D. van Vuuren, M. Zurek, A.A. Concheiro, and C. Field. 2005. Global Scenarios in Historical Perspective. In Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Scenarios, Findings of the Scenarios Working Group Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Series, ed. Steve Carpenter, Prabhu Pingali, Elena Bennett, and Monika Zurek, 35–44. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  27. Robinson, J. 2003. Future Subjunctive: Backcasting as Social Learning. Futures 35: 839–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. ———. 2004. Squaring the Circle? Some Thoughts on the Idea of Sustainable Development. Ecological Economics 48: 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sathaye, J., A. Najam, C. Cocklin, T. Heller, F. Lecocq, J. Llanes-Regueiro, J. Pan, et al. 2007. Sustainable Development and Mitigation. In Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, ed. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, and L.A. Meyer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Soderholm, P., R. Hildingsson, B. Johansson, J. Khan, and F. Wilhelmsson. 2011. Governing the Transition to Low-carbon Futures: A Critical Survey of Energy Scenarios for 2050. Futures 43: 1105–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turner, G.H. 2008. A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with 30 Years of Reality. Global Environmental Change 18: 397–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. UNEP. 2012. Global Environmental Outlook 5, Environment for the Future We Want. Summary for Policymakers. United Nations Environment Programme, downloaded from http://web.unep.org/geo/assessments/specialized/geo-5-summary-policy-makers
  33. ———. 2016. Rate of Environmental Damage Increasing Across the Planet but There Is Still Time to Reverse Worst Impacts if Governments Act Now, UNEP Assessment Says: Landmark UNEP Assessment Puts State of the World’s Environment under the Microscope. United Nations Environment Programme News Centre. http://www.unep.org/newscentre/default.aspx?DocumentID=27074&ArticleID=36180
  34. Williams, J.H. 2013. The Technology Path to Deep Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts by 2050: The Pivotal Role of Electricity. Science 335 (6064): 53–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiseman, J., T. Edwards, and K. Luckins. 2013. Post Carbon Pathways, Towards a Just and Resilient Post Carbon Future. Learning from Leading International Post-carbon Economy Researchers and Policy Makers. Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, University of Melbourne CPD Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  36. World Bank. 2015. Decarbonizing Development: Three Steps to a Zero-Carbon Future. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peadar Kirby
    • 1
  • Tadhg O’Mahony
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Politics and Public AdministrationUniversity of LimerickLimerickIreland
  2. 2.Finland Futures Research CentreTurku School of Economics University of TurkuTampereFinland

Personalised recommendations