Climate change will reshape the world, whether we succeed in tackling it or not. It’s no longer just a statement from scientists, but from the insurance industry.
In the title report Shift power, Cambridge University scholars and Lloyd’s of London experts in the insurance market try to imagine what that reshaped world will look like. Instead of imagining which parts of the world flood more often and which parts ignite more often, they imagine the impact on geopolitics.
Conclusion? The world can follow one of three paths:
* Green globalization.Powers work closely together to implement solutions and get the world on track to meet climate goals
* Climate anarchy, self-interest takes the form of protected trade and mercantilism, pushing the world in the wrong direction when it comes to emissions
* Green Cold War. The world splits into two or three rival camps, creating trade barriers in the region and producing emissions that land somewhere between the extremes of the first two scenarios.
This type of scenario analysis has become a reliable tool for large corporations and governments trying to deal with a highly uncertain world. The conclusion is the imaginary future that arises from making some basic assumptions, interviewing experts in many different disciplines, and using computer models as an aid.
For example, the central premise of the new analysis is that there will be no technology breakthroughs in the last decade. Instead, existing technologies will be developed at current speeds. Therefore, solar power is getting cheaper and fusion is not a reality.
These analyzes are not cheap, but their use is expanding rapidly. Matteo Ilardo, a risk researcher at the University of Cambridge’s Center for Risk Research and one of the authors of the report, said: “Government and corporate boards are very interested in trying to seize opportunities as well as mitigate risk.”
The results of the Shifting Powers study are very close to another study published in November 2019, led by Morgan Bazilian of the Payne Institute in Colorado. The study presented four scenarios:
* The Big Green Deal sees the government’s decisive and collaborative policy of driving financial markets and rapidly moving capital towards carbon-free energy sources.
* Dirty nationalism leads to inward-looking policies and closed economies, resulting in the failure of the Paris Agreement.
* Madling-on scenarios are essentially where the world is today, and renewables increase share of the energy mix, but transformations are too slow to mitigate climate change.
* Technology breakthroughs can mean that suddenly it’s cheaper to add storage to the power grid or emit carbon dioxide from the air. It can lead to geopolitical competition (similar to the Green Cold War scenario).
Of course, these scenarios are a very rough approximation of what the world will look like. Currently, Irald says the Cold War is where the world seems to be heading, but there is still time for the world to commit to that path. So, if scientists’ warnings about the physical risks of climate change don’t move the public, perhaps the geopolitical outlook of conservative insurers may ultimately take people more seriously about global heating. Maybe.
https://gulfbusiness.com/green-cold-war-or-climate-anarchy-together-we-can-decide/ Green Cold War or climate anarchy?Can decide together