Published December 11, 2024 | Version v1
Publication Open

Climate Futures are Political Futures: Integrating Political Development Into the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs)

Creators

  • 1. ROR icon German Institute of Development and Sustainability
  • 2. Peace Research Institute Oslo
  • 3. ROR icon Carleton University
  • 4. ROR icon University of Gothenburg
  • 5. ROR icon International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
  • 6. ROR icon Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
  • 7. ROR icon Chalmers University of Technology
  • 8. ROR icon University of Denver
  • 9. EDMO icon University of Heidelberg
  • 10. ROR icon University of Potsdam
  • 11. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
  • 12. ROR icon Utrecht University
  • 13. ROR icon Wageningen University & Research
  • 14. ROR icon Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency
  • 15. ROR icon Goethe University Frankfurt

Description

Abstract

The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) are the key scenarios used by the climate change research community for evaluating mitigation pathways and the costs and challenges of meeting the Paris goals as well as climate risks along these different pathways. Despite ample evidence that political factors – such as institutional strength, rule of law-based accountability, and violent conflict – are critical determinants of climate action and vulnerability to climate hazards, the SSPs currently acknowledge but do not include quantified political factors systematically. We argue that without integrating political development into socioeconomic scenarios for climate mitigation and adaptation, projections are unlikely to reflect the challenges from climate change nor provide serious guidance on the political barriers to climate action. Consequently, models under-estimate climate risks. It is of immediate concern to extend the SSPs by integrating relevant political factors. In this paper, we examine how political development co-evolves with and influences climate futures, covering a wide range of issues from institutions to armed conflict. We showcase existing quantified political factors and the state of the art of the research on political futures, which may inform current SSP update processes. By outlining a research agenda to explore opportunities to integrate the co-evolution of political factors with socioeconomic, technical, and environmental developments as integral part of scenarios, we aim to contribute to the building blocks for a new generation of climate scenarios.

Files

Leininger et al 2024 Political Futures.pdf

Files (539.4 kB)

Name Size Download all
md5:9199e7468ba6e4664497d407a02f2035
539.4 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.14387075

Related works

Is supplemented by
Dataset: 10.5281/zenodo.10977219 (DOI)

Dates

Submitted
2024-11-17

Software

Repository URL
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10977219

References

  • Andrijevic, M., Crespo Cuaresma, J., Lissner, T., Thomas, A., & Schleussner, C.-F. (2020). Overcoming gender inequality for climate resilient development. Nature Communications, 11(1), 6261. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19856-w
  • Bauer, N., Bertram, C., Schultes, A., Klein, D., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E.,…Edenhofer, O. (2020). Quantification of an efficiency–sovereignty trade-off in climate policy. Nature, 588(7837), 261-266. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2982-5
  • Brutschin, E., & Andrijevic, M. (2022). Why ambitious and just climate mitigation needs political science [climate mitigation; Integrated Assessment Models; interdisciplinary]. 2022, 10(3), 4. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i3.6156
  • Buhaug, H., & Vestby, J. (2019). On growth projections in the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Global Environmental Politics, 19(4), 118-132. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00525
  • Jewell, J., & Cherp, A. (2020). On the political feasibility of climate change mitigation pathways: Is it too late to keep warming below 1.5°C? WIREs Climate Change, 11(1), e621. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.621
  • Kriegler, E., Edmonds, J., Hallegatte, S., Ebi, K. L., Kram, T., Riahi, K.,…van Vuuren, D. P. (2014). A new scenario framework for climate change research: the concept of shared climate policy assumptions. Climatic Change, 122(3), 401-414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0971-5
  • Moyer, J. D. (2023). Blessed are the peacemakers: The future burden of intrastate conflict on poverty. World Development, 165, 106188. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2023.106188
  • O'Neill, B. C., Carter, T. R., Ebi, K., Harrison, P. A., Kemp-Benedict, E., Kok, K.,…Pichs-Madruga, R. (2020). Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework. Nature Climate Change, 10(12), 1074-1084. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00952-0
  • Soergel, B., Kriegler, E., Weindl, I., Rauner, S., Dirnaichner, A., Ruhe, C.,…Popp, A. (2021). A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nature Climate Change, 11(8), 656-664. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01098-3
  • Wiebrecht, F., Sato, Y., Nord, M., Lundstedt, M., Angiolillo, F., & Lindberg, S. I. (2023). State of the world 2022: defiance in the face of autocratization. Democratization, 30(5), 769-793. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2023.2199452