The different paths to the climate future

The different paths to the climate future

Gabriela Ramirez[1] , OBELA[2]

The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) are various scenarios of global socioeconomic changes projected by the IPCC up to 2100. These scenarios are structured around five different narratives representing possible socioeconomic evolution paths: Sustainable Development, Regional Competition, Rising Inequality, Fossil Fuel Dependency, and Moderate Development. This article will describe these pathways and what they mean.

            In creating these scenarios, the IPCC ignores the economic growth differential of the ASEAN+5 and the G7 and the difference between the United States and the European Union within the G7. These differences are accompanied by technology gaps, led by China, and accelerated change in the energy matrix in Asia and Europe, which is not occurring in the United States at the same rate. 

According to Our World in Data, the SSPs do not dictate what the world will look like, but rather what it could look like by taking into account social, economic, and technological factors such as population growth, economic growth, urbanization, trade, energy, and agricultural systems. The key aspect of the scenarios is the resulting greenhouse gas emissions, which determine the future climate. 

            The first scenario, SSP1: Sustainability, proposes a gradual transition to sustainable development while respecting planetary boundaries. Social objectives would be prioritized over economic growth, with investments in education, health, and the reduction of inequalities. Consumption would be oriented towards low energy and resource intensity. Global cooperation would facilitate effective environmental policies to achieve significant progress in mitigation and adaptation. 

            In the second scenario, SSP2: Halfway, global and national institutions would move slowly toward the Sustainable Development Goals. Economic growth and income would progress, but with disparities between countries and persistent inequalities. Although the intensity of resource and energy use would decline, environmental degradation would continue. Progress in reducing climate vulnerability would be insufficient, and significant challenges would remain. 

            The third scenario, SSP3: Regional Rivalry, would bring the emergence of a fragmented world, with exacerbated nationalism. Countries would prioritize energy and food security at the expense of the environment, while reducing investments in education and technology. Economic development would be slow, with high material consumption and growing inequalities. The population would grow rapidly in developing countries, while in industrialized nations it would stagnate. Environmental degradation would worsen due to a lack of global cooperation. 

            For the fourth scenario, SSP4: Inequality, economic and political gaps would generate highly stratified societies with little social cohesion. Poor and poorly educated sectors would work in labor-intensive economies, while elites would control technology and energy. The energy sector would combine fossil fuels and renewables, but environmental policies would only protect rich areas. Vulnerable groups would face increased climate risks without effective adaptation mechanisms. 

            The last scenario, SSP5: Development based on fossil fuels, would focus on globalized markets, technological innovation, and accelerated economic growth. Fossil fuel exploitation and resource-intensive lifestyles would become widespread. Although there would be advances in health and education, environmental impacts would be severe. Geoengineering would be relied upon to manage climate change, but mitigation would fail to reduce emissions. Wealthy societies would adapt, but at the cost of a highly polluted planet.

            It is incorrect to think that these scenarios can occur homogeneously throughout the world. Socioeconomic and environmental policies, as well as the perception of climate change, differ from country to country. As shown in the graph, China appears to have reached the CO2 emissions plateau since 2024. Although this is not the first time that there has been a drop in emissions, it is the first time that the drop is due to a change in the energy matrix. 

The Asian giant and the rest of the BRICS are responsible for 49.1% of global emissions, compared to the West, which accounts for 50.9%; therefore, the IPCC scenarios would be a fragmented world led by Asia in the energy transition. However, China's measures would only cover one-third of emissions. The remaining 70% lack sufficient efforts to address environmental problems. If this trend continues, the world will approach a combination of worst-case scenarios with irreversible consequences.