Scientists long ago envisioned the end of climate cooperation
By Kelly MacNAMARA
They warned it could happen: a world of surging nationalism, stalling economic development and the unravelling of decades of international cooperation on climate change and other global challenges.
Long before Donald Trump lurched away from diplomatic norms and the international rules-based order, scientists mapped out different potential futures to understand the possible implications for greenhouse gas emissions.
Developed a decade ago, five of these "pathways" became crucial to the work of the United Nations' IPCC climate expert panel.
These are not predictions for the 21st century. Rather, they envision what could happen with various societal changes including for trade, economic development, technological innovation and global population.
The most optimistic narrative foresees sustainable growth and improved equality. A second "middle-of-the-road" scenario is an extension of current trends.
The third is a world riven by rivalries, a fourth is blighted by increasing inequality, and the fifth assumes supercharged economic growth grounded in expanding fossil fuel use.
Keywan Riahi, of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, who coordinated the development of the so-called Shared Socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), said the world has largely developed in line with the third scenario in recent years.
While it is certainly not a perfect fit, what we see now "is a much more fragmented world," Riahi told AFP. "Collaboration is more difficult, economic development is actually also not so optimistic."
Scientists' original description of the SSP3 scenario was: "A resurgent nationalism, concerns about competitiveness and security, and regional conflicts push countries to increasingly focus on domestic or, at most, regional issues."
This "rocky road" is arguably the worst of all the hypothetical futures.
Planet-heating emissions are second only to economic expansion driven by oil, gas and coal.
But the fractured SSP3 world ranks first when it comes to damages from climate change, showing the largest population boom, and the weakest economic growth.
This scenario "reflects a current strain of populist isolationist politics that is ascendent today", climate scientist Zeke Hausfather noted in a recent newsletter post.
In 2021, Hausfather got blowback for calling SSP3 "Trump World". But "the actions in his second term around energy and trade seem to be playing out much more closely to SSP3 than other pathways", he said.
The U.S. has ditched the Paris climate treaty, turned its back on global cooperation on science, trade and health, and eviscerating its international development budget.
Washington has lambasted U.N. sustainable development goals, especially related to climate change and women's rights.
Domestically, the world's second biggest carbon polluter has undermined progress on low-carbon technology, cancelled climate research, and even stymied weather data collection.
World leaders have expressed their disquiet.
"The global economy thrived on a foundation of openness and multilateralism underpinned by U.S. leadership... but today it is fracturing," said European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde in late May.
Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney declared the global trade system in place for 80 years "over", and China's Xi Jinping urged the preservation of "the international order based on international law, and global fairness and justice".
Not destiny
There are important ways in which today's reality differs from the hypothetical SSP3 world.
World population projections are significantly lower, for instance. And the development of climate tech has been "much more successful", Riahi said.
A dramatic drop in the cost of solar and wind power, as well as electric vehicles and batteries, has boosted the growth of low-carbon technologies.
Carbon dioxide emissions have also slowed, while predicted warming for the end of the century is lower than a decade ago -- albeit still reaching catastrophic levels.
Scientists are currently updating SSP projections and crafting a new set of climate narratives. They have much to unpack.
Riahi said that even if there was a "complete collapse of climate policies globally", the previous worst-case emissions projections will likely not materialise because clean energy has become so cheap.
At the same time, he said, the world will almost certainly overshoot the Paris deal's aspirational goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels in the coming years.
This has forced scientists to consider a new set of questions.
What is the new best-case scenario for bending emissions down to zero?
If current policies persist, will emissions stay high for a longer period, causing temperatures to keep rising in the coming decades?
"What are the implications climatically of this high overshoot, which is unfortunately a more and more likely scenario if you extrapolate what we see at the moment?" said Riahi.
© 2025 AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
2 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Why the US Is Letting China Win on Energy Innovation
To China's delight, the U.S. has simply stopped competing to be the world's clean energy powerhouse. During the cold war, the United States and Soviet Union were locked in a desperate race to develop cutting‑edge technologies like long-range missiles and satellites. Fast forward to today and the frontiers of global technology have pivoted to artificial intelligence (AI) and next‑generation energy. In one domain, AI, the U.S. has far outpaced any other nation – though China looks to be closing the gap. In the other, energy, the U.S. has just tied its shoelaces together. The reason isn't technology, economics or, despite the government's official line, even national security. Rather, it is politics. Since returning to the White House in January, Donald Trump has handed out huge wins to the coal and oil and gas industries. This is no great surprise. Trump has long been supportive of the U.S. fossil fuel industry and, since his reelection, has appointed several former industry lobbyists to top political positions. According to the Trump administration, national security requires gutting support for renewable energy while performing political CPR on the dying coal industry. The reality is that, since 2019, the United States has produced more oil, gas, and coal annually than Americans want to use, with the rest exported and sold overseas. The U.S. is currently one of the most prolific exporters of fossil fuels in the world. In short, the U.S. does not have an energy security problem. It does, however, have an energy cost problem combined with a growing climate change crisis. These issues will only be made worse by Trump's enthusiasm for fossil fuels. Over the past six months, the Trump administration has upended half a decade of green industrial policy. It has clawed back billions of U.S. dollars in tax credits and grants that were supercharging American energy innovation. Meanwhile, China has roared forward. Beijing has doubled down on wind, solar and next‑generation batteries, installing more wind and solar power in 2024 than the rest of the world combined. To China's delight, the U.S. has simply stopped competing to be the world's clean energy powerhouse. While Trump repeats the tired mantra of 'drill, baby, drill,' China is building factories, cornering the market for critical minerals such as lithium and nickel, and locking in export partners. Roughly one-in-five lithium‑ion batteries, a key component in clean energy products, are made in China. Many of the newest high‑tech batteries are also being developed and patented there. At the same time, household energy spending in the U.S. is expected to increase by $170 each year between now and 2035 as a result of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill, which includes sweeping changes to taxes, social security, and more, will raise energy costs mainly because it strips away support for cheap and abundant renewables like wind and solar. Household energy costs could go up even more as Trump threatens to make large‑scale clean energy development much more onerous by putting up bureaucratic hurdles. The administration recently issued a directive requiring the secretary of the interior to approve even routine activities for wind and solar projects connected to federal lands. Meanwhile, climate change is hitting American communities harder with each passing year. As recent flooding in Texas and urban fires in California and Hawai'i have shown, fewer Americans still have the luxury of ignoring climate change. As the cost of these disasters mount – $183 billion in 2024 – the grifting of the oil and gas industry will become an increasingly bitter pill for the nation to swallow. China, with its authoritarian government, is less susceptible to the petroleum-obsessed dogma fueling the Republican party. It does not have prominent leaders like U.S. politician Marjorie Taylor Greene, who previously warned that Democrats are trying to 'emasculate the way we drive' by advocating for electric vehicles. Rather, China's leaders are seeing green – not in the environmental sense, but in a monetary one. It is generally cheaper nowadays to build and operate renewable energy facilities than gas or coal power stations. According to a June 2025 report by Lazard, an asset management company, electricity from new large-scale solar farms costs up to $78 per megawatt hour – and often much less. The same electricity from a newly built natural gas plants, by comparison, can cost as much as $107 per megawatt hour. Across the world, utilities are embracing clean energy, choosing lower costs for their customers while reducing pollution. China saw the writing on the wall decades ago, and its early investments are bearing a rich harvest. It now produces more than half of the world's electric vehicles and the vast majority of its solar panels. The United States can still compete at the leading edge of the energy sector. American companies are developing innovative new approaches to geothermal, battery recycling, and many other energy technologies. But in the battle to become the world's 21st-century energy manufacturing powerhouse, the U.S. seems to have walked off the playing field. In Trump's telling, the U.S. may have simply exited one race and reentered another. But the fossil fuel industry – financially, environmentally and ethically – is obviously a dead end. This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
The Diplomat
5 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Trump Cuts Tariffs on Cambodia and Thailand to 19% After Border Ceasefire
The U.S. government has nearly halved its threatened tariffs on imports from Thailand and Cambodia, just days after the two nations declared a ceasefire in a conflict over their border. According to an updated schedule of 'reciprocal tariff rates' issued by the White House late yesterday, both nations have seen their tariffs reduced to 19 percent, down from the threatened 36 percent. Beginning on July 24, the two nations fought a fierce five-day border conflict that has killed at least 43 people and displaced more than 300,000 people in both countries. After the outbreak of the conflict, President Donald Trump threatened to block trade deals with them unless they stopped fighting. By Monday, both countries had agreed to a ceasefire, which, despite mutual claims of violations, continues to hold. While many were reduced considerably from the tariffs unveiled in Trump's 'liberation day' announcement in April, Politico notes that it has lifted U.S. tariffs to 'the highest amount in more than a century.' The new rates come in on August 7. According to the text of an executive order announcing the new rates, the tariffs are intended to address 'the continued lack of reciprocity in our bilateral trade relationships and the impact of foreign trading partners' disparate tariff rates and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports, the domestic manufacturing base, critical supply chains, and the defense industrial base.' The Thai and Cambodian tariffs were announced along with updated rates for 65 other countries, which included tariffs of 40 percent for Laos and Myanmar, 25 percent for Brunei, and 19 percent for Malaysia. It also confirmed the rates that Trump announced with Vietnam (20 percent), Indonesia (19 percent), and the Philippines (19 percent). Singapore and Timor-Leste are the only Southeast Asian nations to be hit just with the administration's baseline 10 percent tariff, a reflection of the fact that the U.S. enjoys trade surpluses with both. Thailand and Cambodia both responded positively to the tariff reduction. In a Facebook post, Deputy PM and Finance Minister Pichai Chunhavajira said that the tariff reduction 'reflects strong Thai-US friendship and keeps Thailand globally competitive while boosting investor confidence and creating new economic opportunities.' He added that the Thai government was preparing 'budget allocations, soft loans, subsidies, tax measures, and regulatory reforms' to help those affected by the tariff. The reduction has also been praised by Cambodia's government. 'This is a good news for the citizens and economy of Cambodia to continue developing the country,' Prime Minister Hun Manet said in a Facebook post today. Phnom Penh has reasons to be satisfied with the outcome. Over the past decade, policymakers in Washington have grown alarmed with Cambodia's increasing economic and security relations with China, particularly with Beijing's refurbishment of (and likely preferential access to) the Ream Naval Base, the first phase of which was inaugurated earlier this year. These U.S. concerns might have been expected to hamper Phnom Penh's ability to negotiate its tariff down from the hefty 49 percent tariff initially announced in April, threatening to push it into the same category as Laos, another close partner of Beijing. As the Southeast Asian nation most exposed to the U.S. market, which took 37 percent of its exports in 2023, this hefty rate threatened to wreck Cambodia's manufacturing sector and potentially cast tens of thousands out of work. Cambodian policymakers will be relieved that they avoided this outcome. Indeed, the fact that such a close Chinese partner was able to obtain the same rate as Thailand, a U.S. treaty ally, speaks partly to the incoherence of the Trump administration's trade policies. It also probably reflects the canny way in which Cambodian leaders have leveraged the recent border conflict to their advantage. In the wake of Monday's ceasefire, Cambodian leaders, including former Prime Minister Hun Sen, went out of their way to praise Trump for his intercession in the border conflict with Thailand. After its announcement, Cambodian Deputy Prime Minister and chief trade negotiator Sun Chanthol said that Trump should be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in facilitating the ceasefire with Thailand – a position that has since been echoed online and in regime-aligned media. U.S.-Cambodia relations, which touched a nadir during the first Trump term, are being rebuilt on a bedrock of flattery. Malaysia would also be relatively satisfied with the 19 percent tariff, which marks a reduction from the 25 percent announced in a 'tariff letter' sent to the country last month. Yesterday, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim told parliament that the tariff rate 'will ease and not burden our economy.' In fact, eight of Southeast Asia's 11 nations have now secured a tariff rate of 20 percent or lower. Of these, six, which also happen to be among the region's largest exporters, have finalized tariffs of either 19 or 20 percent. This is lower than the 25 percent imposed on India and a nominal total of 79 percent on China (although this is still under negotiation), and higher than the 15 percent imposed on Japan and South Korea. Assuming all of these rates hold, this allows the region to remain relatively competitive in terms of access to the U.S. market, while more or less preserving the current competitive balance between its major exporters. The situation is much worse for Laos and Myanmar, each of which has been slugged with one of the highest tariff rates in the world, despite seeing slight reductions on the 48 percent and 46 percent initially announced by Trump in April. Neither nation trades especially much with the U.S., whose trade with Myanmar totaled $734 million in 2024, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. Total trade with Laos came to $844 million. (This compares to the $81 billion in trade that the U.S. conducted with Thailand last year and the $13 billion with Cambodia.) The U.S. was Myanmar's fifth-largest export market in 2022, and Laos' 12th-largest in 2021. Nonetheless, these punitive 40 percent tariffs are set to deepen the economic turmoil in both nations' floundering export-oriented manufacturing sectors, and deepen their already considerable economic connections to China. Exactly why Laos and Myanmar have been subject to such higher duties remains unclear, given the lack of clarity in the Trump administration's trade policy. It could be that neither nation showed what the Trump team considered to be sufficient eagerness to conclude a trade deal prior to the deadline; most of the Southeast Asian nations that successfully negotiated down their tariffs pledged to make large purchases of U.S. goods, including energy, agricultural products, and Boeing aircraft. It could also reflect the extent of their relations with China, or a combination of both. In any event, there is no guarantee that any of the current rates will be stable long enough for investors to begin making significant financial decisions on that basis. The tariffs also supposedly include a tariff of 40 percent for goods that the Trump administration deems to have been transshipped from other nations (i.e. China), although the criteria by which these decisions will be made remain unclear. While Trump has successfully used Washington's economic power to extract economic concessions from its main trade partners, the longer-term impact of the tariff war will likely be detrimental to U.S. economic influence. As my colleague James Guild wrote earlier this week, of the U.S. deals with Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines, Trump's use of American leverage 'will almost certainly drive countries in the region away from America and toward other trade and development partners in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere.'
NHK
8 hours ago
- NHK
US special envoy Witkoff visits Gaza
US special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff has visited the Gaza Strip, where people have been facing a severe food shortage. Israeli media reported on Friday that Witkoff visited a food distribution center in the enclave. A White House spokesperson had said Witkoff would inspect aid supply distribution in Gaza and hear directly from local people. UN-backed food security experts said, "The worst-case scenario of famine is currently playing out in Gaza." The term represents the worst level on their food insecurity scale. US President Donald Trump said some children in Gaza are in "real starvation." Hamas said on social media that Witkoff's visit is propaganda to contain anger at the US and Israel that it says are causing the people of Gaza to starve. A statement issued by the group on Thursday says it is ready to resume ceasefire negotiations if the humanitarian crisis and famine are resolved.
