From fAIrplay to climate wars: making climate change scenarios more dynamic, creative, and integrative

Understanding possible climate futures that include carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation modification (SRM) requires thinking not just about staying within the remaining carbon budget, but also about politics and people. However, despite growing interest in CDR and SRM, scenarios focused on these potential responses to climate change tend to exclude feedbacks between social and climate systems (a criticism applicable to climate change scenarios more generally). We adapted the Manoa MashUp method to generate scenarios for CDR and SRM that were more integrative, creative, and dynamic. The method was modified to identify important branching points in which different choices in how to respond to climate change (feedbacks between climate and social dynamics) lead to a plurality of climate futures. An interdisciplinary group of participants imagined distant futures in which SRM or CDR develop into a major social-environmental force. Groups received other "seeds" of change, such as Universal Basic Income or China's Belt and Road Initiative, and surprises, such as permafrost collapse that grew to influence the course of events to 2100. Groups developed narratives describing pathways to the future and identified bifurcation points to generate families of branching scenarios. Four climate-social dynamics were identified: motivation to mitigate, moral hazard, social unrest, and trust in institutions. These dynamics could orient toward better or worse outcomes with SRM and CDR deployment (and mitigation and adaptation responses more generally) but are typically excluded from existing climate change scenarios. The importance of these dynamics could be tested through the inclusion of social-environmental feedbacks into integrated assessment models (IAM) exploring climate futures. We offer a step-by-step guide to the modified Manoa Mash-up method to generate more integrative, creative, and dynamic scenarios; reflect on broader implications of using this method for generating more dynamic scenarios for climate change research and policy; and provide examples of using the scenarios in climate policy communication, including a choose-your-own adventure game called Survive the Century (https://survivethecentury.net/), which was played by over 15,000 people in the first 2 weeks of launching.

[1]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Advancing a toolkit of diverse futures approaches for global environmental assessments , 2021, Ecosystems and People.

[2]  H. Buhaug,et al.  Security implications of climate change: A decade of scientific progress , 2021, Journal of Peace Research.

[3]  T. Carter,et al.  Achievements and needs for the climate change scenario framework , 2020, Nature Climate Change.

[4]  M. Moore,et al.  Imagination and transformations to sustainable and just futures , 2020, Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.

[5]  M. Sugiyama,et al.  Pandemic politics—lessons for solar geoengineering , 2020, Communications Earth & Environment.

[6]  B. Glavovic,et al.  Turbulent transformation: abrupt societal disruption and climate resilient development , 2020 .

[7]  Baihua Fu,et al.  Scenario processes for socio-environmental systems analysis of futures: A review of recent efforts and a salient research agenda for supporting decision making. , 2020, The Science of the total environment.

[8]  Ingemar Johansson Sevä,et al.  Who do you trust? How trust in partial and impartial government institutions influences climate policy attitudes , 2020 .

[9]  C. Hazlett,et al.  Wildfire Exposure Increases Pro-Environment Voting within Democratic but Not Republican Areas , 2020, American Political Science Review.

[10]  P. Stark,et al.  Five ways to ensure that models serve society: a manifesto , 2020, Nature.

[11]  G. Luderer,et al.  Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement , 2020, Nature Communications.

[12]  M. Hulme One Earth, Many Futures, No Destination , 2020 .

[13]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Developing multiscale and integrative nature–people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework , 2020, People and Nature.

[14]  D. MacMartin,et al.  Climate econometric models indicate solar geoengineering would reduce inter-country income inequality , 2020, Nature Communications.

[15]  Indra Overland,et al.  The Misallocation of Climate Research Funding , 2020 .

[16]  Jeffrey McGee,et al.  The governance of solar geoengineering: managing climate change in the anthropocene , 2020, Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs.

[17]  Sakshi Rana,et al.  The voices of youth in envisioning positive futures for nature and people , 2020, Ecosystems and People.

[18]  Jakob J. Kolb,et al.  Earth system modeling with endogenous and dynamic human societies: the copan:CORE open World–Earth modeling framework , 2019, 1909.13697.

[19]  L. Pereira,et al.  Building capacities for transformative change towards sustainability: Imagination in Intergovernmental Science-Policy Scenario Processes , 2019, Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.

[20]  Garry D. Peterson,et al.  Seeds of good anthropocenes: developing sustainability scenarios for Northern Europe , 2019, Sustainability Science.

[21]  Eleonora Patacchini,et al.  Hurricanes, Climate Change Policies and Electoral Accountability , 2019, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[22]  N. Diffenbaugh,et al.  Global warming has increased global economic inequality , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[23]  David A. Dana,et al.  Framing of Geoengineering Affects Support for Climate Change Mitigation , 2019, Environmental Communication.

[24]  K. Emanuel,et al.  Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards , 2019, Nature Climate Change.

[25]  B. Kravitz,et al.  Mission-driven research for stratospheric aerosol geoengineering , 2019, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[26]  Rachel James,et al.  Storylines: an alternative approach to representing uncertainty in physical aspects of climate change , 2018, Climatic Change.

[27]  M. Mills,et al.  CESM1(WACCM) Stratospheric Aerosol Geoengineering Large Ensemble Project , 2018, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

[28]  Nils Markusson,et al.  Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs) , 2018, Global Sustainability.

[29]  M. Burke,et al.  Estimating global agricultural effects of geoengineering using volcanic eruptions , 2018, Nature.

[30]  M. Sugiyama,et al.  Next steps in geoengineering scenario research: limited deployment scenarios and beyond , 2018 .

[31]  P. Hebinck,et al.  Imagining transformative futures: participatory foresight for food systems change , 2018 .

[32]  J. Vervoort,et al.  Anticipating climate futures in a 1.5 °C era: the link between foresight and governance , 2018 .

[33]  Tomoko Hasegawa,et al.  Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[34]  Learn to tell science stories , 2018, Nature.

[35]  E. K. Smith,et al.  A social trap for the climate? Collective action, trust and climate change risk perception in 35 countries , 2018 .

[36]  Rika Preiser,et al.  Using futures methods to create transformative spaces: visions of a good Anthropocene in southern Africa , 2018 .

[37]  Jessica Gurevitch,et al.  Potentially dangerous consequences for biodiversity of solar geoengineering implementation and termination , 2018, Nature Ecology & Evolution.

[38]  Ryan J. Lowe,et al.  Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in the Anthropocene , 2018, Science.

[39]  Hannu Rajaniemi,et al.  Science fiction when the future is now , 2017, Nature.

[40]  C. Field,et al.  Toward the Next Generation of Assessment , 2017 .

[41]  Henrik Österblom,et al.  Radical ocean futures-scenario development using science fiction prototyping , 2017 .

[42]  Bear F. Braumoeller,et al.  Food scarcity and state vulnerability: Unpacking the link between climate variability and violent unrest , 2017 .

[43]  Noam Obermeister,et al.  From dichotomy to duality: Addressing interdisciplinary epistemological barriers to inclusive knowledge governance in global environmental assessments , 2017 .

[44]  O. Geden The Paris Agreement and the inherent inconsistency of climate policymaking , 2016 .

[45]  Brian C. O'Neill,et al.  The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6 , 2016 .

[46]  S. Rayner What might Evans‐Pritchard have made of two degrees? , 2016 .

[47]  I. Fazey,et al.  Three horizons: A pathways practice for transformation , 2016 .

[48]  K. Rehdanz,et al.  Knowledge about aerosol injection does not reduce individual mitigation efforts , 2016 .

[49]  M. Milkoreit The promise of climate fiction : Imagination, storytelling, and the politics of the future , 2016 .

[50]  David M. Konisky,et al.  Extreme weather events and climate change concern , 2015, Climatic Change.

[51]  D. Morrow Ethical aspects of the mitigation obstruction argument against climate engineering research , 2014, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[52]  I. Fazey,et al.  Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response , 2014 .

[53]  K. Caldeira,et al.  Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation , 2013 .

[54]  Anne Larigauderie,et al.  Evolution of natural and social science interactions in global change research programs , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[55]  Joshua Floyd,et al.  Action research and integral futures studies: A path to embodied foresight , 2012 .

[56]  Albert C. Lin Does Geoengineering Present a Moral Hazard? , 2012 .

[57]  A. J. Masys,et al.  Black swans to grey swans: revealing the uncertainty , 2012 .

[58]  A. Thomson,et al.  The representative concentration pathways: an overview , 2011 .

[59]  K. Taylor,et al.  The Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP) , 2011 .

[60]  Ziauddin Sardar,et al.  The Namesake: Futures; futures studies; futurology; futuristic; foresight—What's in a name? , 2010 .

[61]  M. Maslin,et al.  Managing the health effects of climate change Lancet and University College London Institute for Global Health Commission , 2009, The Lancet.

[62]  Andrew Curry,et al.  Roads Less Travelled: Different Methods, Different Futures , 2009 .

[63]  Nassim Nicholas Taleb,et al.  The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable , 2007 .

[64]  V. Aquila,et al.  From moral hazard to risk-response feedback , 2021, Climate Risk Management.

[65]  Sara S. Metcalf,et al.  Linking models of human behaviour and climate alters projected climate change , 2018, Nature Climate Change.

[66]  Cullen S. Hendrix,et al.  Climate change and conflict , 2023, Nature Reviews Earth & Environment.

[67]  K. Sonja,et al.  Building equity in: strategies for integrating equity into modelling for a 1.5°C world , 2018, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[68]  J. Eom,et al.  The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview , 2017 .

[69]  K. Riahi,et al.  The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century , 2017 .

[70]  J. Shepherd,et al.  The Strategic Value of Geoengineering Research , 2014 .

[71]  Riel Miller,et al.  Changing the conditions of change by learning to use the future differently , 2013 .

[72]  Margareta Dahlström,et al.  Spatial Development Trends : Nordic Countries in a European Context , 2004 .