Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets


The nature and framing of climate targets in international politics has changed substantially since their early expressions in the 1980s. Here, we describe their evolution in five phases—from ‘climate stabilization’ to specific ‘temperature outcomes’—co-evolving with wider climate politics and policy, modelling methods and scenarios, and technological promises (from nuclear power to carbon removal). We argue that this co-evolution has enabled policy prevarication, leaving mitigation poorly delivered, yet the technological promises often remain buried in the models used to inform policy. We conclude with a call to recognise and break this pattern to unleash more effective and just climate policy.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Schematic representation of phases in climate policy describing the co-evolution of four key elements: climate politics, policy targets and framings, modelling methods and scenarios, and technological promises.


  1. 1.

    Rich, N. Losing Earth: A Recent History (Macmillan, 2019).

  2. 2.

    UN Framework Convention on Climate Change FCCC/INFORMAL/84 (UNFCCC, 1992).

  3. 3.

    Girod, B., Wiek, A., Mieg, H. & Hulme, M. The evolution of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios. Environ. Sci. Policy 12, 103–118 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Working group III IPCC. Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage (eds Metz, B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

  5. 5.

    Markusson, N., Dahl Gjefsen, M., Stephens, J. C. & Tyfield, D. The political economy of technical fixes: the (mis)alignment of clean fossil and political regimes. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 23, 1–10 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lovins, A. B. How big is the energy efficiency resource? Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 090401 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Hansen, J. et al. Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2, 217–231 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Azar, C., Lindgren, K., Larson, E. & Möllersten, K. Carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels and biomass — costs and potential role in stabilizing the atmosphere. Climatic Change 74, 47–79 (2006).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hansson, A. in The Social Dynamics of Carbon Capture and Storage (eds Markusson, N. et al.) 74–90 (Taylor & Francis, 2012).

  10. 10.

    Brunsting, S. et al. The public and CCS: the importance of communication and participation in the context of local realities. Energy Proced. 4, 6241–6247 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Marien, N. Getting Action: COP Should Set Carbon Budgets for Real Progress. The Democracy Center (2012).

  12. 12.

    Meinshausen, M. et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Climatic Change 109, 213 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Moss, R. H., Nakicenovic, N. & O’Neill, B. Towards New Scenarios for Analysis of Emissions, Climate Change, Impacts, and Response Strategies (IPCC, 2008).

  14. 14.

    Moss, R. H. et al. The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463, 747 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Allen, M. R. et al. Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne. Nature 458, 1163 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Minx, J. C. et al. Negative emissions—part 1: research landscape and synthesis. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 063001 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Blanford, G. J., Kriegler, E. & Tavoni, M. Harmonization vs. fragmentation: overview of climate policy scenarios in EMF27. Climatic Change 123, 383–396 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Fuss, S. et al. Betting on negative emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 850 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Muri, H. The role of large—scale BECCS in the pursuit of the 1.5 °C target: an Earth system model perspective. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044010 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Jaeger, C. C. & Jaeger, J. Three views of two degrees. Reg. Environ. Change 11, 15–26 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Realmonte, G. et al. An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways. Nat. Commun. 10, 3277 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bastin, J.-F. et al. The global tree restoration potential. Science 365, 76 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC). Restoring the Quality of our Environment: Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel (The White House, 1965).

  24. 24.

    Irvine, P. et al. Halving warming with idealized solar geoengineering moderates key climate hazards. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 295–299 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Stilgoe, J. Experiment Earth: Responsible Innovation in Geoengineering (Taylor & Francis, 2015).

  26. 26.

    Gardiner, S. M. A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change (Oxford Univ. Press, 2011).

  27. 27.

    Markusson, N., McLaren, D. & Tyfield, D. Towards a cultural political economy of mitigation deterrence by negative emissions technologies (NETs). Glob. Sustain. 1, e10 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    A Greener Bush. The Economist (2003).

  29. 29.

    Mitchell, T. Carbon Democracy, Political Power in the Age of Oil (Verso, 2011).

  30. 30.

    Shove, E. What is wrong with energy efficiency? Build. Res. Inf. 46, 779–789 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Asayama, S., Bellamy, R., Geden, O., Pearce, W. & Hulme, M. Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 570–572 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Rogelj, J. et al. A new scenario logic for the Paris Agreement long-term temperature goal. Nature 573, 357–363 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Anderson, K. & Jewell, J. Debating the bedrock of climate-change mitigation scenarios. Nature 573, 348–349 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Beck, S. & Mahony, M. The IPCC and the new map of science and politics. WIREs Clim. Change 9, e547 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Beck, S. & Mahony, M. The politics of anticipation: the IPCC and the negative emissions technologies experience. Glob. Sustain. 1, e8 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


This work was supported by the programme Greenhouse Gas Removal from the Atmosphere (grant no. NE/P019838/1), funded by the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, BEIS, Met Office and the STFC in the UK. We thank A. Jarvis for advice on the history of modelling, S. Chew for assistance with the graphics and D. Tyfield, B. Willis and B. Szerszynski for stimulating discussions and feedback. Some of this material was presented at the Negative Emissions Conference in Gothenburg in May 2018 and at the European Association for Studies of Science and Technology (EASST) conference in Lancaster in July 2018. We also thank participants at both events for their constructive feedback.

Author information




D.M. wrote the manuscript with support, including written contributions from N.M.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duncan McLaren.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Wim Carton, Arthur Petersen and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McLaren, D., Markusson, N. The co-evolution of technological promises, modelling, policies and climate change targets. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 392–397 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing