Abstract
Policy, business, finance and civil society stakeholders are increasingly looking to compare future emissions pathways across both their associated physical climate risks stemming from increasing temperatures and their transition climate risks stemming from the shift to a low-carbon economy. Here, we present an integrated framework to explore near-term (to 2030) transition risks and longer-term (to 2050) physical risks, globally and in specific regions, for a range of plausible greenhouse gas emissions and associated temperature pathways, spanning 1.5–4 °C levels of long-term warming. By 2050, physical risks deriving from major heatwaves, agricultural drought, heat stress and crop duration reductions depend greatly on the temperature pathway. By 2030, transition risks most sensitive to temperature pathways stem from economy-wide mitigation costs, carbon price increases, fossil fuel demand reductions and coal plant capacity reductions. Considering several pathways with a 2 °C target demonstrates that transition risks also depend on technological, policy and socio-economic factors.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. The GCAM data system is publicly available at https://github.com/JGCRI/gcamdata.
Code availability
All code used for data analysis and creating the figures is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Weber, C. et al. Mitigation scenarios must cater to new users. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 845–848 (2018).
Carney, M. Breaking the Tragedy of the Horizon—Climate Change and Financial Stability (Bank of England, 2015); https://www.bis.org/review/r151009a.pdf
Recommendations of the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD, 2017); https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/FINAL-2017-TCFD-Report-11052018.pdf
Rudebusch, G. D. Climate Change is a Source of Financial Risk (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, 2021); https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2021/february/climate-change-is-source-of-financial-risk/
Setzer, J. & Vanhala, L. C. Climate change litigation: a review of research on courts and litigants in climate governance. WIREs Clim. Change 10, e580 (2019).
Franta, B. Litigation in the fossil fuel divestment movement. Law Policy 39, 393–411 (2017).
IPCC Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, in the press).
Origin and Purpose of the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS, 2019); https://www.ngfs.net/en/about-us/governance/origin-and-purpose
NGFS Climate Scenarios for Central Banks and Supervisors (NGFS, 2020); https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/820184_ngfs_scenarios_final_version_v6.pdf
GCAM v5.1 Documentation: GCAM Model Overview (JGCRI, accessed June 2021); http://jgcri.github.io/gcam-doc/v5.1/overview.html
Lowe, J. A. et al. How difficult is it to recover from dangerous levels of global warming? Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 014012 (2009).
Arnell, N. W. et al. The global and regional impacts of climate change under Representative Concentration Pathway forcings and Shared Socioeconomic Pathway socioeconomic scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 084046 (2019).
Arnell, N. W., Lowe, J. A., Challinor, A. J. & Osborn, T. J. Global and regional impacts of climate change at different levels of global temperature increase. Clim. Change 155, 377–391 (2019).
Grant, N., Hawkes, A., Napp, T. & Gambhir, A. The appropriate use of reference scenarios in mitigation analysis. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 605–610 (2020).
Fawcett, A. A. et al. Can Paris pledges avert severe climate change? Science 350, 1168–1169 (2015).
Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
Macroeconomic and Financial Stability: Implications of Climate Change (NGFS, 2019); https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/medias/documents/ngfs-report-technical-supplement_final_v2.pdf
Gambhir, A., Rogelj, J., Luderer, G., Few, S. & Napp, T. Energy system changes in 1.5 °C, well below 2 °C and 2 °C scenarios. Energy Strategy Rev. 23, 69–80 (2019).
Rogelj, J. et al. Scenarios towards limiting global mean temperature increase below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 325–332 (2018).
Peters, G. P. et al. Key indicators to track current progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 118–122 (2017).
Gambhir, A. et al. Assessing the feasibility of global long-term mitigation scenarios. Energies 10, 89 (2017).
Dietz, S., Bowen, A., Dixon, C. & Gradwell, P. ‘Climate value at risk’ of global financial assets. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 676–679 (2016).
Stern, N. Economics: current climate models are grossly misleading. Nature 530, 407–409 (2016).
Pindyck, R. S. Climate change policy: what do the models tell us? J. Econ. Lit. 51, 860–872 (2013).
Roelfsema, M. et al. Taking stock of national climate policies to evaluate implementation of the Paris Agreement. Nat. Commun. 11, 2096 (2020).
Hof, A. F. et al. Global and regional abatement costs of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and of enhanced action to levels well below 2 °C and 1.5 °C. Environ. Sci. Policy 71, 30–40 (2017).
Mercure, J.-F. et al. Modelling innovation and the macroeconomics of low-carbon transitions: theory, perspectives and practical use. Clim. Policy 19, 1019–1037 (2019).
NGFS Scenario Explorer (IIASA, 2020); https://data.ene.iiasa.ac.at/ngfs/#/about
Gambhir, A. Planning a low-carbon energy transition: what can and can’t the models tell us? Joule 3, 1795–1798 (2019).
McCollum, D. L., Gambhir, A., Rogelj, J. & Wilson, C. Energy modellers should explore extremes more systematically in scenarios. Nat. Energy 5, 104–107 (2020).
Luderer, G. et al. Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034033 (2013).
Fiedler, T. et al. Business risk and the emergence of climate analytics. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 87–94 (2021).
Bernstein, A., Gustafson, M. T. & Lewis, R. Disaster on the horizon: the price effect of sea level rise. J. Financ. Econ. 134, 253–272 (2019).
Kõberle, A. C., Ganguly, G. & Ostrovnaya, A. A Guide to Building Climate-Financial Scenarios for Financial Institutions (Grantham Institute, 2021); https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/publications/all-publications/a-guide-to-building-climate-financial-scenarios-for-financial-institutions.php
Bingler, J. A. & Colesanti Senni, C. Taming the Green Swan: How to Improve Climate-Related Financial Risk Assessments (CER-ETH, 2020); https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ethwpswif/20-340.htm
Carlin, D., Peters, G. P. & Sognnaes, I. Pathways to Paris: A Practical Guide to Climate Transition Scenarios for Financial Professionals (UNEP FI, 2021); https://www.unepfi.org/publications/banking-publications/pathways-to-paris/
Battiston, S., Mandel, A., Monasterolo, I., Schütze, F. & Visentin, G. A climate stress-test of the financial system. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 283–288 (2017).
Financial Stability Review, May 2021 (European Central Bank, 2021); https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/financial-stability/fsr/html/ecb.fsr202105~757f727fe4.en.html
The 2021 Biennial Exploratory Scenario on the Financial Risks from Climate Change (Bank of England, 2019); http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/paper/2019/biennial-exploratory-scenario-climate-change-discussion-paper
Fricko, O. et al. The marker quantification of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2: a middle-of-the-road scenario for the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 251–267 (2017).
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. Energy, land-use and greenhouse gas emissions trajectories under a green growth paradigm. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 237–250 (2017).
Fujimori, S. et al. SSP3: AIM implementation of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 268–283 (2017).
Monteith, S. & Menon, S. Achieving Global Climate Goals by 2050: Actionable Opportunities for this Decade (ClimateWorks, 2020); https://www.climateworks.org/report/achieving-global-climate-goals-by-2050-actionable-opportunities-for-this-decade/
IPCC AR5 Database—Version 1.0.2 (IIASA, 2014); https://secure.iiasa.ac.at/web-apps/ene/AR5DB/
Sato, M., Neuhoff, K., Graichen, V., Schumacher, K. & Matthes, F. Sectors under scrutiny: evaluation of indicators to assess the risk of carbon leakage in the UK and Germany. Environ. Resour. Econ. 60, 99–124 (2015).
TPI Tool—Sector Data (Transition Pathways Initiative, 2021); https://www.transitionpathwayinitiative.org/sectors
Dessens, O., Anandarajah, G. & Gambhir, A. Limiting global warming to 2 °C: what do the latest mitigation studies tell us about costs, technologies and other impacts? Energy Strategy Rev. 13–14, 67–76 (2016).
Expect the Unexpected: The Disruptive Power of Low-Carbon Technology (Carbon Tracker & Grantham Institute, 2017); http://www.carbontracker.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Expect-the-Unexpected_CTI_Imperial.pdf
Bertram, C. et al. Carbon lock-in through capital stock inertia associated with weak near-term climate policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 62–72 (2015).
Johnson, N. et al. Stranded on a low-carbon planet: implications of climate policy for the phase-out of coal-based power plants. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 89–102 (2015).
Rogelj, J. et al. Energy system transformations for limiting end-of-century warming to below 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 519–527 (2015).
Calvin, K. et al. Trade-offs of different land and bioenergy policies on the path to achieving climate targets. Clim. Change 123, 691–704 (2014).
Calvin, K. et al. GCAM v5.1: representing the linkages between energy, water, land, climate, and economic systems. Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 677–698 (2019).
Thomson, A. M. et al. RCP4.5: a pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim. Change 109, 77 (2011).
McCollum, D. L. et al. Energy investment needs for fulfilling the Paris Agreement and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Energy 3, 589–599 (2018).
Kaufman, N., Barron, A. R., Krawczyk, W., Marsters, P. & McJeon, H. A near-term to net zero alternative to the social cost of carbon for setting carbon prices. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1010–1014 (2020).
Iyer, G. et al. Implications of sustainable development considerations for comparability across nationally determined contributions. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 124–129 (2018).
Wise, M. et al. Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324, 1183–1186 (2009).
Huppmann, D. et al. IAMC 1.5 C Scenario Explorer and Data Hosted by IIASA (Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium & International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, 2018). https://doi.org/10.22022/SR15/08-2018.15429
Spencer, T. et al. The 1.5 °C target and coal sector transition: at the limits of societal feasibility. Clim. Policy 18, 335–351 (2018).
Monasterolo, I., Zheng, J. I. & Battiston, S. Climate transition risk and development finance: a carbon risk assessment of China’s overseas energy portfolios. China World Econ. 26, 116–142 (2018).
Kriegler, E. et al. Diagnostic indicators for integrated assessment models of climate policy. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 90, 45–61 (2015).
Harmsen, M. et al. Integrated assessment model diagnostics: key indicators and model evolution. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 054046 (2021).
Forster, P. M. et al. Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 118, 1139–1150 (2013).
Friedlingstein, P. et al. Climate–carbon cycle feedback analysis: results from the C4MIP model intercomparison. J. Clim. 19, 3337–3353 (2006).
Jones, B. & O’Neill, B. C. Spatially explicit global population scenarios consistent with the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 084003 (2016).
Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).
Osborn, T. J., Wallace, C. J., Lowe, J. A. & Bernie, D. Performance of pattern-scaled climate projections under high-end warming. Part I: Surface air temperature over land. J. Clim. 31, 5667–5680 (2018).
Gosling, S. N. & Arnell, N. W. A global assessment of the impact of climate change on water scarcity. Clim. Change 134, 371–385 (2016).
Arnell, N. W. & Gosling, S. N. The impacts of climate change on river flood risk at the global scale. Clim. Change 134, 387–401 (2016).
Shukla, S. & Wood, A. W. Use of a standardized runoff index for characterizing hydrologic drought. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L02405 (2008).
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S. & López-Moreno, J. I. A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index. J. Clim. 23, 1696–1718 (2010).
NGFS Climate Scenarios for Central Banks and Supervisors (NGFS, 2021); https://www.ngfs.net/sites/default/files/media/2021/08/27/ngfs_climate_scenarios_phase2_june2021.pdf
Vermeulen, R. et al. An Energy Transition Risk Stress Test for the Financial System of the Netherlands (De Nederlandsche Bank, 2018); https://www.dnb.nl/media/pdnpdalc/201810_nr-_7_-2018-_an_energy_transition_risk_stress_test_for_the_financial_system_of_the_netherlands.pdf
Ho, E., Budescu, D. V., Bosetti, V., van Vuuren, D. P. & Keller, K. Not all carbon dioxide emission scenarios are equally likely: a subjective expert assessment. Clim. Change 155, 545–561 (2019).
Global Update: Paris Agreement Turning Point (Climate Action Tracker, 2020); https://climateactiontracker.org/publications/global-update-paris-agreement-turning-point/
Acknowledgements
The study was funded by ClimateWorks Foundation. A.C.K. and S. Mittal acknowledge the H2020 European Commission Project ‘PARIS REINFORCE’ under grant agreement no. 820846. We would like to thank G. Ganguly for constructive comments on the scenario design and draft manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.G. and S. Monteith conceived the study. A.G., D.B., J.L., H.M., J.R., M.G., N.W.A. and S. Monteith designed the scenarios and modelling protocol. H.M. and M.G. ran GCAM. D.B. ran MAGICC. N.W.A. ran the climate impact models. S. Mittal undertook all scenario data analysis and visualization. A.C.K. advised on financial risk analysis and literature. A.G. wrote the manuscript, with input from all authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Benjamin Leibowicz 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.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Model set-up to produce physical and transition risk-related output indicators for each scenario.
The different scenarios are set up in the GCAM integrated assessment model, considering the specific GDP and population growth characteristics of the scenarios, the temperature goals, the scenario variants in terms of policy action, and any technological and behavioural constraints or availability. The GCAM model outputs a range of energy, agricultural and land system metrics which are used to specify the transition risk-related output indicators. The emissions (spanning all GHGs, aerosols and other climate forcers) are fed into the probabilistic climate model MAGICC, whose range of temperature outputs are then fed into the suite of impacts models. These produce measures of physical hazard which form the physical risk-related output metrics.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Physical and transition risk metrics for five additional regions.
Each heat map shows 7 physical hazard metrics on the left-hand panel and 7 transition risk metrics on the right-hand panel. The metrics are expressed as a ratio of each scenario’s value and the value for the 2 C Central scenario. For the physical hazard metrics, this is the median ratio across the uncertainty range. Each transition risk metric is for the year 2030, whereas each physical risk metric is for the year 2050. Circle size indicates 2100 median temperature increase on pre-industrial (1850–1900) levels in each temperature scenario. SSA = Sub-Saharan Africa. These indicators reflect the key findings for the USA, EU + UK, India and China, in terms of (in general) the increasing severity of 2050 physical hazards for the higher long-term temperature scenarios, contrasted with the lower transition risks for these scenarios. One notable exception is Japan, which, like the USA and EU + UK, has a relatively stringent NDC to 2030, with commensurately higher transition risks in this period, compared to the GCAM-modelled cost-optimal pathways targeting 2–2.5oC warming by 2100.
Extended Data Fig. 3 High (a) and Median (b) physical risk metrics for world and four regions.
Each heat map shows 7 physical hazard metrics, with the right-hand side (b) showing the median ratio of hazard values for each scenario compared to the 2 C Central scenario, and the left-hand side (a) showing the high (90th centile) ratio of each scenario compared to the 2 C Central scenario. Each physical risk metric is for the year 2050. The relative physical hazard of the higher temperature scenarios is more severe compared to the 2 C Central scenarios when using the high (90th) centile values in the distribution. This is shown by the deeper green and blue colours for each scenario and physical hazard metric in panel a), compared to its equivalent in panel b).
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Sections 1–4 containing Figs. 1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1–3.25, 4.1–4.10 and Table 2.1.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gambhir, A., George, M., McJeon, H. et al. Near-term transition and longer-term physical climate risks of greenhouse gas emissions pathways. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 88–96 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01236-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01236-x
This article is cited by
-
Limited impact of hydrogen co-firing on prolonging fossil-based power generation under low emissions scenarios
Nature Communications (2024)
-
A framework to assess multi-hazard physical climate risk for power generation projects from publicly-accessible sources
Communications Earth & Environment (2023)
-
Diverse carbon dioxide removal approaches could reduce impacts on the energy–water–land system
Nature Climate Change (2023)
-
Adjusting 1.5 degree C climate change mitigation pathways in light of adverse new information
Nature Communications (2023)
-
Comparative study for effect of Ti, Nb and W incorporation on the electronic and optical properties of pristine hafnia (m-HfO2): DFT theoretical prospective
Journal of Computational Electronics (2023)