This is part 3 of a series on world-building Climate Change scenarios for fiction.
The range of possible Climate Change scenarios is infinite. Literally. Infinite.
No human being can work with infinite, so let’s simplify. We can choose a scenario based on three factors:
1) The amount of warming
2) The time period
3) The presence of any “Funky Curveballs”
Each of these can be simplified into a few options. Just pick the combination of options that fits the story you want to tell.
Here we’ll cover warming, we’ll get to the others next time.
How Much Hotter?
In climate research you’ll see references to scenarios with names like RCP 8.5 or SSP2–4.5. These are scientific scenarios. Scientists need to create scenarios for the same reasons as fiction writers - we don’t actually know what will happen in the future.
These scientific scenarios are sophisticated and well researched, but I find getting too obsessed with them is unhelpful. Every scientific climate projection has huge margins of error. When it comes to writing fiction those margins often blur together into the general haze of uncertainty about the future.
Stories have a different purpose anyway. In my view, the science should act as a set of constraints on the imagination. Like guard rails at the edge of a cliff, rather than a narrow footpath to follow.
I find it much easier to break the possibilities into three categories:
1) Optimistic
2) Pessimistic
3) Realistic
Stories have a message, and it’s usually one of these three: we succeeded, we failed, or get ready for this.
Optimistic
The Optimistic Scenario is the best possible outcome. At the moment that means 1.5°C at 2100. This is unlikely to happen, so I’d count 2°C at 2100 as optimistic too.
For many years the Optimistic Scenario has been getting increasingly pessimistic. The world has been failing to act. But that might change. The Optimists might turn out to be the true realists. If you choose the Optimistic Scenario be prepared to tell people why we succeeded.
Pessimistic
The Pessimistic Scenario is the worst that could happen. Let’s say we burn all the fossil fuels, or those scientific “maybes” and “what-ifs” turn out to have the worst possible answer.
This apocalypse warms up by 8°C … 12°C …16°C … maybe more. This is a civilization killing event. A rapid mass extinction event. Agricultural systems would collapse, animals would fail to adapt, equatorial regions would become uninhabitable.
However, life would go on. Human beings would probably go on. Maybe industrial civilisation, of a kind might go on. But it’s going to get hammered.
Life can handle these Hothouse conditions just fine, the problem is throwing the entire planet at speed against a brick wall. Like for car accidents, it’s not the speed you were driving that mattered, but the speed at which you stopped. Smooosh!
This Pessimistic Scenario is extreme.
In fact this is so extreme it is unlikely to happen. If you choose the Pessimistic Scenario be prepared to tell people why we failed so bad.
A question - is it okay to exaggerate?
Is it acceptable to depict a scenario so extreme that it breaks the laws of physics?
Plenty of films have done this.
The argument in favor:
Exaggeration makes for a more exciting story. This gets attention. Once people are paying attention they can learn the reality someplace else. Hook ‘em, then let ‘em watch documentaries later.
The argument against:
Exaggerations confuse and mislead people. People who go for stories that feature Climate Change typically are already concerned. Their problem is that they are too confused and depressed to know what to do. Hyper-pessimistic exaggeration contributes to despair and inaction.
Exaggeration also gives ammunition to the other side of an information war. They can say, “Look, that’s a lie.” Because it is a lie.
Realistic
This is what we are currently on track to achieve. Right now that means 2.7°C by 2100 (between 2°C and 3.6°C ), according to Climate Action Tracker.
This is a much happier outcome than that apocalyptic worst-case. Unfortunately it’s trouble enough. Climate Change doesn’t need to literally melt people’s faces off to cause huge problems.
At these levels we will see major changes: mass migrations, collapsing ice sheets, droughts, floods, fires,….
The Realistic Scenario provides plenty of dramatic fodder.
Unless I have a particular point to make, this is the scenario I would use. Most of the time this is the appropriate default if the climate scenario is a mere background to a story about something else. This is the scenario that is probably going to happen.
Going Deeper
Now for the technical details.
There’s four areas where your scenario can be optimistic, pessimistic, or realistic:
1) Emissions
2) Sensitivity
3) Human Impacts
4) Human Reactions
Emissions
How much greenhouse gases do we pump out? This is the driving cause of Climate Change. Fossil fuels, ruminant agriculture, deforestation.
A rapid transition to clean energy would be optimistic. The eternal domination of oil companies would be pessimistic. What is actually happening is some awkward combination of both.
Sensitivity
How will the climate respond to those emissions? How will the biosphere respond to the climate?
In short: how lucky do we get?
Every scientific climate projection comes with a margin of error. We might end up at the low end, or at the high end. We don’t know.
These risks do tend to skew towards pessimism. We are more likely to be unlucky than lucky. However, that doesn’t mean we automatically end up with a 16°C apocalypse.
Emissions are the driver here. If emissions are low we only risk being at the bad end of optimism. But if emissions are high, then we really do risk being at the bad end of pessimism.
Human Impacts
How resilient are we to these changes? Can we cope?
Do we handle mass migration well or poorly? Do cities adjust to flooding well or poorly? How does the food system hold up?
All this depends on institutions, cultures, and individual decisions. Who knows how this will go. In a pessimistic scenario it turns out human civilization is a fragile thing. We crumble like wet paper. In an optimistic scenario we are tougher than we realized.
Human Reactions
Do we rise to the occasion? Do we fall?
Regardless of how resilient we turn out to be, humanity will have choices to make.
Do we create new technologies? Do we change the laws? Do we have revolutions? Wars? Do we start doing Geo-engineering? Do we try to colonize Mars? Do we forsake consumer capitalism and live in yurts?
How will humanity respond to this crisis?
We could make things much better, or much worse depending on what we do.
Conclusion
These four factors can be combined to make a highly nuanced story world. Perhaps we stop emissions, but then fight wars anyway. Perhaps the biosphere collapses but humanity is transformed for the better. Optimism, Pessimism, and Realism can stand as guiding landmarks. The details is where the scenario becomes unique.
Next we’ll look at Time Periods - when is your story set?
Return to menu.