Scenario Compass  ·  Guided Exploration

Navigating Climate Futures

Understanding the feasibility and sustainability of global climate mitigation benchmarks

Primer — What you will explore

  • Why we model climate futures
  • What the current scenario landscape looks like
  • How feasibility and sustainability considerations reshape what 1.5°C requires
Section 1

Why do we model climate futures?

To limit the negative impacts and consequences of climate change, countries committed in the Paris Agreement to limit climate change to well below 2°C, aiming for 1.5°C.

To understand how to get there – which technologies to scale, how fast emissions must fall, what trade-offs could arise – scientists build climate mitigation scenarios.

A scenario is not a prediction. It is a self-consistent, plausible description of how the world could evolve if certain choices were made and certain conditions hold. Think of scenarios as maps of possible futures.

Section 2

The current scenario landscape

The Scenario Compass database is what scientists call an 'ensemble of opportunity'. It contains the scenarios that modelling teams chose to submit – not a systematically representative sample of all possible futures.

Figure 1 · The Scenario Map

Scenario count reflects modelling conventions, not real-world likelihood — more is not more probable.

Section 3

Feasibility and sustainability

Not every path on a map is equally passable. A route that crosses a lake may be geometrically direct but physically impassable.

Feasibility

asks: can this happen? It examines whether a scenario's requirement, for example the pace of technology development, fall within the bounds of what is plausible given current knowledge.

Sustainability

asks: should this happen, given planetary and social limits? It examines whether a scenario stays within ecological boundaries and respects basic social thresholds.

Figure 2 · Feasibility and Sustainability criteria

Checkpoint

What is the difference between a feasibility flag and a sustainability flag?

Section 4

Reshaping 1.5°C requirements

When you filter the ensemble for both climate targets and sustainability thresholds, the waypoints change significantly.

Figure 3 · Benchmark explorer

Three findings emerge consistently:

  1. Considering sustainability and feasibility increases short-term ambition.
  2. Speculative carbon removal (CDR) reliance is significantly reduced.
  3. Demand-side transformations become essential for 1.5°C compatibility.
FeedbackOpen feedback form to share your thoughts about this page