In June 2025, some 60 scientists published a study confirming that the aim of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, as recommended in 2018 by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), had become unachievable and that the 1.5° rise might in fact be reached by the end of this decade. That conclusion chimes with the argument developed here by Dominique Finon on the way the main energy/climate foresight exercises have been conducted for some years now. As he points out at the top of his article, “we have moved from a world where exploratory public-policy scenarios were developed so that they could be compared with trend scenarios, to a world where we are mainly interested in normative scenarios of rapid decarbonization” with the aim of achieving ‘net zero carbon emissions’ by 2050. This is the path adopted since 2021 by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in particular.
However, on the one hand, this proclivity to prefer normative carbon-neutral scenarios runs up against harsh reality (the objective is unattainable within that time horizon), as Dominique Finon reminds us here, drawing largely on studies by the physicist Vaclav Smil, a specialist in energy transition issues. On the other hand, it undermines the aim of foresight exercises, which are supposed to enable actors and decision-makers, given the technical, economic context etc. in which they operate, to find the most suitable or desirable way to achieve their objectives. In other words, the studies are supposed to take an exploratory rather than a normative approach. To sum up, it is sometimes the case, as the saying goes, that ‘less is more’. As Dominique Finon puts it, by embracing over-ambitious normative objectives, energy/climate foresight studies might well become counterproductive.
The article is downloadable only in French. It is not available in English.
