The article is so all over the place, it’s hard to understand the point it’s making. It mixes together different agencies doing forecasting for different purpo

The article is so all over the place, it’s hard to understand the point it’s making. It mixes together different agencies doing forecasting for different purposes and widely fail to actually go where it should. I’m starting to wonder if it’s not a puff piece from a company with an interest in pretending that the target for emissions should be higher (it probably is actually). As it doesn’t at all address how the IPCC scenarios which are the main tools for political discussion nowadays use energy consumption forecasting, it’s kind of completely useless. Spoiler alerts, the IPCC does scenarios based modelling using five broadly different scenarios called SSP which take into account economic development and its impact (with varying levels depending of the SSP). The point is that this covers a broad range of possibilities. Plus, these SSP are reviewed for each reports while trying to take into account what was misestimated (speed of development of renewable was one thing which was underestimated before). The problem pointed in the Vox article basically doesn’t exist.