The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has done something remarkable: it has officially withdrawn its most extreme climate scenario, RCP8.5. This was the doomsday projection that forecast a temperature rise of nearly five degrees Celsius by the end of the century, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and causing catastrophic economic damage. Now, the IPCC acknowledges that scenario was too unrealistic. Carbon dioxide levels have not risen as sharply as modeled, thanks to the boom in renewables and nuclear power. Yet, instead of celebrating this good news and adjusting their policies, the advocates of drastic climate action—what one might call the "witnesses of Greta"—refuse to budge an inch.
The withdrawal of RCP8.5 is not a minor footnote in climate science. It was the foundation for many of the most draconian climate policies in Europe and Germany. The European Union's Green Deal, Germany's coal phase-out, the massive push for electrification and energy efficiency—all of these were justified by the prospect of the worst-case scenario coming true. Now that this scenario is off the table, one would expect a re-evaluation. But the opposite is happening. The climate establishment, from NGOs to media to politicians, has built entire careers on fear. They have become followers of a quasi-religious ideology, embodied by Greta Thunberg, a Swedish activist who gained fame by screaming into microphones about her stolen childhood and demanding a radical societal overhaul.
The science itself is shifting. The most likely scenario today is RCP4.5, which projects a temperature increase of about three degrees Celsius. While that is still significant and requires action, it is a far cry from the apocalypse. Three degrees of warming would cause problems, but not the end of civilization. Yet, the policies remain unchanged: Germany aims to slash energy consumption by 26.5 percent by 2030 and achieve net-zero emissions by 2045, even if it means destroying industries, fueling the rise of extremist parties like the AfD, and making life more expensive for ordinary people. These policies are no longer justified by the worst-case science, but by an ideological commitment that refuses to allow reality to interfere.
The history of climate scenarios is instructive. RCP8.5 was developed in the early 2000s as a high-emissions pathway assuming continued heavy reliance on coal and gas without significant mitigation. But the real world diverged. The rapid growth of solar and wind power, coupled with fracking-led gas boom in the US, drove down emissions in many countries. China, often criticized for its emissions, now plans to get 80 percent of its energy from renewables and 20 percent from nuclear by 2060. Even under Obama, the US reduced emissions by switching from coal to gas—a technical solution Greta Thunberg would have scorned. The IPCC's own reports now show that emissions pathways are bending downwards, not upwards.
So why does the German and European political establishment cling to the old narrative? The answer lies in the psychology of doom-mongering. Climate alarm has become a secular religion. It provides a sense of moral purpose, a clear enemy (fossil fuel companies, skeptics, and now even "deniers"), and an apocalyptic timeline that justifies any measure. Like the Jehovah's Witnesses who predicted the end of the world in 1914, 1925, and 1975, the climate doomsayers have been proven wrong. Yet, they do not disband; they simply reinterpret their prophecies. The end of RCP8.5 is not a victory for rationality but an embarrassment to be ignored.
The consequences are already visible. Germany's industry, once the engine of European prosperity, is in decline. High energy costs from the Energiewende have driven many manufacturers to leave or reduce output. The Green Party, which champions the most radical climate policies, has seen its support slump in polls. Meanwhile, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which opposes climate orthodoxy, has gained ground. The very policies meant to protect the climate are undermining social cohesion and economic stability. A rational approach would balance climate goals with economic reality, but that would require abandoning the religious fervor.
Other countries are taking a different path. The United States, under both Trump and Biden has focused on technological innovation rather than sacrifice. China is building nuclear power plants at a rapid pace. France relies on nuclear for 70 percent of its electricity. Even in Scandinavia, the birthplace of modern environmentalism, pragmatic approaches prevail. But Germany remains trapped in a cult of sacrifice, where reducing energy consumption is seen as virtuous even if it means freezing in winter or losing jobs.
The absurdity is highlighted by the language used. Activists and media speak of "climate crisis" and "climate emergency" as if we are on the brink of extinction. But the IPCC's own documents show that worst-case outcomes are becoming less likely. The most recent assessment report explicitly notes that the rate of global warming has slowed, and that emissions growth has flattened. Yet, the narrative of panic persists. It is as if the messengers do not want to hear good news because it would undermine their crusade.
The role of Greta Thunberg herself has been controversial. She has become a symbol of a generation that feels betrayed by adults. Her speeches, often full of anger and moral absolutism, have inspired millions but also drawn criticism for their lack of nuance. She has been accused of exploiting children and promoting a doomsday worldview that leads to anxiety and depression. Her recent support for anti-Israel positions has further alienated those who see her as a tool of radical left politics. Yet, the German media treats her as a prophet, giving her uncritical coverage while ignoring scientific updates that contradict her narrative.
What would a rational climate policy look like? It would acknowledge that climate change is a real but manageable problem. It would focus on adaptation, innovation, and gradual decarbonization, not on crashing the economy. It would accept that fossil fuels will be part of the energy mix for decades to come, even if renewables grow. It would support nuclear power as a clean source of base-load energy. It would not treat every degree of warming as an existential threat but as a challenge to be solved with human ingenuity. And it would stop treating climate activists as saints and skeptics as heretics.
The withdrawal of RCP8.5 is an opportunity for course correction. But it requires humility and intellectual honesty. The witnesses of Greta, like their Jehovah's namesake, must accept that their prophecies have failed. They can continue to stand in the rain and preach, but the rest of the world should move on to more realistic and constructive approaches to energy and environmental policy.
Source: Ruhrbarone News