In mid-May 2026, a fresh wave of climate debate erupted across the global media landscape. U.S. President Donald Trump described as "good riddance" a decision by experts developing scenarios for the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The ScenarioMIP working group for CMIP7 officially announced that the extreme emission levels defined by the SSP5-8.5 scenario—the successor to RCP8.5—are now considered implausible for the 21st century.
For years, RCP8.5 served as the primary "bogeyman" of the climate agenda. It assumed an explosive surge in coal consumption, emission levels far exceeding actual trends, and a near-total absence of mitigation efforts. The resulting projections included warming of 4–5°C by 2100, the flooding of coastal cities, widespread crop failures, and global instability. This scenario, along with its updated SSP5-8.5 version, has been cited in thousands of scientific papers, reports, media outlets, and policy documents. It largely set the tone for public discourse and provided the justification for stringent regulations.
Now, according to an official ScenarioMIP-CMIP7 document published in Geoscientific Model Development, the high-end range used in CMIP6 has been declared implausible. The shift is driven by the rapid decline in renewable energy costs, current emission trends, and existing climate policies. The new "High" scenario for CMIP7 is specifically designed to be "as high as judged to be plausible" and will feature lower radiative forcing than the former SSP5-8.5.
Trump’s reaction was characteristically blunt and politically direct. In a White House statement, he emphasized that for 15 years, Democrats have utilized the gloomiest forecasts to alarm the public and advance controversial energy solutions involving billions in spending. The post quickly amassed millions of views and sparked a massive reaction across social media.
Investigative journalists, including Ross Coulthart, noted that the worst-case scenarios that shaped the agenda for years are being officially—and relatively quietly—revised. This is not a sudden "exposure of error" but rather the standard scientific process of refining models as new data becomes available. Nevertheless, critics have long argued that RCP8.5 and SSP5-8.5 were too often treated as baseline scenarios in practice, despite being originally intended as extreme stress tests.
It is important to emphasize that moving away from the highest-end scenario does not negate observed warming or its associated risks. Mid-range trajectories still project significant climate change that warrants attention and sensible measures. However, the apocalyptic visions that dominated media and politics for years now appear significantly less substantiated.
This development reflects a broader trend. Technological progress in the energy sector is outpacing previous expectations, and science is refining its tools accordingly. Ultimately, this is a reason for neither triumph nor denial, but for a sober reassessment of risks and priorities based on current data. Reality, as is often the case, has proven more complex than even the grimmest projections.
