Can you envision major wild cards (positive or negative) that may occur in the next 20 years?
Well, there are several wild cards that I consider very probable. Broadly, I would say that for instance collapse of China’s current economic-societal system, or a regional war that crosses national boarders. Particularly, if we consider the next 10 to 20 years, I consider the acceleration of climate change or radical changes within it, considerable possibilities. In addition, another climate or energy –related wild card is that we reach a situation, where solar power or other renewable energy sources develop to a point where the renewable electricity becomes as cheap as or even cheaper than grid power. This situation has actually been realised in some countries such as Japan, but it would be significant change, if this situation was realised world wide. Obviously it would be a very positive change environmentally-wise.
Another one related to the grid parity and energy field could be a development of a backstop technology in energy field. By this I mean a further development of a new carbon free technology that offers alternatives for oil. These would be based on renewable resources that we at least seem to have limitless accessibility, such as solar or wind.
collapse of China
new type regional wars
sudden acceleration of climate change
achieving global grid parity
strong development of a backstop technology in energy field
What will be the dramatic impact of the wild cards you mentioned, and how it should be addressed by future research; in which field?
For instance, the collapse of China card as well as the acceleration of climate change would naturally increase instability in societies globally, and most likely evoke extremist movements. In the worst scenario international community and co-operation would be paralysed, and welfare could begin to crumble globally. Achievement of grid parity would be multifaceted as it would partially remove problems that are caused by a) electricity production, b) the excessive use of electricity. Environmental impacts would definitely be very positive, if people actually began to use the environmentally friendly energy sources. In a sense, this could also effect on our thinking by making it greener.
I think, in the future these problems should be addressed more broadly in several different fields. For example energy or climate -related questions consider more than economics or energy technology, as their implications concerns well-being and social aspects as well as political sphere. I suppose, if we think about the impacts they can be seen primary, secondary and tertiary levels. The closer we are the primary impacts the easier is to consider the impacts. The main thing here, I guess, is to carry out interdisciplinary study of the impacts of the impacts of the impacts.
What are the weak signals that (if detected) could hint at a growing likelihood (or imminent realization) of the wild cards that you mentioned?
There are many weak signals that implicate the growing problems with sufficiency or too excessive use of energy and the increasing signs of climate change and the measures that ought to be considered. For instance, there are continuous news reports on the melting of the ice sheets and increase in methane emissions, which are also easily left unrecognized. On the other hand, although for example in Finland the electricity consumption seems to be increasing, the increase is very slow, which means that we would not necessarily need e.g. the two new nuclear power plants to produce more energy.
Or if we consider more carefully, the collapse of China –card, I think for instance internal wealth gap and growing unemployment in the country are showing growing likelihood for the card. Also, rise of separatist movements are increasing the potential to escalate the problems. In the end, I would question the sustainability of the political system, as for instance problems caused by intensive censorship and internal protests in the country have continued the increasing trend.
In addition, research results that are implicating acceleration of climate change but are yet to be verified can be seen as weak signals. Interestingly, nowadays there is for instance a very extensive follow-up for temperatures. However these follow-ups do not consider climate feedback processes, which can be positive or negative. The negative ones are hindering climate change and the positive ones supporting it.
continuous news reports on e.g. melting ice sheets
increase in methane emissions
potential but not yet verified research results
growth of wealth gap in China
growth of unemployment (in China)
rise of separatist movements in China
dismissal of climate feedback processes
You mentioned more than one wild card or weak signal, can you identify any causal relationships between them?
Basically, they are all related to each other rather strongly. I think, often the problem of future-related estimations is that the synergy of the phenomenon is not perceived; the complexity is not managed to notice to its full potential. The clear connections are relating to climate change, oil peak and the global economic situation.
Looking ahead to the future of European research – which of the Wi/We that you mentioned should be given top priority in the EU research?
I would definitely pay more attention to the interdisciplinary study of trends between international relations, economics and globalisation – considering how and why the international community could turn or perhaps is already turning inwards. Examining further the economic developments; e.g. from the basis of the assumption that economy will always grow, how do we explain if economy does not grow, or what if we need to find solutions to climate change, financial crisis etc. within a shorter period of time.
In my opinion, when future reviews are made, often they aim to built too fixed or too specified factors for wild cards. I would be very interested in see a future review where instead of 3-4 would be considered 100 cards or miniature scenarios from which could then be chosen three to five for further review, or maybe scenarios could be disturbed with different, single factors and then see how the scenario develops in each situation. Generally, I think the concept of wild card don’t quite capture the idea of a significant change; perhaps we could speak “tearing the cards” to make it wild enough. Anyway, the interdisciplinary dialogue between different fields would be essential. I think the key to develop future research is particularly the encountering of people internationally to enhance more “disruptive thinking”.
Thank you very much for your time. Do you have something you still wish to add, or that you did not have a chance to say yet?
Well, if I may add, what I am very concerned of generally is the dialogue between policy makers and scientists. I mean, these two seriously lack interaction; usually the other is telling the other how things should be done, but basically a constructive dialogue is missing. When facts and political opinions diverge, the policy makers have a problem, thus I truly wish we had a better forum to interact properly without unnecessary agendas.
