The Net Zero scenario is where we want to go. That's what we should plan for. The WEO tells us how big the gap is, it's up to us to act to fill it.

The thing that is unsaid in the WEO is that no-one wants to live on a planet where the Current Policies scenario plays out. Stated Policies wouldn't be that nice either. In both these scenarios, we fail to limit global temperature rise, and we suffer more climate change as a result.

The NET ZERO scenario does NOT project forward - instead it sets the goal of getting global energy-related to net zero by 2050, and solves backwards to work out what the path might look like. The purpose of this scenario is to contrast with the other two scenarios and highlight the gap.

This scenario also projects forwards. If you think that governments won't make commitments beyond what they've already made, this is your scenario. Wouldn't be using it to guide investment either

The STATED POLICIES scenario includes everything in Current Policies, plus takes a stab at the effect of things that have been announced but not implemented yet, and other policy documents that indicate the direction of travel. For example, 2035 climate targets.

(Current Policies is commonly interpreted as "look, fossil fuels are going to grow!". If you buy gas or coal shares on the back of this scenario, or decide to base your resources policy on it, you are a fool)

If you think that governments are world wide will not introduce one new energy or climate policy between now and 2050, nor make any changes to the ones they already have, this is the scenario for you. This policy is a forward projection - start with where we are, run the model, see where we end up.

The CURRENT POLICIES scenario includes all policies that are in place already, and assumes there are NO NEW POLICIES.

you can find our calculation in the appendix of our latest report
grattan.edu.au/wp-content/u...
I can't speak to your personal circumstances.

First they came for the renovators, and I did nothing, because I'm not a renovator...