As recently as 2021, at COP26 in Glasgow, world leaders gathered and collectively promised to deliver on the stretch goal of the Paris Agreement and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (1.5°C). Yet, within months, the Russian invasion of Ukraine had caused political upheaval and pointed society in a different direction. The Energy Security Scenarios seek to explore the landscape global society now inhabits and what the emerging trends could mean for the future, with a focus on possible energy and climate outcomes.

In early 2021 Shell released three new scenarios, namely Waves, Islands and Sky 1.5, built around underlying societal trends rooted respectively in the creation of wealth, concern for security and a desire for improved health and well being.

During 2022, however, the fragile post-Cold War global order cracked apart when Russia invaded Ukraine.

As nations respond, the world is collectively plunging into the security mindset that dominates the Islands scenario.

There had already been concerns about the supply of energy, but the invasion of Ukraine made it clear how dependent society is, collectively, on traditional fuels like oil, gas and coal.

As the security mindset begins to take hold, national interests take precedence and are shaped by the energy price, supply concerns and growing climate pressures.

Tension becomes evident between what was promised to the world at Glasgow and what nations must do to calm immediate energy concerns.

Four different responses, or archetypes, to the situation are beginning to be visible: Green Dream, Innovation Wins, Great Wall of Change and Surfers.

Four different responses, or archetypes, to the situation are beginning to be visible: Green Dream, Innovation Wins, Great Wall of Change and Surfers.

Two scenarios emerge from the turmoil: Archipelagos and Sky 2050. Both start with the security mindset we see today and explore the possible results as the four archetypes interact.

Two scenarios emerge from the turmoil: Archipelagos and Sky 2050. Both start with the security mindset we see today and explore the possible results as the four archetypes interact.

The Archipelagos scenario seeks to follow a possible path from where the world was in 2022, while Sky 2050 takes a normative approach – starting with a desired outcome and working backwards to the reality of 2022 to explore how that outcome could be achieved.

The Archipelagos scenario seeks to follow a possible path from where the world was in 2022, while Sky 2050 takes a normative approach – starting with a desired outcome and working backwards to the reality of 2022 to explore how that outcome could be achieved.

In the case of Sky 2050, the future it is aimed at is a world that achieves two key things: net-zero emissions by 2050 and global warming limited to 1.5°C by the end of the century.

In the case of Sky 2050, the future it is aimed at is a world that achieves two key things: net-zero emissions by 2050 and global warming limited to 1.5°C by the end of the century.

Sky 2050 and Archipelagos see the building tensions play out in different ways and, while both find a pathway forwards, both worlds face significant challenges.

Sky 2050 and Archipelagos see the building tensions play out in different ways and, while both find a pathway forwards, both worlds face significant challenges.

The rest of this publication is interactive, which we hope you will enjoy exploring. You will be presented with a timeline to explore each scenario as it unfolds in time. You can jump between the two to compare how they evolve alongside each other, or you can just focus on the areas of the energy system that interest you. Between the timelines for each scenario are articles which explain how the world could move closer to the outcomes detailed in Sky 2050 than those that result in Archipelagos.

Skip to:
Early 2020s
Balance 2020s
2030s and 2040s
2050 to 2100

See text-only version

Early 2020s

2020s

2030s

2040s

2050s

2060s

2070s

2100s

A word on scenarios

What we present here are scenarios. To get the most from them, it is important to know what these are and what they are not. They are an exploration of how the world could possibly evolve under different sets of assumptions. They are informed by data, constructed using models and contain insights from leading experts in the relevant fields.

The process of creating scenarios involves considering different versions of possible futures. Some of these may seem unlikely or even surprising, yet they could still be possible. Other scenarios explore the possible outcomes of choices the world already appears to be making. This perspective offers the reader the chance to evaluate those choices. It is by exploring the assumptions behind such possible futures that readers can expand their world view and consider the options for significant change. An example of one such assumption, which comes from the Sky 2050 scenario detailed in these pages, is that all sales worldwide of passenger vehicles with an internal combustion engine end by 2040. The biggest assumption in Sky 2050 is that multiple changes of this scale and speed occur simultaneously across the energy system.

The value to Shell of producing scenarios is to help senior management think about the long-term challenges that Shell could face. In this way, the thinking in Shell’s scenarios may influence the company’s strategy – as one of many inputs – but that is as far as it goes: scenarios are not expressions of Shell’s strategy, they are not Shell’s business plan and they do not necessarily reflect the thinking or behaviour of the business.

Shell also publishes some of its scenario thinking to help governments, academia and business to think about the long-term challenges that they, and the world at large, could face.

As useful as scenarios are, however, they are not created by using a crystal ball. So, while scenarios may contain a great deal of valuable information and insight, they are absolutely not predictions or expectations of what will happen, or even what will probably happen. Nor are they statements of what should happen. In short, scenarios are possible worlds built from incomplete and uncertain information. That is true of all scenarios, not just those created by Shell. All scenarios probably hold truth, but all of them are likely to be wrong in one way or another.

Ultimately, for all readers, scenarios are intended as an aid to making better decisions. They stretch minds, broaden horizons and explore assumptions.

For a more formal explanation of scenario thinking, click here.

The shift to a security mindset

In February 2022, the contradictions of the post-Cold War global order cracked wide open when Russia invaded Ukraine. There had already been worries about the supply of fossil-fuel energy, but the invasion made it clear how dependent society is, collectively, on traditional fuels like oil and gas. As nations respond, the world is collectively plunging into the security mindset that dominates Islands.

As the security mindset begins to take hold and national interests take precedence within political agendas, a tension emerges between what was promised to the world at COP26 in Glasgow and what nations must do to address immediate energy concerns.

Four different responses to the situation are beginning to be visible. These involve countries behaving in similar ways when they share similar vulnerabilities to energy supply failures and energy price volatility. This publication explores the possible results as these four responses – which we call “archetypes” – interact. Two scenarios emerge, both starting with the security mindset we see today.

One potential future is painted in the Archipelagos scenario, so named because it is rooted in our earlier Islands scenario and an archipelago is a cluster of islands. Another, more optimistic, potential future is set out in the Sky 2050 scenario. The Archipelagos scenario seeks to follow a possible path from where the world was in 2022, while Sky 2050 takes a “normative approach” that starts with a desired outcome and works backwards to explore how that outcome could be achieved. In the case of Sky 2050, the future it is aimed at is a world that achieves two key things: net-zero emissions by 2050 and global warming limited to 1.5°C by the end of the century. Working backwards to the realities of 2022 means that, while Sky 2050 does make many stretching assumptions, there is no expectation of halving emissions by 2030 as required by the Glasgow Climate Pact from COP26.

In addition to the Archipelagos and Sky 2050 scenarios, we also explore how the world could seek to bridge the gap between these two possible futures. It is worth noting that, even in Sky 2050, global warming does exceed 1.5°C before, with net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, it drops back down. The overshoot is an outcome some will consider unacceptable but, as our modelling implies, any discussion on how to prevent a breach of 1.5°C would need to include action greater than the already substantial measures laid out in Sky 2050, which may not be technically feasible.

Global tension translates into four behaviour archetypes

The starting point for both the scenarios we explore is the way countries are reacting to their circumstances. We have identified four different archetypes, with nations behaving in roughly similar ways when they share similar vulnerabilities to energy supply disruption and energy price volatility. In both scenarios, the security mindset leads to aggressively competitive, rather than co-operative, decarbonisation.

The first archetype is called Green Dream and can be observed in the European Union. The EU’s wealth enables it to deal with energy price volatility, but its advanced economies and depleted oil and gas reserves make it highly vulnerable to energy supply failures. These countries seek security by driving hard towards energy efficiency and renewable generation.

The second archetype is called Innovation Wins and can be seen in countries like the USA and major energy resource holders like the United Arab Emirates. These countries are often self-sufficient in energy so are not vulnerable to supply failures, but their political systems are exposed to swings in the energy price. These countries do not feel so threatened in the short term, but invest heavily in innovation and infrastructure as longer-term solutions to their energy needs and the needs of their energy customers.

The third archetype is Great Wall of Change, which is mainly relevant to China. China is insulated from both supply and price concerns by several factors: the size of its economy, its large coal reserves and the scale of the investments it is making in its own energy supply and infrastructure. China takes a cautious approach, aware of the need to move away from coal – by far the most emissions-intensive fossil fuel – and unsure of Russia as an energy partner. It looks to use its manufacturing strength to grow its position as a global low-carbon energy powerhouse.

The final archetype is Surfers, which subdivides into Emergent Surfers, like India, and Rising Surfers. Rising Surfers include the world’s least developed economies, and they are more focused on establishing the basic foundations for development, such as infrastructure. Surfers countries do not produce significant amounts of energy and so they are vulnerable to both energy supply disruption and price swings. Emergent Surfers quickly adopt new technologies while Rising Surfers keep a closer focus on spreading access to energy. Surfers of all types seek out partnerships and try to ride the opportunities created by other archetype countries.

The security scenarios in summary

In Archipelagos, the security mindset emerging in 2022 takes hold worldwide. Global sentiment shifts away from managing emissions towards energy security. Despite this, the drive for energy security still involves significant use of low-carbon technologies. These dynamics translate into global emissions stabilising in the 2020s, and falling from the mid-2030s. This makes for a faster energy transition compared to the 2021 Islands scenario.

Nationalism underpinned by renewed militarism grows, especially in those regions straddling two spheres of influence. The war over whether Ukraine belongs with Europe or with Russia turns out to be a template for any number of other disputed countries and territories. In many ways, the geopolitical order of the 2030s resembles the 19th century world of power alliances more than the globalised post-Cold War order.

Competition between nations spreads into many aspects of life, and results in multiple technology races – including in relation to low-carbon technologies. Rather than acting together to save the planet, groups of nations now scramble to secure energy supplies and focus on building energy resilience to withstand future shocks. Emissions fall through the century, with net zero in sight, but still not achieved, by 2100.

The global average surface temperature is still rising in 2100 but begins to stabilise shortly afterwards at around 2.2°C as emissions close in on net zero.

In Sky 2050, the war in Ukraine translates into an uneven start as short-term energy security concerns dominate. Over time, however, a longer-term perspective on security emerges which includes the need to meet the threat of climate change. Momentum towards emissions reductions then gathers pace as the capacity to deliver low-carbon energy infrastructure grows, driven largely by concerns over security and price. While progress does not meet the most optimistic expectations, emissions start to fall from 2025. By 2040, the goal of net-zero emissions is clearly in sight.

At the outset, international institutions appear ineffectual in supporting the Paris Agreement, and nations cling to archetype behaviours which are focused on their vulnerability to energy supply failure or energy price volatility. Soon, however, citizens themselves start to push for change. Politicians adopt climate-friendly policies to secure support, especially among the young. Quickly these policies become national priorities, and success in fulfilling their aims becomes a measure of national power.

What might have taken decades to negotiate now takes much less time as individual nations, cities and companies “just go for it”, with the world reaching net-zero emissions in 2050.

By 2100, despite overshooting 1.5°C earlier in the century, the rise in global average surface temperature is back below 1.5°C in 2075 and then falls back to around 1.2°C by 2100.

Offcanvas

Shell plc Legal Disclaimer

Offcanvas

The Energy SecurityScenarios

Share this tool.