The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has officially removed its most extreme warming pathway, RCP8.5, along with the related SSP5‑8.5 and SSP3‑7.0 scenarios. The decision, confirmed earlier this month, ends the use of projections that assumed a near‑tripling of global coal consumption, an absence of climate policy worldwide, and population growth at the upper edge of demographic forecasts.
For the past 15 years, these scenarios served as the default “business‑as‑usual” baseline in climate research, policy discussions and financial risk modeling. President Donald Trump reacted on his social‑media platform Truth Social on Friday, calling the retirement a triumph over what he described as “Climate Alarmism nonsense.” In his post, he labeled the projections “WRONG! WRONG!
WRONG!” and accused Democratic leaders of exploiting them to advance a “GREEN NEW SCAM.” Trump framed the move as a victory for “TRUTH, SCIENCE, and FACT.” The practical implications of retiring RCP8.5 extend far beyond political commentary. Governments, central banks and major news outlets have relied on the scenario to gauge the upper limits of climate risk.
Insurance companies built loss‑adjustment models around it, and investors allocated trillions of dollars based on its assumptions. The UN committee itself acknowledged that the scenario’s underlying premises—particularly the rapid expansion of coal use and the lack of any meaningful emissions policy—were never realistic, describing them as a stress test rather than a probable future. By eliminating these pathways, the IPCC is making the most significant adjustment to climate‑scenario practice since the release of its Fifth Assessment Report.
The newly adopted CMIP7 modeling framework, announced earlier this month, will no longer incorporate RCP8.5 or its successor pathways. Future climate projections will therefore start from baselines that, according to the committee, better reflect plausible socioeconomic trajectories.
Importantly, the committee’s statement does not deny ongoing climate change or the need for mitigation. It simply notes that the specific set of worst‑case projections was overstated and implausible. Activists and officials who cited RCP8.5 as evidence of imminent catastrophe were, in retrospect, referencing a scenario that the UN now admits was not grounded in realistic assumptions.
For policymakers, the change means that forthcoming debates can be anchored in scenarios that align more closely with observed trends and credible policy pathways. Regulators will need to revise stress‑test frameworks that previously hinged on RCP8.5, and investors must update risk models that factored in its extreme outcomes.
The public narrative surrounding climate risk is also set to shift. Headlines that have highlighted the most alarming projections of the past decade were often built on the RCP8.5 foundation, which the UN now characterizes as “sand.” Recognizing the scenario’s lack of plausibility represents a fundamental correction in how future warming is communicated. While President Trump’s response frames the retirement as a political win against climate initiatives such as the Green New Deal, the core development remains technical: the UN’s own climate committee has formally acknowledged that its signature worst‑case projection was unrealistic.
This acknowledgment alters the terms of the global climate conversation, prompting a re‑examination of models, policies and investment strategies that have long been based on the now‑retired scenario.
