En-Roads is a systems dynamics model similar in purpose though much more complex and well-referenced than the World3 model of Limits to Growth fame.

Reference Guide:

https://www.climateinteractive.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/En-ROADS_Reference_Guide_v92.pdf

It is probably roughly accurate for the sector models of buildings and industry, growth, land and industry emissions, carbon removal, and non-electric transport. The electrification and energy supply sector model is not reliable, as the model simulates on a 0.125 year timescale which misses the market dynamics of electricity production. Furthermore, it calibrates the electric market projections against the IEA world energy outlook (WEO) which has continually underpredicted renewables and overpredicted coal capacity to an embarrassingly large degree: https://steinbuch.wordpress.com/2017/06/12/photovoltaic-growth-reality-versus-projections-of-the-international-energy-agency. For example, solar capacity additions in 2016 were ~50 GW, WEO 2016 estimated solar additions would be roughly constant at 50 GW/year in 2018, reality was over 110 GW. WEO 2019 still assumes there will be substantial buildouts of coal plants in the U.S. and EU in the "current policies" scenario. The GIGO (garbage-in, garbage-out) applies here for the En-Roads electricity sector model - they calibrate against garbage energy supply projections from IEA, so the En-Roads analysis of electric sector policies will be grossly inaccurate.

This model error could significantly change your inference on points 3 and 4 once corrected. The rest of your points of inference are probably accurate.

Thanks for posting! I took an En-ROADS workshop with a trained facilitator in my local community and I thought it was extremely well done. The organization that built En-ROADS trains facilitators to then teach others about the tool (and about climate).

En-ROADS itself is an example of an intervention whose impact would be difficult to quantify. The goal is to educate as many people as possible about the fundamental dynamics of the climate problem, using well-designed interactive workshops/tools that are based on robust evidence. It seems like a good approach to me, but I don't know if they can ever prove a positive impact on the climate problem. I sometimes wonder if a similar approach would be helpful for spreading the "EA gospel" to a wider audience.

Great analysis. Many of these conclusions were not intuitive. 

For those looking to advance climate solutions, I'll plug Citizens' Climate Lobby which advocates for a price on carbon in Congress. I love political advocacy because it can be done with zero cost (ie writing to/lobbying your elected officials), and is a powerful tool for collective action. 

Thanks for the explanation on this, there's a lot to tackle when it comes to environmental issues and I sort of lost track of what has to be done, for what, in which direction, and what the realistic effects would be... I mean, when you've got issues as varied as CO² emissions, the plastic "island" in the Pacific ocean and deforestation, you feel like you'd need several brains to keep track of everything.

Still, I wonder whether the current state of the world's economy will bring more ecological practices. I mean, for example, I used to fly twice a year to Southern Europe to inspect stuff like this commercial real estate in Barcelona https://tranio.com/commercial/spain/catalonia/barcelona/ for my company, but these days, it's not necessarily, you can get an assistant on site to do a video visit of the items, or sign documents with electronic signatures.