Activists prepare signs for 1.5 degrees Celsius for Peace during a session at the COP27 U.N. Climate Summit, Nov. 17, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. (Nariman El-Mofty / Associated Press)

Activists prepare signs for 1.5 degrees Celsius for Peace during a session at the COP27 U.N. Climate Summit, Nov. 17, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. (Nariman El-Mofty / Associated Press)

Comment: Why the world must keep its goal of 1.5 alive

The pace of efforts to reduce carbon emissions may not meet the 1.5 C limit set. Here’s what’s needed.

By Peter Schlosser / For The Conversation

The world could still, theoretically, meet its goal of keeping global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius, a level many scientists consider a dangerous threshold. Realistically, that’s unlikely to happen.

Part of the problem was evident at COP27, the recently concluded United Nations climate conference in Egypt.

While nations’ climate negotiators were successfully fighting to “keep 1.5 alive” as the global goal in the official agreement, reached Nov. 20, some of their countries were negotiating new fossil fuel deals, driven in part by the global energy crisis. Any expansion of fossil fuels — the primary driver of climate change — makes keeping warming under 1.5 C (2.7 Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times much harder.

Attempts at the climate talks to get all countries to agree to phase out coal, oil, natural gas and all fossil fuel subsidies failed. And countries have done little to strengthen their commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the past year.

There have been positive moves, including advances in technology, falling prices for renewable energy and countries committing to cut their methane emissions.

But all signs now point toward a scenario in which the world will overshoot the 1.5 C limit, likely by a large amount. The World Meteorological Organization estimates global temperatures have a 50-50 chance of reaching 1.5C of warming, at least temporarily, in the next five years.

That doesn’t mean humanity can just give up.

Why 1.5 degrees? During the last quarter of the 20th century, climate change caused by human activities became an issue of survival for the future of life on the planet. Since at least the 1980s, scientific evidence for global warming has been increasingly firm, and scientists have established limits of global warming that cannot be exceeded to avoid moving from a global climate crisis to a planetary-scale climate catastrophe.

There is consensus among climate scientists, myself included, that 1.5 C of global warming is a threshold beyond which humankind would dangerously interfere with the climate system.

We know from the reconstruction of historical climate records that, over the past 12,000 years, life was able to thrive on Earth at a global annual average temperature of around 14 degrees C (57 F). As one would expect from the behavior of a complex system, the temperatures varied, but they never warmed by more than about 1.5 C during this relatively stable climate regime.

Today, with the world 1.2 C warmer than pre-industrial times, people are already experiencing the effects of climate change in more locations, more forms and at higher frequencies and amplitudes.

Climate model projections clearly show that warming beyond 1.5 C will dramatically increase the risk of extreme weather events, more frequent wildfires with higher intensity, sea level rise, and changes in flood and drought patterns with implications for food systems collapse, among other adverse impacts. And there can be abrupt transitions, the impacts of which will result in major challenges on local to global scales.

Steep reductions and negative emissions: Meeting the 1.5 goal at this point will require steep reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, but that alone isn’t enough. It will also require “negative emissions” to reduce the concentration of carbon dioxide that human activities have already put into the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere for decades to centuries, so just stopping emissions doesn’t stop its warming effect. Technology exists that can pull carbon dioxide out of the air and lock it away. It’s still only operating at a very small scale, but corporate agreements like Microsoft’s 10-year commitment to pay for carbon removed could help scale it up.

A report in 2018 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change determined that meeting the 1.5 C goal would require cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 50 percent globally by 2030; plus significant negative emissions from both technology and natural sources by 2050 up to about half of present-day emissions.

Can we still hold warming to 1.5 C? Since the Paris climate agreement was signed in 2015, countries have made some progress in their pledges to reduce emissions, but at a pace that is way too slow to keep warming below 1.5 C. Carbon dioxide emissions are still rising, as are carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere.

A recent report by the United Nations Environment Program highlights the shortfalls. The world is on track to produce 58 gigatons of carbon dioxide-equivalent greenhouse gas emissions in 2030; more than twice where it should be for the path to 1.5 C. The result would be an average global temperature increase of 2.7 C (4.9 degrees F) in this century, nearly double the 1.5 C target.

Given the gap between countries’ actual commitments and the emissions cuts required to keep temperatures to 1.5 C, it appears practically impossible to stay within the 1.5 C goal.

Global emissions aren’t close to plateauing, and with the amount of carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, it is very likely that the world will reach the 1.5 C warming level within the next five to 10 years.

How large the overshoot will be and for how long it will exist critically hinges on accelerating emissions cuts and scaling up negative emissions solutions, including carbon capture technology.

At this point, nothing short of an extraordinary and unprecedented effort to cut emissions will save the 1.5 C goal. We know what can be done; the question is whether people are ready for a radical and immediate change of the actions that lead to climate change, primarily a transformation away from a fossil fuel-based energy system.

Peter Schlosser is vice prsident, vice provost and professor for the Global Futures Initiative at Arizona State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Talk to us

> Give us your news tips.

> Send us a letter to the editor.

> More Herald contact information.

More in Opinion

Sarah Weiser / The Herald
Air Force One touches ground Friday morning at Boeing in Everett.
PHOTO SHOT 02172012
Editorial: There’s no free lunch and no free Air Force One

Qatar’s offer of a 747 to President Trump solves nothing and leaves the nation beholden.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Thursday, May 15

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

The Washington State Legislature convenes for a joint session for a swearing-in ceremony of statewide elected officials and Governor Bob Ferguson’s inaugural address, March 15, 2025.
Editorial: 4 bills that need a second look by state lawmakers

Even good ideas, such as these four bills, can fail to gain traction in the state Legislature.

FILE - The sun dial near the Legislative Building is shown under cloudy skies, March 10, 2022, at the state Capitol in Olympia, Wash. An effort to balance what is considered the nation's most regressive state tax code comes before the Washington Supreme Court on Thursday, Jan. 26, 2023, in a case that could overturn a prohibition on income taxes that dates to the 1930s. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)
Editorial: What state lawmakers acheived this session

A look at some of the more consequential policy bills adopted by the Legislature in its 105 days.

Liz Skinner, right, and Emma Titterness, both from Domestic Violence Services of Snohomish County, speak with a man near the Silver Lake Safeway while conducting a point-in-time count Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2024, in Everett, Washington. The man, who had slept at that location the previous night, was provided some food and a warming kit after participating in the PIT survey. (Ryan Berry / The Herald)
Editorial: County had no choice but to sue over new grant rules

New Trump administration conditions for homelessness grants could place county in legal jeopardy.

Comment: Governor should veto change to mortgage interest deduction

A provision in state tax legislation would increase mortgage costs for families buying homes.

Comment: Fair’s fair; kids get 3 dolls, Trump wants 3 jets

Trump’s tariffs require austerity from Americans, except when Trump sees a shinier aircraft on the tarmac.

Comment: Welcome South African refugees, yes, but Afghans, too

There has been no good explanation why Afrikaners are admitted, when so many others are turned away.

Goldberg: Is RFK Jr.’s MAHA movement suffering irony deficiency

His pick for surgeon general is faltering because she isn’t attacking vaccines earnestly enough.

Comment: Nonprofits filling gap left by federal cuts isn’t answer

Relying solely on donors to fulfill needs means providers no longer are accountable to the people.

toon
Editorial cartoons for Wednesday, May 14

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Welch: Local elections work best when voters prepare for task

With ballots set, now’s the time to study issues and ask candidates where they stand and what they’ll do.

Support local journalism

If you value local news, make a gift now to support the trusted journalism you get in The Daily Herald. Donations processed in this system are not tax deductible.