logo
Was the world's most influential climate target doomed from the start?

Was the world's most influential climate target doomed from the start?

Yahoo14-02-2025

In 2015, when the countries of the world hammered out the Paris Agreement, they committed to limiting global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels and 'pursuing efforts' toward keeping them below 1.5 degrees C. The plan didn't work out so well. Ten years later, the planet might have crossed that lower threshold sooner than expected.
A pair of new studies in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at historical data and came to the conclusion that the record heat last year — the first year to surpass 1.5 degrees C — wasn't a temporary fluke, but a sign that the world is now soaring past this influential climate target over the long term. The new year continued that upward trajectory. Even as a natural cooling pattern called La Niña took hold recently, January managed to be hotter than ever, clocking in at a record 1.75 degrees C warmer than the preindustrial average.
One analysis of the two studies warned that Earth had entered a 'frightening new phase.' It's a reflection of the language that has been used around 1.5 C ever since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-backed team of leading climate experts, wrote an influential report in 2018 on the consequences of exceeding that threshold, which it estimated would happen in 2030. Headlines warned that the world had 12 years to avert climate catastrophe. The line was echoed by the young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York. So is the world now at the edge of disaster?
Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge, asserts that it isn't. 'There's no 'cliff edge' that emerges from any of the scientific analyses that have been done about these thresholds,' he said. 'They are, in many senses, just arbitrary numbers plucked because they are either integers or half of an integer.'
Hulme, who has been studying the way people think about climate change for decades, argues that an obsession with global temperatures misunderstands why people care about climate change in the first place: They care about how it affects their lives, not abstract readings of the thermometer. He's also argued that climate advocates should stop chasing a series of 'deadlines' to try to drum up enthusiasm for meeting these goals.
Grist spoke with Hulme to learn more about how setting these deadlines can backfire and if there's a better way to talk about how to make progress on climate change. This interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.
Q. You've written that the 1.5 C goal 'painted the world into a dangerous corner.' What exactly was dangerous about it?
A. The danger of this goal is that it was always impossible to achieve — or 99 percent impossible to achieve — 10 years ago. And everybody, I think, who understands both the dynamics of the physical climate system, and also the dynamics of the world energy system, understood that — 1.5 became a campaigning number around which civic groups, activists, and youth entrepreneurs mobilized: '1.5 to stay alive.' It was interpreted as being if 1.5 was breached, then the world either moved into an entirely different physical state that was dangerous compared to 1.4 — or, and this came along later, that somehow 1.5 represents a 'tipping point' in the Earth system, which if exceeded, triggers certain feedback mechanisms that cannot be undone.
Either way, it cultivates an atmosphere of fear. And the danger is, if we've transgressed 1.5, the feeling mounts that somehow it's game over, that we've failed in our task to manage the risks of climate change. And that, to some at least, will cultivate cynicism, disillusion, and a loss of focus. These are dangerous emotions. They don't help with clear-eyed thinking around the difficult politics of climate and energy.
Q. I think the report the IPCC wrote about 1.5 C in 2018 is really tied up with this discussion. Do you think that report was bound to be misinterpreted?
A. Yeah, the idea of deadlines is a long one in the history of climate advocacy and politics. To me, it's a pernicious way of thinking about this. There is no cliff edge over which the world's climate or humanity is going to fall over, whether it's 1.5, or 2, or 2.5.
The movie that came out a few years ago, Don't Look Up, used the idea of an asteroid hitting the planet as an allegory for climate change. And that is actually a very bad way of thinking about climate change. It's not something that will destroy the planet at any particular threshold. It's an incremental risk — and it's a relative risk, actually. By relative risk, I mean, one has to think about the things that concern people in the wider context of their life and their aspirations for the future. It's relative to a pandemic, relative to a nuclear war between two superpowers, relative to having one's family destroyed by terrorism. So climate change is that type of a problem. It's not like an asteroid.
Q. Most estimates said that 1.5 C wouldn't happen until at least the early 2030s. What do you make of these new studies that show the world might be breaching that 1.5 C goal now?
A. The interesting thing about this is, how do we interpret 1.5? Climatologists have always worked with the understanding that climate is something that one can only adequately get a snapshot of over, traditionally, a 30-year period. The IPCC has more recently moved to defining this over a 20-year period. And what these papers are doing is trying to preempt this. Clearly, we haven't been exceeding 1.5 degrees for 20 years. No one's claiming that. What these papers are saying is that, in fact, if we're entering into this 20-year window from 2025 to 2045, we are now entering into this regime where the world's average temperature will be more regularly exceeding 1.5.
From a scientific point of view, statistical point of view, those studies are fair. I think the danger is the way they get interpreted — that if we have now reached 1.5, suddenly a new category of climate impacts or weather extremes will manifest themselves around the planet.
Of course, the thing that's going to happen is, 'Well, if 1.5 is now in the back mirror, what's in the front mirror now?' There's going to be a lot of work done to reconstruct a narrative for those people who think that 1.5 was the be-all and the end-all. There's now going to have to be very significant work in reeducating and reframing what the future actually holds, if 1.5 is no longer the benchmark.
Q. Is the problem with putting a deadline on climate change partly that it can motivate action in the near-term, but not the long term?
A. I think that's a good way of making the distinction, perhaps. Climate change is not something that can be arrested in the short term. It is something that is going to be managed in the long term. Putting 1.5 out there at the beginning in Paris in 2015 was not a good move. It may have had some mobilizing power initially, but it doesn't actually help us achieve the long-term goals of what we need around climate change.
Global temperature isn't a thing that anyone can control. At least in principle, if you disaggregate this, you can think about particular energy systems — whether they're fossil-driven or how efficient they are. There are no levers that can directly control global temperature, other than the putative lever of solar geoengineering.
Read Next
How the world gave up on 1.5 degrees
Lylla Younes
Q. The idea that we're running out of time to tackle climate change, or that the clock is ticking, is such a common metaphor. Do you think there's a better way to frame these efforts?
A. Well, yes. We know for a variety of reasons that a world that is 85 to 90 percent dependent on fossil fuels is probably not a good world for the future for all sorts of reasons, climate change being one of them. So one could actually structure some of the politics of this around decarbonization and providing incentives for accelerated decarbonization, but without putting artificial deadlines on it. It's not as though if we don't get the world energy system down to 80 percent, 75, 70, 65 percent by certain dates, we've somehow lost the battle. At least we're going in the right direction.
Another way into this is focusing on sustainable development goals. Actually, the things that matter to most people around the relationship that humans have with their physical environment and their social well-being are well captured in the U.N. sustainable development goals, particularly for those who are most exposed to some of the dangers of a changing climate. They are set out with a target to be met by 2030, so you could say there's a deadline there. But the way in which we think about development is very different from the way we think about climate. No one is saying that we've only got five more years in order to achieve any of those development goals. If we don't, we will continue over the following five or 10 or 15 years to alleviate poverty, increase sanitation, and bring education, particularly for women, up to the standards that people desire.
This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Was the world's most influential climate target doomed from the start? on Feb 14, 2025.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Thermal Runaway Explains Why Waymo Cars Burned So Completely in the Recent Los Angeles Protests
Thermal Runaway Explains Why Waymo Cars Burned So Completely in the Recent Los Angeles Protests

Scientific American

time15 hours ago

  • Scientific American

Thermal Runaway Explains Why Waymo Cars Burned So Completely in the Recent Los Angeles Protests

Imagine watching a car burn until it seems to vaporize and the street itself begins to sag. That happened on Sunday in Los Angeles, when protesters torched at least five Waymo-branded Jaguar I-Pace robotaxis. When the smoke cleared, virtually the entire shell of each car—its roof, doors, hood, trunk and body panels—was gone, leaving only wheel rims and traces of aluminum lacing. Why did the fires cause such obliteration? The answer starts with the battery. Each I-Pace can carry roughly 90 kilowatt-hours of stored chemical energy, comparable to about 170 pounds (77 kilograms) of TNT. That energy is distributed across hundreds of lithium-ion pouch cells, which are sealed in flammable electrolyte and separated by polymer films as thin as snack-bag plastic. When any one cell is punctured or overheated—or set aflame with an incendiary device—chemical reactions generate more heat than the cell can shed, and neighboring cells follow in a chain reaction. This positive-feedback loop is called 'thermal runaway.' According to a 2024 study in the Journal of Power Sources, as the battery burns, its temperature can soar past 1,000 degrees Celsius. At that point, the pack becomes its own furnace. Aluminum sections of the car's floor surrender, liquefying at about 660 degrees C and taking the underbody with them. Magnesium parts—seat-base frames, the bracket that holds the steering column and the cross-car beam that is located behind the dashboard—flare bright white. Patches of magnesium can catch fire and burn fiercely. Plastics disappear as vapor, wheels lose their tire, and even the lidar mast on the roof quickly resembles an overcooked marshmallow. A 2025 study in Fire Technology and a 2023 study in Applied Energy noted that the placement of the battery on the floor—sometimes referred to as a 'skateboard architecture'—makes the floor the hottest zone. Thus, flames radiate upward and outward, cooking everything above. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. All the while, the battery cells vent hydrogen fluoride, a toxic, lung-searing gas documented in laboratory test burns of commercial lithium packs. Among the disturbing scenes from the recent Los Angeles protests, which erupted over federal immigration raids, are those in which protestors stood around the flaming Waymos. Historically, first responders without supplied-air protection have developed throat burns and breathing difficulties upon arriving at scenes with burning lithium-ion batteries. Depending on the hydrogen fluoride levels, an exposed person can begin coughing up blood within minutes. Whereas inhaling concentrations above roughly 30 parts per million (ppm) is immediately dangerous to health, 50 ppm may be fatal when inhaled for a half-hour to an hour, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that exposure to 170 ppm for 10 minutes can be deadly. Measurements taken near electric-vehicle (EV) fires show peaks of 150 to 450 ppm, with levels during much of the fire hovering around 50 ppm. Firefighters call such blazes 'battery box fires,' and they hate them. Flame-retardant foams do little, and fire departments now favor high-pressure water lances or immersion pits. Dousing a runaway battery usually means lowering temperatures below the runaway threshold for every last battery cell—a task that, according to the Independent, can swallow 30,000 to 40,000 gallons (about 114,000 to 151,000 liters) of water. That's at least 40 times the amount of water required to extinguish a gasoline-car fire. If you hit the flames too lightly, stranded energy reignites hours later—a quirk the National Transportation Safety Board flagged in its 2020 report on EV firefighting hazards. Car designers have tried to address the danger. Software monitors cell temperatures and slows the rate at which batteries charge to prevent overheating. And it automatically cuts current if anything looks amiss. Yet even the best code cannot rewrite chemistry: in 2023 Jaguar recalled more than 6,400 I-Pace cars after at least a dozen of them caught fire from overheated batteries—which had likely shorted from manufacturing defects in their pouch cells. Six of the fires happened while the car was either plugged in or within a few minutes of being unplugged. Waymo's fleet got the update to better regulate the batteries, but software can't help when someone smashes one of the car's windows and lights up its interior with a 'makeshift flamethrower,' as reported by the Los Angeles Times. Could a Waymo van have burned just as thoroughly? Only with great effort. The company's earlier Chrysler Pacifica hybrids, which were phased out in 2023, stored a tenth of their battery energy in a steel-framed shell. Steel keeps its shape beyond 1,300 degrees C, so after a typical blaze, you would still recognize the carcass. To prevent thermal runaway, Teslas have batteries that use thousands of small cylindrical cells locked inside an aluminum tray with titanium undershields and built-in firebreaks. And most brands of electric-car batteries now sit in similarly rigid aluminum or steel boxes—and are shifting toward less volatile chemistries. Importantly, however, the scene in Los Angeles by no means indicates that electric cars are tinderboxes. A 2023 study in Finland showed that, mile for mile, they caught fire less often than gasoline cars. But when an EV does burn, the physics shift. You're no longer fighting a puddle of gasoline on asphalt; you're battling an energy-dense, metal-oxide battery that is determined to finish what it started—and in such cases, a single Molotov cocktail can turn a sleek robotaxi into a pool of molten alloy.

Oxford University to host global climate and human rights summit launch event
Oxford University to host global climate and human rights summit launch event

Yahoo

time18 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Oxford University to host global climate and human rights summit launch event

A panel of speakers from global climate leadership has been announced for a launch event in Oxford ahead of a climate summit. The University of Oxford will host the launch of the Right Here, Right Now Global Climate Summit 2025 at the Sheldonian Theatre on Wednesday, June 4. Featuring keynote speeches, panel discussions, and performances, the event will bring together leading voices from policy, activism, business, and academia to explore the relationship between climate change and human rights. The launch event will take place ahead of a 24-hour global online plenary extending into World Environment Day on June 5. The evening will begin with introductory remarks from Professor Irene Tracey, vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, and Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Professor Irene Tracey, vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford (Image: Contributed) The event will be hosted by Justin Rowlatt, climate editor at the BBC, and will include a rotation of speakers discussing how climate change impacts human rights and how these rights can inform responses to the climate crisis. The panel of speakers will include Lord Alok Sharma, a former COP26 president known for leading international negotiations resulting in the Glasgow Climate Pact. Vanessa Nakate, a climate justice activist and founder of the Rise Up Movement, who advocates for equitable climate solutions focusing on African communities, will also speak. Kate Raworth, an economist and co-founder of the Doughnut Economics Action Lab, whose work explores sustainable development within planetary boundaries, and Paul Polman, a business leader and former CEO of Unilever, known for championing responsible corporate climate action, will speak too. The audience will also hear from Professor Lavanya Rajamani, professor of international environmental law at Oxford, whose research and legal work supports climate-vulnerable nations in international negotiations, Emma Pinchbeck, chief executive of the Climate Change Committee, who leads the UK's independent advisory body on reaching net zero, and Dr Omnia El Omrani, a medical doctor and climate-health policy advocate, who has represented youth voices at recent UN climate summits and focuses on the health impacts of climate change. The event will be livestreamed and will conclude with a handover to partners at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji to begin the global programme at 10pm. The 24-hour plenary will include contributions from university hubs around the world, partners at UN Human Rights, and the International Universities Climate Alliance. The Oxford Mail and Oxford City Council are looking to find Oxford's climate heroes with this year's Oxford Climate Awards. Rose Hill and Iffley Low Carbon at the Oxford Climate Awards 2024 (Image: Joe Baker) They are looking for individuals or groups who champion environmental sustainability across categories including innovation in climate action, sustainable business, and green transport.

Ocean Day 2025: Sustaining The Wonder That Sustains Us
Ocean Day 2025: Sustaining The Wonder That Sustains Us

Forbes

time21 hours ago

  • Forbes

Ocean Day 2025: Sustaining The Wonder That Sustains Us

On June 8th, we celebrate World Oceans Day under the global theme: 'Wonder: Sustaining What Sustains Us.' The ocean covers 70% of the Earth's surface and is not only vast but vital for the existence of life. According to the United Nations News, the ocean produces over 50% of the planet's oxygen, absorbs 25% of human-generated carbon dioxide, and regulates climate patterns critical to life. Beyond threats, the ocean harbors breathtaking wonders. Scientists estimate that over 80% of the ocean remains unexplored, according to National Geographic. Another beautiful wonder is that the Mariana Trench plunges deeper than Mount Everest is tall and is filled with a host of mysterious and unique sea creatures. Coral reefs, often called the 'rainforests of the sea,' support 25% of marine life despite covering less than 1% of the ocean floor. Even more astonishing, the largest migration on Earth occurs daily as deep-sea creatures rise to the surface under cover of night to make their way to other areas. These are some of the beautiful wonders that require our mindfulness and protection and of course changed habits. Despite its importance, the ocean is under unprecedented stress and the UN Trade & Development reports that nearly 90% of global fish stocks are exploited or depleted. Coupled with this sea surface temperatures have risen by nearly 1°C since pre-industrial times, contributing to coral bleaching events and extreme weather. Pollution is another grave concern. According to the World Economic Forum, 6 million metric tons of plastic leak into the rivers and coastlines every year. Without intervention, this figure could triple by 2040. Meanwhile, the Ellen MacArthur Foundation warns that by 2050, plastics could outweigh fish in the oceans. While the ocean is a filled with mysteries, wonder must fuel our action. Here are three actions we can take for its sustainability: As we marvel at the ocean's mysteries and vast wonders, World Oceans Day is a reminder that sustaining what sustains us is not optional, its essential for our survival. al and will ensure that the ocean's wonder endure for generations to come.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store