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

Scientists mapped what happens if a crucial system of ocean currents collapses. The weather impact would be extreme
Scientists mapped what happens if a crucial system of ocean currents collapses. The weather impact would be extreme

CNN

time44 minutes ago

  • CNN

Scientists mapped what happens if a crucial system of ocean currents collapses. The weather impact would be extreme

Climate changeFacebookTweetLink Follow The collapse of a crucial network of Atlantic Ocean currents could push parts of the world into a deep freeze, with winter temperatures plunging to around minus 55 degrees Fahrenheit in some cities, bringing 'profound climate and societal impacts,' according to a new study. There is increasing concern about the future of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation — known as the AMOC — a system of currents that works like a giant conveyor belt, pulling warm water from the Southern Hemisphere and tropics to the Northern Hemisphere, where it cools, sinks and flows back south. Multiple studies suggest the AMOC is weakening with some projecting it could even collapse this century as global warming disrupts the balance of heat and salinity that keeps it moving. This would usher in huge global weather and climate shifts — including plunging temperatures in Europe, which relies on the AMOC for its mild climate. What's less clear, however, is how these impacts will unfold in a world heated up by humans burning fossil fuels. 'What if the AMOC collapses and we have climate change? Does the cooling win or does the warming win?' asked René van Westen, a marine and atmospheric researcher at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and co-author of the paper published Wednesday in the Geophysical Research Letters journal. This new study is the first to use a modern, complex climate model to answer the question, he told CNN. The researchers looked at a scenario where the AMOC weakens by 80% and the Earth is around 2 degrees Celsius warmer than the period before humans began burning large amounts of fossil fuels. The planet is currently at 1.2 degrees of warming. They focused on what would happen as the climate stabilized post-collapse, multiple decades into the future. Even in this hotter world, they found 'substantial cooling' over Europe with sharp drops in average winter temperatures and more intense cold extremes — a very different picture than the United States, where the study found temperatures would continue to increase even with an AMOC collapse. Sea ice would spread southward as far as Scandinavia, parts of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, the research found. This would have a huge impact on cold extremes as the white surface of the ice reflects the sun's energy back into space, amplifying cooling. The scientists have created an interactive map to visualize the impacts of an AMOC collapse across the globe. London, for example, could see winter cold extremes of minus 2.2 Fahrenheit , while Oslo could see temperatures as low as minus 55 Fahrenheit and endure maximum temperatures below 32 Fahrenheit for 46% of the year. Parts of Europe will also become stormier, the study found. The increased temperature difference between northern and southern Europe will strengthen the jet stream and increase storm intensity over northwestern Europe. It 'completely shifts the narrative, right?' van Westen said. 'Because now policy is planning for a warmer future, but maybe instead, we need to also prepare for a colder future.' While cooling on an ever-hotter planet may sound like good news, van Westen warns it's anything but. Society in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere 'is not built for these kind of cold extremes,' he said. Crops would die, threatening food security, and infrastructure could buckle. What's more, the impacts of an AMOC collapse would mostly be felt in Europe's winter; it would still endure increasingly deadly heat waves in the summer as the climate crisis intensifies. The Southern Hemisphere, meanwhile, is projected to experience increased warming. The scientists also looked at the impacts of an AMOC collapse in an even hotter world. If global temperatures reach around 4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the heat outweighs the cooling impact of an AMOC collapse in Europe, van Westen said. 'The warming signal actually wins.' But, he added, an AMOC collapse won't only affect temperatures. Other impacts include increased sea level rise, which will particularly affect the US, where a weaker AMOC is already driving significantly increased flooding on the northeastern coast, according to recent research. Stefan Rahmstorf, a physical oceanographer at Potsdam University in Germany who was not involved in the latest research, said the study confirms 'an AMOC collapse would have massive impacts on European climate.' The research uses only one climate model; others will rely on different models and will likely come up with a variety of scenarios, he told CNN. What ultimately happens will depend on the how the two opposing trends play out: AMOC-induced cooling and climate change-induced heating. A 'large uncertainty' remains, he said. The study is 'by no means the last word' especially as huge questions remain over whether the AMOC could be on course to collapse, said Richard Allen, a climate science professor at the University of Reading, also not involved in the research. 'But even the mere possibility of this dire storyline unfolding over coming centuries underscores the need to forensically monitor what is happening in our oceans,' he said. What is crystal clear is that an AMOC collapse would be very bad for society, van Westen said. 'We want to avoid it at all costs.'

May 2025 second warmest on record: EU climate monitor
May 2025 second warmest on record: EU climate monitor

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

May 2025 second warmest on record: EU climate monitor

Global heating persisted as the new norm, with last month the second warmest May on record on land and in the oceans, according to the European Union's climate monitoring service. The planet's average surface temperature dipped below the threshold of 1.5 degree Celsius above preindustrial levels, just shy of the record for May set last year, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service. The same held for the world's oceans. With a surface temperature of 20.79C, last month was second only to May 2024, with some unprecedented warmth regionally. "Large areas in the northeast North Atlantic, which experienced a marine heatwave, had record surface temperatures for the month," Copernicus reported. "Most of the Mediterranean Sea was much warmer than average." The increasingly dire state of the oceans is front-and-centre at the third UN Ocean Conference (UNOC), which kicked off Monday in Nice, France. Ocean heatwaves are driving marine species to migrate, decimating coral reefs, damaging ecosystems, and reducing the ability of ocean layers to mix, which hinders the distribution of nutrients. Covering 70 percent of the globe's surface, oceans redistribute heat and play a crucial role in regulating Earth's climate. Surface water warmed by climate change drive increasingly powerful storms, causing new levels of destruction and flooding in their wake. Some parts of Europe, meanwhile, "experienced their lowest levels of precipitation and soil moisture since at least 1979", Copernicus noted. Britain has been in the grips of its most intense drought in decades, with Denmark and the Netherlands also suffering from a lack of rain. Persistent dry conditions have also led to the lowest spring river flow across Europe since records began in 1992. - 'Brief respite' - Boreal forests across Canada, northern Europe and Siberia saw the second warmest spring on record, fuelling forest fires in Canada where two provinces declared a state of emergency. Ten days into June, more than 220 actives fires burned across the country, half of them classified as out-of-control. Earth's surface last month was 1.4C above the preindustrial benchmark, defined as the average temperature from 1850 to 1900, before the massive use of fossil fuels caused the climate to dramatically warm. "May 2025 interrupts an unprecedentedly long sequence of months above 1.5C," noted Carlo Buontempo, director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service. All but one of the previous 22 months crossed this critical threshold, which marks the 2015 Paris Agreement's most ambitious target for capping global warming. "This may offer a brief respite for the planet, but we expect the 1.5C threshold to be exceeded again in the near future due to the continued warming of the climate system," he added. Over the 12-month period June 2024 to May 2025, warming averaged 1.57C compared to the 1850-1900 benchmark. The Paris treaty target, however, is pegged to a 20-year average, in order to account for the influence of natural variability. The UN's climate science advisory panel, the IPCC, has said there is a 50 percent chance of breaching the 1.5C barrier in line with these criteria between 2030 and 2035. Using this method of calculation, the world today has warmed by at least 1.3C. The UN's World Meteorological Organization (WMO), meanwhile, has said there is a 70 percent chance the five-year period 2025-2029, on average, will exceed the 1.5C limit. Scientists stress the importance of limiting global warming as soon and as much as possible because every fraction of a degree increases the risks of more deadly and destructive impacts, on land and in the sea. Limiting warming to 1.5C rather than 2C would significantly reduce the most catastrophic consequences, the IPCC concluded in a major report in 2018. jmi/mh/phz/giv

Cancer Risk High in Ulcerative Colitis, Varies by Age
Cancer Risk High in Ulcerative Colitis, Varies by Age

Medscape

time2 hours ago

  • Medscape

Cancer Risk High in Ulcerative Colitis, Varies by Age

Compared with the general population, patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) had an additional risk of developing cancer, with about two to three more cases per 1000 person-years, regardless of immunomodulatory treatment status. Variations in the incidence of cancer were particularly noted with age. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a nationwide cohort study using Swedish health registers with prospectively captured data on patients with incident or prevalent UC from routine medical practice from January 2007 to December 2021. They analysed 63,925 patients with UC who were matched with 593,072 comparators from the general population without inflammatory bowel disease. Exposure to drugs for UC, including thiopurine, TNF inhibitors (infliximab, adalimumab, or golimumab), combined treatment with thiopurine and TNF inhibitors, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, and tofacitinib, was assessed. The absolute and excess occurrence of cancer in patients with UC, regardless of their exposure to specific UC medications, was compared with the incidence of cancer in the general population at 1 year after drug exposure. Incident cancers, including cancers associated with UC, thiopurine, or TNF inhibitors and other common cancers, were identified using codes in treatment-naive patients and those exposed to drugs. TAKEAWAY: Incidence rate differences for any cancer compared with the general population were 2.66 cases per 1000 person-years in the treatment-naive cohort, 3.38 in the thiopurine-treated cohort, 2.69 in the TNF inhibitor-treated cohort, 2.42 in the thiopurine plus TNF inhibitor-treated cohort, and 2.88 in the vedolizumab-treated cohort. The risk for any cancer was higher in the treatment-naive cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; 95% CI, 1.09-1.16) and in those treated with thiopurine (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.37-1.61), TNF inhibitor (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.24-1.62), thiopurine plus TNF inhibitor (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.19-1.75), and vedolizumab (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.90-1.79) than in the general population. The incidence rate differences for any cancer were more pronounced in middle-aged (40 to < 60 years) and older (≥ 60 years) patients, showing 1.76 to 1.57 cases per 1000 person-years in the naive cohort and 3.45 to 9.69 cases per 1000 person-years in the thiopurine-treated cohort. However, the risks were increased in younger patients (18 to < 40 years) but rarely in older patients. The highest risks were observed for hepatobiliary cancer across treatment groups (naive, thiopurine, TNF inhibitor, and thiopurine plus TNF inhibitor), followed by colorectal cancer and lymphoma that were noted in all these groups except the naive group. IN PRACTICE: "Screening of patients with IBD [inflammatory bowel disease] for other forms of cancer, such as hepatobiliary cancer and basal cell skin carcinoma, has been suggested," the authors wrote. SOURCE: This study was led by Åsa H. Everhov, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. It was published online on June 02, 2025, in the Journal of Crohn's and Colitis . LIMITATIONS: The follow-up time for assessing cancer was shorter and varied between treatment groups. The study design was not intended to compare treatment groups directly owing to pronounced differences in age and disease severity between different treatment groups. A once exposed-always exposed approach was used, and the actual exposure time was not considered. DISCLOSURES: This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, and Regional Agreement on Medical Training and Clinical Research between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet. Some authors reported receiving financial support or research grants; collaborating on research; and serving as principal investigators, speakers, and/or advisory board members for various pharmaceutical companies.

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