Time's up: gradualism won't save us

Paris commitments - safe climate pathway.png

Reason 1: The idea of a "safe upper limit" to warming is a myth

For years, policymakers considered 2° C of warming over pre-industrial levels the point at which “dangerous” climate change would begin. TLDR: what this really meant was, 'this is when we think it'll get bad for rich countries.' 

The UNFCC Paris climate agreement set a goal of keeping warming to “well below” 2° C this century. But of the 195 signatories of the Paris Agreement, only seven countries’ commitments are considered “compatible” with the agreement’s goal targets. All of them are in the Global South

Former NASA scientist James Hansen has repeatedly described the 2°C temperature target as a “prescription for disaster.” In 2009, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the G77, urged the world community to abandon the target: “Two degrees centigrade [of warming] translates into...certain death for Africa.”

Not only would 2°C of warming devastate crop yields across the planet, it would likely cause the complete collapse of the Greenland ice sheet and an enormous sea-level rise that would render the planet “ungovernable.” In addition, warming well below 2°C would likely cause a massive, long-term release of carbon dioxide and methane from thawing Arctic permafrost. 

Current warming of 1° C is already causing millions of deaths from heatwaves, infectious disease, and extreme weather events, as well as a refugee crisis of horrific proportions. The last time the earth experienced similar C02 concentration rates, humans didn’t exist

Averting catastrophe will require shattering our assumptions about “acceptable” levels of warming and dismantling the unjust power structures that got us into this mess.


facebook_0005_Layer 16.jpg

Reason 2: There is no carbon budget if we face reality

The truth is that the atmosphere very likely already contains enough greenhouse gases to eventually warm the earth more than 2°C, and that humanity has no “carbon budget” left to burn if we apply basic safety and risk management standards to the climate system.

The New York Times has reported that limiting warming to 1.5°C would require global industrial greenhouse gas emissions to come to an end by 2030. Climate researcher Glenn Peters has projected that meeting the 1.5C target would require a global fossil fuel phase-out between 2025 and 2030, as well as a large-scale effort to remove excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. 


Visualizations courtesy of the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration