According to the World Economic Forum:

The 1.5-degree Celsius threshold is considered a critical threshold, as it is the point at which the impacts of climate change are expected to become increasingly severe.

Yet for some years now it’s been obvious, although widely ignored, that there’s no realistic prospect of humanity keeping global temperatures below the Paris Agreement target of 1.5ºC above pre-industrial levels – or even below the seemingly rather easier target of ‘well below’ 2ºC. Here’s why:

The 1.5ºC target

In its 2018 Special Report (para C1) the IPCC recommended that, to achieve the Paris Agreement’s 1.5ºC target, global CO2 emissions should ‘decline by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030’. As global emissions in 2010 were 34.0 gigatonnes (Gt), they would therefore have to come down to about 18.7 Gt by 2030 to meet the target. But, just three countries (China, the US and India) already exceed that (by 2.2 Gt) and taken together are likely to increase (or at best stabilise) their emissions over the next four years. Moreover another 194 countries, together with shipping and aviation, are the source of about 20 Gt of CO2 and, unless established trends are reversed, it’s very likely that figure will either be unchanged or will have increased by 2030. Therefore global emissions will probably be far above 18.7 Gt and, if the IPCC got it right, warming of much more than 1.5ºC is overwhelmingly likely.

The ‘well below’ 2ºC target

The Paris Agreement’s ‘well below’ 2ºC target faces the same problem. In its 2018 Special Report (para C1) the IPCC recommended that, to limit ‘global warming to below 2°C’, global CO2 emissions should ‘decline by about 25% from 2010 levels by 2030’. Therefore, as 2010 global emissions were 34.0 Gigatonnes (Gt), they’d have to come down to about 25.5 Gt by 2030 for emissions to get ‘below’ 2ºC – say 24.5 Gt for ‘well below’ 2ºC as specified by the Paris Agreement’s Article 2.1(a). But just 7 countries (China, the USA, India, Russia, Iran, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia) already account for over 24.5 Gt and these are countries that taken together are likely to increase (or at best stabilise) their emissions over the next four years. Moreover another 190 countries, together with shipping and aviation, are the source of about 17 Gt of CO2 and, unless established trends are reversed, it’s very likely that figure will either be unchanged or will have increased by 2030. Therefore global emissions will probably be far above 24.5 Gt and, if the IPCC got it right, warming of much more than 2ºC is overwhelmingly likely.

References:

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2023/09/prevent-1-5-degrees-celsius-climate-threshold/

Click to access english_paris_agreement.pdf

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm

https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025?vis=co2tot#emissions_table

22 Comments

  1. The numbers are obvious, but they need to be set out clearly like this in order that people can understand exactly what we’re talking about. There is far too much obfuscation and ignoring of reality within the climate-obsessed establishment.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. On those numbers, allowing for a constant decline in annual emissions, the budget was blown by the end of 2024. Unless cumulative emissions don’t matter any more.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Third, humans are a small contributor to atmospheric CO2, insects add more CO2 than we do, including our domestic animals, just one of many natural sources.

    Like

  6. I see that WEF article is dated Sep 4, 2023 & has a cheerful desert pic with dead trees & the caption “The future of our planet depends on our ability to limit global warming and avoid the worst impacts of climate change.”

    It sets the scene at the start – “The summer of 2023 has been a season of weather extremes”

    Won’t bore readers with the rest, but found end quotes from “Sergey Paltsev, deputy director of MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change” worth repeating –

    “To get people to act, my hypothesis is, you need to reach them not just by convincing them to be good citizens and saying it’s good for the world to keep below 1.5 degrees, but showing how they individually will be impacted,” says Eltahir, who specializes on the study of regional climates, focusing on how climate change impacts the water cycle and frequency of extreme weather such as heat waves.

    “True climate progress requires a dramatic change in how the human system gets its energy,” Paltsev says. “It is a huge undertaking. Are you ready personally to make sacrifices and to change the way of your life? If one gets an honest answer to that question, it would help to understand why true climate progress is so difficult to achieve.”

    Wonder what “honest answer” he was expecting!!!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. What has long been obvious (opening paras) is that there is no realistic possibly of man-made CO2 emissions falling to the level deemed necessary by the UN IPCC pseudo-science to supposedly keep the global temperature below the dreaded 1.5°C.

    I (and many others) called out the fatuous 1.5 degrees Special Report as utterly infeasible soon after it came out. Sadly, far too many believed the fantasy (lies) and Theresa May weaved it into legally-binding, economy-wrecking Net Zero.

    As for 1.5°C being a critical threshold, this global temperature was exceeded in 2024 thanks to Hunga Tonga (unacknowledged by the establishment, now dissipating), yet the sky didn’t fall in.

    Like

  9. Robin,

    As well as emphasising the obvious impossibility of meeting the targets that have been set, it may also be worth reflecting upon the basis upon which those targets were agreed. The initial 2.0oc target was very much the brainchild of Joachim Schellnhuber, who used his Postdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) to convince Merkel that there was sound science that supported the idea that tipping points would be triggered at that limit. It is one thing to posit the idea of tipping points in principle, and yet quite another to pin down exactly when they will happen. However, Schellnhuber had the required degree of scientific kudos to convince the political classes of the somewhat sketchy idea that such precision was achievable. The reality is that Schellnhuber has never been one to engage in rigorous risk analysis, preferring instead to lean heavily on the precautionary principle backed up by a lot of scientific hand-waving (or story-telling, as it is now officially known).

    And then the Alliance of Small Island States came along (they also thought of calling themselves an institute but thought better of it when they considered the acronym). They argued that, for their benefit, we should believe that the tipping points kick in at 1.5oc. Rather than say “how dare you doubt my institute’s settled science”, Schellnhuber, recognising that the political wind now favoured some new ‘science’, suddenly revealed revised – but supposedly equally settled – scientific findings to support the new target. The IPCC duly adopted his new scientific argument and issued its IPCC Special Report on 1.5oc, thereby perpetuating the flaky idea that tipping points are a forecastable thing. At the same time, no one seemed particularly concerned that settled science had been resettled so readily just to keep up with the politicking.  And that’s where we are today.

    Liked by 4 people

  10. It is such a shame that CO2 is not some kind of global temperature control knob….whether or not the fiction of “global” temperature rises to more than 1.5 or 2.0 degrees C above some arbitrary baseline is almost entirely driven by non-human natural variability, as was responsible for the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age.

    Humans have always shown adaptability to changing conditions, hence our ability to populate 40+ degree middle Eastern deserts and -40 degree Canadian tundra.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Important and interesting back history John R – thanks. And the Paris Agreement’s ‘above pre-industrial levels‘ is an absurdly imprecise base in relation to which these foolish targets are supposed to be measured.

    Like

  12. If some of the small number of countries who have – until now – taken emissions reductions targets seriously, no longer do so, then the temperature targets will be even less achievable:

    “Germany accused of ditching climate targets as it scraps renewables mandate

    Coalition government agrees to remove parts of controversial law and allow homes to rely on fossil fuels”

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/25/germany-accused-ditching-climate-targets-scraps-renewables-mandate

    Germany’s coalition government has been accused of abandoning its climate targets after agreeing to scrap parts of a contentious heating law mandating the use of renewables in favour of a draft law allowing homeowners to rely on fossil fuels.

    While the previous law required most newly installed heating systems to use at least 65% renewable energy, often with a heat pump, the amended legislation will allow households to keep using oil and gas.

    It also removes a mandate for expert consultation when installing a new heating system.

    The previous legislation, drawn up by the Greens and passed in 2023, was seen as one of the party’s boldest policy goals in the previous centre-left-led government under Olaf Scholz…

    ...Germany, the EU’s top economy and most populous nation as well as its biggest polluter, still relies on oil and gas for nearly 80% of its heating.

    The building and transport sectors are seen as the most significant drags on Germany’s progress toward its climate goals. Experts also note the scarcity of “greener” fuels such as biomethane on global markets, driving up their price.

    Heat pumps are more expensive than gas-burning boilers, but in most countries they are cheaper to run. [That link is simply to another Guardian article]. Germany subsidises 30-70% of the cost of a new heat pump, assistance that will remain in place until at least 2029 under the revised law.

    Norway has 635 heat pumps for every 1,000 households, while Germany has 47 and the UK just 15.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Mark – thanks for the link. Love this partial quote’s –

    “The far-right, climate-sceptic Alternative für Deutschland party raged against the 2023 law, in particular its promotion of heat pumps, attacking the Greens for “forcing” households to make expensive renovations and taking away their freedom to choose.”

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Yes, objecting to households being forced to do things they don’t want. Objecting to freedom to choose being taken away. How despicable is that? There was a time when decent socialists would have taken such a stance.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. Matt Ridley likes to point out that the world is benefitting from global greening. I often wonder if CO2 induced warming has prevented a dangerous downswing — another little ice age?

    Like

  16. It’s hilarious to think Germany was the poster child for the NZ madness –

    Like

  18. Pingback: 1.5C? An Impossible Dream | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

  20. “Global Warming Has Accelerated Significantly”

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2025GL118804

    As a sceptical non-scientist, this paper leaves me unconvinced. However, my purpose in mentioning it here is because of its relevance to Robin’s short article, particularly with regard to the study’s concluding sentence:

    This much is clear: if the warming rate of the past 10 years continues, the Paris AGreement 1.5C warming limit will be breached by c 2030.

    Like

  21. Mark, is the paper totally confused or propagandising? A glance at the satellite record (https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2026_v6.1_20x9-scaled.jpg) shows that there were periods in 2016 which were about 0.3degC warmer than now. [And for those that are sceptical about the satellite record, it agrees pretty closely with the radiosonde/balloon record.]

    And looking further back in time, the peak in 1998 was about 0.2degC warmer than now.

    So I ask: warming? What warming?

    Regards, John C.

    Like

  22. I ask: warming? What warming?

    I think that depends on who you believe and what you want to believe (and that applies equally to both sides of the debate, IMO).

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.