As communities across the globe grapple with increasingly severe climate impacts – from record-breaking heatwaves in Europe and Asia to devastating hurricanes in the Americas – a fundamental question has emerged in climate science: Is the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C warming target still achievable, or should the world accept defeat and move on?
The debate has gained urgency following 2024 being declared the hottest year in recorded history, with some commentators dismissing the 1.5°C goal as “deader than a doornail.” But leading climate researchers are pushing back against this narrative, arguing that abandoning the target now would be both premature and dangerous for billions of people worldwide.
Two prominent experts have taken center stage in this crucial discussion, publishing groundbreaking research that challenges the growing pessimism around climate goals and offers a different path forward.
Reframing the Climate Conversation
Professor Joeri Rogelj, Director of Research at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment, doesn’t mince words about the current situation. “1.5°C of warming is just around the corner and it will take a herculean effort to avoid it,” he acknowledges. But rather than viewing this as cause for surrender, Rogelj argues it makes the target more critical than ever.
“This is deeply concerning, but crossing it makes the target more important because every fraction of warming – whether it is 1.6, 2 or 3°C – creates a more dangerous world and the longer we stay above 1.5°C, the higher the losses and damages for people will be,” he explains.
His research, co-authored with Professor Lavanya Rajamani from the University of Oxford’s Faculty of Law and published in the prestigious journal Science, presents a compelling case for maintaining focus on the 1.5°C threshold even as the world appears likely to exceed it within this decade.
The timing of when exactly the planet crosses 1.5°C, they argue, is less important than what happens afterward. The fundamental response – rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions – remains the same whether global temperatures reach 1.4°C or 1.6°C above pre-industrial levels.
The Human Cost of Every Degree
The stakes of this debate extend far beyond academic circles. Warming above 1.5°C dramatically increases climate risks globally, including dangerous sea level rise threatening coastal cities from Miami to Mumbai, the collapse of coral reef systems that support marine ecosystems, the potential loss of the Greenland ice sheet, and the dieback of the Amazon rainforest – often called the “lungs of the Earth.”
Professor Rogelj emphasizes a sobering reality that resonates across continents: “There is no such thing as a safe level of warming. Even below 1.5°C we see dangerous climate change. Devastating weather disasters in 2024 really made that clear – just think of the Valencia floods, Hajj heatwave and Hurricane Helene which collectively killed more than 1,500 people.”
These events serve as stark reminders that climate change is not a future threat but a present reality affecting communities from Spain to Saudi Arabia to the southeastern United States. The difference between 1.5°C and higher levels of warming could determine whether such disasters become more frequent and severe.
A Legal and Moral Imperative
Professor Rajamani brings a crucial legal perspective to the climate target debate. “We want to reframe the way people talk about 1.5°C. Approaching or even surpassing it is a warning signal that states need to redouble their efforts, not to throw up their hands and declare 1.5°C ‘over’ or ‘dead,'” she states.
Her analysis reveals that the 1.5°C target is supported not only by scientific evidence but also by the legal framework of the Paris Agreement and broader human rights obligations that countries have toward their citizens and the global community.
“Our position is supported by a growing body of scientific evidence, the terms of the Paris Agreement, and the wider normative environment, including human rights obligations, that states are subject to,” Rajamani explains.
This legal dimension adds weight to the argument that countries cannot simply abandon climate targets when they become challenging to meet. The 1.5°C goal, originally championed by small island states under the rallying cry “1.5 to stay alive,” represents a commitment to protecting the world’s most vulnerable populations.
The Path Forward: Overshoot and Recovery
The research introduces an important concept: “overshoot” – the amount of warming experienced above 1.5°C before temperatures can be brought back down. Rather than abandoning the target once crossed, the experts advocate for minimizing overshoot and working toward eventually returning below 1.5°C through sustained emissions reductions and achieving net-negative emissions.
“The key message of our paper is that 1.5°C will never die. It will remain our ultimate goal for a safe, livable and just planet. We need to remember that reversing warming is not a new goal, but already a key aim of the Paris Agreement,” Rogelj emphasizes.
This perspective offers hope while acknowledging reality. Current global projections suggest warming will exceed 1.5°C before 2030, approach 2°C by 2050, and potentially reach between 2.6°C and 3.1°C by century’s end if current trends continue. However, the researchers argue that even in this scenario, countries and businesses can continue following emission pathways aligned with the 1.5°C target.
Global Action at a Critical Juncture
The Paris Agreement remains the world’s primary tool for coordinating climate action, requiring countries to submit updated emissions reduction plans every five years. However, implementation has lagged dramatically. Only 21 out of 195 signatory countries have submitted new Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) ahead of the extended September deadline.
This gap between commitment and action underscores the urgency ahead of the COP30 climate summit in November. “Every tonne of carbon emitted and every fraction of a degree counts. That’s why we need to see bold NDCs before the COP30 climate summit in November that deliver meaningful emissions reductions before the end of the decade,” Rogelj stresses.
For the global community, the message is clear: the 1.5°C target should serve as a catalyst for increased ambition rather than a reason for despair. The experts argue that approaching this threshold should be viewed as a wake-up call to intensify efforts, protect vulnerable populations, and work toward a future where warming can eventually be reversed.
As extreme weather events continue to impact communities worldwide, the choice facing the international community is not whether to abandon climate targets, but how quickly and decisively to act in pursuit of them. The 1.5°C goal, as these leading experts remind us, represents nothing less than the fight for a livable planet for current and future generations.
