The 1.5 degree target will be missed: time to give up hope?

The UN states that the 1.5 degree target will no longer be achievable.

Does that mean we should bury our heads in the sand?

No, it means we have to fight even more against capitalism! – A comment by Herbert Scholle.

The 1.5 degree target is history, or at least the plan to never exceed this mark.

This emerges from a recently published report by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

In this UNEP states that even with the most optimistic predictions it will not be possible to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

This also means that the ultimate goal of the Paris Climate Agreement has failed.

Although the UNEP report is not the first to predict that global warming cannot be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius, it now also comes from an official source.

The question arises: What will happen to us if this mark is exceeded?

Irreversible damage caused by global warming First of all, it must be noted that the 1.5 degree target was chosen somewhat arbitrarily.

This mark does not mean that any global warming below it has no consequences or does not cause major damage.

On the contrary, we are already experiencing the consequences of climate change worldwide, for example in the form of heat waves, as well as more frequent extreme weather events and environmental disasters.

Extreme weather: Second warmest summer since records began. What is now becoming increasingly likely - even if there is no fixed limit - is irreversible damage to people and the environment.

UNEP itself emphasizes that there will be no return to normality: “By exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius, enormous changes in ecological and human systems are unavoidable.” It is clear that the consequences of global warming are fatal.

What is less clear is how bad they will be if global warming continues to increase: “What exactly will change, when and to what extent are big 'unknowns' - the rise in sea levels, the melting of the cryosphere (umbrella term for the entire ice deposits on Earth, ed.

Red. ), Species extinction, ecosystem changes, human displacement, changes in food and water supplies, and the actions and responses of governments.” 1.5 degrees is just the beginning. All of this is possible if global warming exceeds the 1.5 degree mark.

However, we are currently not on track to reach just over 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

On the contrary, the UN is currently predicting that we will achieve a median global warming of 2.6 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.

In the worst case, it could even reach 3.6 degrees Celsius.

Even the most optimistic forecast assumes global warming of 1.8 degrees Celsius - but this would require incredible progress to be made in a very short period of time.

CO2 emissions would have to be halved by 2030.

There would have to be a radical change in trend, which is currently not foreseeable.

On the contrary, emissions are increasing worldwide - new record levels are being set every year.

In addition, UNEP assumes previous CO2 emissions and, based on this, projects how they will develop further.

However, one crucial factor has not yet been taken into account: war.

While wars are already being waged in several global hotspots, all major powers are preparing to fight again for the redivision of the world and are diligently arming themselves for this.

War not only means incredible suffering for people, but is also an environmental catastrophe.

The wars in Iran and Ukraine are already showing how the environment there is being destroyed and ecosystems are being threatened.

Added to this are the huge amounts of CO2 emissions released by the production of weapon systems and the thousands of bomb, missile and drone attacks.

Black rain in Iran: How the war in West Asia is destroying the environment Excess is certain - what now?

However, the UNEP report not only predicts the fatal consequences of global warming, but also shows what the UN believes must happen next in order to save the planet.

The report emphasizes that we should stick to the 1.5 degree target despite the foreseeable exceedance - we have to approach it from above instead of from below.

It is particularly important to keep the excess as short and as low as possible.

Above all, we need to get to so-called “net zero” in greenhouse gas emissions as quickly as possible, meaning that we emit less CO2 and other harmful gases than are removed from the atmosphere by other means.

However, this can only be the beginning.

Because it is not the case that the problems will disappear into thin air as soon as we stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Rather, we would initially just stick to the status quo.

Instead, we must ensure we remove greenhouse gases from the air as quickly as possible.

Researchers speak of Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR), i.e. the removal of CO2.

This can happen, for example, through reforestation or the restoration of peatlands, as these plants convert CO2 into oxygen.

High-tech systems that can technologically implement this goal are also possible and are constantly being developed.

However, UNEP warns against viewing the CDR as a “silver bullet”, i.e. a panacea.

The space for, for example, reforestation or moorland restoration is limited and the stored greenhouse gases could be released again, for example due to temperature increases or forest fires.

The technological solutions, however, are expensive and inefficient.

By 2050, the amount of CO2 would have to triple or quadruple to have a real impact.

It can be assumed that even under the best of circumstances CDR can only compensate for a few tenths of a degree of global warming per year.

Under no circumstances should it be seen as an alternative to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Europe's forest fires: harbingers of climate catastrophe Saving the planet means abolishing capitalism Let's summarize: Global warming will certainly exceed the set target, and it will probably even be far more than two degrees Celsius.

To prevent this, radical changes would have to be made worldwide.

And even if we limit greenhouse gas emissions to “net zero,” it will take a long time and a lot of money to reverse global warming.

Overall, the situation seems completely hopeless, right?

Well, in order to understand how hopeless the situation really is, you first have to understand why so little has been done to combat climate change and why it doesn't look like it's going to change all that quickly.

People keep talking about man-made climate change, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

While humans are undeniably responsible for climate change, some are significantly more responsible than others.

There is a narrative that our lifestyle is to blame for climate change and that we all simply need to cycle to work more often to solve the problem.

But the reality is different: In reality, companies emit the overwhelming majority of greenhouse gas emissions.

The basic problem lies not in our way of life, but in the capitalist mode of production.

Capitalists also like to claim that they are only meeting needs and demand, but that is nothing but a fairy tale: We do not determine how production is carried out, capitalism dictates it.

It is by no means impossible to produce in harmony with people and nature, but it is simply not profitable.

The capitalist system forces companies to strive for the greatest profit possible or they will be left behind.

If that means that people and nature have to suffer, then so be it.

The inevitable exceeding of the 1.5 degree target should not lead us to bury our heads in the sand.

Rather, it should be another incentive to fight against the capitalist system that is destroying our environment.

Under capitalism we will stop global warming far too late, if at all.

Only when we have eliminated it and put in its place a system that does not see the greatest possible profit as the top priority, but rather the interests of all people and nature, can we stop climate change and save what can be saved.

The article The 1.5 degree target will be missed: time to give up hope? appeared first on Perspective.