U.N.
Says World Will Miss Its Climate Target, Warming Must Be Reversed
It
proposed a new goal of limiting the “overshoot” of rising temperatures and
eventually figuring out how to undo the temperature gains, a highly uncertain
path.
Fighting
back a fire burning in peatland in Sumatra, Indonesia, last
week.Credit...Wahyudi/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
By Chico Harlan
Sept. 2,
2026, 12:01 a.m. ET
The world
has failed in its goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above
preindustrial times, the United Nations said on Wednesday, in a sober
assessment that laid out a new goal for fighting climate change that would set
the world on an uncertain path.
A decade
ago, most of the world’s countries agreed
in Paris to try to limit global temperature rise to “well below” two
degrees Celsius while aiming for the more ambitious target of 1.5 degrees
Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
But
Wednesday’s 141-page U.N. report warned that the world is certain to breach
that mark and should focus on finding ways to limit “overshoot” and eventually
bring global temperatures back down.
Despite
advancements in wind and solar power, countries have continued to burn oil, gas
and coal, releasing
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere where it traps the sun’s heat and
has raised average global temperatures by about 1.4 degrees Celsius. The damage
from global warming is now felt across the planet, with intensifying heat,
drought, floods, fire and other threats to humans, animals and plants.
The idea
laid out in the U.N. report would be extremely difficult because it would
require pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere on a colossal scale.
Achieving that would potentially mean blanketing enormous parts of the world
with forests or relying on novel technologies for sucking
carbon out of the air that haven’t yet worked on any significant
scale.
Under
such a scenario, the planet would still continue to heat up for the foreseeable
future, and wouldn’t return to temperatures like today’s for decades or even
centuries. And some changes, like glacial melting or rising seas, would be
essentially irreversible.
“This is
by no means an acceptable or preferred pathway,” the U.N. said in its report
Wednesday. “It is simply the best remaining option.”
But even
this fallback plan would require the kind of climate ambition and major cuts in
greenhouse gas emissions that have long been out of reach. To add to the
challenges, the Trump administration has withdrawn
the United States, the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, from
the global fight against climate change and weakened domestic environmental
policies.
Based on
current climate policies among nations and trends, the planet is expected to
warm 2.6 degrees Celsius, or 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit, by the end of the century.
“So long
as we fail to find political will, we will be marching past every target we put
out there. That is the danger,” said Michael Mann, a professor of earth and
environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania who was not involved
with the report.
Dr. Mann
noted that even at current levels of warming, “dangerous and catastrophic
climate change is here,” referencing last week’s deadly
glacial collapse and flood
in Nepal.
António
Guterres, the U.N.’s secretary general, had previously acknowledged that the
1.5 Celsius mark — the most ambitious aspect of the Paris Agreement among
nations to limit global warming — would inevitably be breached. The new report
makes clear just how little margin there is for the overshoot plan to be
feasible.
Specifically,
in order for temperatures to be brought back to the 1.5 degree mark this
century, global warming at its peak would have to be limited to 1.8 Celsius
(3.2 Fahrenheit), compared with preindustrial times. Most scientists describe
that as unlikely.
Then,
countries would have to ramp up an enormous program for removing carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, a single decade
of warming could take about 50 years to reverse.
Glen
Peters, a senior researcher at the CICERO Center for International Climate
Research in Norway, said the idea of bringing down temperatures might sound as
easy as “planting a billion trees” to absorb carbon dioxide. But tracts of land
larger than entire American states would need to be reforested.Conflicts with
agriculture could arise. Higher temperatures could hinder forest growth. And of
course, wildfires could stymie progress.
“Anything
at scale, you’re going to run into some sort of problem,” said Dr. Peters, who
was not involved in the report.
The
report says that while tech-based solutions would be needed, it noted that the
current industrial capacity to pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is
extremely limited. The technology has long been controversial in part because
the fossil fuel industry has pitched it as a way for their products to continue
to be used. Over the course of the industrial age, the burning of fossil fuels
has released
immense amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Climate
Analytics, a Berlin-based climate science and policy institute, said in a
statement that the U.N. report risked “being a call to apathy,” and criticized
the report for not more explicitly mentioning the need to phase out fossil
fuels. Countries committed to pivot away from oil, gas and coal at an
international climate summit in 2023 but carbon emissions continue to
climb.
The U.N.
report predicted the rise in average global temperatures would eclipse 1.5
degrees Celsius in “the next few years.” At that level of warming, “there are
no good outcomes,” said Inger Andersen, the executive director of the U.N.
Environment Program.
Already
common extreme weather events, like heat waves and floods, will intensify, as
will the melting of glaciers, the rising of sea levels and the bleaching of
coral reefs, the report said. There is also a risk of changes in crucial global
systems, like the weakening or collapse of ocean currents that carry heat
northward from the tropics, the report said, with the potential to “reshape the
world forever.”
Chico Harlan is a
global climate correspondent for The Times.

Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário