If the EU wants a chance of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 and staying on track with the 1.5°C limit, it needs to ramp up ambition: it needs to at least ensure its 2040 target of 90% net reductions is reached domestically and ideally increase it to 95%
🔗 climateactiontracker.org/press/respon...
White text on blue background with CAT logo. Text is a quote saying "China's 15th five year plan is a missed opportunity. While it continues to strongly emphasise clean energy development, it could have gone further. A 17% reduction in carbon-intensity target would actually allow China's emission to increase by 3% under a conservative GDP growth.”
China released its 15th Five-Year Plan (FYP). The plan reinforces the rapid expansion of clean energy, but it does not translate this momentum into stronger binding emissions targets.
Read our full reaction here 🔗 climateactiontracker.org/press/reacti...
We need to start including #overshoot in #adaptation planning.
This way we’ll know which impacts can be avoided by high mitigation ambition – including which are reversible and which are irreversible.
New blog outlines how👇:
climateanalytics.org/comment/adap...
Excellent piece in @us.theguardian.com by Adam Morton on massive fossil fuel subsidies in Australia to diesel.
“Thanks to fuel tax credits, big companies are allowed to pay significantly less to burn dirty fuels than households”
www.theguardian.com/environment/...
“Tamboran…donated $169,500 to both sides of politics ….Tamboran Resources plans to sell fracked gas to the NT government, and develop a major LNG project at the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct in Darwin, which has been allocated $1.5 billion in equity by the Federal Labor Government.”
“Australia’s largest oil and gas company, Woodside, donated $53,775 to the Australian Labor Party and $40,140 to the Coalition prior to the 2025 Federal Election. Just 25 days after the election, the government conditionally approved extending the company’s North West Shelf LNG plant out to 2070.”
What fossil fuel companies paid to Australia’s political parties in 2025 federal election and what they seem have gotten in return.
cheekmedia.substack.com/p/dirty-data...
Bottom line: Don’t confuse “hard” with “obsolete.” The world doesn’t need permission to lower ambition. It needs governments to implement what they already agreed—at the speed and scale that 1.5°C demands.
As @joerirogelj.bsky.social put it "the PA’s goal to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C therefore endures as the legal and ethical imperative to secure a safe and livable planet for present and future generations."
www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
And let us not forget that the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C warming limit remains the world’s enduring legal, political, and moral anchor for climate action – abandoning it would only deepen injustice for vulnerable communities already bearing the brunt of climate change.
In all this that should not be forgotten that since 2015, the Paris Agreement has provided quantified targets at national and global levels consistent with limiting warming as close as possible to 1.5°C.
Whilst “Clean-energy shift” can be a useful slogan it can’t replace the temperature limit and by itself generate the time bound actionable targets needed to protect us from dangerous climate change.
The Paris Agreement provides the basis to design critical clean energy benchmarks to limit overshoot as low as possible and get warming back below 1.5° by 2100. Without the 1.5C limit it is unlikely that the right benchmarks would be calculated or chosen.
On geoengineering: the push for risky interventions grows because of delayed action not because of the 1.5oC limit. The answer is not to abandon 1.5°C—it’s to act fast enough so we don’t drift into an “anything goes” approach unguided by what we need to protect ourselves from and call it pragmatism.
This scenario shows the time bound actionable targets needed globally to strictly limit overshoot and reduce warming below 1.5° by 2100. For example, renewables capacity needs to grow significantly, with a 3.5-fold increase by 2030 – ahead of the global tripling goal agreed at COP28.
In terms of a clean energy shift this highest possible ambition scenario shows that global electricity generation needs to quadruple by 2050, with wind and solar supplying over 90% of electricity demand by then. Fossil fuels would be effectively phased out shortly afterwards.
This work shows how to minimize overshoot and return to well below 1.5°C by 2100 with renewables, electrification, efficiency, methane cuts, deforestation reduction—reaching net zero around ~2060 if governments deliver.
With colleagues at @pik-potsdam.bsky.social using the Paris Agreement's climate goals we have looked at what can be done using the highest possible ambition to absolutely minimise overshoot of 1.5°C and to get warming back below 1.5° by 2100.
climateanalytics.org/publications...
If implemented the @cop28.bsky.social energy transition goals and benchmarks *** actionable targets *** would actually bend the emission curve. So we already have science actionable targets that would actually work if implemented.
climateanalytics.org/publications...
These climate targets provide the tools to design the critical time bound benchmarks for a clean energy shift to limit overshoot as low as possible and get warming back below 1.5° by 2100. Without this framework there is not real anchor for these benchmarks.
The Paris 1.5° limit provided the rigorous basis for @cop28.bsky.social in 2023 to agree 1.5C aligned clean energy targets - tripling renewables, doubling efficiency, reductions in methane and deforestation by 2030, and transition away from fossil fuels.
www.cop28.com/en/global-re...
Since 2015 the Paris Agreement climate goals have provided the basis quantified renewable energy, energy, efficiency, methane reductions, and deforestation benchmarks at national and global level consistent with limiting warming as close as possible to 1.5°C.
climateanalytics.org/comment/the-...
Overshoot management isn’t “wait until 2100 and see,” as the article suggests.
The Paris Agreement climate goals provide the indispensable scientific basis for what benchmarks for clean energy, energy efficiency, methane reductions and deforestation action are needed and by when.
We all agree we need actionable targets to guide policy.
But here is the big thing: The Paris Agreement’s climate goals - the1.5oC limit and net zero in 2nd half of the century - provide the essential and critical legal and scientific basis for what clean energy targets are needed and by when.
First: yes, we’re heading into overshoot @wmo-global.bsky.social 1.5°C in the next 5 years. This is not a geophysical accident. It is the result of policy failure. Now what's needed is action to limit the magnitude and duration of overshoot to drive temperatures back down.
wmo.int/news/media-c...
A commentary in @nature.com argues the 1.5°C temperature limit has “outlived its usefulness” because we’re headed towards overshoot and should be replaced by a “clean-energy shift” metric. That’s the wrong diagnosis. Here is why.
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Extreme heat is blasting eastern Australia. It’s driven by fossil fuels, development of which the Albanese government continues to support.
The Guardian Australia’s climate/environment journalist calls it out
@adammorton.bsky.social @theguardian.com
www.theguardian.com/environment/...
It's difficult to fathom what the WA Envtl "Protection" Agency doesn’t understand abt the climate problem. Wilfully & deliberately authorising a massive gas development in this pristine environment must only be viewed as institutionalised climate denial.
reneweconomy.com.au/massive-new-...
Rising Tide protest: climate activists stop three ships from entering world’s largest coal port in Newcastle
NSW police arrest 141 as campaigners demand govt cancel planned fossil fuel projects + tax existing operations at 78%
By @jordynbeazley.bsky.social
www.theguardian.com/environment/...
Last year, the world added a record 582GW of #renewables energy capacity. That’s over 91% of all new power – with #nuclear nowhere. In fact, each year, nuclear adds as much net global power capacity as renewables add every two days.