Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Humanity is failing to meet its climate change goals. Here's what experts say we can still do

News Feed
Monday, December 30, 2024

Last month the Copernicus Climate Change Service, an organization run by the European Union to monitor global heating, revealed that Earth was on track to surpass the 1.5º C threshold. This manifested throughout 2024 in so-called “weird weather,” from unusually extreme hurricanes and floods to intense heat waves, parching droughts and unprecedented wildfires. It’s little wonder this year was the hottest in recorded history, breaking the record shattered in 2023.  A recent study even found that 2024 experienced 41 days of extra dangerous heat because of human-caused climate change. To make matters worse, recent data suggests that climate change is accelerating even faster than scientists predicted, meaning we’re rapidly entering uncharted territory. International conferences to address environmental issues like climate change (such as COP29) consistently ended in disappointment. Why are continuing to go backward on this issue? It’s certainly not from a lack of awareness or passion for the environment. Many people understand the stakes: climate change threatens to kill billions of humans and wipe out millions of species, pushing the definition of “habitability” to the brink. Top climate scientists say there’s still reason to hope and time to act, explaining why humanity has failed to meet its climate goals — and what we can do from here. “The obstacle isn’t technology,” University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann told Salon. “We have the technological knowhow and infrastructure to decarbonize our economy on the needed timescale. What we’re currently lacking — globally, and certainly now in the U.S. under the control of Trump and Republicans — is the political will.” "What we’re currently lacking — globally, and certainly now in the U.S. under the control of Trump and Republicans — is the political will." Mann said humanity needs to rapidly decarbonize our economy. The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates humanity’s overuse of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change, as doing so releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. “We need governmental incentives that will massively incentivize renewable energy and phase out fossil fuel energy as soon as possible,” Mann said. “It won’t happen, however, if young people in particular don’t turn out to vote for climate-forward policymakers.” He added that many did not turn out in sufficiently large numbers during the 2024 election, “and too many fell victims to dishonest tactics of the Republicans and even voted for them out of ignorance of their true agenda. As a result, we elected the most pro-fossil fuel, climate-adverse government in modern history.” Going forward, Mann hopes people who prioritize climate change turn out to vote in larger numbers. Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explicitly argued for three specific policy measures: “Cut emissions and use of fossil fuels; promote renewables; prepare for the consequences,” Trenberth said. He also noted that growing trees, carbon capture and storage and direct air capture of carbon dioxide emissions tend not to work. Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes. In general, it appears like humanity has failed to make limiting greenhouse gas emissions a priority, according to Tom Knutson, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, said that it appears humanity as a species has not “decided that strongly limiting future emissions of greenhouse gases is a top priority goal that should be pursued and treated as a critical ‘pass or fail goal.’” Knutson, who has contributed to the scientific efforts behind reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the U.S. Fifth National Climate Assessment, views his job as providing relevant scientific information rather than offering policy prescriptions. Regardless of the specific measures that people choose to democratically decarbonize our society, it will be essential that they establish realistic goals and reliably follow through in implementing them. “Broadly speaking, humanity can decide, based on the above scenario information (with uncertainties) provided by IPCC and other scientific sources, what future emission pathway to set as a goal,” Knutson said. “Then society and policymakers can enact policies in an effort to reach the emission goal that is set. If they decide collectively that scenario X is the goal, and they fail to enact or implement the policies to achieve scenario X, or the policies are not followed as desired by the policymakers, then that would constitute a failure in my view.” It appears humanity as a species has not "decided that strongly limiting future emissions of greenhouse gases is a top priority goal." As humanity swims against the tide of rising temperatures, they will also need to solve lingering mysteries regarding these scientific facts. At the time of this writing, Knutson and his colleagues are researching issues such as why current climate models are not able to reproduce the observed pattern of sea surface temperature trends (1980 to 2022) in the tropical Pacific and southern Pacific Ocean. Other scientists are examining why climate change has been accelerating even faster than previous models anticipated. Because climate science includes many variables that humans do not know, experts cannot precisely anticipate or explain every phenomenon that ensues as people continue global heating through greenhouse gas emissions. Yet Knutson does have his own hypothesis about why climate change seems to be getting worse at an ever more rapid rate. “I would speculate that natural variability may be creating temporary trends (either ‘hiatus’ periods of little warming or temporary ‘spurts’ of accelerated warming) lasting up to a few decades,” Knutson said. “Maybe that is part of the explanation for the recent changes.” Citing his 2016 paper for Nature Communications on possible future trajectories for global mean temperature, Knutson said that this “suggests to perhaps just be patient for now to see if the recent acceleration we have seen is just a temporary effect of internal variability or temporary forcing change, or if it really does represent an accelerated long-term warming rate, relative to the trend we've been on since about 1970.” He added that these are his personal views and do not necessarily represent those of NOAA or the U.S. government. Mann emphasized that the most recent peer-reviewed scientific research does not find any acceleration of warming itself. “Some impacts of climate change are proceeding faster than expected,” Mann said. “Examples are ice sheet melt and sea level rise, and the rise in extreme weather events. The longer-term warming itself is steady and is proceeding as predicted by the models.” Perhaps the bottom line in all of this is that human beings must stop relying on fossil fuels. Dr. Friederike Otto, the lead of World Weather Attribution and an Imperial College climate scientist, put it bluntly when announcing the extra 41-days of extreme heat that occurred in 2024. "Climate change did play a role, and often a major role in most of the events we studied, making heat, droughts, tropical cyclones and heavy rainfall more likely and more intense across the world, destroying lives and livelihoods of millions and often uncounted numbers of people," Otto said during a media briefing. "As long as the world keeps burning fossil fuels, this will only get worse." Read more about this topic

There's still time to act to limit the worst effects of climate change, but we need political willpower

Last month the Copernicus Climate Change Service, an organization run by the European Union to monitor global heating, revealed that Earth was on track to surpass the 1.5º C threshold. This manifested throughout 2024 in so-called “weird weather,” from unusually extreme hurricanes and floods to intense heat waves, parching droughts and unprecedented wildfires. It’s little wonder this year was the hottest in recorded history, breaking the record shattered in 2023

A recent study even found that 2024 experienced 41 days of extra dangerous heat because of human-caused climate change. To make matters worse, recent data suggests that climate change is accelerating even faster than scientists predicted, meaning we’re rapidly entering uncharted territory. International conferences to address environmental issues like climate change (such as COP29) consistently ended in disappointment.

Why are continuing to go backward on this issue? It’s certainly not from a lack of awareness or passion for the environment. Many people understand the stakes: climate change threatens to kill billions of humans and wipe out millions of species, pushing the definition of “habitability” to the brink. Top climate scientists say there’s still reason to hope and time to act, explaining why humanity has failed to meet its climate goals — and what we can do from here.

“The obstacle isn’t technology,” University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Dr. Michael E. Mann told Salon. “We have the technological knowhow and infrastructure to decarbonize our economy on the needed timescale. What we’re currently lacking — globally, and certainly now in the U.S. under the control of Trump and Republicans — is the political will.”

"What we’re currently lacking — globally, and certainly now in the U.S. under the control of Trump and Republicans — is the political will."

Mann said humanity needs to rapidly decarbonize our economy. The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates humanity’s overuse of fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change, as doing so releases greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

“We need governmental incentives that will massively incentivize renewable energy and phase out fossil fuel energy as soon as possible,” Mann said. “It won’t happen, however, if young people in particular don’t turn out to vote for climate-forward policymakers.” He added that many did not turn out in sufficiently large numbers during the 2024 election, “and too many fell victims to dishonest tactics of the Republicans and even voted for them out of ignorance of their true agenda. As a result, we elected the most pro-fossil fuel, climate-adverse government in modern history.” Going forward, Mann hopes people who prioritize climate change turn out to vote in larger numbers.

Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished scholar at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, explicitly argued for three specific policy measures: “Cut emissions and use of fossil fuels; promote renewables; prepare for the consequences,” Trenberth said. He also noted that growing trees, carbon capture and storage and direct air capture of carbon dioxide emissions tend not to work.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon's weekly newsletter Lab Notes.


In general, it appears like humanity has failed to make limiting greenhouse gas emissions a priority, according to Tom Knutson, a senior scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, said that it appears humanity as a species has not “decided that strongly limiting future emissions of greenhouse gases is a top priority goal that should be pursued and treated as a critical ‘pass or fail goal.’”

Knutson, who has contributed to the scientific efforts behind reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the U.S. Fifth National Climate Assessment, views his job as providing relevant scientific information rather than offering policy prescriptions. Regardless of the specific measures that people choose to democratically decarbonize our society, it will be essential that they establish realistic goals and reliably follow through in implementing them.

“Broadly speaking, humanity can decide, based on the above scenario information (with uncertainties) provided by IPCC and other scientific sources, what future emission pathway to set as a goal,” Knutson said. “Then society and policymakers can enact policies in an effort to reach the emission goal that is set. If they decide collectively that scenario X is the goal, and they fail to enact or implement the policies to achieve scenario X, or the policies are not followed as desired by the policymakers, then that would constitute a failure in my view.”

It appears humanity as a species has not "decided that strongly limiting future emissions of greenhouse gases is a top priority goal."

As humanity swims against the tide of rising temperatures, they will also need to solve lingering mysteries regarding these scientific facts. At the time of this writing, Knutson and his colleagues are researching issues such as why current climate models are not able to reproduce the observed pattern of sea surface temperature trends (1980 to 2022) in the tropical Pacific and southern Pacific Ocean. Other scientists are examining why climate change has been accelerating even faster than previous models anticipated. Because climate science includes many variables that humans do not know, experts cannot precisely anticipate or explain every phenomenon that ensues as people continue global heating through greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet Knutson does have his own hypothesis about why climate change seems to be getting worse at an ever more rapid rate.

“I would speculate that natural variability may be creating temporary trends (either ‘hiatus’ periods of little warming or temporary ‘spurts’ of accelerated warming) lasting up to a few decades,” Knutson said. “Maybe that is part of the explanation for the recent changes.”

Citing his 2016 paper for Nature Communications on possible future trajectories for global mean temperature, Knutson said that this “suggests to perhaps just be patient for now to see if the recent acceleration we have seen is just a temporary effect of internal variability or temporary forcing change, or if it really does represent an accelerated long-term warming rate, relative to the trend we've been on since about 1970.” He added that these are his personal views and do not necessarily represent those of NOAA or the U.S. government.

Mann emphasized that the most recent peer-reviewed scientific research does not find any acceleration of warming itself.

“Some impacts of climate change are proceeding faster than expected,” Mann said. “Examples are ice sheet melt and sea level rise, and the rise in extreme weather events. The longer-term warming itself is steady and is proceeding as predicted by the models.”

Perhaps the bottom line in all of this is that human beings must stop relying on fossil fuels. Dr. Friederike Otto, the lead of World Weather Attribution and an Imperial College climate scientist, put it bluntly when announcing the extra 41-days of extreme heat that occurred in 2024.

"Climate change did play a role, and often a major role in most of the events we studied, making heat, droughts, tropical cyclones and heavy rainfall more likely and more intense across the world, destroying lives and livelihoods of millions and often uncounted numbers of people," Otto said during a media briefing. "As long as the world keeps burning fossil fuels, this will only get worse."

Read more

about this topic

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Ancient Greeks and Romans knew harming the environment could change the climate

They worried deeply about the impact climate change would have on us as individuals, and on broader society.

Universal History Archive / Contributor/GettyHumans have known about, thought about and worried about climate change for millennia. Since at least the fourth century BC, the ancient Greeks and Romans recognised that the climate changes over time and that human activity can cause it. They worried deeply about the impact it would have on us as individuals, and on broader society. The earliest mention of climate change? Greek writer Theophrastus of Eresus (who lived roughly from 372 BCE to 282 BCE) was a student of Aristotle. He is sometimes credited with the earliest reference to climate change. In his treatise On Winds, Theophrastus notes people in Crete recognised their climate had changed over the centuries: [they say] that now the winters are longer and more snow falls, presenting as proof the fact that the mountains once had been inhabited and bore crops, both grain and fruit-tree, the land having been planted and cultivated. For there are vast plains among the Idaean mountains and among others, none of which are farmed now because they do not bear (crops). But once, as was said, they were in fact settled, for which reason indeed the island was full of people, as heavy rains occurred at that time, whereas much snow and wintery weather did not occur. It’s unclear how accurate Theophrastus’ account of Crete’s climate might be or what time period is meant by the word “once”. Modern scientific studies suggest that from 8000 BCE to 600 BCE Crete experienced various alternations of climate, for example from humid and warm to dry and warm to cold and humid, while in the time when Theophrastus was writing the climate is meant to have been relatively warm and dry. Theophrastus’ observation shows people handed down information about climate change from generation to generation. Ancient awareness of the role of humans in climate change In ancient Greek and Roman times, some were even aware that human actions could contribute to changes in climate. The Roman aristocrat Pliny the Elder (23/24-79 CE) wrote a work titled Natural History, in which he gave examples of human induced climate change. In one passage, Pliny noted that in the district of Larisa in Thessaly the emptying of a lake has lowered the temperature of the district. According to Pliny, because of this change of climate: olives which used to grow there before have disappeared, also the vines have begun to be nipped (by frost), which did not occur before. Pliny noted this kind of change caused by human activity had happened elsewhere in Greece: The city of Aenos, since the river Maritza was brought near to it, has experienced an increase of warmth and the district round Philippi altered its climate when its land under cultivation was drained. Ancient awareness of long-term climate changes Ancient Greeks and Romans understood the climate is not static over time. The Roman writer Columella (active around 50 CE) noted in his work On Agriculture that climate change had been mentioned by earlier writers: For I have found that many authorities […] were convinced that with the long passing of the ages, weather and climate undergo a change. Columella refers to the Roman writer Saserna (who was active in the early first century BCE). Saserna had observed how: Regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and the weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus (wine) in the greatest abundance. Saserna did not, however, attribute these long-term climactic changes to human activity. He suggested they were caused by the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun and the other planets, writing that: The position of the heavens has changed. Ancient responses to climate change Greek and Roman writers sometimes complained about the destruction being done to the environment. Roman writer Pliny the Elder said that: We taint the rivers and the elements of nature, and the air itself, which is the main support of life, we turn into a medium for the destruction of life. However, most ancient authors tended not to link environmental damage or pollution with climate change as much as we do today. The exception is when they talk about the draining of lakes or diversions of rivers, which worried many. Some ancient leaders, such as Roman emperor Nerva, took action to clean up the environment. Universal Images Group/Getty Ancient authors did, however, see protection of the environment as a serious concern. Their view was making the environment unhealthy would make people unhealthy, too. For example, the physician Galen (129-216 CE) said that in his time the Tiber River in Rome was so polluted that it was not safe to eat fish caught there. Nonetheless, many people ate the fish, got sick, and died. The main pollution sources were sewage and rubbish. Some ancient leaders took action to clean up the environment. For instance, the Roman emperor Nerva (who ruled 96-98 CE) undertook construction works that caused the appearance of the city to be “clean and altered” and made the air “purer”, according to the Roman writer Frontinus. What the modern world can learn Ancient Greek and Roman writings reveal ancient concerns about our negative impact on the environment. They show that places once rich and fertile later became desolate and barren. Although the Greeks and Romans linked environmental harm with climate change to a more limited extent than we do today, they nevertheless knew harming the environment could change the climate. This, they understood, can ultimately bring harm to ourselves personally and to our societies as a whole. Konstantine Panegyres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

The Ideal Shower Is This Many Minutes Long, According To Experts

Here’s what your skin, the planet and your wallet wish you knew.

The more stressed some of us get, the more we can find ourselves wanting to double (or triple) down on our self-care routines. Case in point: the “everything shower.” It all started on TikTok, and now the platform is exploding with people demonstrating hours-long shower sessions that include exfoliation, shaving, hair masks, body scrubs, face masks, oils, serums and more. The appeal, in large part, lies with the fact that it’s a way to take control of one small part of your life, when so much else seems out of control.It’s a little bit washing up, a little bit spa treatment and a whole lot performative wellness ritual — and even more water. Many everything shower proponents describe it as a reset after a hard week and a way to “start over” with a scrupulously groomed body, head to toe. They sing the praises of time spent focused just on themselves, tending to each square inch of flesh and treating themselves with kindness and devotion.But is it a little too much? Should our skin be under running water for such a long period of time? And what about a long shower’s impact on our increasingly drought-ridden planet? Here’s what science-based experts, not TikTok influencers, have to say about the everything shower trend. Cleansing our skin is important, but stripping it can be detrimental.You need to keep your skin clean for all sorts of reasons, said dermatologist Dr. Nada Elbuluk, a professor of clinical dermatology at the University of Southern California. “Cleansing is important for removing dirt, dead skin cells and other contaminants that we may come into contact with throughout the day, such as bacteria, viruses and fungi,” she added. FG Trade via Getty ImagesKeep it to five minutes, sir.You should make sure you’re keeping “hot spots” clean, said dermatologist Dr. Mojgan Hosseinipour: “There are a few areas you should always wash daily, including armpits, groin, feet and face, because those accumulate sweat, bacteria and oil more quickly.” Hosseinipour also recommended showering after every workout, and possibly more frequently if you live in a hot and humid climate or are prone to sweating and body acne.But overdoing it is a strong “no” from these doctors. “Overwashing the skin may strip natural oils and lead to excessive dryness,” Elbuluk said. “Avoid hot water, too, because the hotter water is, and the longer the exposure to it, the more it ultimately dries out the skin.”“My motto is: keep it simple,” Hosseinipour said. “Occasionally adding a few extra steps to create a spa-like self-care experience can be enjoyable, but regularly taking an everything shower isn’t necessary. My main concern lies with exfoliation, because excessive scrubbing or over-exfoliating can cause redness, dryness and itching, and it can even damage the skin barrier. A gentle, consistent routine is far more beneficial for long-term skin health.”In summary, an everything shower might make you feel like a brand-new person, but it can also leave your skin barrier feeling prematurely old and excessively dehydrated, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what you were hoping to accomplish. The environmental impact is significant.With droughts and water shortages increasing globally, long showers also raise real sustainability concerns. Reducing the length of your shower doesn’t just protect your skin, but also results in fewer gallons being drawn from overstressed reservoirs and less energy being used to heat and pump that water. Significant water shortages are already an issue for some parts of the world, and many of us can anticipate that the situation will have a negative impact on our lives in the near future. The United Nations projects that within just five years, global demand for freshwater will exceed supply by 40%. The need for water is increasing, thanks to the emergence of “megadroughts” that have recently affected the West Coast, southern Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa. Reducing the time you spend in the shower may seem like a small act, but enough of us taking action together can reduce community demand on fragile freshwater systems and the energy required to treat, heat and move that water to our homes. In the United States, for example, the average shower lasts for 7.8 minutes and uses approximately 15.8 gallons of water, according to the nonprofit organization Alliance for Water Efficiency. The organization states that the duration of the shower has a direct impact on water usage. If you’re doing a full-blown 30- to 45-minute “everything shower,” you could be burning through 75 to 110 gallons of water. Every time. That’s basically the equivalent of running three loads of laundry for just one shower.Many of us act as though water appears like magic when we turn on a faucet, but the city you live in has to pump, treat and distribute every gallon, which is an energy-intensive process. The EPA estimates that water and wastewater treatment often consumes 30 to 40% of a city’s total energy consumption. Wasting water doesn’t just affect your own household’s water and heating bill — it also puts a strain on your area’s systems and reserves. Shorter showers save you money.Acting to help the planet can also have a positive impact on your monthly energy and water bills, too. According to the EPA, the average American family of four uses approximately 400 gallons of water per day, so any way to reduce that amount can make a significant difference. Cutting your shower time from a typical 10-minute one to five minutes saves roughly 10 to 12 gallons each time.Besides saving on water, shorter showers save on the energy needed to heat the water you’re using, so less time spent under warm or hot water is a savings of fuel, as well. Research has shown that reducing shower durations from six to 10 minutes to four minutes can lead to energy savings ranging from 0.1 to 3.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per person per day. These shorter showers represented a combined water and energy cost savings of between $37 and $500 per household per year.So, how long should a shower be? “In general, dermatologists recommend no more than 5 to 10 minutes of warm water exposure per day for showers,” Elbuluk said. If you have atopic dermatitis and/or very dry skin, you may want to stay closer to, or under, the 5-minute point.From an environmental standpoint, taking shorter showers, around five minutes, is considered an effective way to conserve water. Can you stick to a five-minute shower routine? If you prep everything before turning on the water, including getting out shampoo and locating your washcloth or scrubber, it’s more than possible. If you have to wait for hot water to reach the shower before you can step in, you can save even more water by collecting that initial “run off” of cold water in a bucket for watering plants. If you need to do more than a quick shampoo, conditioner and body wash, turn the water off while you shave or deep condition.YourSupportMakes The StoryYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionJoin Those Who Make It PossibleHuffPost stands apart because we report for the people, not the powerful. Our journalism is fearless, inclusive, and unfiltered. Join the membership program and help strengthen news that puts people first.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready a member? Log in to hide these messages.Some environmentally conscious folks set a five-minute timer as soon as they turn on the faucet, or sing a few choruses of their favorite song, timed in advance. One British energy company has even issued a “Short Shower Playlist” of tunes that run no longer than five minutes. With a little focus and some preplanning, you may be able to turn an “out in five” shower into a win-win for your skin, your household expenses and the planet.

Global emissions on pace to exceed Paris goals despite progress: UN report

The world is still on track to exceed the Paris Agreement’s warming goals, though it has made some progress since last year, according to a new report from the United Nations. The report found that if the plans submitted by nations around the world are followed, global warming will be limited to between 2.3 degrees...

The world is still on track to exceed the Paris Agreement’s warming goals, though it has made some progress since last year, according to a new report from the United Nations. The report found that if the plans submitted by nations around the world are followed, global warming will be limited to between 2.3 degrees Celsius and 2.5 degrees Celsius, or 4.14 and 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit.  That 2.3 to 2.5 degree estimate is down from last year’s report, under which national plans would have resulted in 2.6 to 2.8 degrees Celsius of warming.  If actual policies are followed, which tend to fall short of national goals, the world is expected to warm by 2.8 Celsius, 5.04 degrees Fahrenheit. That warming is considered an average temperature on the Earth’s surface: The temperature change experienced on land may be higher.  Under the Paris Agreement, countries around the world have called for limiting warming to 2 degrees celsius as part of an effort to limit the worsening extreme weather caused by climate change. The report comes as the Trump administration is poised to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, and will be decoupled from its commitment in next year’s report, as the withdrawal will become effective next year. This will result in a 0.1 degree Celsius, or 0.18 degree Fahrenheit, increase in next year’s estimate, the report said. The estimates are based on emissions cuts stemming from country pledges and while the U.S. exit may mean there are fewer climate commitments on the books, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the accompanying emissions increases will actually occur.  The State Department “does not support” the report, per a statement included in a footnote. “The United States does not support the Emissions Gap Report,” the U.S. government said. “It is the policy of the United States that international environmental agreements must not unduly or unfairly burden the United States. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of State notified the UN Secretary-General of the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on January 27.” 

Climate-fighting efforts show slight gain but still fall far short, UN says

All nations of the world had homework this year: submit new-and-improved plans to fight climate change. But the plans they handed in “have barely moved the needle” on reducing Earth’s future warming, a new United Nations report finds. And a good chunk of that progress is counteracted by the United States' withdrawal from the effort,...

All nations of the world had homework this year: submit new-and-improved plans to fight climate change. But the plans they handed in “have barely moved the needle” on reducing Earth’s future warming, a new United Nations report finds. And a good chunk of that progress is counteracted by the United States' withdrawal from the effort, the report adds. The newest climate-fighting plans — mandated every five years by the 2015 Paris Agreement — shaves about three-tenths of a degree Celsius (nearly six-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit) off a warming future compared with the projections a year ago. Meanwhile, the Trump administration's policies, which range from rolling back environmental regulations to hindering green energy projects, will add back a tenth of a degree of warming, the U.N. Environment Program's Emissions Gap report said Tuesday. “Every tenth of a degree has ramifications on communities, on ecosystems around the world. It is particularly important for those vulnerable communities and ecosystems that are already being impacted,″ said Adelle Thomas, vice chair of a separate U.N. scientific panel that calculates climate impacts. ”It matters in heat waves. It matters in ocean heat waves and the destruction of coral reefs. It matters long-term when we think about sea level rise. ″ Global average temperature increase is mainly caused by the release of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, which happens when fuels like oil, gas and coal are burned. So the plans that countries turn in must detail how, and how fast, they will cut emissions of such gases. Within the next decade, Earth is likely to blow past 1.5 C (2.7 F) since the mid-1800s, which is the internationally agreed-upon goal made in Paris. If nations do as they promise in their plans, the planet will warm 2.3 to 2.5 C (4.1 to 4.5 F), the report calculates. Current policies put the world on path for 2.8 C (5 F) of warming, providing context for upcoming U.N. climate talks in Belem, Brazil. Even super fast and deep cuts in emissions from coal, oil and natural gas will still more than likely mean global temperatures go up at least 1.7 C (3.1 F) this century with efforts then to bring them back down, the report says. Ten years ago, before the Paris Agreement, the world was on a path to be about 4 C (7.2 F) warmer. “We are making progress,'' UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen told The Associated Press. "We have to go faster." The United States — which submitted a climate-fighting plan in 2024 from the Biden administration but now will exit the Paris agreement in two months — changes the future outlook significantly. Until the Trump administration decided to get out of the climate-fighting effort, the U.S. plan was promising some of the most significant cuts in future emissions, the report said. UNEP said the U.S. did not provide comments on the report by their deadline and asked for emissions data about the U.S. to be removed. The UNEP declined but included a footnote at the U.S. request, saying that it doesn’t support the report. Now the U.N. is calculating that the rest of world must cut an additional 2 billion tons a year of carbon dioxide to make up for what the report projects is growing American carbon pollution. Last year, the world pumped 57.7 billion tons of greenhouse gases into the air and needs to get down to about 33 billion tons a year to have a chance of limiting warming to near the goal, the report said. Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare, who helps run a separate emissions and temperature projecting report called Climate Action Tracker, said that his calculations show the same as the report. The numbers indicate “a lack of political will,” he said. ___ The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

European Union Tries to Forge New Climate Targets Before the COP30 Summit in Brazil Starts Next Week

The European Union is working to establish new climate goals before the U.N. climate talks in Brazil starts next week

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union is attempting to forge new climate goals on Tuesday before the U.N. climate talks in Brazil starting next week.Ministers from across the 27-nation bloc are meeting in Brussels to try and get at least 15 to align their nationally-determined emissions targets in order to have a stronger negotiating position during the COP30 summit in Belém.“We need to show to the world that we are leaders in climate change. We need to deliver adequate signals for investors. Today’s the day," Spanish climate minister Sara Aagesen said before the meeting.The EU's long-held leadership of action on climate is under threat by domestic and international pressure. Wildfires, heat waves, and floods have disrupted life across Europe, spurring calls for more climate action. But crises like Russia's war in Ukraine, and a newly volatile relationship with the United States, have increased political and economic pressure to curtail flagship environmental policies.A recent weakening of a deforestation law by the European Commission, the EU's executive arm, disturbed environmentalists. They worried that it signaled a deeper disenchantment with green priorities by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. In February, she had announced an economic policy that some said eroded her 2019 Green Deal. But von der Leyen said in September that “the world can count on Europe’s climate leadership” and pledged that the EU is “on our way to climate neutrality” and would slash carbon emissions by 90% by 2040. Many EU governments have shifted to the right since the Paris Agreement in 2015. Some see climate regulations as shackling the economy, while others say Europe will either make and sell renewables or be forced to buy energy or green products from countries like China.Wopke Hoekstra, the EU's climate commissioner, said that the bloc needed to “bridge climate action with competitiveness and industrial savviness, if you will, and independence that is going to be the name of the game in the years that we have ahead of us.” “We’ll do our utmost to be successful, but it takes 27 to tango,” he said of the negotiations on Tuesday.The U.S. decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and set back its climate goals has rattled Europe, whose climate vision was in part forged in partnership with the Democratic administrations of U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and Joseph Biden. The Paris Agreement aims to keep average global temperature from rising beyond 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), and ideally limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), compared to the 1850s. To do that, the agreement says nations must slash planet-warming pollution that results when coal, oil and gas are burned.The EU's commitments in Paris have driven investment in renewable energies and electric vehicles, often in cooperation and at odds with Chinese companies. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere jumped by the highest amount on record last year, soaring to a height not seen in human civilization and “turbocharging” the Earth’s climate and causing more extreme weather, according to the U.N. weather agency.Europe is the world’s fastest-warming continent and has been heating up twice as fast as other regions since the 1980s. The heat has been linked to more intense rains and floods, and the report predicts rainfall decline and more severe droughts in southern Europe.“Today is about the level of ambition, and it’s about standing ground and not only sticking to talking the talk when it is easy, but also walking the walk when it becomes difficult,” Swedish climate minister Romina Pourmokhtari said in Brussels.The COP30 summit in Brazil is scheduled to take place Nov. 10-21.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.