Image by Matt Palmer.
Every year of the past 10 has been the hottest on record, with 2024 topping the heat chart. It’s not only air temperatures that are climbing; in 2024, the oceans of the world also reached a new daily high. 2024 was the first year on record where global average temperatures exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. “From January to September, the global mean surface air temperature was 1.54°C above the pre-industrial average.”
The reason the planet continues to heat up is because not enough is being done to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Arising principally from burning fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas), it is GHG emissions that are clogging the lower atmosphere, resulting in global warming.
Limiting global warming to 1.5˚C was the target agreed upon by 196 countries at the Paris Climate Accords in 2016. The Paris Agreement “sets long-term goals to…. hold global temperature increase to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.” President Trump has taken the US out of the legally binding landmark agreement. This reckless and irresponsible step sets a dangerous example for other nations that wish to flaunt environmental commitments, and should be strongly condemned by governments throughout the world.
If the current warming trajectory continues, by the early 2030’s 1.5˚C is likely to become the norm, with higher temperatures a real risk.
Increases in average ground temperatures of 1.5 or 2 degrees centigrade doesn’t sound like much, but every additional fraction of a degree can bring more frequent and intense extreme weather, such as heatwaves and heavy rainfall. “Every tenth of a degree matters and climate impacts get progressively worse the more warming we have,” explains Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth.
Once established a 1.5˚C world would be hard to reverse, and the risks are manifold: an increase in extreme weather events – more frequent and intense heatwaves, droughts, heavy rainfall and storms; rising sea levels, which in turn increases the risk of costal flooding and erosion; coral reef loss – its estimated that 70-90% of coral reefs could disappear due to ocean warming and acidification; arctic ice loss, affecting ecosystems and global climate patterns; biodiversity loss – up to 14% of land species could face high risk of extinction.
If warming of 1.5˚C is normalised and becomes 2˚C (or higher), the impacts would be much worse — doubling the extinction risks, intensifying extreme weather, and making some regions uninhabitable, leading to mass displacement of people.
In addition to the environmental impacts, rising temperatures affect communities and economies. A heating planet means food and water shortages and increased risk of heat related illnesses and deaths. Businesses are impacted in affected areas and climate disasters cost trillions of dollars in infrastructure damage and reduced productivity.
Its all interconnected
Climate change is one aspect of the man-made environmental catastrophe, which is the biggest crisis humanity has ever been confronted with. It is unprecedented in seriousness and impact, short, medium, and long-term. The speed of change is surprising everyone, including climate scientists. “Both 2023 and 2024 temperatures surprised most climate scientists— we didn’t think we’d be seeing a year above 1.5˚C this early,” says Dr Hausfather.
In all developed and emerging countries, the environmental emergency should be the central issue around which all other matters— economy, development, geo-politics, etc.— are decided. How does this policy, this proposal, impact the planet? Does it have a negative or positive effect on the climate, on local ecosystems, on pollution, etc., or is it neutral? If the proposal increases greenhouse gas emissions, further weakens an endangered species or ecosystem, adds to air/water/soil pollution, or expands desertification. Then the proposal should immediately be dropped; this is what would happen in we were living in a world where responsible governance was standard practice. Sadly we are not.
The current crop of political ‘leaders’ are weak, unprincipled, and on the whole, completely inadequate to the colossal challenge that the man-made environmental catastrophe presents. Compromised by their indebtedness to big business, personal ambition, blind adherence to ideology, and complete lack of vision, not only do they consistently fail to address the issues of the day, but their actions routinely intensify the problems.
Far from environmental concerns sitting at the forefront of policy-making, irrespective of country or ideology, it is securing economic growth that exercises the minds of politicians, and the drive for profit that determines the actions of corporations. Growth that is strongly dependent on consumerism, and it is unconstrained consumerism within and by rich nations, that is in large part responsible for the environmental catastrophe.
Along with competition and social injustice, consumerism is one of the cornerstones of market fundamentalism. Excess is celebrated, selfishness and greed promoted. Not only has this crude materialistic way of life vandalised the natural world, it has encouraged narrow unhealthy behaviour and a set of social norms that have created unhealthy societies populated by frightened, confused people.
The health of the planet and the well-being of humanity, as well as the animal, vegetable and mineral kingdoms are all interconnected. It is one integrated eco-system, one life; infection in one area affects all other parts. There is no such thing as separation, on all levels life is one. Try telling that to the Clown In Chief ensconced in the White House.
Whilst governments and (most) corporations/businesses are not interested in putting the environment at the centre of everything, we as individuals can. This means protesting environmental abuse and taking personal responsibility for the way we live. Every decision – shopping, travel, heating, etc., should take into account the environmental impact; if everyone decided to only patronise environmentally responsible businesses, companies large and small would quickly change their strategies. The same applies to politicians, local and national, who are trying to persuade the electorate to vote for them.
Given the scale of the crisis such steps may appear tiny, but when adopted by enough people they can have an impact, and doing something rather than nothing alleviates to some degree the feeling of despair. Hope, which is so badly needed at this time, is not based on wishful thinking, but comes about through sustained action.
