News Briefs
Global greenhouse gas emissions are on pace to exceed the volume required to keep the planet’s surface temperature from rising 1.5 ºC above pre-industrial levels before 2030 by twice as much, a new analysis has found.
According to the Climate Action Tracker, an independent research index run by Climate Analytics and NewClimate Institute, the zero-carbon targets announced at the COP26 climate summit are “bringing false hope to the reality of the warming resulting from government inaction.”
It’s all very well for leaders to claim they have a net-zero target, but if they have no plans as to how to get there… frankly, these net-zero targets are just lip service to real climate action.- Bill Hare, CEO, Climate Analytics
While analyzing climate data and public pledges made by participants in Glasgow, researchers found that following current pledges to cut emissions by 2030 alone will result in a 2.4 ºC increase by 2100.
When looking at what the countries are currently doing – as opposed to what they have pledged to do – global temperature would rise to 2.7 °C by the end of the century.
See Also:Climate CoverageA 2.7 ºC rise would be almost one degree higher than the target temperature rise that governments have embraced while pledging their net-zero strategies.
According to the Climate Action Tracker, in the best scenario, when all pledges are transformed into real action, there would be a 1.8 °C increase by 2100, which is more than the 1.5 °C ceiling set by the Paris Agreement.
Researchers from all over the world have recently signed an appeal published by hundreds of health science journals, which warn of irredeemable consequences if the 1.5 °C increase is reached.
The United Kingdom’s Met Office also has warned that heat and humidity could fatally affect up to one billion people on the planet, should the temperature rise 2° C.
“The majority of 2030 actions and targets are inconsistent with net-zero goals: there’s a nearly one-degree gap between government current policies and their net-zero goals,” said Bill Hare, the CEO of Climate Analytics.
“It’s all very well for leaders to claim they have a net-zero target, but if they have no plans as to how to get there, and their 2030 targets are as low as so many of them are, then frankly, these net-zero targets are just lip service to real climate action,” he added. “Glasgow has a serious credibility gap.”
More articles on: climate change, environment, sustainability
Apr. 12, 2024
Olive Growing Starting to Take Root in Central Europe
As climate change makes Central European winters milder and drier, farmers in Austria and northeastern Croatia are beginning to plant olives.
Dec. 2, 2024
Developing Nations Leave Controversial COP29 Disappointed
The climate summit concluded in Azerbaijan with rich countries agreeing to a financial aid package of $300B, one-third of what economists recommended.
Jul. 8, 2024
Bricks Made with Olive Pits Reduce Carbon Footprint of Buildings, Study Finds
A new study has shown that olive pit waste can effectively reduce energy usage in buildings, demonstrating how the circular economy can be applied to the construction sector.
May. 27, 2024
Improved Water Efficiency Paramount to Future of California Farmers, Officials Say
Growers will need to save more water and use less as the state will likely become drier in the long term.
May. 14, 2024
Innovation and Sustainability Yield Winning Results for GangaLupo
Teamwork, the responsible use of resources and innovation underpin the success of the Apulian Coratina monovarietal.
Mar. 7, 2024
Spanish Campaigners Lobby for Glyphosate Ban After EU Fails to Reach Consensus
The world’s most used herbicide was found in concentrations exceeding the legal limit in Mar Menor, spurring advocates to call for a ban in Spain.
May. 13, 2024
Native Varieties and Centenarian Trees: The Winning Formula for Olivian Groves
After a harvest full of twists and turns, the Peloponnese producer achieved award-winning quality by relying on traditional and modern practices.
Dec. 2, 2024
IUCN Studies the Tradeoffs Between Intensive and Traditional Olive Groves
The organization found that traditional groves are better for biodiversity but less profitable. Intensive groves are more cost-efficient but create massive monocultures.