New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Climate Model Shows Limits of Global Pollution Pledges

Countries have not pledged to cut enough to restrain global warming

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The Paris climate talks are a little more than two months away and most of the world’s big carbon emitters have submitted their climate pledges. That’s the good news. The bad news is that despite many countries pledging to cut carbon emissions in the coming decades, the current commitments may not be enough to limit warming to the world’s agreed upon goal of 2°C (3.6°F).

The pledges have been rolling in all year. On Monday, Brazil said it would cut emissions to 43 percent of 2005 levels in the next 15 years, stop illegal deforestation and reforest 30 million acres of land. Deforestation is a major source of Brazil’s carbon emissions.

The pledge puts Brazil in the company of 82 other countries — including the U.S., China, and other large carbon polluters in the European Union — that have submitted their climate pledges to the United Nations.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


To gauge the effectiveness of the proposed emissions cuts, the nonprofit group Climate Interactive has put them into a climate model to show just how much the current goals would limit warming.

The results are mixed. The current emissions pledges will decrease warming. In a business as usual scenario, warming could go as high as 4.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures by 2100. The current goals would drop that to about 3.5°C of warming, one degree lower.

While that is progress, it’s still pretty far from the goal to limit warming by 2°C. The 2°C limit was adopted by the European Union in 2009 and has since become the benchmark for warming for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the UN.

If warming rises above 2°C, the effects of climate change would only intensify. Extreme weather like droughts and large tropical cyclones would become more common, fragile ecosystems like coral reefs would be at risk of destruction and polar ice melting would swamp many coastal cities over the next century.

Several countries’ climate emissions goals,, including Russia, Canada, Japan and Australia,  have all been rated inadequate by Climate Action Tracker. More ambitious goals from these relatively large emitters could bring the world closer to the 2°C goal.

This article is reproduced with permission from Climate Central. The article was first published on September 29, 2015.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe