Fast, Deep Cuts in Emissions Are Needed to Avoid ‘Climate Time Bomb’

To keep warming below levels that scientists say will bring extreme climate impacts, nations must act quickly to make deep cuts in carbon emissions, according to the final installment of the IPCC’s latest climate report

Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, speaks to reporters

Antonio Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, speaks to reporters after a meeting with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson for climate change discussions at United Nations headquarters, Monday, Sept. 20, 2021, during the 76th Session of the U.N. General Assembly in New York.

We are at a critical juncture in the fight to tackle the climate emergency. The world has just a few years to drastically rein in carbon emissions enough to avoid the worst impacts of warming, according to the concluding piece of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was released on Monday. The report calls for countries to ramp up their pledges to lower greenhouse gas emissions enough to reduce global emissions by 60 percent by 2035.

“The rate of temperature rise in the last half century is the highest in 2,000 years. Concentrations of carbon dioxide are at their highest in at least two million years. The climate time-bomb is ticking,” said United Nations secretary-general António Guterres in a video message played at a press conference about the report’s release. “But today’s IPCC report is a how-to guide to defuse the climate time-bomb. It is a survival guide for humanity.”

Every six to seven years the IPCC rounds up thousands of peer-reviewed studies with the latest findings in climate science to make conclusions regarding what is known about the causes of climate change, what its impacts will be, and how to mitigate and adapt to it. This last piece of the Sixth Assessment Report summarizes the science explained in detail in the previous installments, which were released over the past few years. It provides a jumping-off point for negotiators looking to implement the landmark Paris climate agreement. Under that treaty, nations have agreed to keep warming below two degrees Celsius by the end of the century and ideally to limit it below 1.5 degrees C.


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.


Among the findings of the overall report are that scientists “can show categorically that the earth has warmed by about 1.2 degrees [C] since preindustrial times” said Piers Forster, a climate scientist at the University of Leeds in England and an IPCC author, at a webinar hosted by the World Resources Institute (WRI) last week. That warming is “unequivocally” caused by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the report states.

Likewise, climate scientists can clearly link those rising temperatures to more frequent and intense heat waves, floods, drought and other climate extremes. These extremes are contributing to biodiversity loss, increased tree mortality, more and worse wildfires and a loss of carbon from natural systems such as permafrost. “All these processes are already impacted by climate change,” said Jofre Carnicer, an ecologist at the University of Barcelona and an IPCC author, at the WRI event.

“These extremes will get worse as temperatures continue to rise,” Forster said at the webinar.  Already more than three billion people live in places that are highly vulnerable to climate change, according to the report. And the more temperatures rise, the more expensive and less feasible it will be to adapt.

Although our current trajectory—with greenhouse gas concentrations continuing to rise—means that “whatever we do, we are going to see an increase in temperature from where we are currently,” Forster said, the future is very much in our hands. If humans can rein in emissions on an ambitious scale, we can avoid those ever worsening extremes.

Under current emissions levels, the world will pass the 1.5 degree C mark sometime in the 2030s. To avoid that, “emissions should peak essentially immediately,” said Taryn Fransen, a senior fellow at the World Resources Institute and a co-author of another U.N. report about the gap between current emissions and the cuts needed to avoid warming, at the webinar.

With countries’ existing emissions reduction pledges, the world would warm by between 2.4 and 2.6 degrees C above preindustrial levels by 2100. But the policies to implement those pledges are not yet fully in place, which means our world is currently on pace to warm by 2.8 degrees by century’s end.

Guterres has called for countries to pledge to reach global net zero emissions by 2050, challenging developed countries—who have contributed most to climate change—to do so by 2040.

Meeting the targets set under the Paris Agreement will require some kind of carbon removal, Fransen said, whether natural (for example, in the form of trees) or technological. It will also require rapidly phasing out fossil-fuel infrastructure. Existing and planned infrastructure “would blow the remaining carbon budget,” or the amount of carbon emissions that can be released before we reach 1.5 degrees C, Fransen said. That infrastructure alone is 67 percent higher than our budget, and that is without accounting for any other emissions sources, she added.

Making the needed reductions in emissions and providing enough resources for communities to adequately adapt to unavoidable changes will require significant financial investment. It will mean shifting investment from fossil fuels and toward clean energy and climate-related projects, though there are currently many political and societal hurdles to doing so.

“This report is a clarion call to massively fast-track climate efforts by every country and every sector and on every time frame,” Guterres said in the recent press conference video. “In short, our world needs climate action on all fronts—everything, everywhere, all at once.”

Andrea Thompson is senior desk editor for life science at Scientific American, covering the environment, energy and earth sciences. She has been covering these issues for nearly two decades. Prior to joining Scientific American, she was a senior writer covering climate science at Climate Central and a reporter and editor at Live Science, where she primarily covered earth science and the environment. She has moderated panels, including as part of the United Nations Sustainable Development Media Zone, and appeared in radio and television interviews on major networks. She holds a graduate degree in science, health and environmental reporting from New York University, as well as a B.S. and an M.S. in atmospheric chemistry from the Georgia Institute of Technology. Follow Thompson on Bluesky @andreatweather.bsky.social

More by Andrea Thompson

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe