Why the Paris Agreement is Still Important
Overshooting 1.5 degrees global warming: What happens now?
This is a summary of an article by Prof. Hannah Daly (Professor of Sustainable Energy at University College Cork) that appeared in The Irish Times on 3 July 2025. Read the full article on The Irish Times website or Hannah Daly’s own site.
The world is likely to exceed 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial levels before 2027, marking a major turning point in climate discussions. The Paris Agreement aims to limit global warming to well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, but the recent record-breaking heat of 2024 (1.6°C above baseline) signals that this lower target is now on the brink of being crossed.
Some argue the 1.5°C target was always aspirational, citing policy gaps and current trajectories pointing towards around 3°C by the end of the century. From this view, a more flexible interpretation of the Paris Agreement might prevent public despair and political inaction.
However, many experts caution against abandoning the 1.5°C benchmark. Surpassing this threshold brings a high risk of crossing irreversible tipping points: coral reef collapse, glacier melt, weakened ocean currents, and Amazon rainforest dieback.
The original 1.5°C goal was rooted in scientific warnings about these outcomes, and recent findings have only reinforced those fears. Exceeding it, even temporarily, means entering climate debt, i.e. the need to actively remove vast amounts of carbon dioxide to eventually return temperatures to safer levels. As things stand, if drastic intervention does not happen, we will leave this burden for future generations to endure. In truth, reaching net-zero emissions is not enough.
This raises the urgency for Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). Options include:
- Nature-based solutions (e.g. reforestation, soil carbon), which are land-intensive and vulnerable to climate risks.
- Technical solutions (e.g. Direct Air Capture), which are still at an early stage yet are promising and developing rapidly.
Despite societal, political and technical challenges, some argue that exceeding 1.5°C should not invalidate the target. Instead, it should act as a wake-up call for intensified action, both legally and ethically. Stabilising temperatures still demands rapid global emissions cuts and reaching net-zero CO₂.
Wealthier countries bear greater responsibility for emissions and must provide more support to developing nations.
Countries like Ireland have a duty to reduce methane, a short-lived but potent greenhouse gas that accounts for about one-third of current warming. Reducing methane can yield fast cooling benefits, but Ireland’s current political stance appears focused on reclassifying methane to reduce its perceived climate impact, rather than cutting it.
Debating whether 1.5°C is still “achievable” might be a distraction. The more relevant and practical focus now is on how much we overshoot, for how long, and what we do to bring temperatures back down. Rather than giving up on the goal, we must use the remaining tools, especially CDR and methane cuts, to shape what comes next.
As Prof. Daly says:
“Climate change is not just getting worse but getting worse faster.”
For more, see: