Fifteen years ago, the world was completely dominated by fossil fuels. We were heading towards 4°C or 5°C warming by 2100. Nowadays, things are a bit better. Not good, mind you; not good at all. But better. After investments in renewable energy reached $1.8 trillion in 2023 — two times more than the investments in fossil fuels — we seem to be avoiding the worst possible outcomes.

According to a new study, current policies put us on a likely warming of around 2.7°C by 2100, with plausible ranges between 1.9°C and 3.7°C. The worst-case scenario, where we continue with unchecked coal usage and high emissions, is now viewed as implausible barring a major reversal of current trends. But so is the good scenario, where we keep warming below 2 °C.

Every degree counts

The extent of climate heating matters. It directly determines the severity and frequency of its impacts on ecosystems, as well as our society and economy. Each additional degree of warming increases the risk of extreme weather events like heatwaves, storms, and droughts, disrupts food and water supplies, and accelerates sea level rise. It also intensifies the loss of biodiversity and stresses critical natural systems, such as forests and coral reefs, which regulate the planet’s climate.

The difference between limiting warming to 1.5°C versus 3°C could mean hundreds of millions more people exposed to life-threatening heat, displacement, and food insecurity. There are also critical thresholds within the Earth’s climate system where gradual changes, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions, can trigger sudden and irreversible shifts in ecosystems or climate behavior. This was why the goal is (or rather, was) to keep warming under 1.5°C — that’s where you start to see irreversible climate tipping points.

Unfortunately, 2024 was 1.6°C warmer than the pre-industrial level, making it the first calendar year to exceed 1.5°C above that level. Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Stripe, a company that invests in carbon-removal technology, estimates it’s about to get even hotter.

Hausfather assessed current policies and over a dozen studies published previously, finding that the Earth will likely warm by 2.3 to 3°C by 2100. The full range of plausible estimates is between 1.9°C and 3.7°C, but it’s very unlikely that we’ll stay under two degrees.

The energy transition is happening. It’s just not fast enough

“Current policy scenarios” have become an essential tool for assessing the likely trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions and global temperature increases. These scenarios evaluate emissions trends if existing policies and technologies continue without significant additional climate actions.

Of course, there’s always a great deal of uncertainty when dealing with policies. The policies can change quite drastically (which is what we’re starting to see now), but it’s a good benchmark for how we’re doing.

For now, policies and technological advances have reduced the likelihood of worst-case scenarios. This is largely because renewable energy has become so cheap. However, these policies are not ambitious enough to avoid the severe impacts of climate tipping points, such as ice sheet collapse or widespread ecosystem loss. The Paris Agreement, which was ratified by virtually every country on the planet, had plans to keep heating within 2 degrees. That seems very unlikely now.

But this doesn’t mean we should stop our efforts. Quite the opposite: we can’t afford any more missteps. Delays in stronger action risk locking in irreversible damage and escalating the cost of future mitigation and adaptation efforts.

We still have low-hanging fruits

Many climate measures, such as deploying renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and transitioning to electric vehicles, are already cost-effective. The plummeting costs of solar, wind, and battery storage — by as much as 80% during the past decade — have made these technologies competitive with or cheaper than fossil fuels in most regions. But policy can hamper progress: in the US, wind energy is one of the cheapest types of energy, yet Donald Trump still wants to ban it.

Insulation is another low-hanging fruit. Energy efficiency upgrades in buildings and industries often result in net savings over time by reducing energy bills. Additionally, afforestation and reforestation projects, while more context-dependent, are cost-effective in areas where land is available. The economic benefits of these measures often extend beyond cost savings, including improved air quality, job creation in green industries, and enhanced energy security, making them attractive even before considering their climate benefits.

Transitioning to electric vehicles and improving public transportation can also cut significant emissions. Reducing food waste and shifting diets toward more plant-based options also offer significant emissions reductions. These measures often require minimal technological innovation and can yield substantial climate benefits quickly if implemented at scale.

We don’t need a technofix; we shouldn’t rely on a technofix. We have all the solutions right under our noses. We’re not standing still, but we’re not moving fast enough, either.

This latest analysis underscores both the progress and the urgency of further action. While the world is no longer on track for worst-case warming scenarios, the fight against climate change is far from over. The decisions made today will determine whether we achieve a sustainable future or face the dire consequences of inaction.