What's the Difference Between 1.5°C and 2°C of Global Warming?

Flames rise as a wildfire burns in the village of Galatsona, on the island of Evia, Greece, August 9, 2021. (Reuters)
Flames rise as a wildfire burns in the village of Galatsona, on the island of Evia, Greece, August 9, 2021. (Reuters)
TT
20

What's the Difference Between 1.5°C and 2°C of Global Warming?

Flames rise as a wildfire burns in the village of Galatsona, on the island of Evia, Greece, August 9, 2021. (Reuters)
Flames rise as a wildfire burns in the village of Galatsona, on the island of Evia, Greece, August 9, 2021. (Reuters)

Over and over at the UN climate summit in Glasgow, world leaders have stressed the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The 2015 Paris Agreement commits countries to limit the global average temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and to aim for 1.5°C.

Scientists have said crossing the 1.5°C threshold risks unleashing far more severe climate change effects on people, wildlife and ecosystems.

Preventing it requires almost halving global CO2 emissions by 2030 from 2010 levels and cutting them to net-zero by 2050 -- an ambitious task that scientists, financiers, negotiators and activists at COP26 are debating how to achieve and pay for. But what is the difference between 1.5°C and 2°C of warming?

Reuters asked several scientists to explain:

Where are we now?
Already, the world has heated to around 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels. Each of the last four decades was hotter than any decade since 1850.

"We never had such a global warming in only a few decades", said climate scientist Daniela Jacob at the Climate Service Center Germany. "Half a degree means much more extreme weather, and it can be more often, more intense, or extended in duration."

Just this year, torrential rains flooded China and Western Europe, killing hundreds of people. Hundreds more died when temperatures in the Pacific Northwest hit record highs.

Greenland saw massive melting events, wildfires ravaged the Mediterranean and Siberia, and record drought hit parts of Brazil.

"Climate change is already affecting every inhabited region across the globe," said climate scientist Rachel Warren at the University of East Anglia.

Heat, rain, drought
More warming to 1.5°C and beyond will worsen such impacts.

"For every increment of global warming, changes in extremes become larger," said climate scientist Sonia Seneviratne at ETH Zurich.

For example, heatwaves would become both more frequent and more severe.

An extreme heat event that occurred once per decade in a climate without human influence, would happen 4.1 times a decade at 1.5°C of warming, and 5.6 times at 2°C, according to the UN climate science panel (IPCC).

Let warming spiral to 4°C, and such an event could occur 9.4 times per decade.

A warmer atmosphere can also hold more moisture, resulting in more extreme rainfall that raises flood risks. It also increases evaporation, leading to more intense droughts.

Ice, seas, coral reefs
The difference between 1.5°C and 2°C is critical for Earth's oceans and frozen regions.

"At 1.5°C, there’s a good chance we can prevent most of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheet from collapsing," said climate scientist Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University.

That would help limit sea level rise to a few feet by the end of the century - still a big change that would erode coastlines and inundate some small island states and coastal cities.

But blow past 2°C and the ice sheets could collapse, Mann said, with sea levels rising up to 10 meters (30 feet) - though how quickly that could happen is uncertain.

Warming of 1.5°C would destroy at least 70% of coral reefs, but at 2°C more than 99% would be lost. That would destroy fish habitats and communities that rely on reefs for their food and livelihoods.

Food, forests, disease
Warming of 2°C, versus 1.5°C, would also increase the impact on food production.

"If you have crop failures in a couple of the breadbaskets of the world at the same time, then you could see extreme food price spikes and hunger and famine across wide swathes of the world," said climate scientist Simon Lewis at University College London.

A warmer world could see the mosquitoes that carry diseases such as malaria and dengue fever expand across a wider range.

But 2°C would also see a bigger share of insects and animals lose most of their habitat range, compared with 1.5°C, and increase the risk of forest fires - another risk to wildlife.

'Tipping points'
As the world heats up, the risk increases that the planet will reach "tipping points", where Earth’s systems cross a threshold that triggers irreversible or cascading impacts.

Exactly when those points would be reached is uncertain.

Droughts, reduced rainfall, and continued destruction of the Amazon through deforestation, for example, could see the rainforest system collapse, releasing CO2 into the atmosphere rather than storing it. Or warming Arctic permafrost could cause long-frozen biomass to decompose, releasing vast amount of carbon emissions.

"That's why it's so risky to keep emitting from fossil fuels ... because we're increasing the likelihood that we go over one of those tipping points," Lewis said.

Beyond 2°C
So far, the climate pledges that countries have submitted to the United Nations' registry of pledges put the world on track for 2.7°C of warming.

The International Energy Agency said Thursday that new promises announced at the COP26 summit – if implemented - could hold warming to below 1.8°C, although some experts challenged that calculation. It remains to be seen whether those promises will translate into real-world action.

Warming of 2.7°C would deliver "unlivable heat" for parts of the year across areas of the tropics and subtropics.

Biodiversity would be enormously depleted, food security would drop, and extreme weather would exceed most urban infrastructure's capacity to cope, scientists said.

"If we can keep warming below 3°C we likely remain within our adaptive capacity as a civilization, but at 2.7°C warming we would experience great hardship," said Mann.



Conflicting Visions for Gaza’s ‘Day After’ Amid a Complex Reality

Palestinians bid farewell to a relative killed in an Israeli airstrike outside the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday (AFP)
Palestinians bid farewell to a relative killed in an Israeli airstrike outside the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday (AFP)
TT
20

Conflicting Visions for Gaza’s ‘Day After’ Amid a Complex Reality

Palestinians bid farewell to a relative killed in an Israeli airstrike outside the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday (AFP)
Palestinians bid farewell to a relative killed in an Israeli airstrike outside the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday (AFP)

As discussions over the future of Gaza continue, the conflicting visions among key players make reaching a consensus increasingly difficult. The phrase “it’s complicated,” used by US envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff to justify Israel’s continuation of the war, summarizes the deep divisions among stakeholders.

Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, followed by Israel’s devastating war on Gaza, international efforts to define the “day after” scenario have remained unresolved.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to allow either the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Hamas to govern Gaza. Meanwhile, former US President Donald Trump envisions turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”—without the PA, Hamas, or even Palestinians themselves. Arab states are considering an independent committee to manage Gaza, while the PA insists on taking sole control. Hamas, on the other hand, has proposed a support committee to oversee governance. The result is a landscape where no party shares a unified vision for post-war Gaza.

A senior Palestinian official emphasized that the PA and Arab states are relying on the US to take a firm stance and impose a solution on Israel. “There is no agreement yet. The issue must still be settled,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat. The official stressed that a binding US position, along with Arab and international support, is necessary for any effective governance plan.

While Trump and Netanyahu have outlined different visions for Gaza, behind the scenes, the US is engaged in discussions about post-war governance. Yet, Netanyahu has repeatedly avoided addressing this issue, preferring to focus on military operations. Israeli writer Avi Shilon argued in Yedioth Ahronoth that Netanyahu is prolonging the war to evade making a tough decision about Gaza’s future.

Both Witkoff and Shilon believe Hamas intends to maintain its presence in Gaza. While Witkoff insists that Hamas’ continued rule is unacceptable to Trump’s administration, he hinted that the group could participate politically if it disarms.

Witkoff also suggested that negotiations might provide a path forward, arguing that Hamas is not as ideologically rigid as some claim.

This approach aligns with US efforts to engage Hamas indirectly, recognizing that Israel has been unable to decisively eliminate the group. Shilon noted that Israel’s demand to end Hamas’ rule is justified in principle but impractical in reality.

“Israel cannot force Hamas to surrender. A group willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of its people and endure Gaza’s destruction has no incentive to return hostages if all we offer is their removal from power,” he wrote, adding that the US has come to the same realization.

Hamas responded swiftly to Witkoff’s remarks, with spokesperson Abdel Latif al-Qanoua stating that some of these proposals are under discussion with mediators. He affirmed that Hamas is open to governance arrangements in Gaza, provided they have broad consensus. “We approved the formation of a societal support committee in Gaza that does not include Hamas. We have no ambitions to govern Gaza; what matters to us is national consensus, and we are committed to its outcomes,” he said.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Aty previously outlined a comprehensive reconstruction plan for Gaza, including training Palestinian security forces in Egypt and Jordan before their deployment to the Strip. A Hamas official confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that the group genuinely does not seek to govern Gaza, but it insists that governance arrangements be Palestinian-led, without US or Israeli dictates. “Our weapons are not up for discussion unless it leads to a Palestinian state,” the official emphasized.

The PA and Fatah have also entered the debate, calling on Hamas to relinquish control of Gaza. Fatah spokesperson Munther al-Hayek urged Hamas to step aside, warning that the upcoming period could be “even more severe” for Gaza’s civilians.

A lingering question remains: Will the October 7 attack ultimately bring Palestinians closer to statehood, or will it destroy their aspirations?

Thirty-two years after the Oslo Accords—when US sponsorship, international backing, and a strong PA seemed to pave the way for peace—Israel’s refusal to conclude negotiations has kept Palestinians in a cycle of talks, conflicts, and political paralysis. Over time, Israel’s approach has weakened the PA and, whether intentionally or not, bolstered Hamas’ influence—leading to the devastating events of October 7.

As the region contemplates Gaza’s future, the unresolved question remains: What lessons have Washington and Tel Aviv learned, and what do they truly want?