Climate Change as a Political Negotiation

The 1.5°C climate target reveals tension between science and politics—ambitious goals vs. limited action, hope vs. realism.

Climate change has become a global issue affecting the environment, politics, economics, and society. In recent decades, global temperature reduction targets have been central to international climate negotiations, most notably the 1.5°C target adopted in the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, the relationship between science and politics in the context of climate change is often characterized by tension, ambiguity, and complex negotiations.

The Symbiotic Relationship between Science and Politics

The 1.5°C target established in the 2015 Paris Agreement clearly illustrates the interplay between science and politics. As noted by Cointe and Guillemot (2023), this target originated from political advocacy during United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations, especially from small island nations (AOSIS), who viewed a 2°C increase as an existential threat. Ultimately, the 1.5°C target was adopted as an aspirational objective, despite many scientists initially deeming it unrealistic.

This process shows how politics can influence the scientific agenda. After the 1.5°C target was adopted, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was asked to produce a Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR1.5) in 2018. This report not only gave scientific legitimacy to the target but also opened up space for new research on impacts and mitigation pathways to achieve the target (Cointe & Guillemot, 2023). However, it also created tensions among scientists, as many considered the target a “false hope” that was not backed by sufficient political commitment.

Negotiations and Debates between Scientists and Politicians

International climate negotiations are often characterized by debates between scientists and politicians. One example is the role of the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED) within the UNFCCC, where scientists and negotiators discuss the feasibility of a 1.5°C target. While scientists recognize that the literature on the impacts of 1.5°C is limited, they agree that efforts to curb global temperature rise should go as far as possible (Cointe & Guillemot, 2023).

However, tensions arise when politically set targets do not align with scientific reality. For example, many scientists are skeptical of the 1.5°C target as unrealistic without a strong global commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Kevin Anderson criticized the “duality” of maintaining a target that cannot be achieved without large-scale negative emissions (Anderson, 2015). This criticism reflects dissatisfaction with the reliance on technologies such as Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) that have not been proven effective and potentially delay real action.

Political Calibration and the Role of Scientific Models

The concept of “political calibration” proposed by van Beek et al. (2022) explains how scientific models, particularly Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs), are calibrated to political needs. Before the Paris Agreement, the 1.5°C target was considered unrealistic and irrelevant. However, after this target was adopted, IAM researchers started developing scenarios compatible with 1.5°C, albeit with very strict assumptions and reliance on negative emissions (Cointe & Guillemot, 2023).

This process demonstrates how science can be “calibrated” to meet political demands. However, it also raises questions about the extent to which scientific models are reliable when they are forced to produce scenarios that fit ambitious political targets. As one IAM researcher put it, “1.5°C is very difficult, very expensive... We work on the limits of models, equations and production functions” (Cointe & Guillemot, 2023).

Critiques of the 1.5°C Target and the Future of Climate Action

While the 1.5°C target has provided a new impetus for climate action, criticisms of the target continue to emerge. Some experts argue that the target is “incantatory”, where ambition is maintained while concrete action is postponed (Geden, 2016a). This is reflected in the mismatch between the long-term targets and the national commitments (NDCs) submitted by countries under the Paris Agreement.

In this context, the COP27, held in November 2022, was a pivotal moment when tensions between scientists and politicians re-emerged. Some media outlets, such as The Economist and The Guardian, report that the 1.5°C target is becoming increasingly unattainable, and there are calls to recognize that it may already be unrealistic (McGuire, 2022; Harvey, 2022). On the other hand, however, many argue that the target remains important as a diplomatic tool to drive global ambition, especially for vulnerable countries.

The relationship between climate change and politics is complex and mutually influential. The 1.5°C target is an example of how politics can influence the scientific agenda, but also how science can lend legitimacy to political decisions. However, the tension between political ambition and scientific reality remains a major challenge. The negotiation process and debates between scientists and politicians show that climate targets are not just about numbers, but also about fairness, justice, and global commitment.

In the face of the climate crisis, it is important not only to focus on long-term targets but also on the concrete actions and structural transformations needed to achieve those goals. In other words, this target should be seen as a tool to drive global ambition, not as the end of the fight against climate change.

Reference

Anderson, K. (2015). Duality in climate science. Nature Geoscience, 8, 899–900. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2559

Cointe, B., & Guillemot, H. (2023). A history of the 1.5°C target. WIREs Climate Change, 14(3), e824. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.824

Geden, O. (2016a). An actionable climate target. Nature Geoscience, 9, 340–342. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2699

Harvey, C. (2022, November 11). The world will likely miss 1.5 degrees C – Why isn’t anyone saying so? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-world-will-likely-miss-1-5-degrees-c-why-isnt-anyone-saying-so/  

McGuire, B. (2022, November 12). The 1.5°C target is dead – to prevent total failure, COP27 must admit it. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/12/climate-target-cop27-breakdown-fossil-fuel 

van Beek, L., Hajer, M., Pelzer, P., van Vuuren, D., & Cassen, C. (2020). Anticipating futures through models: The rise of integrated assessment modelling in the climate science-policy interface since 1970. Global Environmental Change, 65, 102191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102191