This fall in emissions is visually presented in their submission to UNFCCC:

What is the main driver of this reduction in emissions? They say:

Electricity and heat production, residential and industrial sectors delivered the top three emission reductions. Renewables’ share in electricity and heat generation has grown substantially, and CO₂ per unit of fossil energy produced has declined.

The renewable energy role in this is the remarkable story and was highlighted in the just released European State of the Climate 2025 report.

Take a look:

As you can see renewable energy produced 46.4% of Europes electricity with solar setting a new record of 12.5%.

Let's turn our attention to South Africa

Compared to what is happening in Europe, South Africa's story is very different. Here is the data representation of what South Africa submitted to the UNFCCC:

The majority of our emission are coming from power generation and in South Africa that generation comes from burning coal:

To be fair there has been some movement away from this very "dirty" energy source as highlighted below:

But we have the opportunity to dramatically change our emissions contribution by transitioning faster to solar energy. When you look at the potential we have have in this country that becomes very, very clear!

Here is the Global Solar Atlas:

Our solar potential dwarfs what is available to Europe! There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for us not to exploit this renewable resource.

South Africa does plan to transition to clean renewable energy as outlined in the South African Renewable Energy Masterplan (SAREM) report. As you can see the plan is to scale up renewable energy massively.

The Solar PV plan is install 25 GW of generation power. Here is some context to help visualize this. This is roughly equivalent to 70,000 rugby fields. If you grouped it all together, it would occupy an area nearly the size of Johannesburg (approx. 1,600 km²) but dedicated entirely to solar panels!

25 GW is enough to power roughly 12 to 15 million average South African homes simultaneously during peak sun hours (assuming an average household draw of 1.5–2 kW). South Africa has about 18 million households, this target effectively represents enough capacity to cover the daytime needs of the vast majority of the country's homes.

We now need to get on with this project. We have the technology AND the know-how to do this. Don't let anyone, least of all any politician tell you that this is not possible. South Africa along with every other country needs to speed up the transition process since emissions must fall dramatically if we are going to prevent global heating from exceeding 2ºC.

There are no excuses!

As you can see from the above, power generation was responsible for 15.6 GtCO2e (up 1.2% from 2023) and transport was responsible for 8.4 GtCO2e (up 0.91% from 2023)

Here is the reality, we have the technology and know-how to radically reduce emission from both these sectors. We just have to move faster!

Electricity Generation

The team at Ember has just released data for 2025 in their report entitled From OECD to emerging markets: fossil power’s global decline has begun.

They say:

Rapid solar and wind scaling is actively displacing thermal generation. OECD fossil generation has peaked while systematic decommissioning of coal-fired power plants is under way across most member states. This shift is now extending beyond the OECD, with fossil generation falling in major emerging economies for the first time this century outside the COVID-affected year of 2020.

This graphic from the report show's this clearly in OECD nations:

The report also singles out China, which is solidifying its position as the world's first Electrostate and India.

Clearly we have turned the corner now that renewable energy is readily available. Also from Ember:

Transportation

The data on this sector is also nothing short of remarkable as the world turns to electric vehicles. The war in the middle east, with its accompanying oil shocks has just accelerated this trend.

Nowhere is this more visible than across these six regions, (data displays monthly sales of new passenger cars up to March 2026). The full dataset tracking the electric car revolution across all reporting countries can be found here.

Now we need to go faster

Now that we have proven that there are viable alternatives to fossil fuel driven transport and power generation, there is no excuse not to accelerate the rollout of these technologies as fast as we can!

Why do we need to do this?

Because we know if we do, we can change the emissions trajectory we are on!

Take a look:

Of course, as you can see from the above, there are other actions we need to take to get global heating below 2ºC but by slamming the brakes on these two high emitting sectors, using our current technology, will go a long way to achieving this goal.

We need to put as much pressure as we can on elected officials everywhere to make this transition as easy and as fast as possible.

That is where the precautionary principle comes in. It says that:

If something could cause serious or irreversible harm, and we are not completely certain about the science, we should act to reduce the risk before the damage is obvious.

This is at the core of basic prudent risk management.

Why this matters in a heating world

Global heating is not a "straight line problem". It behaves more like a tipping system.

For a long time, change looks gradual. Then suddenly, a threshold is crossed and the system shifts into a new state. Once that happens, going back is extremely difficult.

We do not know the exact temperature at which major tipping points occur. We do know they exist, including ice sheet collapse, large-scale ecosystem dieback, and major ocean circulation shifts.

If we wait for certainty about exactly where those thresholds are, we will almost certainly cross them.

Applying the Precaution Principle means reducing emissions as quickly as possible and strengthening resilience way before we reach those unknown edges.

Applying the precaution principle to the Garden Route

The Garden Route faces three major climate-related risks: decreasing rainfall, increased fire weather, and sea level rise.

Each one involves a measure of uncertainty. Each one involves potentially irreversible damage. Each one requires early action.

Decreasing rainfall

Rainfall patterns are shifting. Even small long-term declines matter in water-constrained systems like there are on the Garden Route.

Water systems often look stable until rivers drop below critical levels. Then restrictions, economic damage, and system stress escalate quickly.

If we wait for dams to approach empty before reducing demand or fixing infrastructure leaks, we risk system failure.

Precaution means reducing non-revenue water, protecting ecological flows, managing demand early, making sure as much rain water is captured as possible and diversifying supply before crisis.

Once aquifers are overdrawn or river ecosystems collapse, recovery is slow and costly or may not be possible at all.

Increasing fire weather

Hotter, drier conditions increase fire intensity and spread. We cannot predict the exact season of the next major fire, but we know the conditions are trending worse.

If we wait until after catastrophic fire seasons to change land management, we will pay in lives, homes, tourism losses, and ecological damage.

Precaution means:

• proactive fuel reduction,
• enforcing defensible space rules,
• adopting fire-adapted building codes, and
• strengthening response systems before peak conditions.

Fire risk compounds quietly until it doesn’t.

Seal level rise

Sea levels are rising. The exact rate over the next decades is uncertain, but the direction is not!

If we wait until properties flood regularly before adapting, we will face infrastructure damage, insurance collapse, property value loss, and expensive emergency responses.

Precaution means avoiding new development in high-risk zones, planning coastal setbacks, and designing infrastructure for future, not past, sea levels.

You cannot “uproot” a house built in the wrong place!

The common pattern

In all three risks above, the exact tipping point is unknown, the damage could be irreversible, and the cost of prevention is usually lower than the cost of recovery.

The mistake is thinking that uncertainty means we should delay action.

In risk management, uncertainty increases the need for caution not the opposite.

What precaution is not

Precaution does not mean stopping all development for example, shutting down the economy, or acting on every worst-case scenario.

But it does mean avoiding irreversible harm when credible risk exists, planning for the downside rather than just the average outcome, and acting early when systems are still stable.

Here is a simple test. Ask this question: If we are wrong and the risk is smaller than expected, can we recover from acting early?

Now ask: If we are wrong and the risk is larger than expected, can we recover from acting late?

In climate and environmental systems, acting late is usually far more expensive and sometimes impossible to reverse.

The bottom line

The precautionary principle is a common sense risk management strategy applied to complex systems.

When the potential damage is severe and irreversible, waiting for perfect certainty is itself a high-risk decision.

The real gamble is delaying action!

As we pass the midpoint of this decade, the latest scientific assessments show a world that is heating faster, losing ice faster and struggling to adapt. The evidence from the five major reports released in the last few weeks paints a stark picture of where we stand.

Here is a summary.

Greenhouse gases at record highs

The State of the Climate 2025 update confirms that CO₂ reached 423.9 ppm in 2024 (projected to reach 425.7 ppm in 2025), these concentrations are the highest in the observational record, with a record annual increase of 3.5 ppm from 2023 to 2024. Methane and nitrous oxide also reached new peaks. All three gases have continued rising into 2025, reinforcing the upward trend in radiative forcing.

These concentrations are not just abstract numbers; they are the physical drivers of warming. They define the long-term trajectory the climate system is locked into.

2025: Among the warmest years ever recorded

Global mean temperature from January to October 2025 averaged 1.47°C above pre-industrial levels in the ERA5 dataset. This puts 2025 on track to be the second or third warmest year on record. The past eleven years, from 2015 to 2025, will all rank as the eleven warmest in the instrumental record.

Oceans absorbing unprecedented heat

Over 90% of excess heat caused by greenhouse gases is stored in the ocean. Ocean heat content reached its highest level ever recorded in 2024 and continued rising in early 2025. Warming rates in the last two decades have been especially rapid, confirming that the Earth system is in a strong energy imbalance.

This rising heat accelerates sea-level rise, bleaches coral reefs and drives stronger tropical storms, like Melissa that devastated Jamaica and Fung-wong that destroyed parts of the Philippines.

Cryosphere collapse accelerating

Glaciers continued their steep decline. The hydrological year 2023–2024 saw a record global glacier mass loss of 1.3 metres water equivalent, equal to 450 gigatonnes and about 1.2 mm of global sea-level rise. This is the largest loss on record since 1950. 

Arctic sea ice reached its lowest annual maximum in the satellite record in March 2025. Antarctic sea ice extent also remained well below average. 

The State of the Cryosphere Report shows that many mid-latitude glacier systems are committed to losing most of their ice even at 2°C of warming, with severe consequences for global water security.

Extreme events intensifying

By August 2025, severe droughts, heatwaves, floods and cyclones had caused major impacts across every region, damaging croplands, displacing communities and eroding livelihoods. The interconnected risks highlighted in the State of the Climate update show how climate change is now influencing food security, health and humanitarian outcomes at scale.

The emissions gap: 1.5°C has slipped out of reach

The Emissions Gap Report 2025 provides the clearest assessment yet of where current government commitments lead. Under present policies, the world is heading for around 2.8°C of warming by 2100. According to the report, even if all conditional pledges were fully implemented, the best-estimate peak warming is about 1.9°C.

The uncomfortable truth is that the chance of exceeding 2°C in the next 15-20 years is extremely high. Some scenarios show a 92% likelihood of passing the 2°C threshold based on current commitments. In order to be on a 2ºC pathway emissions must fall 6-7% every year for the remainder of this decade.

Adaptation needs are rising faster than finance

The Adaptation Gap Report 2025 estimates that developing countries will require US$310–365 billion per year (constant 2023 prices) for adaptation by 2035. Current international public and private flows fall far below this. Even the new global finance goal of US$300 billion by 2035 will not be enough to meet needs, especially once inflation is accounted for.

Significant volumes of concessional public finance will be required to leverage private investment because market-based solutions alone cannot cover the scale or urgency of need. 

What now? Preparing for a hotter world

We are moving into a period where overshooting 1.5 °C is 100% certain and where exceeding 2°C is 92% certain. We need an immediate course correction. The implications of all this is profound: more extreme weather, more pressure on water and food systems, faster cryosphere loss and rising sea levels for centuries.

Adaptation is now essential, not optional. Based on the evidence in this years reports, preparation should focus on:

• Scaling early warning and climate information services, which already save lives but still do not reach 40% of countries.
• Helping people and animals with cooling that live in places that are already close to thermal limits.
• Clearly identifying areas that are at increased risk of flooding, especially places close to seasonal rivers. Help people have a path to higher ground in these areas.
• Strengthening coastal planning, including nature-based protection and, where necessary, phased approaches to relocation for places that are threatened by repeated storm surges and continuing sea-level rise.
• Increasing adaptation finance quickly, recognising that private finance cannot fill the gap alone and that concessional flows must grow to meet the demand.

The path ahead requires accelerated mitigation and far greater investment in resilience.

Remember atmospheric greenhouse gases remain the ultimate metric that matters. As long as they continue to rise, the planet will continue to heat. Our task now is to limit this rise as quickly as possible while building the capacity to live safely in a world being transformed in real-time.

Are we up to the challenge?

In it they share this graphic showing the total net greenhouse gas emissions per gas, 1990-2024.

They correctly state:

Since atmospheric GHG concentrations drive global warming, these are ultimately the metrics that matter for meeting the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.

As this is the metric, it is crystal clear that humanity, in 2024 has scored an F as the data shows that emissions increased by 2.3% between 2023 and 2024 (Compared to a 1.6% increase between 2022 and 2023.)

Looking at the data a little closer:

Fossil CO2 emissions account for approximately 69 per cent of current GHG emissions. These emissions are driven by the combustion of coal, oil and gas in the energy sector, as well as industrial processes associated with the manufacture of metals, cement and other materials.

Total emissions across all gases that are associated with fossil fuel extraction, production and combustion sectors were 42 GtCO2e in 2024, accounting for ~73 per cent of the total.

Given that the burning of coal, oil and methane gas is driving emissions, thus heating the planet and resulting in ever increasing climate chaos, what commitments have governments made in their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to stop doing this?

Here is the shocking reality check from the report:

To date no NDCs set targets to reduce oil and gas production or trim inefficient fossil fuel subsidies

In other words, despite the clear science, no governments anywhere have hit the brakes on fossil fuel production and usage. As a result, this report now officially states for the first time, it is no longer possible to remain below 1.5ºC. Of course anyone who has been tracking global temperatures will have told you this much some time ago.

The report then goes on to introduce the concept of "overshoot" and then returning back down to 1.5ºC. On this topic they state:

The fundamental ingredient for progress towards the temperature goal of the Paris Agreement remains unchanged: immediate and stringent emission reductions. Accelerated emission reductions require overcoming policy, governance, institutional and technical barriers; unparalleled increase in support to developing countries; and redesigning the international financial architecture. The new NDCs and current geopolitical situation do not provide promising signs that this will happen.

Where are we headed?

Here is the story:

The only scenario in their assesment that keeps temperatures below 2ºC is the scenario they describe as the "most optimistic pledge-based scenario, which combines the full implementation of conditional NDCs and all net-zero pledges" which they acknowledge will be very difficult to achieve.

How difficult will it be to remain below 2ºC? The report breaks it down:

• A 25% reduction is needed for 2030 emissions to be aligned with 2°C pathways (Requiring an annual reduction in emissions of ~5.5% from 2026 to 2030)
• A 35% reduction is needed for a 2035 emissions to be aligned with 2ºC pathways (Requiring an annual reduction in emissions of ~4.2% from 2026 to 2025)

The only time we came remotely close to this kind of emissions reduction was during the early part of the COVID pandemic when emissions fell by 4.7% between 2019 and 2020. This is an enormous task.

Since there is no evidence that governments anywhere are attempting this kind of emissions reduction the report concludes:

A continuation of the mitigation effort implied by current policies is only enough to keep warming below 2.8°C

All this is to say that we are most certainly heading into a world that is 2ºC hotter than the preindustrial averages and for which we must now urgently prepare. The IPCC's reports have consistently outlined the risks as can be seen below.

Facing the consequences

The 2025 Emissions Gap Report leaves little room for interpretation: staying below 2°C is now almost impossible. With a 92% chance of crossing that and with global emissions still rising, the focus must shift from prevention alone to survival. Cutting emissions by 25% by 2030 —or 35% by 2035—is the minimum needed, yet it is something we have never achieved. The world must now confront what a ≥ 2°C future means in practical terms. Every country, city, and community will need resilience plans for food, water, health, and infrastructure. Mitigation remains essential of course and as this and every other major report on the climate crisis clearly outlines, every tenth of a degree that can be avoided matters, but adaptation is now equally urgent. The task ahead is not only to cut emissions; it is to ensure we can endure the climate we have already set in motion.

Here is a collection of the major reports and their findings.

First up is the WMO's Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.

They say:

From 2023 to 2024, CO2 in the global surface atmosphere increased by 3.5 ppm, the largest one-year increase since modern measurements began in 1957. This increase was driven by continued fossil CO2 emissions, enhanced fire emissions and reduced terrestrial/ocean sinks in 2024, which could signal a climate feedback.

Why is this happening?

It's all pretty straightforward, as described in the Systems Change Lab State of Climate Action Report

They say:

Halfway through the middle of what the climate community has dubbed the “decisive decade" urgency is fading, vested interests in maintaining the status quo are playing defense as strongly as ever, and complacency is on the rise. [As a result] not one of the 45 indicators assessed is on track to achieve its 1.5°C-aligned benchmark for 2030.

Of course it must be said that, given the current levels of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, 1.5ºC is no longer a reasonable target. This was recognised officially for the first time by the UN's Secretary General António Guterres in an interview with The Guardian:

“Let’s recognise our failure. The truth is that we have failed to avoid an overshooting above 1.5C in the next few years."

So now we must look forward to the future. Given that governments have failed to keep global temperatures below 1.5ºC there should now be an urgent renewed commitment to avoid a large overshoot and definitely avoid going beyond 2ºC. Right?

You would think.

Instead the world is showing a complete lack of urgency as manifest by the lackluster submission of Nationally Determined Contributions as stipulated in the Paris Accord. Of the 197 signatories only 67 submitted their NDC's by the September 30th deadline.

Here is are comments by the UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell at the launch of the Nationally Determined Contributions Synthesis Report, released on 28 October 2025.

We are equally mindful that the data set in today's report provides quite a limited picture, as the NDCs it synthesizes represent around one-third of global emissions. In order to provide a wider picture of global progress ahead of COP30, we have done some additional calculations which also capture new NDCs or targets submitted or announced up to publication of this report, and including at the Secretary-General's Climate Summit in New York.

This wider picture, though still incomplete, shows global emissions falling by around 10% by 2035.

What emission reductions are required by 2035 to remain below 2ºC? From the Synthesis Report:

Limiting warming to below 2 °C (with over 67 per cent likelihood), GHG emission reductions will have to be reduced by 35 (22–55) per cent by 2035 relative to the 2019 level.

You read that correctly. To avoid 2ºC a 35% reduction is required. In 2025 parties to the Paris Accord have committed to 10%.

There is an emission reduction gap of 25%.

So basically things have gotten a little worse than was projected in the 2024 UNEP Emissions Gap Report. (The 2025 report not available at time of writing.)

We have to accept that we have catastrophically failed at keeping temperatures below 1.5ºC and now have a ~97% chance (2024 data) of failing at keeping temperatures below 2ºC.

There should now be urgency in implementing adaption plans to be able to cope with a world at 2ºC.

How are things going on the adaptation front?

This from the UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2025, which provides the annual update on what is happening globally in planning, implementation and finance for adaptation to climate change.

The report updates the cost of adaptation finance needed in developing countries, putting it at US$310 billion per year in 2035, when based on modelled costs. When based on extrapolated needs expressed in Nationally Determined Contributions and National Adaptation Plans, this figure rises to US$365 billion a year. Meanwhile, international public adaptation finance flows to developing countries were US$26 billion in 2023: down from US$28 billion the previous year. This makes adaptation financing needs in developing countries 12-14 times as much as current flows.

If current finance trends continue, the Glasgow Climate Pact goal of doubling international public adaptation finance from 2019 levels by 2025 will not be achieved, while the New Collective Quantified Goal for climate finance is not ambitious enough to close the finance gap.

In other words we are completely off track to deal with the impacts that we are now committed to. As the report cover puts it:

Running on empty. The world is gearing up for climate resilience — without the money to get there.

In response to all this, in a strongly worded BioScience Journal Article entitled The 2025 state of the climate report: a planet on the brink William J. Ripple et al make this observation.

We are hurtling toward climate chaos. The planet's vital signs are flashing red. The consequences of human-driven alterations of the climate are no longer future threats but are here now.

In this report, we seek to speak candidly to fellow scientists, policymakers, and humanity at large. Given our roles in research and higher education, we share an ethical responsibility to sound the alarm about escalating global risks.

Their report has this graphic, which shows that on our current emissions and climate action trajectory we are headed for 3.1ºC by 2100.

Of course it is a journey to get to that level of heating: 1.5ºC now, then 1.6ºC then 1.7ºC then 2ºC by 2038 or so. Each increment of heating resulting in more climate chaos.

William J. Ripple et al conclude:

The accelerating climate crisis is now a major driver of global instability. Extreme weather is causing widespread impacts and direct loss of life, while also driving resource scarcity, displacement, and civil unrest. These challenges are further compounded by weakening international cooperation and reductions in foreign aid. These converging pressures are straining national governments, multilateral institutions, and communities around the world. A strategy that embeds climate resilience into national defense and foreign policy frameworks is urgently needed. Without it, cascading risks may overwhelm systems of peace, governance, and public and ecosystem health.

To ensure a livable and just future, we must confront the deeper challenge of aligning human civilization with the limits of the Earth's natural systems. Transformative change is needed to address ecological overshoot and the worsening climate emergency. This includes reducing overconsumption, particularly among the affluent, stabilizing the human population through the empowerment of girls and women, shifting toward plant-based food systems, providing safe water and sanitation to all, and adopting economic models that prioritize well-being, equity, and sustainability over perpetual growth (Ripple et al. 2020, Gupta et al. 2024). These systemic shifts are necessary to safeguard the biosphere and promote long-term well-being.

Are we up for this?

So far there is no indication that this situation is being treated as a global emergency.

We are, to quote António Guterres, on a highway to hell with our foot firmly on the gas.

But there is something we can do about this. Here are 5 bold steps we could take in the next 12 months.

Here is the full press briefing.

The plan projects more than 105,000 MW of new generation capacity by 2039. This is new capacity build is ambitious even by global standards. Here is the plan in a nutshell:

This marks a big turning point in the country’s energy future. For the first time, the government has mapped out a realistic path to reduce coal’s dominance and ramp up renewables, storage, and distributed generation.

That’s the good news and it’s genuinely significant. But buried in the same document is a line about a “Clean Coal Technologies Demonstration Plant by 2030.”

And that one sentence says a lot about the political balancing act still shaping the country's energy transition.

The progress worth celebrating

As mentioned the IRP outlines plans to build more than 105 000 MW of new generation capacity by 2039, including:

• Wind 34,000 MW
• Solar PV 25,000 MW
• Energy Storage 8,500 MW
• Gas 16 000 MW
• Distributed Generation 16,000 MW
• Nuclear 5,200 MW

If the government delivers on this plan, coal’s share of electricity generation will fall from about 58% today to 27% by 2039. This is a fundamental shift and an essential step toward decarbonisation of energy system.

The problem with "clean coal"

The IRP also proposes a Clean Coal Technologies Demonstration Plant to be built by 2030, which they describe as an “alternative solution that is potentially cheaper and more efficient than flue gas desulphurization (FGD).”

This may sound promising until you unpack what it really means.

• There is no truly “clean” coal technology. Carbon capture and storage and gasification systems exist in theory, but they’re expensive, energy-intensive, and not commercially viable at scale.
• FGD is a proven pollution-control system that reduces sulphur dioxide emissions and improves air quality. Avoiding it in favour of an unproven “clean coal” experiment is not innovation it's cost avoidance!
• Politically, the “clean coal” clause is a way to reassure coal-dependent regions and unions that coal still has a future, even as the rest of the plan moves toward renewables.

In short, this is a greenwashing move, a political fig leaf that allows policymakers to say “we’re exploring clean coal” without having to face the full implications of phasing it out.

Why it matters for South Africa’s Just Energy Transition

South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) backed by over USD 8.5 billion in international climate finance is built on a clear premise:

• A managed coal phase-down, combined with rapid investment in renewables and community-level support for affected regions.
• Introducing “clean coal” language muddies that message.
• It risks undermining donor confidence, slowing funding disbursements, and signalling that South Africa isn’t fully committed to the transition path it agreed to under the JETP and its net-zero by 2050 goal.

The plan forward

The IRP 2025 deserves credit for its scale and ambition, especially the focus on wind, solar, storage, and distributed generation.

But for the plan to retain credibility South Africa must:

• Treat the “clean coal” plant strictly as a research pilot, not a backdoor to extend coal’s lifespan.
• Prioritise air-quality compliance and install FGDs at existing coal plants to protect public health.
• Accelerate renewables procurement and grid investments to close the energy gap left by coal retirements.
• Maintain transparency in funding and timelines for all “clean coal” or CCS-related projects.

The bottom line

The IRP 2025 is a big step in the right direction but the “clean coal” clause should remind everyone that South Africa’s energy transition is still walking a tightrope between progress and politics.

Real leadership means making hard choices by aggressively removing coal from the energy mix.not hiding behind hopeful CCS slogans.

Demand-side mitigation and new ways of providing services can help avoid, shift, and improve final service demand. Rapid and deep changes in demand make it easier for every sector to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the short and medium term (high confidence).

The indicative potential of demand-side strategies to reduce emissions of direct and indirect CO2 and non-CO2 GHG emissions in three end-use sectors (buildings, land transport, and food) is 40–70% globally by 2050 (high confidence)

Here they are referring to actions taken by individuals, households, communities, and organizations to change how energy and resources are used. This is in contrast to supply-side strategies (e.g., building wind farms, solar plants, or carbon capture), demand-side is all about how we live, travel, eat, and consume.

They use the Avoid-Shift-Improve framework when evaluating mitigation strategies. In this context they find:

The greatest ‘Avoid’ potential comes from reducing long-haul aviation and providing short-distance low-carbon urban infrastructures.

The greatest ‘Shift’ potential would come from switching to plant-based diets.

The greatest ‘Improve’ potential comes from within the building sector, and in particular increased use of energy-efficient end-use technologies and passive housing. 

It’s clear from the above that if we, at scale, reshape how we live, move, and eat, we could cut emissions from buildings, transport and food by 40–70% worldwide by 2050!

This is a BIG deal!

We have the solutions and know-how to radically cut emissions we just need to use them!

What is terrifying about this story, (multiplied many times over globally) is that this is all happening against a backdrop of ~1.5ºC of heating.

It is 97% certain we will cross 2ºC on our current fossil emissions trajectory. At the current decadal heating we should reach this in the next ~18 years.

Young people will bear the brunt of this as illustrated vividly in this graphic:

We are rapidly moving into a brand new world, one marked by increasing physical breakdown. The number of people on the font lines of this is staggering. 3.3-3.6 BILLION people live in hotspots of high vulnerability to climate change.

There are 2 extremely important questions that need urgent answers:

1. How do we prevent the rise of global temperatures beyond 2ºC?
2. How do we adapt our systems to cope in a world at 2ºC?

In its most recent reporting the IPCC identified the barriers to our taking action on both mitigation and adaption. Here they are:

• Limited resources
• Lack of private sector & citizen engagement
• Insufficient mobilization of finance (including for research)
• Low climate literacy
• Lack of political commitment
• Limited research and/or slow and low uptake of adaptation science
• Low sense of urgency.

If we don't change the above soon we have a lot of suffering ahead.

“We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation [reduction of emissions] we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.”—Dr. John Holdren, 2007

In this context steps to radical emissions reduction they classified into Avoid-Shift-Improve options.

‘Avoid’ refers to all mitigation options that reduce unnecessary (in the sense of being not required to deliver the desired service output) energy consumption by redesigning service provisioning systems.

‘Shift’ refers to the switch to already existing competitive efficient technologies and service provisioning systems.

‘Improve’ refers to improvements in efficiency in existing technologies.

Looking at demand-side emissions reduction through this lens, research has identified the actions with the most leverage:

The greatest ‘Avoid’ potential comes from reducing long-haul aviation and providing short-distance low-carbon urban infrastructures.

The greatest ‘Shift’ potential would come from switching to plant-based diets.

The greatest ‘Improve’ potential comes from within the building sector, and in particular increased use of energy-efficient end-use technologies and passive housing. 

We absolutely have the knowledge and know-how to radically reduce emissions on a national and individual level! What is preventing people from making better low-carbon consumption choices?

I would argue this stems from low climate literacy, which is also at the heart of delayed urgent adaptation action.

As we move deeper into the climate crisis the need to improve climate literacy will become increasingly urgent.

On a scale of 1-10 how climate literate are you?

Why not start working your way down this list, which shows the top 10 emission reduction consumption choices you can make. Listed in order of greatest impact: