Loading...
BETA – We are refining the platform. Your feedback helps us improve. Share feedback
Loading...
Publish your own articles and insights on Citable ESG
Pro organisations publish unlimited content, strengthening their AI Citability Score and visibility to procurement teams, investors, clients, customers, partners, and followers.
The UN's latest assessment confirms what many climate scientists have been signalling for months: the 1.5°C target agreed at Paris is now mathematically out of reach without immediate, economy-wide transformation. Current global policies and pledges put us on track for 2.5–2.8°C of warming by 2100.
This matters for corporate climate strategy because it reframes the entire conversation around net-zero commitments. Companies built their science-based targets on the assumption that 1.5°C was still achievable. It was never realistic, but it was politically useful. Now it's neither.
The practical implication: organisations pursuing SBTi alignment are investing in credibility for a goal the world has already missed. That doesn't mean their emission reductions are worthless – every fraction of a degree matters operationally and financially – but it does mean the narrative around "limiting warming to 1.5°C" has expired.
What should replace it? Clarity on actual warming scenarios (1.7°C, 2°C, adaptation costs), and honest disclosure of climate scenario analysis under TCFD. Companies should stop anchoring strategy to an aspirational political line and start anchoring it to real physical and financial risk across multiple temperature pathways.
The gap between stated ambition and physical reality is now too wide to ignore. Boards need to ask: are our climate targets built on science, or on PR?
