sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

‘It’s not game over – it’s game on’: Why 2024 is an inflection point for the climate crisis

Public Policy / opinion
‘It’s not game over – it’s game on’: Why 2024 is an inflection point for the climate crisis
cc
Global emissions may peak this year, as fossil fuels are displaced by clean energy technologies. Alvaro Barrientos/AP.

By Wesley Morgan*

In 2024, global climate trends are cause for both deep alarm and cautious optimism. Last year was the hottest on record by a huge margin and this year will likely be hotter still. The annual global average temperature may, for the first time, exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels – a threshold crucial for stabilising the Earth’s climate.

Without immediate action, we are at grave risk of crossing irreversible tipping points in the Earth’s climate system. Yet there are reasons for hope.

Global greenhouse gas emissions may peak this year and start falling. This would be an historic turning point, heralding the end of the fossil fuel era as coal, oil and gas are increasingly displaced by clean energy technologies.

But we must do more than take our foot off the warming accelerator – we must slam on the brakes. To avoid the worst of the climate crisis, global emissions must roughly halve by 2030. The task is monumental but possible, and could not be more urgent. It’s not game over – it’s game on.

Our planet in peril

Last year, Earth was the hottest it’s been since records began. The onset of El Niño conditions in the Pacific Ocean helped drive global temperatures to new heights. The European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service found 2023 was 1.48°C warmer than the pre-industrial average.

Warmer global temperatures in 2023 brought extreme events and disasters worldwide. They included deadly heatwaves in the northern hemisphere summer, devastating wildfires in Canada and Hawaii, and record-breaking rains in many places including Korea, South Africa and China.

Last year was also the warmest on record for the world’s oceans. More than 90% of heat from global warming is stored in the world’s oceans. Ocean temperatures are a clear indicator of our warming planet, revealing a year-on-year increase and an acceleration in the rate of warming.

The warming oceans meant for parts of 2023, the extent of sea ice in the Earth’s polar regions was the lowest on record. During the southern hemisphere winter, sea ice in Antarctica was more than one million square kilometres below the previous record low – an area of ice more than 15 times the size of Tasmania.

This year may be hotter still. There is a reasonable chance 2024 will end with an average global temperature more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Governments have agreed, through the Paris Agreement, to work together to limit global warming to 1.5°C, because warming beyond this threshold poses enormous dangers for humanity.

The agreement refers to long-term trends in temperature, not a single year. So breaching 1.5°C in 2024 would not mean the world has failed to meet the Paris target. However, on long-term trends we are on track to cross the 1.5°C limit in the early 2030s.

As the planet warms, we are now at grave risk of crossing irreversible “tipping points” in Earth’s climate system – including the loss of polar ice sheets and associated sea-level rise, and the collapse of major ocean currents. These tipping points represent thresholds which, when crossed, will trigger abrupt and self-perpetuating changes to the world’s climate and oceans. They are threats of a magnitude never before faced by humanity – one-way doors we do not want to go through.

Satellite image showing ice-cap melting on Antarctica’s Eagle Island in February 2020. Warming oceans are reducing sea ice extent in the polar regions. NASA EARTH OBSERVATORY via EPA.

The age of fossil fuels will end

In 2024 there are also many reasons for hope.

At the COP28 United Nations climate talks in December 2023, governments from nearly 200 countries agreed to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels in this crucial decade. The burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of the climate crisis.

We have the technology needed to replace fossil fuels across our economy: in electricity generation, transport, heating, cooking and industrial processes. In fact, surging market demand for clean energy technologies – wind, solar, batteries and electric cars – is now displacing polluting technologies, such as coal-fired power and combustion engine vehicles, on a global scale.

The world added 510 billion watts of renewable energy capacity in 2023, 50% more than in 2022 and equivalent to the entire power capacity of Germany, France and Spain combined. The next five years are expected to see even faster growth in renewables.

Sales of electric vehicles are also booming – growing by 31% in 2023 and representing around 18% of all new vehicles sold worldwide. In Australia, sales of electric vehicles doubled last year and are expected to continue to grow strongly.

At COP28, governments agreed to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels this decade. Peter Dejong/AP.

Toward a peak in global emissions

The accelerating shift toward clean energy technologies means global greenhouse gas emissions may fall in 2024. Recent analysis from the International Energy Agency (IEA), based on the stated policies of governments, suggests emissions may in fact have peaked last year. The finding is supported by analysis from Climate Analytics, which found a 70% chance of emissions falling from 2024 if current growth in clean technologies continues.

A growing number of major economies have passed their emissions peaks, including the United States, the European Union, the United Kingdom and Japan.

China is currently the world’s biggest emitter, contributing 31% of the global total last year. But explosive growth in clean energy investments mean China’s emissions are set not only to fall in 2024, but to go into structural decline.

What’s more, China is currently undergoing a boom in clean energy manufacturing and a historic expansion of renewables – especially solar. Similarly explosive growth is expected for batteries and electric vehicles.

A peak in global emissions is cause for optimism – but it won’t be nearly enough. Greenhouse gas emissions will still accumulate in the atmosphere and drive catastrophic warming, until we bring them as close to zero as possible.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns global emissions must roughly halve by 2030 to keep the 1.5°C goal within reach. The task is monumental, but possible.

Graph showing how climate policy shifts and clean energy use are bringing the world closer to an emissions peak
Climate policy shifts and clean energy use are bringing the world closer to an emissions peak – but governments need to do more. Climate Council, adapted from Carbon Brief analysis and based on IEA data.

Next steps for Australia

Australia is making great strides in rolling out renewable energy. But state and federal governments are undermining this progress by approving new fossil fuel projects.

Every new coal, oil or gas development endangers us all. Australia must urgently reform its national environmental law – the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act – to end new fossil fuel developments.

Similarly, Australia’s gains in renewable energy have been offset by rising emissions in other sectors, notably transport. It’s time to implement long-promised fuel efficiency standards and get these emissions down.

Beyond these immediate next practical steps, Australia has much work ahead to shift from fossil fuel exports to clean alternatives.

The opportunity for Australia to play a major positive role in the world’s decarbonisation journey is undeniable, but that window of opportunity is narrowing fast.The Conversation

*Wesley Morgan, Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

33 Comments

How does increasing our population so much every year fit with our governments commitments to reduce pollution?

If reducing greenhouse gases is of existential importantance, why do the Greens keep denying themselves power by pursuing unpopular non environmental agendas?

Fossil fuels are so critical to our current standard of living and security that it is a given they will all be brought above ground and used. No major power will deliberately give away the economic and military advantage of using fossil fuels.

Up
5

Yeah, that subset of Green supporters who prioritize smoking their 'green'.

 

I do wonder if more 'renegade' countries like Russia will give a toss about emissions, given that a warmer world will make their own frozen continent more hospitable, while turning their enemies territory into a dessert. Putin will likely keep burning Russian stocks until there's nothing left to burn.

Up
2

Vlads economy is selling carbon. 

Up
3

Look at a satellite view of Russia. Enormous forest fires engulfing most of their territory would not be good for them medium term.

Up
0

How does increasing population reduce pollution? LOL. It's not meant to. It's meant to keep the cult of exponential growth happy.

 

Up
3

"Current Policy" and "Current Pledges" are nothing more than words, and will be as worthless as words until they translate into actions, and for actions to occur there will be a very real lag spaning years, if not decades from when those words were put together.

Up
1

As the economy functions by the expendature of energy and the vast bulk of our energy comes from burning carbon, there's no real intention to change anything, until the magic energy fairy shows up. 

Up
2

As an information article this is pretty weak - lots of emotion dressed up as facts matched with lots of maybe's, might's and assumptions.

I also understood that the Paris agreement targets were 2% warming not 1.5% and 2100 as the target date not 2050 as is now being used by those with their own agenda

Up
4

The 1.5 was the aspirational target. Now we've achieved that, we can aim for 2 and beyond. Lets see how far we can keep pushing this rolling behemoth that is the human economic superorganism, until physics rolls it backwards and crushes us. Growth, growth, groooowth.......

Up
3

Tropical Stewart Island,  woo-hoo

 

Up
0

Between superstorms, and the 10 million people scratching a living there, it'll be paradise.

Up
3

We cannot talk. Right now, we are using more coal than gas to Generate electricity. Why? How is this allowed?

I understand one gas unit at Huntly is out for repairs, but there is heaps of other gas capacity avaliable. 

Up
1

Total generation 11.30 am today 5054 MW.

Coal 176, Gas 133.

So while gas is less than coal, it's hardly very significant as a percentage of the total.

Up
3

exactly , so why burn it at all? To keep the unit on standby in case of breakdown elsewhere?

Up
0

Today is a sunny and windy day. What happens later in the year?

Up
0

It's been the same usage for weeks. They were trying to preserve the south island lake levels, but they are 96% full.

Maybe they are using up carbon credits for political reasons, who knows.

Up
0

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns global emissions must roughly halve by 2030 to keep the 1.5°C goal within reach. The task is monumental, but possible.

No, it's not possible. This equates to the emissions drop we saw in 2020 from COVID restrictions, replicated every year until 2030.

Do you seen any signs of a global populace happy to accept such reductions, or the necessary scale of both production and installation of low emission technologies to achieve this?

We'll be lucky if we get in the range of 1-2x this drop by 2030.

Up
2

""...any signs of a global populace happy to accept such reductions..."".  Among the chattring classes yes but my relatives living in a village in the tropics really do need their medicines chilled and if they are to send fish to market some ice. And my wealthier relatives in Europe will want to fly to meet me. And the Sri Lankans will want fertiliser and most of the developed world wants steel and concrete.  

It is conceivably possible to get all electricity from solar and all vehicles could be electric if solar generated electricity was sufficiently cheap but that is still a minority of green house gas emissions compared to agriculture, air transport, buildings, machinery.

Up
1

International travel not included in any countries emissions,  something that needs to change.

Up
2

Ocean temperatures are a clear indicator of our warming planet, revealing a year-on-year increase and an acceleration in the rate of warming.

Yes, they are, but as with everything as complex as ecosystems are, one of the overlooked atmospheric/ocean temperature control mechanisms deserves more focus, seagrass;

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/seagrass-ocean-secret-weapon-climate-change-180976235/

The assault on seagrasses comes in many forms. Fertilizer runoff fuels algae blooms, blocking the light needed for seagrasses to grow, as does excess topsoil runoff from coastal construction and development. Boat anchors and dredging uproot grasses and scar and fragment seagrass habitats. Overfishing large predators disrupts food chains, allowing mid-level predators to wipe out the worms and other small herbivores that usually clean algae off seagrasses. Rising sea temperatures threaten to outpace grasses’ ability to adapt or move, and exacerbate increasingly strong storms that can uproot entire meadows.

The above list demonstrates just how relevant all this is to NZ's coastlines - and we have such great seabed 'land'-mass terms of square kilometres of coast as a percentage of our actual on-shore land mass. Hence, "Nexts Steps for New Zealand" to my mind ought to be urgent restoration and rejuvenation of these near shore ecosystems - and we should argue internationally for their measurement and inclusion in any global carbon trading/emissions reduction system.

 

Up
1

Not trying to sound like a DGM but the planet is buggered in the long term. Things are going to be pretty bad by 2030 and my hope is that by 2050 things have not gone tits up.

Up
2

You know hope is not a strategy right?

Cant imagine that in 6 years time 2030 is going to be any different than 2024 - and 2024 is going to be a wonderful year

 

Up
4

Try doping real research on real stuff. 

"can't imagine'? 'going to be wonderful'? 

Pshawww. You can do better than that. 

So could the writer of the article - it comes from about 2010. We've moved on. The numbers say we've got to STOP carbon emissions by 2030, not just halve. 

Up
0

The main strategy seems to be the same as our approach to housing: live beyond our means by passing the cost onto following generations.

Up
0

"But we must do more than take our foot off the warming accelerator – we must slam on the brakes. To avoid the worst of the climate crisis, global emissions must roughly halve by 2030".

I stopped reading after that. Statement like that are like a child stamping its foot and demanding something its not going to get. There is no-as Zero-chance of that happening and those who demand that it must, never ever spell out the economic consequences. Look at the figures; the global economy still depends very largely on ffs and that's not about to stop anytime soon. The author may or may not know that you can't actually build a wind farm without using ffs. if you don't believe me, do the research

I suggest that the author reads the Material World by Ed Conway. he would learn a great deal, like the incredible journey a lump of silica takes to become the heart of our phones and computers and the vast amount of energy needed to do it.

Has the author any idea just how much MORE mining is needed to make the transition from ffs? Probably not. Does he know how much additional coal will be burned in India and China to keep their economies going? Again no.

Up
4

Which is why in the end things will go pear shaped. Those with the resources and power to hold them will fight those that don't. Too many people on a finite planet, the problems have already started its just the countries in trouble are those at the bottom so nobody really cares at this point in time. The degree of Climate change will be a make or break, things get incredibly difficult when they go outside the current boundaries, imagine getting -7 Degrees like parts of the UK with out current housing stock in the North Island, I would have trouble keeping the house above freezing.

Up
1

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2021.1905595

An understanding of the change or lack thereof  in relation to natural disaster insurance losses

 

Up
2

Great link - thanks!

Up
0

I can’t see ordinary folks giving up their fossil fuel powered lives voluntarily. All our toys are fossil fuel powered. Electric driven will not replace fossil fuel for recreational fishing boats, motorhomes, motorcycles etc due to high costs and lack of availability. China and India have chosen to bring their people out of poverty using fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and who can blame them. Surviving in a world where the climate is hostile to all species seems inevitable with very few options. Geo engineering being perhaps the one and only given our current trajectory.

Up
1

Sadly, a good comment. And there's also a super volcano.

Up
0

A idea that could have widespread application in NZ.

https://das-energy.com/en/products/greenhousemodule

Up
0

Global warming - the biggest scam on the planet, employing millions who are always coming up with new 'evidence'. Meanwhile the climate is quite normal where I live and last year was definitely colder than the year before. 

Adolf Hitler was certainly no angel, but one thing he did get right was the quote, "In the big lie there is a certain force of credibility". 

Up
1