2024 did see global temperatures exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, but that does not make the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C target unattainable. Climate scenarios describe pathways of temperature change across the rest of the century out to 2100, and there is an important difference between pathways that stay below 1.5°C the whole way and pathways that overshoot and then return to 1.5°C by 2100. With decisive action it is still possible to land at 1.5°C, and the same logic applies to the 2°C and 2.5°C limits.
This distinction between staying-below and overshoot pathways is rarely made clear in IPCC reports, media coverage, and other climate publications, which leaves the public and policymakers confused. It matters because some climate impacts depend mostly on the peak temperature reached along the way, while others depend on the longer-term average over the rest of the century.
The clearest way to think about it is to ask two separate questions.
Can we remain below 1.5°C all the way to 2100 without overshooting? Probably not. We will likely have to manage impacts from a peak that arrives before 2050, after which temperatures can improve rapidly as net-negative emissions and carbon withdrawal ramp up.
Can we return to 1.5°C by 2100 after overshooting? Yes. Achieving net-negative emissions and withdrawing carbon from the atmosphere and oceans will be far more feasible than conventional scenarios assume, because those scenarios do not understand technology or disruption and badly underestimate future carbon-withdrawal capacity.
The reason is that a set of technology disruptions are already transforming energy, transportation, and food. Solar, wind, and batteries are displacing coal, oil, and gas. Autonomous electric vehicles offering transportation-as-a-service are displacing internal combustion engines and private vehicle ownership. And precision fermentation and cellular agriculture are displacing meat, dairy, eggs, seafood, and other animal products. Driven by just eight technologies, these disruptions can directly eliminate over 90% of net greenhouse gas emissions worldwide by 2040, and they cut the cost of carbon withdrawal by a factor of 10x to 100x, making aggressive net-negative emissions realistic from the 2040s onward. The emerging labor disruption reinforces this further, as humanoid robots drive the marginal cost of physical labor toward near-zero and make the labor- and machinery-intensive work of drawdown cheaper and faster to scale.
One caveat worth stating plainly. Every scenario reaching all the way to 2100, climate or otherwise, is undisciplined in the formal sense and should be treated with heavy skepticism, because so much technological change will occur by 2050 that little about the back half of the century is truly predictable.
Explore the evidence...
The three disruptions of energy, transportation, and food can eliminate more than 90% of net greenhouse gas emissions within 15 years, using technologies that already exist and win on cost alone. This is the fastest, cheapest, and most complete path to solving climate change, and it is already underway.
The deeper shift goes beyond stopping the damage. The same technologies that mitigate emissions will make it affordable, for the first time in history, to draw down the carbon already in the atmosphere and oceans and to restore ecosystems at scale. We are moving from an extractive system that depletes the planet toward a creation-based system that can heal it.
This is the largest reduction in humanity's ecological footprint in history, and it is a choice. The regions, industries, and communities that recognize it early and act decisively will capture the greatest economic, social, and environmental rewards, and help lead the world toward a restored and abundant planet.