I just read this paper myself and was considering how to discuss it. Instead I found this excellent analysis already up. If you want to know what the latest IPCC numbers and positions are this is a good place to start.
The stark reality of our climate trajectory demands we confront the psychological mechanisms that have enabled our collective inaction. Your analysis cuts through the comfortable delusions we've maintained about gradual transitions and technological salvation, revealing how our attachment to familiar frameworks has prevented us from processing the magnitude of systemic transformation required. The 1.5°C target functioned as a psychological anchor, allowing us to maintain the illusion of control while avoiding the deeper work of examining our relationship with consumption, growth, and what we've unconsciously defined as "normal" life. The data is unambiguous—we're not just missing targets, we're discovering that our entire approach to climate action has been a sophisticated form of avoidance, where we've focused on preserving the systems that created the crisis rather than questioning whether those systems deserve preservation at all.
But let's be honest about what's really happening here—this isn't just about carbon budgets or temperature thresholds. The entire climate discourse has become another mechanism of control, where the same institutions that profit from destruction now position themselves as saviors through green technology and carbon markets. The 1.5°C chimera wasn't just a failed target; it was a carefully constructed narrative that kept us focused on technical solutions while the real power structures remained untouched. They've convinced us that salvation lies in electric vehicles and solar panels rather than questioning why we've organized society around endless consumption and extraction in the first place. The climate crisis isn't separate from the systems of domination that have shaped our world—it's their inevitable expression, and any "solution" that doesn't acknowledge this is just another form of the same old game.
What emerges from this recognition is both sobering and liberating: we've been trying to solve the wrong problem. The deeper challenge isn't preserving our current civilization patterns—it's developing the wisdom to discern which aspects of human flourishing are actually worth preserving versus which are elaborate expressions of our collective trauma and disconnection. When we examine the unspoken assumption that our current lifestyle arrangements deserve perpetual continuation, we discover that much of what we're frantically trying to save may actually be the source of our suffering. This doesn't mean embracing nihilism or abandoning care for human wellbeing; rather, it means developing the capacity to hold multiple frameworks simultaneously—honoring both the genuine crisis we face and the possibility that our response might require releasing attachment to forms of "livability" that were never truly sustainable, either ecologically or psychologically. The real work may be learning to grieve what was never meant to last while cultivating forms of existence that can dance with uncertainty rather than demanding permanent control over an inherently dynamic world.
For anyone who actually understands systems, tipping points, points of no return ... we long ago baked in > +10 C. We are on a rocket ride to hothouse earth and a mega extinction event. We had a chance with extreme effort provided by the buffering capacity of Greenland and Antarctica. We have all but pissed that chance away, and instead decided to set fire to the Earth.
10 years from now, I wonder if I’ll still have the necessary technology to read things like this. Should I buy it and ironically read the news that late capitalism is still dooming us? Or will I, because of world events or a shift in my priorities no longer spend any time looking at pixels. What would I do if I spent all of 2035 without regularly staring at pixels?
"The carbon budget, the amount of CO2 that can be emitted if global warming is to be kept below 1.5 °C? We’ve treated it like a credit card with no limit, making endless promises to pay it back later with technologies that doesn’t yet exist". Beautifully put.
Great post, Ricky. A relatively new contributor to heat, energy, water, and power consumption are the huge data centers powering up to support AI. With no thought of resource cost or balance let alone the negativity on us 8 billion humans. Time to think up!!
It’s been over for a good while. Trajectories were clear, including the reasons for them. Everything is playing out as predicted, and will continue to do so.
We have been seeing the consequences of the increased heat for the last several years in Las Vegas NV. Plants that have grown in our yards for decades are now dead, victims of the summer heat. Local Nurseries are selling plants we’ve never seen before because they can handle the summer heat whereas our old standbys die almost immediately once the heat hits. I’m seeing far fewer birds and pollinators. How long before nothing will survive?
World “leaders” have kicked every climate can down the road for decades and decades. Not one of those “leaders” has had the guts to tackle climate change head on.
What did they fear more, the retaliation of oligarchs, or that of the easily manipulated electorate?
Tremendous essay Ricky and it should be one desks of all the policy makers. What you are describing is a truly catastrophic future, but to repeat myself, just because we have a cooler than normal year or even two years, I think we are seeing a punctuated equilibrium which when averaged out results in calamitous heating by 2100. Five stars for your unpacking this for us.
I just read this paper myself and was considering how to discuss it. Instead I found this excellent analysis already up. If you want to know what the latest IPCC numbers and positions are this is a good place to start.
The stark reality of our climate trajectory demands we confront the psychological mechanisms that have enabled our collective inaction. Your analysis cuts through the comfortable delusions we've maintained about gradual transitions and technological salvation, revealing how our attachment to familiar frameworks has prevented us from processing the magnitude of systemic transformation required. The 1.5°C target functioned as a psychological anchor, allowing us to maintain the illusion of control while avoiding the deeper work of examining our relationship with consumption, growth, and what we've unconsciously defined as "normal" life. The data is unambiguous—we're not just missing targets, we're discovering that our entire approach to climate action has been a sophisticated form of avoidance, where we've focused on preserving the systems that created the crisis rather than questioning whether those systems deserve preservation at all.
But let's be honest about what's really happening here—this isn't just about carbon budgets or temperature thresholds. The entire climate discourse has become another mechanism of control, where the same institutions that profit from destruction now position themselves as saviors through green technology and carbon markets. The 1.5°C chimera wasn't just a failed target; it was a carefully constructed narrative that kept us focused on technical solutions while the real power structures remained untouched. They've convinced us that salvation lies in electric vehicles and solar panels rather than questioning why we've organized society around endless consumption and extraction in the first place. The climate crisis isn't separate from the systems of domination that have shaped our world—it's their inevitable expression, and any "solution" that doesn't acknowledge this is just another form of the same old game.
What emerges from this recognition is both sobering and liberating: we've been trying to solve the wrong problem. The deeper challenge isn't preserving our current civilization patterns—it's developing the wisdom to discern which aspects of human flourishing are actually worth preserving versus which are elaborate expressions of our collective trauma and disconnection. When we examine the unspoken assumption that our current lifestyle arrangements deserve perpetual continuation, we discover that much of what we're frantically trying to save may actually be the source of our suffering. This doesn't mean embracing nihilism or abandoning care for human wellbeing; rather, it means developing the capacity to hold multiple frameworks simultaneously—honoring both the genuine crisis we face and the possibility that our response might require releasing attachment to forms of "livability" that were never truly sustainable, either ecologically or psychologically. The real work may be learning to grieve what was never meant to last while cultivating forms of existence that can dance with uncertainty rather than demanding permanent control over an inherently dynamic world.
Exactly. Though anyone remotely familiar with the dominant cultures know we will never embrace this. There’s just no way out of this.
Something different may arise from the ashes, but that’s scant comfort to everyone alive today.
Clear as a bell. A hell of our own making. Thank you.
Sorry, Brother...ain't no such thing as a carbon budget. Hasn't been for 50 years.
+2.5°C minimum is baked in, and probably by or before 2040.
That means ALL the major feedback loops are in auto-acceleration mode & +6°C or more this century.
For anyone who actually understands systems, tipping points, points of no return ... we long ago baked in > +10 C. We are on a rocket ride to hothouse earth and a mega extinction event. We had a chance with extreme effort provided by the buffering capacity of Greenland and Antarctica. We have all but pissed that chance away, and instead decided to set fire to the Earth.
10 years from now, I wonder if I’ll still have the necessary technology to read things like this. Should I buy it and ironically read the news that late capitalism is still dooming us? Or will I, because of world events or a shift in my priorities no longer spend any time looking at pixels. What would I do if I spent all of 2035 without regularly staring at pixels?
"The carbon budget, the amount of CO2 that can be emitted if global warming is to be kept below 1.5 °C? We’ve treated it like a credit card with no limit, making endless promises to pay it back later with technologies that doesn’t yet exist". Beautifully put.
Great post, Ricky. A relatively new contributor to heat, energy, water, and power consumption are the huge data centers powering up to support AI. With no thought of resource cost or balance let alone the negativity on us 8 billion humans. Time to think up!!
"Be loud" - why? Be loud about what? Be loud to whom?
Be for real. Be yourself. Be whatever, but don't be a jerk.
Absolutely brilliant. Concise. Comprehensive. And searing - pun intended.
Thanks for this. Now if we can just get it to go viral!
It’s been over for a good while. Trajectories were clear, including the reasons for them. Everything is playing out as predicted, and will continue to do so.
When we recognize that we are already over 560 vppm CO2(e), we realize that we long ago blew through the budget. And we are good and truly cooked.
We have been seeing the consequences of the increased heat for the last several years in Las Vegas NV. Plants that have grown in our yards for decades are now dead, victims of the summer heat. Local Nurseries are selling plants we’ve never seen before because they can handle the summer heat whereas our old standbys die almost immediately once the heat hits. I’m seeing far fewer birds and pollinators. How long before nothing will survive?
World “leaders” have kicked every climate can down the road for decades and decades. Not one of those “leaders” has had the guts to tackle climate change head on.
What did they fear more, the retaliation of oligarchs, or that of the easily manipulated electorate?
We should show this graph everywhere. Again. And again. And again.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z4z4WbI9n0s4XQdxOG2tGTh0ylU9-TTi/view?pli=1
Tremendous essay Ricky and it should be one desks of all the policy makers. What you are describing is a truly catastrophic future, but to repeat myself, just because we have a cooler than normal year or even two years, I think we are seeing a punctuated equilibrium which when averaged out results in calamitous heating by 2100. Five stars for your unpacking this for us.