The rate at which atmospheric CO2 is increasing is now outpacing the pathways set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that limit global warming to 1.5C.
This is what the latest data shows from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, where measurements of CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been collected for more than 60 years.
In 2024, the rise in atmospheric CO2 was one of the fastest on record.
Emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from human activity have so far caused human-caused global warming to reach about 1.3C above pre-industrial levels.
If warming is to be limited to 1.5C, as set out in the Paris Agreement, the build-up of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will need to slow to a halt and then go into reverse.
And, yet, the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is still showing no signs of slowing.
Pathways to 1.5C
The third working group report of the IPCC’s sixth assessment report (AR6), published in 2022, presented a set of seven “illustrative pathways” that highlight how different mitigation choices across major economic sectors translate into future greenhouse gas emissions and global temperatures.
In the three most-ambitious pathways, global warming has a 50% chance of either staying below 1.5C, or overshooting it by only 0.1C (for up to several decades) before then returning to below 1.5C:
- Shifting pathways (IMP-SP): Illustrates mitigation in the context of a broader shift towards sustainable development, including by reducing inequality and with a phase-out of fossil fuels.
- Low demand (IMP-LD): Illustrates a strong emphasis on energy-demand reductions, and with a phase-out of fossil fuels.
- Renewables (IMP-Ren): Illustrates a future with a heavy reliance on renewable energy.
As the table below shows, the build-up of atmospheric CO2 in these three scenarios slows from the 2010s average of 2.41 parts per million per year (ppm/year) to 1.33-1.79ppm/year in the 2020s.
It then slows still further and goes into reverse either in the 2030s or 2040s – in other words, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere actually begins to fall.
| Decade | Projected average CO2 rise (ppm/year) in scenarios limiting global warming to1.5C | ||
| C1-IMP-LD | C1-IMP-REN | C1-IMP-SP | |
| 2020s | 1.33 | 1.75 | 1.79 |
| 2030s | -0.14 | 0.13 | 0.57 |
| 2040s | -0.53 | -0.46 | -0.7 |
| 2050s | -0.65 | -0.61 | -0.41 |
Large CO2 rise in 2024
Yet, not only are atmospheric CO2 concentrations still rising, the rate of rise is accelerating.
The build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere has been monitored at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii since 1958.
As illustrated by the iconic Keeling Curve below, the increase has been accelerating over the decades (blue line) due to ongoing emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and changing land use.
So while the curve needs to rapidly bend in the other direction to hold warming to 1.5C (light red line), the rate of rising CO2 marches onwards and upwards.
chart
Monthly CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa from observations up to 2024 (blue) and the IPCC C1-IMP-SP scenario consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5C (light red). Also shown is the Met Office forecast for 2025 (red).
The table below sets out decadal averages of the annual rise in CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa. The first half of the 2020s has seen an average CO2 rise of 2.58ppm/year, which is 44-94% higher than it needs to be to track the IPCC 1.5C-compatible scenarios.
| Decade | Observed average CO2 rise (ppm/year) |
|---|---|
| 1960s | 0.86 |
| 1970s | 1.22 |
| 1980s | 1.58 |
| 1990s | 1.55 |
| 2000s | 1.91 |
| 2010s | 2.41 |
| 2020s (2020-2024) | 2.58 |
In fact, the annual rise of 3.58ppm/year between 2023 and 2024 at Mauna Loa was the fastest on record.
The global average, which has been monitored by satellite since 2003, also showed a large rise last year – and, at 2.9ppm/year, this was the second largest on record after 2015-16.
(While the rise at Mauna Loa mirrors the global rise over long periods, in the short term it can also be affected by localised effects, such as fires upwind or in the same hemisphere, before the CO2 disperses more evenly across the globe.)
Global CO2 emissions were also at a record high in 2024, but a further key factor was that natural land carbon “sinks” were substantially weaker, allowing more of the emitted CO2 to remain in the atmosphere.
At least some of this weakening of land carbon sinks was associated with the El Niño conditions in the first part of the year. El Niño events shift weather patterns around the globe, leading to hotter, drier conditions in many parts of the tropics. This means that vegetation grows less well and more carbon is released from decay in soils and from wildfires, leading to land ecosystems removing less carbon from the atmosphere than usual.
With the El Niño now subsided and conditions shifting more towards the opposite pattern of La Niña, natural land carbon sinks can be expected to recover again, at least to some extent.
As a result, in our Met Office forecast of the CO2 rise at Mauna Loa, we predict a slower rate of rise between 2024 and 2025 than between 2023 and 2024. The projected increase is 2.26ppm (with an uncertainty range of ±0.56ppm) – slightly slower than it would have been without the effects of La Niña.
However, even this is still too fast to stay on track with the IPCC 1.5C-compatible scenarios. This is highlighted in the chart below, which shows the annual change in CO2 levels at Mauna Loa since 1995 (blue lines) and how our forecast for 2025 (red point) exceeds a pathway consistent with 1.5C (grey plume).
Faster rise than expected
The specific reasons for the very large increase in CO2 in 2024 are not yet completely clear, although weaker land carbon sinks appear to be implicated.
We had forecast the 2023-24 CO2 rise at Mauna Loa to be 2.84ppm (±0.54) – faster than the average of the previous decade due to the El Niño. We had also highlighted the possibility that it could be the fastest annual rise on record.
However, the actual CO2 rise of 3.58ppm was even faster than expected. This was above the upper limit of our uncertainty range, which should include the forecast value 95% of the time.
Although carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and deforestation were also at a record high in 2024, this does not fully explain the shortfall in our forecast.
Our forecast method uses the global emissions from the previous year as one of the inputs. The emissions in 2024 were estimated to have been 11.3bn tonnes of carbon (GtC), slightly higher than the 2023 value of 11.1GtC used in our forecast.
This 0.2GtC difference is equivalent to about 0.09ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. So, even if we had used the larger value in our forecast, the observed rise would still have been beyond our uncertainty range.
Therefore, the origin of the discrepancy must be related to natural carbon sinks, which must have been even weaker than the expected weakening that occurred as a result of the 2023-24 El Niño.
Weaker land carbon sinks
Scientists had already established that land carbon sinks were exceptionally weak in 2023, with very high temperatures worldwide playing a part in this.
2024 was then even hotter than 2023 – and indeed was the first calendar year where warming exceeded 1.5C above pre-industrial levels. It can be expected that the climatic conditions this warmer year once again led to weaker global land carbon sink.
Both North and South America saw high temperatures and exceptionally severe fires in 2024, including in regions not normally affected by El Niño such as Canada, and extending beyond the season of El Niño influence.
Global fire emissions were estimated as 1.6-2.2GtC over January-September 2024, 11-32% above the 2014-23 average for the same months.
Moreover, fire emissions in the northern hemisphere were 0.5-0.6 GtC per year, which was 26-44% above the average of 2014-23. Since Mauno Loa is in the northern hemisphere, this may explain why the local rise there was even larger than the global average.
A portion of these fire emissions may already be accounted for in the above estimate of land-use emissions, but it is not possible to quantify this. Nevertheless, widespread fire activity likely contributed to the large rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations in 2024. Further analysis is needed to quantify the size of this contribution.
Climate change itself may have played a role in enhancing fire emissions. For example, human-caused warming made the “unprecedented” wildfires that spread across Brazil’s Pantanal wetlands in June 2024 between four and five times more likely.
Although land carbon sinks are generally increasing as a result of rising CO2, Earth system model projections have long indicated that ongoing global warming would reduce this effect, leading to a greater proportion of human-caused emissions remaining in the atmosphere.
Calculations suggest that this has already been occurring in recent years, so a key question is whether the last two years have seen an acceleration. If natural carbon sinks weaken more than already expected, this would further increase the difficulty of slowing the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Alternatively, there are a number of historical years for which our CO2 forecast procedure gives almost as large departures between predictions and outcomes as for 2024. For example, 2003 saw a large rise at Mauna Loa despite not being an El Niño year, due to large fires in Siberia. It will therefore be important to see whether there is a higher-than-expected rise in CO2 in 2025, or whether the large exceedance in 2024 is a temporary phenomenon.
With global warming ongoing, extremely high temperatures will continue to occur more frequently and severely, so events such as those seen in 2023 and 2024 could play an ever more important role in the global carbon cycle.
The contribution of fires attributed to climate change is consistent with model simulations which suggest that global fire activity will already be weakening land carbon sinks. Further monitoring of the global carbon cycle will help to reveal whether this is indeed the case.
The post Met Office: Atmospheric CO2 rise now exceeding IPCC 1.5C pathways appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Met Office: Atmospheric CO2 rise now exceeding IPCC 1.5C pathways
Climate Change
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Blazing heat hits Europe
FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.
HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.
UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.
Around the world
- GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
- ‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
- EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
- SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
- PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.
15
The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.
Latest climate research
- As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
- A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
- A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Factchecking Trump’s climate report
A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80
Spotlight
Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?
This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.
On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.
In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.
(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)
In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.
Forward-thinking on environment
As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.
He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.
This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.
New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.
It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.
Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.
“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.
Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.
What about climate and energy?
However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.
“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.
The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.
For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.
Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.
Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.
By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.
There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:
“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”
Watch, read, listen
TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.
NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.
‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.
Coming up
- 17 August: Bolivian general elections
- 18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
- 18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
- 21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama
Pick of the jobs
- Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
- Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
- Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
- EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.
DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report
Climate Change
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.
Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.
New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit
A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.
The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.
The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.
It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.
Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.
Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.
Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.
The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)
The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.
In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.
Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.
The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change1 year ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban