Welcome to zero. I am aksha darti. This week a climate science mystery. One year is out and a new year is here. And if you're observing the broad trends of climate change, that might be enough to worry you. The ten hottest years on record have all occurred in the past decade, and twenty twenty four isn't bucking the trend. In December, the European Union's Kupernikus unit said that when the final numbers are tallied, it is virtually certain that twenty twenty four will be the hottest year ever and for the first time, the global average temperature for the entire year is likely to go past the threshold of one point five degrees celsius above pre industrial levels. In his New Year's message, UN Secretary General Antonio Guteriz said, this is quote climate breakdown in real time. If you've been following this, it might be my numbing to hear scientists repeat hottest year, hottest year, hottest ear like a broken record year after year. But it's pretty significant if you go past one point five C and something worth unpacking because it's going to affect all of us. One point five C is the goal under the Paris Agreement that all governments agreed on. It's also resulted in corporations tying their net zero goals to the one point five sea target. So this week I wanted to speak with two Bloomberg Green reporters who have followed this closely, Eric Rosston in New York and Zarah Heirgee in Washington, d c.

Welcome to zero. I am aksha darti. This week a climate science mystery. One year is out and a new year is here. And if you're observing the broad trends of climate change, that might be enough to worry you. The ten hottest years on record have all occurred in the past decade, and twenty twenty four isn't bucking the trend. In December, the European Union's Kupernikus unit said that when the final numbers are tallied, it is virtually certain that twenty twenty four will be the hottest year ever and for the first time, the global average temperature for the entire year is likely to go past the threshold of one point five degrees celsius above pre industrial levels. In his New Year's message, UN Secretary General Antonio Guteriz said, this is quote climate breakdown in real time. If you've been following this, it might be my numbing to hear scientists repeat hottest year, hottest year, hottest ear like a broken record year after year. But it's pretty significant if you go past one point five C and something worth unpacking because it's going to affect all of us. One point five C is the goal under the Paris Agreement that all governments agreed on. It's also resulted in corporations tying their net zero goals to the one point five sea target. So this week I wanted to speak with two Bloomberg Green reporters who have followed this closely, Eric Rosston in New York and Zarah Heirgee in Washington, d c.

Oh.

Oh.

Eric, let's start with you, because you and I both know that this one point five c breach is important, and yet it is not quite the breach of the Paris Agreement, right.

Eric, let's start with you, because you and I both know that this one point five c breach is important, and yet it is not quite the breach of the Paris Agreement, right.

It is significant. There's been so much attention in recent years to the one point five degree goal, and there's also been increasing concern as global temperatures are approaching it. It's important to remember, though, that the Paris goal is understood to be an average like over twenty years. They're concerned about a one point five degree c temperature rise, and so this is not great, but technically it's not the ballgame.

It is significant. There's been so much attention in recent years to the one point five degree goal, and there's also been increasing concern as global temperatures are approaching it. It's important to remember, though, that the Paris goal is understood to be an average like over twenty years. They're concerned about a one point five degree c temperature rise, and so this is not great, but technically it's not the ballgame.

Still going about one point five degree celsius for the entire year is pretty dramatic, but there was also a build up towards it, with phenomena like al Ninio contributing to it. Do we know how much of the one point five ce was climate change and how much was other stuff.

Still going about one point five degree celsius for the entire year is pretty dramatic, but there was also a build up towards it, with phenomena like al Ninio contributing to it. Do we know how much of the one point five ce was climate change and how much was other stuff.

It's a great question, and I suppose the answer is no, which is what makes it a great question. Climate change is always adding more heat, and so when you get in al Nino and global weather is a little hotter than normal, you're more likely to get a record temperature, as we did in twenty twenty three and now in twenty twenty four as well. And consequently, when there's a La Nina, which is a cooling phase, you get the warming signal, but there's like a little speed bump, and so those years tend to be like the fifth hottest years. Ever, what's concerning this year has less to do with the actual final numbers one point five. It has to do with the fact that that simple rule of thumb climate change plus La Nina, climate change plus El Nino, it doesn't explain what's happening. And scientists can't explain with confidence yet why this year is so much hotter than it has been a past and what makes it a kind of who done it is? They've assembled some suspects, but they just can't say which one or which combination is responsible for the numbers. They're seeing from twenty twenty four.

It's a great question, and I suppose the answer is no, which is what makes it a great question. Climate change is always adding more heat, and so when you get in al Nino and global weather is a little hotter than normal, you're more likely to get a record temperature, as we did in twenty twenty three and now in twenty twenty four as well. And consequently, when there's a La Nina, which is a cooling phase, you get the warming signal, but there's like a little speed bump, and so those years tend to be like the fifth hottest years. Ever, what's concerning this year has less to do with the actual final numbers one point five. It has to do with the fact that that simple rule of thumb climate change plus La Nina, climate change plus El Nino, it doesn't explain what's happening. And scientists can't explain with confidence yet why this year is so much hotter than it has been a past and what makes it a kind of who done it is? They've assembled some suspects, but they just can't say which one or which combination is responsible for the numbers. They're seeing from twenty twenty four.

A scientific mystery. I'm all is up for one, but somehow when it comes to climate science, not really.

A scientific mystery. I'm all is up for one, but somehow when it comes to climate science, not really.

Yeah, well, it's ominous because climate change is bad and we don't want more of it. But it's also concerning because notwithstanding the twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four records, scientists are afraid that it could signal an acceleration in warming. And if that's the case, we're not looking anymore at a couple of years that were in aberration. We're looking at a potential scenario that's worse than the pathway scientists had assumed we've been on.

Yeah, well, it's ominous because climate change is bad and we don't want more of it. But it's also concerning because notwithstanding the twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four records, scientists are afraid that it could signal an acceleration in warming. And if that's the case, we're not looking anymore at a couple of years that were in aberration. We're looking at a potential scenario that's worse than the pathway scientists had assumed we've been on.

So acceleration, I mean, there was a period about ten years ago where people were talking about this quote unquote hiatus when warming had slowed down. Of course, that turned out to be spoonious data. Is there any worry that this acceleration might also be kind of spurious?

So acceleration, I mean, there was a period about ten years ago where people were talking about this quote unquote hiatus when warming had slowed down. Of course, that turned out to be spoonious data. Is there any worry that this acceleration might also be kind of spurious?

A number of scientists have told me that what they're seeing now with these faster moving temperatures feels similar to that period of the hiatus ten or fifteen years ago that turned out to be sort of a data artifact, like temperatures just kind of started moving up again, and also there were important updates to the data itself that sort of corrected what turned out to be a kind of bias. I think scientists, a couple of them have told me that they're more concerned about this because they understand it better. All through that hiatus period, one of the things you heard was, well, we're not sure what it is, but really you can have like fifteen or twenty years of flatline temperatures and still not echo the prediction range for climate change. What's different now is that they have these suspects, and so there's there's a much stronger physical underpinning to the concerns, even though again they're just not sure what's causing the spikes.

A number of scientists have told me that what they're seeing now with these faster moving temperatures feels similar to that period of the hiatus ten or fifteen years ago that turned out to be sort of a data artifact, like temperatures just kind of started moving up again, and also there were important updates to the data itself that sort of corrected what turned out to be a kind of bias. I think scientists, a couple of them have told me that they're more concerned about this because they understand it better. All through that hiatus period, one of the things you heard was, well, we're not sure what it is, but really you can have like fifteen or twenty years of flatline temperatures and still not echo the prediction range for climate change. What's different now is that they have these suspects, and so there's there's a much stronger physical underpinning to the concerns, even though again they're just not sure what's causing the spikes.

Okay, so who done it? Who are the suspects, and what do we know about them, and which ones are sort of the highly suspected and which ones we might want to drop out.

Okay, so who done it? Who are the suspects, and what do we know about them, and which ones are sort of the highly suspected and which ones we might want to drop out.

So there is, as I said, there's climate change that makes things hotter. There is an al Nino through through the spring of twenty twenty four, and that made things hotter. The sun has entered the sort of increasing output of it of its eleven year cycle, and so that adds like a little bit of heat, but sort of a rounding error. The real culprit does have to do with these sulfur aerosols that humans put out. So nothing is clean in climate change, right, there's no free lunch. And so after you negotiation, the world's shipping industry a few years ago was able to make a path to reduce the sulfur content of the fuels they use. And that's great because that means less pollution.

So there is, as I said, there's climate change that makes things hotter. There is an al Nino through through the spring of twenty twenty four, and that made things hotter. The sun has entered the sort of increasing output of it of its eleven year cycle, and so that adds like a little bit of heat, but sort of a rounding error. The real culprit does have to do with these sulfur aerosols that humans put out. So nothing is clean in climate change, right, there's no free lunch. And so after you negotiation, the world's shipping industry a few years ago was able to make a path to reduce the sulfur content of the fuels they use. And that's great because that means less pollution.

However, because this sulfur pollution causes air pollution, especially at ports, and that's really bad for humans. But there's a climate effect that comes from those sulfur particles too.

However, because this sulfur pollution causes air pollution, especially at ports, and that's really bad for humans. But there's a climate effect that comes from those sulfur particles too.

Right, So that sulfur pollution is acid rain, right, and so that's what we wanted to get rid of in the West in the eighties and nineties. But there is this cooling effect. So all that shipping pollution actually had a little cooling effect. So when there was an eighty percent drop off in the sulfur pollution from shipping, there was no longer these chemicals to sort of reflect heat, and so it got a little warmer, particularly in the North Atlantic. Another thing that I think people just haven't talked about enough is a really monumental decline in these aerosol emissions from China. So between the shipping regulations and China and further progress in the US and Europe, we're seeing the disappearance of these cooling chemicals and that consequently is making things a little bit hotter.

Right, So that sulfur pollution is acid rain, right, and so that's what we wanted to get rid of in the West in the eighties and nineties. But there is this cooling effect. So all that shipping pollution actually had a little cooling effect. So when there was an eighty percent drop off in the sulfur pollution from shipping, there was no longer these chemicals to sort of reflect heat, and so it got a little warmer, particularly in the North Atlantic. Another thing that I think people just haven't talked about enough is a really monumental decline in these aerosol emissions from China. So between the shipping regulations and China and further progress in the US and Europe, we're seeing the disappearance of these cooling chemicals and that consequently is making things a little bit hotter.

But is that a one time thing? Because like once the a results have disappeared and have led to this additional warming, will they continue to contribute to warming like carbon dioxide does, which is a greenhouse gas that keeps on absorbing the heat.

But is that a one time thing? Because like once the a results have disappeared and have led to this additional warming, will they continue to contribute to warming like carbon dioxide does, which is a greenhouse gas that keeps on absorbing the heat.

It's a short term phenomenon, right, The atmosphere is catching up. There's conversations about whether we should spray the stratosphere with these chemicals on purpose in order to cool the atmosphere.

It's a short term phenomenon, right, The atmosphere is catching up. There's conversations about whether we should spray the stratosphere with these chemicals on purpose in order to cool the atmosphere.

Quote unquote geo engineering.

Quote unquote geo engineering.

Yeah, And one of the problems with that is if you ever stopped doing that, you'll get a heat spike like we're doing now. A big paper that made us splash and added a lot of explanation to what we've been seeing. Paper came out a month or two ago about how they ben like we're missing clouds. Low lying clouds do us a huge favor because they reflect a lot of sunlight, just sort of in the way that polar at ice caps do, and so the fact that we're starting to miss these low lying clouds, it's a real red flag for scientists because again, if that's just a blip and they come back, then we're on our warming trajectory we've been familiar with. But if that marks a change in the Earth's system itself, then we could be in line for more warming than we expected.

Yeah, And one of the problems with that is if you ever stopped doing that, you'll get a heat spike like we're doing now. A big paper that made us splash and added a lot of explanation to what we've been seeing. Paper came out a month or two ago about how they ben like we're missing clouds. Low lying clouds do us a huge favor because they reflect a lot of sunlight, just sort of in the way that polar at ice caps do, and so the fact that we're starting to miss these low lying clouds, it's a real red flag for scientists because again, if that's just a blip and they come back, then we're on our warming trajectory we've been familiar with. But if that marks a change in the Earth's system itself, then we could be in line for more warming than we expected.

And Zara, we talk about these temperature goals because well, they are goals and they are very important, but there are some real life implications off this level of warming, and particularly in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four, we saw some of the most extreme weather events around the world. So beyond the fact that there is an arbitrary one point five seagull, why does it matter that we pay attention to these reports?

And Zara, we talk about these temperature goals because well, they are goals and they are very important, but there are some real life implications off this level of warming, and particularly in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four, we saw some of the most extreme weather events around the world. So beyond the fact that there is an arbitrary one point five seagull, why does it matter that we pay attention to these reports?

So I guess there are a couple of reasons. First is, you know, when we think about one point five C as a goal and one point five C being broken in a particular year, I think something that all of us have heard when we've talked to scientists is like last year with sort of a preview and what a warmer world looks like. So when you have a full year where the temperature is basically above one point five CE. We saw the impacts of that in terms of extreme whether at least some of the impacts, and how destructive and uncomfortable it is. It's a reminder that we don't want to live in that all the time. I mean, when it's really hot, when we're getting devastating hurricanes, when we're getting brutal floods. That's not good. It kills people, it's bad for economy. I mean, it's it's not a great way to live, and it's a reminder of what is at stake in the long run as these impacts get worse. And so when we think about this goal and passing this goal, because that is the trajectory that we are on undeniably and something that's come out of my reporting, you know, this is what worth talking about, having to deal with more and more these kind of impacts all the time, and how disruptive they are.

So I guess there are a couple of reasons. First is, you know, when we think about one point five C as a goal and one point five C being broken in a particular year, I think something that all of us have heard when we've talked to scientists is like last year with sort of a preview and what a warmer world looks like. So when you have a full year where the temperature is basically above one point five CE. We saw the impacts of that in terms of extreme whether at least some of the impacts, and how destructive and uncomfortable it is. It's a reminder that we don't want to live in that all the time. I mean, when it's really hot, when we're getting devastating hurricanes, when we're getting brutal floods. That's not good. It kills people, it's bad for economy. I mean, it's it's not a great way to live, and it's a reminder of what is at stake in the long run as these impacts get worse. And so when we think about this goal and passing this goal, because that is the trajectory that we are on undeniably and something that's come out of my reporting, you know, this is what worth talking about, having to deal with more and more these kind of impacts all the time, and how disruptive they are.

And the one point five C goal again is one that we talk about at cop meetings where there are all these countries coming together wanting to find new ways of addressing the challenge. But we also talk about it at corporate level because a lot of the net zero targets are tied to one point five C or a lot of the banks are trying to fund things so that they can keep temperatures below one point five C. How should they be thinking about perhaps changing their goals, finding new ways talking about a new goal, like what is it that they should think about if we have gone beyond one point five c?

And the one point five C goal again is one that we talk about at cop meetings where there are all these countries coming together wanting to find new ways of addressing the challenge. But we also talk about it at corporate level because a lot of the net zero targets are tied to one point five C or a lot of the banks are trying to fund things so that they can keep temperatures below one point five C. How should they be thinking about perhaps changing their goals, finding new ways talking about a new goal, like what is it that they should think about if we have gone beyond one point five c?

H One point five c as a goal is such a tricky thing, and there are so many like caught up emotions in it. I think a lot of scientists sort of hate it as a goal because in a way it feels rather arbitrary in the sense that there's nothing that is different at one point four to nine versus one point five versus one point five to one c. You know, those small increments. We can't actually tease out a lot of differences there, and so to them it's just we need to talk about trying to reduce or keep warming down as much as possible, and every tenth of degree matters. But obviously goals are important, and one point five C has been this rallying cry that we saw really truly drove momentum on climate action, and it is something that as you said, governments and companies can use. They like to have a number that they can push towards. You know, one of the things that I think about a lot that has been really important about one point five C is I was taught with Sam at the Gross from the Brookings Institution, and she was saying, you know, it wasn't that long ago that we were on a traructory of three C four C degree and now we're not. And that's sort of because we set on this goal and people really tried to reach it. But the thing is, the goal was always really ambitious and potentially always out of reach, and now we're sort of hitting up against that point when it's really becoming clear that we're not going to reach it. And so the question is does it lose its value as a goal, and do we need to have a new goal? But in the sense, you know, the thing that's tricky about this, and this is something that David Victor, who's a professor at the University of California at San Diego, told me, is right now, there's no context out there where groups can talk about things other than one point five SE and not be accused of backsliding. And I think there are people who would love to discuss a goal that's a little bit different, that seems a little bit more realistic, like a one point six or a one point seven or a one point seven to five, But at the end of the day, you still the actions that you're going to take to meet that goal versus one point five are pretty similar, and that you need to figure out how you're going to cut your emissions really fast, and companies and governments aren't doing enough of that, so it sort of doesn't matter what their goal is because they need to be doing more. And that's sort of the bottom line.

H One point five c as a goal is such a tricky thing, and there are so many like caught up emotions in it. I think a lot of scientists sort of hate it as a goal because in a way it feels rather arbitrary in the sense that there's nothing that is different at one point four to nine versus one point five versus one point five to one c. You know, those small increments. We can't actually tease out a lot of differences there, and so to them it's just we need to talk about trying to reduce or keep warming down as much as possible, and every tenth of degree matters. But obviously goals are important, and one point five C has been this rallying cry that we saw really truly drove momentum on climate action, and it is something that as you said, governments and companies can use. They like to have a number that they can push towards. You know, one of the things that I think about a lot that has been really important about one point five C is I was taught with Sam at the Gross from the Brookings Institution, and she was saying, you know, it wasn't that long ago that we were on a traructory of three C four C degree and now we're not. And that's sort of because we set on this goal and people really tried to reach it. But the thing is, the goal was always really ambitious and potentially always out of reach, and now we're sort of hitting up against that point when it's really becoming clear that we're not going to reach it. And so the question is does it lose its value as a goal, and do we need to have a new goal? But in the sense, you know, the thing that's tricky about this, and this is something that David Victor, who's a professor at the University of California at San Diego, told me, is right now, there's no context out there where groups can talk about things other than one point five SE and not be accused of backsliding. And I think there are people who would love to discuss a goal that's a little bit different, that seems a little bit more realistic, like a one point six or a one point seven or a one point seven to five, But at the end of the day, you still the actions that you're going to take to meet that goal versus one point five are pretty similar, and that you need to figure out how you're going to cut your emissions really fast, and companies and governments aren't doing enough of that, so it sort of doesn't matter what their goal is because they need to be doing more. And that's sort of the bottom line.

After the break, more from my conversation with Zara and Eric. And by the way, if you've been enjoying this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. It helps other listeners find the show. This is a place where science and politics interacts in interesting ways. So the arbitrary nature of this goal, Eric, the fact that this is one point five C not one point six C, just give us a history. Why is it that we have these goals one point five C and two C.

After the break, more from my conversation with Zara and Eric. And by the way, if you've been enjoying this episode, please take a moment to rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. It helps other listeners find the show. This is a place where science and politics interacts in interesting ways. So the arbitrary nature of this goal, Eric, the fact that this is one point five C not one point six C, just give us a history. Why is it that we have these goals one point five C and two C.

Well, while you're right, while it started out arbitrary, it's become less arbitrary. And that's because the UN diplomatic body that hosts the All nations to talk about climate change every year, they asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change very specifically in Paris when they were doing the Paris Agreement, to really study and understand the difference between one point five C and two degrees C, and that led to a super influential report in twenty eighteen that really for the first time puts specificity into what one point five I've seen means versus two degree cee versus one degree C, which is now in the rear view window. So it's somewhere between arbitrary and it's not a threshold, as Zara said, you know, it's not a threshold. It's not a cliff. But every ton of CO two that we put up in the air matters.

Well, while you're right, while it started out arbitrary, it's become less arbitrary. And that's because the UN diplomatic body that hosts the All nations to talk about climate change every year, they asked the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change very specifically in Paris when they were doing the Paris Agreement, to really study and understand the difference between one point five C and two degrees C, and that led to a super influential report in twenty eighteen that really for the first time puts specificity into what one point five I've seen means versus two degree cee versus one degree C, which is now in the rear view window. So it's somewhere between arbitrary and it's not a threshold, as Zara said, you know, it's not a threshold. It's not a cliff. But every ton of CO two that we put up in the air matters.

But we are also living in twenty twenty five, sort of a year after all these elections that happen around the world, and we are seeing many parts of the world, including where you live Zara in the US, put in leaders who are likely to be very hostile to climate policy. So at the exact time that we are in the hottest year reaching one point five CE we're also getting politicians who are unlikely to be doing much on climate. How should people make sense of this moment?

But we are also living in twenty twenty five, sort of a year after all these elections that happen around the world, and we are seeing many parts of the world, including where you live Zara in the US, put in leaders who are likely to be very hostile to climate policy. So at the exact time that we are in the hottest year reaching one point five CE we're also getting politicians who are unlikely to be doing much on climate. How should people make sense of this moment?

I'm still trying to make sense of this moment. I mean, I think it's awkward, but it really gets at something we've seen over and over again when it comes to climate politics, and it's really sort of coming to a head, which is that bringing down emissions and dealing with the climate crisis is hard, it costs money, and it's scary. I do think it's important to remember that the last time that Donald Trump was elected president in the US, there were some surprising outcomes that sort of led to the we are all in coalition and kind of a bumping up of the one point five c rallying cry and people sort of pushing back on that, and so there's always sort of this push and pull. But what's hard about this is there is you know, you can have climate action from the bottom up and the top down, and I think we've seen that the most effective action really involves that top down. And when you're not having countries setting new regulations like that's going to push back progress. And so people recognizing that as much as you have politicians talking and downplaying these issues. They're not going to go away with the type of policies that they're advocating, and they're just pushing down the road the problems that are going to grow and arise out of this.

I'm still trying to make sense of this moment. I mean, I think it's awkward, but it really gets at something we've seen over and over again when it comes to climate politics, and it's really sort of coming to a head, which is that bringing down emissions and dealing with the climate crisis is hard, it costs money, and it's scary. I do think it's important to remember that the last time that Donald Trump was elected president in the US, there were some surprising outcomes that sort of led to the we are all in coalition and kind of a bumping up of the one point five c rallying cry and people sort of pushing back on that, and so there's always sort of this push and pull. But what's hard about this is there is you know, you can have climate action from the bottom up and the top down, and I think we've seen that the most effective action really involves that top down. And when you're not having countries setting new regulations like that's going to push back progress. And so people recognizing that as much as you have politicians talking and downplaying these issues. They're not going to go away with the type of policies that they're advocating, and they're just pushing down the road the problems that are going to grow and arise out of this.

Eric, you talked about the twenty eighteen report where scientists sort of work through what one point five C means. And in some way, scientists are very good at doing that. If you give them a goal, they'll tell you what is needed to meet it. So is one point five SE still possible even though technically everybody says we are going to preach it.

Eric, you talked about the twenty eighteen report where scientists sort of work through what one point five C means. And in some way, scientists are very good at doing that. If you give them a goal, they'll tell you what is needed to meet it. So is one point five SE still possible even though technically everybody says we are going to preach it.

Yeah, So scientists started talking about overshoot when they realized we may not stay within our carbon budget and temperatures may rise beyond one point five sea or even higher temperatures, And it became a word that's it's sort of an impetus to find ways to correct the problem that we've now created.

Yeah, So scientists started talking about overshoot when they realized we may not stay within our carbon budget and temperatures may rise beyond one point five sea or even higher temperatures, And it became a word that's it's sort of an impetus to find ways to correct the problem that we've now created.

And so these are technologies like director capture, which will remove carbon dioxide from the air. What else is there this list of dealing with overshoot?

And so these are technologies like director capture, which will remove carbon dioxide from the air. What else is there this list of dealing with overshoot?

The biggest tool in our toolbox, though, is not polluting more. You know, we're still putting up more than one hundred million tons of co two a day from fossil fuel and cement making, and that is the main thing we need to do to prevent overshoot. You can't address overshoot until you stop making the problem worse.

The biggest tool in our toolbox, though, is not polluting more. You know, we're still putting up more than one hundred million tons of co two a day from fossil fuel and cement making, and that is the main thing we need to do to prevent overshoot. You can't address overshoot until you stop making the problem worse.

If we do eventually get serious about these goals and you know, want to still stay beyond one point five, see overshoot might be an option. But if the politics is hard right now, how much harder is it going to be when you're trying to convince people you have to do all these weird wacco things that are going to be necessary in a world of overshoot.

If we do eventually get serious about these goals and you know, want to still stay beyond one point five, see overshoot might be an option. But if the politics is hard right now, how much harder is it going to be when you're trying to convince people you have to do all these weird wacco things that are going to be necessary in a world of overshoot.

I mean, I think the assumption is that overshoot is already on the table. When a lot of people are talking about one point five still being alive, they're actually the unspoken part is they are assuming or banking on overshoot, this idea that we are going to go above one point five and then have the tools necessary to eventually bring it down. The concern about focusing too much on overshoot is that then we sort of lose sight of the fact that we need to bring emissions down, not just invest in the technologies that can help pull it out of the air and rely on that or overly rely on that because we don't know a lot about how that will work. And so I feel like the answer is we have to do both. That's not actually a pitch you have to make to people. I think that's just where we are today, and you're sort of starting to see it with the policies that came underway with the Biden administration and how actually a lot of the companies and industries that are going to need or rely on overshoot are the ones getting text credits and sort of investing on it. And the problem is you don't want them to overinvest on that versus not actually changing anything to their business. But I think we actually need to talk about it it more as something that is on the table now and just dig into a little bit more about what that looks like. But I don't think it's a matter of if or when, Like we're here and we're dealing with it, and it's just maybe changing what that means and what we need to do about it.

I mean, I think the assumption is that overshoot is already on the table. When a lot of people are talking about one point five still being alive, they're actually the unspoken part is they are assuming or banking on overshoot, this idea that we are going to go above one point five and then have the tools necessary to eventually bring it down. The concern about focusing too much on overshoot is that then we sort of lose sight of the fact that we need to bring emissions down, not just invest in the technologies that can help pull it out of the air and rely on that or overly rely on that because we don't know a lot about how that will work. And so I feel like the answer is we have to do both. That's not actually a pitch you have to make to people. I think that's just where we are today, and you're sort of starting to see it with the policies that came underway with the Biden administration and how actually a lot of the companies and industries that are going to need or rely on overshoot are the ones getting text credits and sort of investing on it. And the problem is you don't want them to overinvest on that versus not actually changing anything to their business. But I think we actually need to talk about it it more as something that is on the table now and just dig into a little bit more about what that looks like. But I don't think it's a matter of if or when, Like we're here and we're dealing with it, and it's just maybe changing what that means and what we need to do about it.

Well, climate change one point five and twenty twenty five, it's going to be a messier. Thank you both for at least setting the stage for what is going to be a messier and we'll talk a lot more about it. Thank you, thank you, thank you for listening to Zero. And now for the sound of the week, which I should want you is not a gunshot. That's the sound of a balloon filled with hydrogen exploding. Now take a listen to what it sounds like when the same size balloon has hydrogen mixed with oxygen exploding this episode, Please take a moment to rate or review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Share this episode with a friend or with someone who likes breaking records. You can get in touch at zero port at Bloomberg dot net. Zero's producer is might Lee Raw. Bloomberg's head of podcast is Sage Bauman, and head of Talk is Brendan Newnan. Our theme music is composed by Wonderly Special Thanks to Sharon Chen, Shwan Wagner, Ethan Steinberg, and Jessica beck I am Aksha Drati Back soon.

Well, climate change one point five and twenty twenty five, it's going to be a messier. Thank you both for at least setting the stage for what is going to be a messier and we'll talk a lot more about it. Thank you, thank you, thank you for listening to Zero. And now for the sound of the week, which I should want you is not a gunshot. That's the sound of a balloon filled with hydrogen exploding. Now take a listen to what it sounds like when the same size balloon has hydrogen mixed with oxygen exploding this episode, Please take a moment to rate or review the show on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Share this episode with a friend or with someone who likes breaking records. You can get in touch at zero port at Bloomberg dot net. Zero's producer is might Lee Raw. Bloomberg's head of podcast is Sage Bauman, and head of Talk is Brendan Newnan. Our theme music is composed by Wonderly Special Thanks to Sharon Chen, Shwan Wagner, Ethan Steinberg, and Jessica beck I am Aksha Drati Back soon.