Firefighters try to control a blaze from the Eaton fire, LA, Jan 2025. Credit: By Pacific Southwest Forest Service, USDA from USA - Eaton Fire Initial Attack, Public Domain
Share
Two years ago, NASA climate scientist Peter Kalmus decided to leave Los Angeles.
The author loved the neighbourhood of Altadena, his family’s home for 14 years. But with the planet rapidly heating, he feared it would burn.
“Over the course of that time [living in LA], I felt heat waves and fires were both gradually getting worse, and living the rest of my life in Southern California started to feel like it wasn’t going to be sustainable,” he told the Big Issue.
“In September of 2020 there was a very intense heat wave, followed the next day by the start of one of the largest megafires in LA County history, the Bobcat Fire. My wife and I were under an evacuation warning. It was scary. Then, for weeks, we were living in a smoke cloud which took a toll on my health.”
When his wife got a job offer in North Carolina two years later, the family decided to move.
To Kalmus’ “devastation, rage, and grief”, his predictions have come true. Much of Altadena – and all Los Angeles – has been reduced to ash. Over the past nine days, enormous blazes have incinerated tens of thousands of acres, killing at least 25 people and displacing at least 100,000 more.
Advertisement
Advertisement
The fires are a portent of things to come, Kalmus warns: “There’s no hiding from physics.”
The physics is indeed clear – the fires are the direct consequence of the warming planet.
According to the United Nations, fossil fuel emissions could triple the number of extreme wildfire events in some parts of western North America by the end of the century. According to the Met Office, even the famously damp UK is not exempt from wildfires.
We must act fast to prevent such dire prophecies from coming true, Kalmus adds. Perhaps the horrific tragedy of LA can help wake people up.
“People are empathetic, and events like this that feel huge and also close to home can engage their empathy, leading them to wake up to the reality of what’s happening right now on Earth,” Kalmus said.
Is the 1.5C global warming target still feasible?
The fires have coincided with the news that 2024 was the hottest calendar year on record – and the first in which average temperature breached the 1.5C target.
Advertisement
This ‘1.5C target’ is often referenced in discussions about climate change. But what actually is it?
The threshold was established at the 2015 Paris climate conference. 195 nations signed a landmark agreement to limit global warming to “well below” 2C “above pre-industrial averages” by the end of the century, and “pursue efforts” to keep warming within the safer limit of 1.5C.
Pre-industrial averages refer to the average temperatures in 1850-1900, before the Industrial Revolution released huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
2024 breached this ceiling. But the 1.5C global warming target is still technically alive – just – because it refers to a long-term average over decades.
“Individual years pushing past the 1.5C limit do not mean the long-term goal is shot,” UN secretary-general António Guterres urged last week. “It means we need to fight even harder to get on track. Leaders must act – now.”
Kalmus agrees with the second part of Guterres’ statement – but does not think the 1.5C target is a realistic goal.
Advertisement
“I disagree that this is still possible,” he says. “This sort of delusion, of not accepting how bad things actually are, is false hope that impedes real action. It helps the public feel things may not be that bad yet, allowing them to remain psychologically disengaged.”
Kalmus himself has drawn up a comparison, based on International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, of different impacts over future decades for two pathways for humanity. In one scenario, “humans work together and work hard to stop climate change quickly, levelling off at just under 2C toward the end of the century,” he explains.
“In the other, we continue business as usual and don’t prioritise stopping climate change, breaking the 3C level around mid-century.”
All the climate impacts get much, much worse.
“Climate impacts, both global (such as worsening heatwaves and heavy rainfall) and regional (such as worsening wildfires, cyclones, river floods and droughts) worsen in direct relation to every additional increment of global heating, which itself increases with every bit of carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels,” the projection reads.
Advertisement
Other research substantiates these claims. At 1.5C, about 14% of the global population will experience severe heat waves at least once every five years. At 3C: The majority of the global population will be exposed to extreme heat annually, with some regions becoming virtually uninhabitable.
At 1.5C, 4–8% of species face a high risk of extinction, with coral reefs declining by 70–90%. At 3C, more than 50% of species face a high risk of extinction, with coral reefs virtually disappearing and entire ecosystems collapsing, including rainforests and Arctic tundra.
Unfortunately, we are currently on track for the latter, darker pathway. Current pledges will see temperatures increase of 2.6-3.1C over the course of this century, according to a UN report from last year. The UK is not pulling its weight – in December, the Climate Change Committee warned that “credible plans” to cut emissions – those funded and with a delivery timeline in place – exist for only 32% of reductions needed to meet the UK’s 2030 target.
How do we fix it? We need to decarbonise now. The UN warned that cuts of 42% by 2030 and 57% by 2035 are needed to get on track for 1.5C of warming. For a 2C pathway, emissions must fall 28% by 2030 and 37% by 2035 from 2019 levels. At present, emissions are rising.
Unfortunately, powerful fossil fuel lobbies stand in the way of meaningful change.
“It’s important for the public to know – really know – that fossil fuel industry executives have known for decades, with precision, that their products were heating the planet,” Kalmus urges.
Advertisement
“And yet, despite clearly knowing this scientific reality, they chose to dishonestly call that science into question, spread disinformation, and block action. In other words, this fire [in Los Angeles] wasn’t a natural disaster – it was a crime.”
But we cannot afford fatalism, Kalmus concludes.
“I will keep fighting, both because it’s the right thing to do and because there’s still a lot of life to save on Earth,” he said. “The sooner we stop fossil fuels, the more we will save. I believe that it’s never too late to fight.”
