Crossing the 1°C threshold: Science, symbolism, and climate politics

New Scientist magazine recently published an article showing that the world is on track to reach 1°C of global average warming above pre-industrial temperatures in 2015 (in this case, the average from 1850-1899). This is halfway to the 2°C warming limit which has been agreed to in international negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is also two thirds of the way to the stricter 1.5°C limit which some countries, notably small island nations, have argued is necessary. The 1°C 'milestone', if it is reached, will come in the same year as the crucial Paris climate negotiations, which aim to secure a global deal to reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.

Source: New Scientist

In many ways, there is not an important distinction between 1°C in 2015, 0.9°C in 2014, or 1.1°C in the future. However, as a researcher studying climate politics, I am very interested to see if and how crossing the 1°C threshold is understood in international negotiations, national policy debates, and the media.

In other words, how will 1°C of warming be framed? Will it be mentioned in media accounts alongside the 2°C limit and the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Will national governments, NGOs, and other political actors such as the European Union refer to 1°C when pushing for more stringent emissions reductions?

And of course, if it is mentioned in policy debates, will this milestone have any effect? It is notoriously difficult to untangle the political effects of ideas and symbols. The most famous example of such an idea attracting a large amount of attention in environmental negotiations is the hole in the ozone layer which was detected during negotiations to limit emissions of ozone-depleting substances. Many participants in those negotiations mentioned the effect the ozone hole's discovery had on them. But even in this case, political scientist Edward Parson has raised doubts that the ozone hole had an important political effect. So studying the 1°C  and its political effects will be difficult.  

On a personal note, when we do 'officially' cross the 1°C threshold, I feel as if a door is symbolically closing on the world I grew up in. Again, I don't believe there is any significant scientific difference between 0.9°C and 1°C. Its importance is symbolic.

And hopefully that symbolism, of climate change being in 'the here and now', will provide a push, however minor, for ambitious climate change policy.