COP31 and the Risks of the 1.5°C Temperature Overshoot Narrative

Context

The 31st Conference of the Parties (COP31), which opened in Antalya, Türkiye, adopted an India-backed Climate Finance Work Programme (CFWP) despite objections from the European Union. The negotiations have renewed concerns over the possibility of exceeding the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C temperature threshold and the failure of developed countries to fulfil their climate responsibilities.

Understanding the 1.5°C Overshoot Narrative

The 1.5°C overshoot narrative refers to climate pathways in which global temperatures temporarily cross the 1.5°C limit before being brought below it by 2100 through large-scale Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR).

• Scientific premise: It assumes that future technologies and natural carbon sinks can remove sufficient atmospheric CO₂ to reverse the temperature overshoot.
• Political implications: It risks weakening the urgency of immediate emission reductions by suggesting that present-day climate damage can be compensated for through future technological interventions.
• Unequal burden: It could place disproportionate pressure on developing countries, whose forests, agricultural land and ecosystems may be increasingly used for carbon sequestration projects.

Scale and Feasibility of Carbon Removal

• Massive removal requirement: According to UNEP’s Limiting Overshoot report, reversing a temperature overshoot of just 0.1°C would require removing approximately 220 billion tonnes of CO₂, equivalent to nearly five years of present global emissions.
• Technological limitations: Forests and soils absorb around 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually, whereas modern Direct Air Capture (DAC) facilities remove only about 2 million tonnes.
• High economic costs: DAC technology faces substantial scaling challenges, with removal costs reaching approximately $600 per tonne of CO₂.
• Land-use pressure: Existing national climate commitments envisage access to nearly 1.2 billion hectares of land for carbon removal and offsetting, creating potential competition with food production, biodiversity conservation and community rights.

Major Contradictions in Developed Countries’ Climate Commitments

1. Continued Dependence on Fossil Fuels

• Developed economies continue to support new fossil fuel exploration and extraction despite their commitments to decarbonisation.
• Fossil fuels accounted for approximately 83% of primary energy consumption in the United States and 73% in the European Union in 2025.
• Examples include proposed offshore drilling expansion in the US, new Arctic exploration blocks in Norway and approval of fossil fuel projects in Australia.

2. Gap Between Announced and Actual Climate Finance

• Developed countries reported mobilising $137 billion in climate finance in 2024.
• However, independent assessments estimate its grant-equivalent value at only $33–45 billion.
• Nearly 65% of the reported assistance was provided through commercial loans, increasing the debt burden of developing countries.
• Withdrawal or reduction of contributions to multilateral climate funds further undermines financial commitments.

3. Dependence on International Carbon Offsets

• Wealthy countries increasingly rely on purchasing foreign carbon credits instead of undertaking sufficient domestic emission reductions.
• Such practices can shift mitigation responsibilities to developing countries while allowing high-emitting economies to continue carbon-intensive activities.
• Large-scale offset projects may also create conflicts over land ownership, indigenous rights and local livelihoods.

4. Climate-Linked Trade Restrictions

• The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) imposes carbon-related costs on imports of products such as steel, aluminium and cement.
• Developing countries face additional compliance and production costs due to limited access to affordable low-carbon technologies.
• This raises concerns about climate protectionism and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC).

Key Outcomes and Negotiating Priorities of COP31

1. Climate Finance Work Programme

• COP31 formally adopted a standalone Climate Finance Work Programme as a dedicated plenary agenda item.
• It aims to improve accountability regarding developed countries’ obligations under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement.
• Its emphasis is on predictable, accessible and grant-based public climate finance.

2. Adaptation Finance Remains a Major Concern

• The demand for a separate agenda item on tripling adaptation finance was not accepted.
• The issue was instead moved to informal consultations.
• The UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2026 estimates that developing countries will require $305–365 billion annually by 2035, while international public adaptation finance stood at only $28.2–31.7 billion in 2024.

3. Carbon Border Measures

• Discussions on unilateral trade measures, including CBAM, were excluded from the formal agenda.
• The matter was referred to an existing three-year dialogue platform in Bonn, delaying a dedicated political discussion on its implications for developing economies.

4. Green Climate Fund Replenishment

• The replenishment of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) remained under the existing financial mechanism framework.
• The seventh formal review of the financial mechanism was deferred to COP32.

5. Mountain Ecosystems and Climate Change

• COP31 agreed to hold dedicated consultations on mountain ecosystems.
• These discussions are expected to contribute to future scientific dialogues under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA).

Implications for the Global South

• Climate injustice: Developing countries may bear the consequences of historical emissions despite having contributed relatively less to cumulative global warming.
• Land and livelihood insecurity: Large-scale carbon removal projects could restrict access to agricultural and forest resources.
• Development constraints: Carbon-related trade barriers may reduce the competitiveness of emerging economies.
• Debt vulnerability: Loan-based climate assistance can worsen fiscal stress in countries already facing climate-related economic losses.
• Adaptation challenges: Inadequate financial support limits investments in climate-resilient infrastructure, disaster preparedness and vulnerable communities.

Way Forward

• Ensure equitable carbon-budget allocation: Climate negotiations must consider historical emissions and the principle of CBDR-RC while distributing the remaining global carbon budget fairly.
• Prioritise immediate emission reductions: Developed countries should establish credible domestic decarbonisation pathways rather than depending excessively on speculative future carbon removal.
• Strengthen climate finance accountability: The CFWP should translate Article 9.1 commitments into predictable, additional and grant-based financial assistance, particularly for adaptation.
• Promote technology transfer: Affordable access to renewable energy, battery storage, carbon monitoring and green industrial technologies should be facilitated for developing countries.
• Protect land and community rights: Carbon removal initiatives must incorporate environmental safeguards, food security considerations and the consent of indigenous and local communities.
• Address climate-related trade inequalities: Climate policies should avoid creating disproportionate trade barriers and provide financial and technological support for developing-country industries.
• Strengthen scientific scrutiny: Overshoot pathways must be assessed against the risks of irreversible tipping points, ecosystem degradation and long-term social consequences.

Conclusion

The 1.5°C overshoot narrative highlights the growing tension between scientific climate pathways and political commitments. Treating future carbon removal as a substitute for immediate emission reductions could legitimise continued fossil fuel dependence while transferring environmental and financial burdens to the Global South. COP31 must therefore translate climate negotiations into measurable domestic emission cuts, equitable climate finance and accessible technology transfer. Protecting the 1.5°C goal requires present-day accountability rather than dependence on uncertain future solutions.

Source : The Hindu