https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/The_new_CMIP72C_chart_2.png

Carbonbrief wrote about the new CMIP7 emissions scenarios today and what is notable is how modest the Low and Medium-Low pathways actually are when expressed in terms of emissions levels and net zero.

The Low scenario has global net CO₂ emissions falling to about 35–36 GtCO₂/yr by 2030, roughly 13–15% below 2023 levels, broadly consistent with existing national climate pledges. Emissions then continue declining until net-zero CO₂ around 2070. Its median warming outcome is about 1.8°C in 2100.

The Medium-Low scenario is considerably less demanding. It follows roughly the current-policy Medium pathway until around 2040, then emissions decline gradually, reaching net-zero CO₂ around 2100. Its median warming outcome is about 2.3°C.

The Low scenario therefore does not require anything close to a halving of emissions by 2030. It requires only roughly a 15% reduction from 2023 levels by 2030, followed by sustained decarbonisation over another four decades.

Medium-Low is more relaxed still. It effectively allows another decade and a half of relatively weak climate action before serious decarbonisation begins.

That is slower than many existing national commitments. China targets carbon neutrality by 2060, India by 2070, while most developed economies formally target around 2050. The IEA's Stated Policies Scenario also already projects global energy-related CO₂ emissions peaking in the near term rather than around 2040.

What about all the carbon removal?

Both scenarios contain large amounts of carbon dioxide removal, but the headline numbers need context.

Carbon Brief estimates cumulative CDR of roughly 1,360GtCO₂ in Low and 1,450GtCO₂ in Medium-Low between 2024 and 2150.

That does not mean 1.45 trillion tonnes of removal is required simply to keep Medium-Low near 2.3°C in 2100.

Much of Medium-Low's removal occurs after 2100, because the scenario is deliberately extended as an overshoot pathway in which sustained net-negative emissions gradually bring temperatures back towards 1.5°C over subsequent centuries.

CDR also partly reflects assumptions about hard-to-abate emissions. Integrated-assessment models often retain residual emissions from aviation, shipping, cement, agriculture and other difficult sectors, then offset them with carbon removal rather than eliminating them completely.

If future technology makes more of those residual emissions cheap to eliminate directly, less CDR could be needed for the same net-emissions trajectory.

The large CDR figures therefore combine three different functions: offsetting residual emissions, pushing emissions below zero, and—especially after 2100 in Medium-Low—reversing some earlier warming.

CMIP7's range has shifted downwards

Previous climate-model generations included extreme fossil-fuel expansion scenarios such as SSP5-8.5 producing close to 5°C of warming. CMIP7's new High scenario produces around 3.3°C, reflecting the fact that such extreme coal and fossil-fuel growth trajectories are no longer considered plausible enough to define the main upper end of the scenario range.

That leaves a much narrower set of futures:

• about 2.9°C if today's policies broadly stop strengthening;
• about 2.3°C if stronger decarbonisation begins around 2040;
• about 1.8°C if emissions fall to around 35–36 GtCO₂ by 2030 and the world reaches net-zero CO₂ around 2070.

The Low and Medium-Low pathways therefore do not depend on fantastical rates of decarbonisation.

Low requires a fairly modest decline this decade, followed by sustained reductions over several decades.

Medium-Low allows considerably more delay, with net zero pushed all the way to the end of the century.

Against the continuing growth of renewable energy, batteries, electric vehicles and electrification more generally, both pathways appear eminently achievable.

2.3 lakh = 230000

Using AI, I did find problems with the research but wanted to raise awareness and to get thoughts.

I have been thinking allot about the change in our climate and to be fair, it has stressed me out so much. Of course it has. And I want to do something about it. Apart from the stuff I try to inform myself with from other people or articles, are there any useful informative books I can read? Not only what we can do (eat less meat, or even bettern not at all, etc... but also the reality of global warming for example animals that will go extinct, many people/animals (already) dying of heat or drought). I am in college as an art student, I would like to, in this way, also raise awareness through art, as not everyone will always listen to words. I hope to reach more people this way, even if it is just the people in my school. I just feel like I need to get into action and do something, or at least try to. Any tips to better my research?

The glacial collapse and Nepal flood were so devastating and the imagery so visceral. But I remember (as a teenager) watching the columbine footage of kids moving through the school with guns. It was terrifying in a way that no one under 35 could understand... These were the American SUBURBS... angry white kids smoke pot and skip class, they don't plan a killing spree (super racist, I get it)... but 30 years later? School shootings are hardly click-bait. How many Nepal-like floods until diminishing emotional returns kick in? This year was the first time I saw Boston skies so hazy from wildfires... but next year, the year after that... the only people who will care about the next glacial flood or biblical wildfire will be prediction markets... gamblers. The rest of us? We'll be inured. "Columbine 'massacre'? How quaint."