Through international forums like the Paris Agreement and successive COP summits, leaders have laid out roadmaps toward a common goal: limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

However, year after year, these pledges have proved insufficient, and the gap between ambition and action is widening. Despite commitments, updated reports, and increasing urgency from scientists, the reality is stark—current climate pledges will not prevent catastrophic global warming.

It’s a sobering message, and one we’ve heard countless times before as experts and environmental organisations have repeated similar warnings year after year.

Yet, nations’ “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) continue to fall dramatically short of what is required.

As the 2023 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) highlights, current pledges will reduce emissions by a meagre 2.6% by 2030, far below the 43% reduction scientists say is necessary to meet the 1.5°C goal.

We’re now seeing more and more evidence that incremental measures aren’t enough, and without drastic action, we’re hurtling toward an environmental disaster.

A grim cycle of promises and shortcomings

This trend isn’t new.

In 2022, we heard the same thing, with warning that existing emissions pledges were on a trajectory toward catastrophic climate breakdown. The rhetoric from global leaders has remained constant—passionate calls for change at summits, while back home, fossil fuel subsidies remain in place, new oil drilling sites are approved, and fossil fuel infrastructure projects move forward.

Each year brings reports showing we’re off course, yet each year also brings political and economic inertia that stalls meaningful action.

One of the biggest issues with national climate pledges is that they often represent what’s politically achievable rather than what’s scientifically necessary.

This reality undermines the sense of collective urgency and responsibility needed to tackle climate change effectively, viewing climate action through a domestic lens, weighing short-term political gains over long-term survival.

The result is well-meaning but ultimately insufficient commitments that, in aggregate, fail to address the problem.

The scale of the problem

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has echoed these sentiments repeatedly, highlighting the gap between climate pledges and the necessary action.

For example, recent pledges to triple renewable energy capacity, improve energy efficiency, and cut methane emissions—a commendable step forward—would only reduce global emissions by 4 billion metric tonnes by 2030. While significant, this reduction only closes about one-third of the emissions gap needed to stay within the 1.5°C threshold.

Even in an optimistic scenario where every country meets its pledges, we are still not on a path to meaningful climate targets.

The gap between the world’s pledges and actual action indicates a fundamental disconnect between ambition and execution.

The issue is not solely with making promises; it’s about the inability to execute meaningful policies to meet them. Without structural changes, these goals are destined to remain aspirational.

So why does the pattern continue?

The disconnect between pledges and necessary action stems from multiple issues, some of which are embedded in our economic and political systems. Climate change mitigation often conflicts with short-term economic interests.

For example, despite pledging to reduce emissions, many countries continue to subsidise fossil fuels. In the United States and Australia, for example, fossil fuel subsidies make it more challenging to transition to renewable energy on a large scale.

For politicians, subsidising fossil fuels remains a popular move, as it lowers energy prices and preserves jobs in traditional industries—especially in regions where fossil fuel extraction drives the local economy.

Another challenge is the lack of binding accountability mechanisms.

The Paris Agreement, for example, is a voluntary pact, leaving room for countries to set their targets without clear repercussions for failing to meet them. In practice, this means that countries can overpromise and underdeliver without immediate consequence.

Even with nations facing greater public scrutiny over their environmental performance, the consequences of unmet targets tend to be political rather than punitive.

A significant responsibility also remains with wealthier nations.

Historically, industrialised countries have contributed the most to carbon emissions, leading to climate impacts disproportionately affecting less developed nations. Wealthier countries hold an outsized share of responsibility and the financial means to address climate change.

Yet, as Pablo Vieira of the NDC Partnership noted, climate commitments by wealthy nations often come with strings attached, framed as bargaining chips rather than obligations.

Developing nations have called on wealthier countries to offer more financial assistance, not as charity but as compensation for the damage caused by their historical emissions. This dynamic is essential for understanding the underwhelming pace of climate action. Without equitable support mechanisms and fair financing, poorer countries will struggle to meet their pledges, as they face immediate needs for economic development and poverty alleviation.

The establishment of a $100 billion annual financial package to aid developing countries in meeting their climate goals has yet to be fully delivered, and climate financing remains one of the most contentious issues in international climate negotiations.

Rethinking global priorities

The longer countries delay decisive action, the greater the climate risks we face, including extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and loss of biodiversity.

The consequences are dire, and the science is clear: climate inaction threatens to upend global stability, with severe implications for food security, water availability, and economic growth. As carbon dioxide levels reach historic highs and methane emissions surge, delaying substantial action could make some effects irreversible.

Beyond the environmental impacts, climate inaction holds severe social implications.

The communities bearing the brunt of climate change are often the least responsible for it. Islands in the Pacific, for instance, face existential threats from rising sea levels, while people in developing nations are experiencing more frequent and severe climate-related disasters. For these populations, the climate crisis is not a distant future event but an everyday reality.

To narrow the gap between pledges and actual climate action, the global community must rethink its approach. This requires political will, binding targets, and mechanisms to hold countries accountable.

One possible solution would be the development of enforceable international standards for emissions reductions, with penalties for countries that fail to meet them. If the world treated climate inaction as a violation of global agreements, similar to trade or security violations, the stakes would be higher, encouraging countries to align their policies with their commitments.

Furthermore, nations need to shift financial incentives to prioritise renewable energy sources and sustainable industries over fossil fuel investments. It’s essential for governments to create a policy environment where green investments are not only feasible but the preferred choice.

Countries must phase out fossil fuel subsidies, redirect funding to clean energy, and make carbon pricing a cornerstone of economic policy. This transition cannot rest on wealthy nations alone; however, they should lead by example, providing the necessary financial and technological support for a truly global shift.

Civil society also plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between pledges and action. Public pressure, especially from younger generations, has already pushed climate change to the forefront of the political agenda.

Yet, public advocacy needs to be sustained and expanded. Social movements, NGOs, and other organisations can influence climate policy by holding governments accountable and pushing for stronger action.

When politicians feel that their constituents demand climate action, they are more likely to prioritise it.

It's time for a reality check

As we approach yet another COP summit, it’s time again to confront the reality of our climate commitments.

Incremental changes and half-measures will not avert the crisis we face. If current pledges are miles short of what’s necessary, as the UNFCCC and IEA reports have repeatedly shown, then business as usual is not only inadequate—it’s reckless.

We need systemic change, and we need it now. Rather than waiting for each COP to assess new pledges and marginal gains, we should demand an overhaul of how the world tackles climate policy. Moving away from non-binding pledges and towards enforceable, transparent, and accountable measures is essential if we hope to meet our climate goals.

Ultimately, these changes will define whether the planet remains habitable for future generations or whether we consign ourselves to a world of escalating disasters.

The clock's ticking.