Global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity is in our view the by far greatest (security) threat to humanity ever in human history (nuclear weapons certainly have the potential to extinct humanity within seconds, but they are men made and can be fully controlled by men, e.g. cf. “Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists”, https://thebulletin.org).
The cause for global warming is the emission of “greenhouse gases” (GHG: Nitrous oxide (N2O – ca. 5%), Methane (CH4 – ca. 20%), Carbon dioxide (CO2) – ca. 75%) into the atmosphere mainly by (1) burning fossil fuels (gas, oil, coal) and (2) producing meat. (cf. graphs from “Our World in Data”, https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions)
This human made raise of GHGs within the atmosphere of our planet Earth produces global warming. Global warming induces climate change and climate change then results in the loss of biodiversity (plant and animal species disappearing).
Scientists calculated a global average temperature rise – in comparison to the time, where there were no significant human made GHG emissions (they call this the “pre-industrial period” from 1850-1900) – of 1.5°C to keep global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity “100% under human control“.
To successfully keep global average temperature below the limit of 1.5°C and thus keep the climate system of our planet Earth “100% under human control”, we have to in particular significantly reduce (1) burning fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil) (ca. 70% of GHG emissions) and significantly reduce (2) meat production (ca. 20% of GHG emissions) – based on calculations from the “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” (IPCC) ca. minus 45% within the upcoming 5 years (till 2030), and ca. minus 75% within the upcoming 25 years (till 2050). This means a reduction of global GHG emissions of ca. 10% each year till 2050. (see graph based on data from “Our World in Data” and “IPCC“)
Even “United Nations Climate Change” (UNFCCC) seem to not fully understand global warming
With all the greatest respect and acknowledgment for the efforts, the in our view by far most unhealthy statement in the last several days within (geo)politics is the resume from “United Nations Climate Change” (UNFCCC) about the “progress” made with the “Conference of the Parties” (COPs) mitigating global warming & climate change (cf. “30 Years of Adaptation“; “the loss of biodiversity” is handled within different COPs, organised by “United Nations Environment Programme” (UNEP) and the “Convention on Biological Diversity” (CBD)).
“Just think – without these agreements, we would be headed for up to 5° Celsius of global heating, which most of humanity could not survive. We’re now headed for around 3°C, which is still disastrous, and climate impacts hit countries, economies and people harder every year.”
UN Climate Change, March 29, 2025, “Happy birthday COP!”, LinkedIn
Within latest news about COP30, Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC), comments: “… keep the 1.5°C global warming limit within reach. …” (cf. “Dan Ioschpe Will Lead as COP30 High-Level Champion“, April 3, 2025)
The “radical truth” about global warming is, we will reach the 1.5°C limit within ca. 4.5 years. (cf. graph from “Copernicus”, https://apps.climate.copernicus.eu/global-temperature-trend-monitor)
There is no chance whatsoever to stay within the 1.5°C limit, because (1) the global temperature rise shows a ca. 30 years delay to the actual GHG emissions (see following graph based on data from “Our World in Data”, https://ourworldindata.org), (2) annual GHG emissions are still raising (see also the following graph), and (3) CO2 sinks (mainly soil, plants & forests, and oceans), so far buffering the temperature rise, seem to be full now (e.g. cf. Curran J. C., Curran S. A. 2025: “Natural sequestration of carbon dioxide is in decline: climate change will accelerate”, Weather, Volume: 80, Issue: 3, Pages: 85-87, First published: 15 January 2025, DOI: (10.1002/wea.7668), https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.7668); cf. “Are Earth’s natural carbon sinks collapsing?”, https://climatetippingpoints.info/2024/12/03/carbon-sinks, December 3, 2024).
Furthermore, UNFCCC & Mr. Stiell seem to ether not yet fully understand or suppress (cognitive dissonance), the 1.5°C is a (1) “physical limit” and an (2) estimation.
(1) The “physical limit” means, that after reaching 1.5°C actually no one, even the best computer models and the best climate scientist can give a serious projection about the future, the ongoing global warming and its effects on climate and biodiversity (including humans). Understanding this, it is “most irritating”, how UNFCCC & Mr. Stiell thinks or even claims, “Climate Change COPs” organised by UNFCCC managed to reduce maximum global warming from ca. 5°C to ca. 3°C.
After the physical limit of 1.5°C, tipping points will be reached and (technologically unstoppable) self-reinforcing cycles will be activated. These (technologically unstoppable) self-reinforcing cycles will further increase global warming and the therefore raising temperatures will activate further self-reinforcing cycles until there are no further self-reinforcing cycles possible, because e.g. all glaciers & ice shields are melted, all forest are burned down, the AMOC (golf stream) changed, etc. and a new “stable” temperature is reached and a new climate situation established.
(2) The physical limit of 1.5°C is – as far as we understand today – a fantastic estimation (latest from 2015), still it is based on loads of assumptions within a very complex & thus dynamic system. So there is a (more or less) chance, tipping points are already reached earlier. Current data give rise to that assumption (e.g. cf. Schmidt, G.: “WMO: Update on 2023/4 Anomalies“, March 20, 2025; Rahmstorf, S. et al.: “Global Warming has Accelerated Signicantly“, Research Square, March 3rd, 2025)
The need to significantly reduced meat production (ca. 20% of global GHG emissions) is almost never mentioned, not even by UNFCCC
Undoubtedly, nutrition is a highly emotional topic. UNFCCC does not highlight the importance of nutrition for mitigating global warming. With the latest COP29, only some side panels discussed the topic of nutrition and its impact on global warming, although there is a significant demand for meat production reduction to actually reduce GHG emissions. UNFCCC seems to be afraid to bring this highly emotional topic on the (geo)political agenda. Thus, ca. 20% (1/5) of global GHG emissions are almost not at all tackled. This is particularly disappointing, since reducing meat production could be a “quick win” with mitigating global warming. It produces mainly “Methane” (CH₄) and “Methane” vanishes from the global atmosphere very quickly (ca. 12 years) in comparison to “Carbon dioxide” (CO2) (takes hundreds of years).
The climate system is complex & thus dynamic and global warming will be exponential
To sum it up, there is (1) a deadly “pattern of thinking” and (2) a deadly “narrative of change” currently ongoing with global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity.
ad (1): Based on research from e.g. Dietrich Dörner (cf. Dörner, D.: “Die Logik des Misslingens: Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen”, 2002), we understand the difficulties and boundaries of (political) decision making within complex and dynamic systems (e.g. cf. Baumann, K.: “Organisation der Strategie. Konstruktionen und Dekonstruktionen“, Carl-Auer Verlag, 2005, p. 112ff.).
Among others like habitual thinking, automatism, conservativism, prejudices, group think, cognitive dissonance, selective perception, most important is the so called “trivialisation”. This means, we humans with our cognitive abilities have a very strong tendency to “linear projections” and have a very hard time with thinking in causal networks instead of (linear) causal chains. This results in a strong tendency to (significantly) underestimate exponential processes.
With global warming, in our view, we have such a situation on a major scale and we strongly recommend to (radically) rethink and reorganise the (political) decision making structure for global warming mitigation and climate actions.
ad (2): And yes, we want decision makers and (average) people not to panic, we want them to become sincerely concerned – the first of the main preconditions for actual change within daily thinking and acting patterns, the second is involvement. Based on the understanding of “narrative change” (cf. Hansen, H.: “Narrative Change. How Changing the Story Can Transform Society, Business, and Ourselves”, 2020), we need “radical truth” about global warming, climate change, and the loss of biodiversity. So far, the topic is seen as a “soft issue” because it is complex and slow and thus covered by short term sensation and “fast & easy solution approaches” (explained with the concepts of “populism” or “fascism”).
With current (geo)politics, global warming will be exponential and at least “partly out of human control” within ca. 4.5 years and potentially deadly for (not thousands, not millions, but) billions of people (we drafted a first theory for such a global warming scenario).
The way out of this in our view by far potentially worst humanitarian catastrophe in the history of mankind, and the successful way into a healthy and thus sustainable global society is – certainly among others – via global direct democracy and a first global referendum on climate actions.
We know from (strategic) management, whenever you miss a target, take your lessons learned and (radically) rethink your structure (not your process).