© a.s.r. 2025
21 May 2025 | 5 min. readingtime
The conversation around the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal is beginning to shift. When nearly every country in the world signed the agreement in 2015, the aim was to hold global warming well below 2°C, while pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. That lower goal was seen as a key to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.
With emissions still rising and global action falling short, there is growing recognition that the 1.5°C goal may be slipping out of reach. The conversation is no longer just about meeting the goal, but increasingly about what happens if we go beyond it – and what that means for people and the planet.
As emissions continue to rise, some now question whether 1.5°C is still achievable, and whether we should quietly settle for “well below 2°C” instead. But that would be a mistake. The difference between 1.5°C and 2°C is not academic. It means real, everyday consequences – including here in Europe.
Recent reports from the IPCC and the European Environment Agency (EEA) highlight that even with 1.5°C of warming, Europe will face more frequent and intense heatwaves, greater risks of drought, and more severe coastal flooding. At 2°C, these risks increase sharply. For example, the number of extreme heat days in European cities could double between 1.5°C and 2°C. Prolonged droughts could threaten agricultural production in Southern Europe, affecting food security and pushing up prices for consumers across the continent.
Without stronger action, annual deaths from extreme heat in Europe could rise from around 2,750 today to an estimated 30,000 at 1.5°C, and to more than 52,000 at 2°C. If we carry on with business as usual and global warming continues unchecked toward 3°C, that number could rise to nearly 96,000 per year. The number of people exposed to severe heatwaves could grow from 10 million now, to more than 100 million at 1.5°C, and nearly 300 million at 3°C. These are not distant or imaginary risks. They are real risks that could affect homes, livelihoods, and communities across Europe in the years to come.
The financial consequences will also be felt in our own country as global warming accelerates. In the Netherlands, insurers are already reporting rising costs from climate-related damage, with certain risks, such as flooding or subsidence, becoming difficult or even impossible to insure. As the costs of extreme weather rise, the likely consequences for homeowners will be higher premiums, stricter conditions, or reduced coverage. The link between climate change and household finances is becoming harder to ignore.
Technically, a path to 1.5°C still exists. The IPCC and a wide body of scientific literature make clear that the necessary solutions are already available: from renewables and energy efficiency to electrification and sustainable land use. The main barriers are not technical. They are political, financial, and behavioural, as illustrated by the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement once again.
A continuous debate about temperature goals risks becoming a distraction from what really matters: limiting the human, environmental, and economic impacts of climate change. The reality is simple: global warming will ultimately be determined by the cumulative buildup of greenhouse gas emissions. Every additional tonne of CO₂ we keep out of the atmosphere means less damage, less disruption, and less risk for the communities we call home.
We need to reframe the discussion away from only talking about temperature outcomes to how we can cut emissions by as much – and as quickly – as possible. That should be the overriding goal, and targets aligned with 1.5°C can help ensure we maintain the level of ambition the science demands. If we lower our ambition every time the goal looks difficult to reach, we risk normalising failure and reducing our expectations over time. That would be the worst outcome. Instead, we need a relentless focus on deep emissions cuts in the coming years. It’s about the art of the possible and applying the technology and solutions that are already within our reach.
This is why 1.5°C still matters. It’s not a bullseye we must hit exactly, but a boundary we have to stay as close to as possible. Every step beyond it means greater consequences for people and society.
That’s why a.s.r. asset management makes 1.5°C-aligned targets a core part of its climate strategy and its dialogue with companies – and why it has raised its ambition level for climate change. By 2045, a.s.r. asset management aims to achieve net-zero financed greenhouse gas emissions across all assets it manages on behalf of clients. That’s five years earlier than the Paris Agreement's goal. To achieve this, two interim targets have been set: a 25% reduction in carbon intensity (tCO₂e per million euros invested) by 2030 compared to 2023, and a 75% reduction by 2040. These targets build on the strong progress a.s.r. asset management has already made in reducing its financed emissions.
Overshooting isn’t binary. Every tenth of a degree brings more risk, more disruption, and more lives that could be affected. 1.5°C may still be technically possible, but the window is narrowing. We must stay focused on what really matters – and use our time and energy to limit how far we go beyond it. The more and the faster we reduce emissions today, the more we can avoid the human consequences of tomorrow.
