When Delhi’s smog lifted during lockdown, residents saw the Himalaya for the first time in decades. That fleeting clarity offered more than a view – it proved that real change begins with what we do now, not what we promise for later
By
When Delhi’s unbearable traffic came to a halt during the 2020 lockdowns, something remarkable happened. Millions of residents saw the Himalaya for the first time in their lives – faraway mountain peaks suddenly visible through smog-less air. It lasted only a few weeks, but people had glimpsed what was possible.
Now, at the end of 2025, we’re two and a half decades away from the celebrated goal of totally decarbonising the world. The year 2050 is still distant enough that none of today’s political leaders will be held accountable. That far-off date is enshrined as the target for net- zero emissions, while overshadowing what could be done during the coming new year to make people’s lives better.
If only we were on track to hit the 2050 net-zero bullseye. The probability of meeting it, albeit incalculable, appears to be low to very low, based on current trajectories. Even if every country fulfils its commitments, the world is on track for disastrous warming of around 2.5°C–2.9°C by century’s end.
Enjoying this article? Check out our related reads:
And to be on a net-zero pathway, emissions would need to plummet. They are not. Plus, while booming renewables are a viable solution for electricity generation, sectors such as heavy industry (steel, cement), long-haul shipping and aviation lack scalable zero-carbon technologies.
In the meantime, there’s no shortage of facts and data begging for global and decisive action from every government, every company and every Earthling alike. Scientists keep sounding the alarm. The latest is about the crossing of a long-feared tipping point – the collapse of tropical coral reefs.
Based on extensive scientific reports, the Amazon rainforest is also considered perilously close to an irreversible decline – a prelude to dire consequences. A recent study found that the 2024 fires released around 791 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, comparable to Germany’s emissions in a year. Meanwhile, Brazil has just given the green light for oil exploration near the mouth of the Amazon River.
We could go on. That being said, the probability of hitting the 2050 target isn’t zero. The small chance rests on a cascade of ‘ifs’. Humanity could still change its destiny if an exponential technological acceleration were to happen – which we can’t rule out – or if public demand for climate action were to force politicians and companies to act with unprecedented speed.
And here is the point. For humanity to change its destiny – it’s clear by now – we need the people. And people don’t mobilise for distant targets. They mobilise when they can see and feel improvements in their own lives. China’s enormous investment in high-speed rail and electric buses wasn’t primarily motivated by altruistic concern for global emissions. It was driven by the immediate benefits of reducing air pollution and dependence on foreign oil.
The ‘15-minute city’ concept – everything you need within a 15-minute walk or bike ride – spearheaded by Paris, appeals not because it reduces emissions, but because it promises a higher quality of life. Again, the carbon reduction is a bonus, not the main driver.
Tipping points don’t necessarily need to be negative. A positive tipping point could be defined as a critical threshold where a small change in a system – economic, technological or social – sparks self-reinforcing feedback loops that drive the system rapidly towards a new, more desirable state.
A social tipping point is still possible. The accelerating forces of positive feedback (such as falling costs of renewables and the general acceptance of new norms) need to overwhelm the balancing forces of inertia (such as vested interests or high decarbonisation costs).
But this would still be difficult without coordinated public policies.
Current climate discourse remains trapped in the language of sacrifice and distant deadlines. This largely misunderstands the reality of human psychology. Maybe, instead of asking, ‘Will this climate policy lead to net- zero by 2050?’, the test should be, ‘Will this make people’s lives better within five years?’
This isn’t an argument against planning. We absolutely need to think long term. But a distant target can’t be met without meeting goals in the short term. The climate crisis isn’t a problem to be solved in 2050. It’s a crisis that demands action now – measured not only in emissions reductions but also in concrete improvements to daily life.
The good news is that these two things align far more often than generally reckoned. The clean-energy transition, for example, if done right, isn’t a sacrifice – it’s an upgrade.
Just think of people waking up in New Delhi every day in the future seeing towering, snowy heights 300 kilometres away.
