Fact check: What are our actual chances of doing anything about climate change in time to help?

1. Why scientists say “we can” — the technical toolbox is broad and growing

Multiple reviews catalog a broad set of mitigation tools: deep decarbonization of energy and transport, negative emissions technologies (NETs) such as biofixation and large-scale carbon removal, and even geoengineering concepts to modify radiative forcing. These studies stress that technical pathways exist to reduce atmospheric CO2, including both emissions cuts and removals, and that rapid deployment could change long-term climate trajectories ^{[1] [4]}. The literature highlights microalgae cultivation and other biofixation approaches as demonstrable NET options, while noting that development and scaling remain urgent priorities if these options are to materially affect near-term warming ^[4].

2. Why experts warn “we might not” — political feasibility is the bottleneck

Feasibility analyses separate technical possibility from social, economic, and political practicability. Work on “feasibility spaces” argues that even technically viable options can be infeasible under realistic political-economic constraints, because required actions impose large costs on powerful actors and demand sustained institutional capacity ^[2]. Political-feasibility studies specifically warn that staying below 1.5°C is technically attainable but may be politically unattainable given current trajectories, vested interests, and limited appetite for the accelerated transformations needed in energy, land use, and infrastructure ^[3]. The decisive factor is whether governments and societies choose those costly pathways quickly enough.

3. Where uncertainty matters most — risk, perception, and implementation gaps

Recent research maps critical knowledge gaps around risk, uncertainty, and the specification of mitigation actions, noting inconsistent definitions of risk acceptance and uneven consideration of stakeholders’ concerns. These gaps undermine coherent policy design and stakeholder buy-in, weakening implementation prospects ^[5]. Effective mitigation requires not just technical plans but clear risk communication, alignment of incentives, and institutional clarity so that mitigation measures are both designed and accepted by diverse agents. The absence of this clarity increases the odds that feasible technical options will stall during policy adoption and execution ^[5].

4. Implementation failures: why good policies don’t always translate into action

Historical policy research shows that promising laws and targets often fail at the implementation stage because of poor design, stakeholder exclusion, and weak governance mechanisms. Evaluations of public policy implementation identify practical barriers—capacity shortfalls, fragmented authorities, and inadequate monitoring—that consistently erode intended outcomes ^{[6] [7]}. The literature argues that addressing these institutional deficits is as important as advancing technologies: without robust implementation frameworks, even ambitious mitigation packages will struggle to be delivered at the pace required to bend the emissions curve decisively ^{[7] [6]}.

5. Trade-offs and dependencies: why we cannot count on a single silver bullet

Sources emphasize that reliance on any single strategy—whether fast decarbonization alone, large-scale NETs, or geoengineering—creates systemic vulnerabilities. A credible pathway to timely help requires combinatory strategies: aggressive emissions cuts, parallel scaling of removals, and governance for riskier interventions if used. Reviews stress that each approach carries constraints: decarbonization demands rapid infrastructure turnover, NETs depend on unproven scale-up and land/resource limits, and geoengineering poses moral and governance risks ^{[1] [4]}. Balancing these measures raises complex allocation and equity issues that must be resolved politically.

6. What recent feasibility frameworks add: pragmatic prioritization vs. optimistic ambition

The 2023 feasibility work urges using “feasibility spaces” to triage options that are both impactful and achievable given social contexts. This reframes the question from “Can we do it?” to “What can we realistically do now that meaningfully advances climate goals?” The approach aims to prioritize interventions with high achievability while investing in harder-to-implement but necessary technologies ^[2]. The message is pragmatic: maximize near-term wins that are scalable and politically realistic, while maintaining R&D and institutional reform for longer-term tools ^{[2] [3]}.

7. Bottom line and the path forward: constrained optimism tied to governance

The compiled evidence shows that we still retain options to materially influence climate outcomes, but the probability of succeeding in time is constrained mainly by political will, implementation capacity, and how quickly societies accept the trade-offs. Addressing the policy and governance voids highlighted in the implementation and risk-gap literature is essential for converting technical feasibility into realized outcomes ^{[7] [5]}. If governments rapidly align incentives, invest in scaling proven NETs, and strengthen delivery institutions, chances of timely meaningful mitigation improve substantially; absent those changes, technical possibility will remain insufficient ^{[1] [3]}.