Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Will climate change end human civilisation by 2100
Executive summary
The mainstream scientific literature does not conclude that climate change will itself cause human extinction by 2100, but several peer‑reviewed analyses warn that high‑warming, cascading impacts could make global societal collapse and catastrophic outcomes plausible and underexplored (see IPCC‑based scenario ranges of ~1.7–3.9°C by 2100 and the “climate endgame” argument) [1] [2]. Experts disagree: some climate scientists call extinction from warming “very unlikely, if not zero,” while an interdisciplinary PNAS analysis and related coverage say catastrophic pathways — tipping points, mass displacement and systemic collapse — are insufficiently studied and cannot be ruled out [2] [1].
1. What mainstream climate science actually projects
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and scenario summaries underpin most mainstream projections: current policy trajectories and pledges imply global average warming in the range roughly 1.7–3.9°C by 2100 depending on assumptions, with many serious risks to societies and ecosystems but no explicit IPCC conclusion that climate change will directly cause human extinction this century [1] [2]. MIT climate scientists emphasize that climate change creates severe risks — storms, heatwaves, droughts, food and infrastructure strain — but judge direct human extinction from climate warming “very low, if not zero” based on current evidence [2].
2. The “climate endgame” and the argument for studying extinction risks
A 2022 PNAS‑framed analysis led by researchers at the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk argues that catastrophic outcomes — including societal collapse or extinction — are “dangerously underexplored,” especially at warming above ~3°C, and calls for systematic assessment of low‑probability, high‑impact scenarios (the “climate endgame”) [1]. Media coverage of that work highlights modelled scenarios in which billions could face intolerable heat and fragile regions might see annual averages of extreme temperatures by mid‑century, underscoring systemic risk pathways [3] [4].
3. Expert disagreements and where judgment differs
Some respected scientists and outlets conclude that climate‑forced extinction is unlikely: for example, Adam Schlosser at MIT calls extinction “not really the main worry” and Michael Mann has said there is “no evidence of climate change scenarios that would render human beings extinct” in the near term [2] [5]. By contrast, authors of the PNAS analysis and some commentators point out historical precedents of climate‑linked societal collapse and argue that interacting hazards (food shocks, conflict, disease, tipping points) could cascade into outcomes that mainstream assessments have not fully quantified [1] [6].
4. Pathways from warming to catastrophic societal outcomes
Reporting and reviews identify plausible mechanisms that could transform environmental stress into systemic collapse: crop failures and food system shocks, mass displacement and conflict, failure of critical infrastructure, cascading economic breakdown, and tipping elements in the Earth system [6] [7]. The scale and timing of such cascades are deeply uncertain; some scenario papers suggest large regions could be effectively uninhabitable for parts of the year by 2070 under high‑warming cases, increasing political fragility [3].
5. Claims of near‑term civilization collapse or extinction — contested and varied
A number of high‑profile reports and activists have advanced severe timelines — e.g., claims human civilisation could end by 2050 or that huge fractions of humanity might perish by 2100 — but these have been met with strong rebuttals and are not part of the mainstream IPCC projections; some originate from advocacy groups or single‑author scenario pieces rather than consensus science [8] [6]. Conversely, other commentators and organizations urge caution because conventional modelling may underweight cascading systemic risks [1] [9].
6. What the evidence does and does not say
Available peer‑reviewed literature and major scientific summaries show: (a) substantial warming this century under many plausible trajectories with profound risks to ecosystems and societies [1] [7]; (b) extinction is not a mainstream, quantified outcome of IPCC assessments for 2100, and several climate scientists say extinction is very unlikely based on current evidence [2] [5]; and (c) there is a recognized gap: some researchers warn that worst‑case, cascading scenarios and tipping points deserve more rigorous study because they could change risk assessments [1] [3].
7. Policy and public‑communication implications
The disagreement matters for policy: if low‑probability but high‑impact climate endgames are credible, risk management calls for stronger, faster mitigation and resilience measures; if extinction is extremely unlikely, prioritization still remains urgent because of near‑term suffering, biodiversity loss and civilizational stresses [1] [2]. Media and advocacy that present definitive near‑term extinction claims must be treated cautiously because many such strong claims exceed what mainstream scientific syntheses report [8] [6].
8. Bottom line for readers
Available sources do not show a scientific consensus that climate change will end human civilisation or cause human extinction by 2100; they do show credible reasons to take extreme long‑tail risks seriously, and experts disagree about how large that long‑tail is and how well it has been studied [2] [1]. The prudent response — reflected across the reporting — is to treat severe systemic scenarios as low‑probability/high‑consequence risks that justify urgent emission reductions and strengthened global resilience [1] [2].