When we talk about the Climate Crisis, one of the most repeated terms in reports from the UN, the IPCC, and other scientific bodies is "points of no return." Deadlines, such as 2030, are often presented as crucial barriers: if we don't drastically reduce emissions before then, it will be too late. But is it really that simple to set an exact date for climate breakdown? Or could this approach be a double-edged sword?
Scientists set deadlines as a way to signal urgency. These are not magical calendars in which, overnight, the planet will radically change, but rather benchmarks. Exceeding these limits exponentially increases the likelihood of irreversible climate disasters: loss of glaciers, rising sea levels, or increasingly frequent extreme weather events.
For example, the famous limit of 1.5°C of average global temperature increase compared to the pre-industrial era is not a whim, but a threshold estimated from thousands of studies. But, like everything in science, it is not a rigid line, but rather an area of increasing risk.
The risk of demotivating society
Here arises a communication problem. When we repeat over and over again that "we have until 2030 to save the planet," many citizens interpret it as an apocalyptic countdown. If the year then arrives and the world doesn't end overnight, the message loses credibility.
Furthermore, the average citizen already deals with multiple daily concerns: economy, employment, family... Adding a global ultimatum can generate eco-anxiety, a mixture of fear and paralysis that, instead of spurring action, leads to indifference. The perception that "it's already too late" is as dangerous as denying the problem.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't set goals. On the contrary, goals are essential for guiding public policies, coordinating countries, and measuring progress. The key lies in how we communicate these deadlines.
Instead of conveying dates that seem like an unchangeable decree, we need to talk about trajectories for change. Reducing emissions by 50% by 2030 is not an ultimatum; it's a roadmap that, if met, brings us closer to a safer future. And if we don't reach 50%, every point of reduction still counts. The climate is not a switch that can be turned off, but a cumulative system: every positive action adds up, every delay subtracts.
Alternative strategies that could perhaps be more effective:
. Focus on immediate benefits: Reducing fossil fuels not only combats climate change, but also improves air quality, reduces respiratory illnesses, and reduces energy dependence. Talking about health and the economy connects more with people's daily lives.
. Tell success stories: Showing examples of cities, companies, or communities that are already transforming their energy production and consumption is more inspiring than doomsday warnings. Positive narratives mobilize more than fear.
. Emphasize local resilience: Adapting to the climate also means creating cooler neighborhoods, with more trees, efficient public transportation, and better-insulated homes. These improvements are felt daily and motivate change.
. Offer practical tools: From apps that show carbon footprints to tax incentives for renewable energy, giving citizens concrete means to take action reinforces a sense of control and effectiveness.
. Change the framework of the discourse: Instead of talking about sacrifices, talk about opportunities: green jobs, technological innovation, international competitiveness. The ecological transition is not a burden, it is a lever for development.
And the challenge must be collective, not individual. It is important to remember that although individual action counts, true transformation depends on structural policies. Blaming citizens for not recycling or using cars distracts from the fact that the most decisive decisions are in the hands of governments and large corporations. The message must be clear: we need systemic changes, and social pressure is key to demanding them.
Setting deadlines in the fight against the climate crisis is not a mistake, as long as we know how to communicate them well. We must understand them as guiding principles, not absolute prophecies. And, above all, we need to change the narrative: less paralyzing fear and more practical motivation.
Humanity is facing one of the greatest challenges in its history, but also a unique opportunity to reinvent the way we live, produce, and relate to the planet. If we can transform urgency into positive action, deadlines will cease to be threats and become achievable goals.
Because, in the end, it's not just about avoiding disaster: it's about building a better future.
EN 
ES