We are experiencing a very hot summer in Europe, will it be normal in the next few years?
We are going exactly in the direction we anticipated: the temperature is increasing and, with it, the frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves. Europe is warming almost twice as fast as the global average. In addition, we have evidence that we are approaching an El Niño episode that could be strong. It is likely that a planetary temperature record will be recorded in 27.
Will we exceed two degrees of warming by the end of the century?
Regarding 1.5 degrees there is no doubt, but in the case of both there is still room. The IPCC scenarios show that every tenth matters: 1.6º is better than 1.7; two are better than 2.1. If we want to limit warming, any tenth counts.
Should we focus on adaptation or could that divert interest in mitigation?
They are two sides of the same problem. In the long term we must reduce emissions, but at the same time we already live in a climate for which we have no historical experience. We have never had cities exposed to such high temperatures and that forces us to adapt. Countries such as France, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands are recording temperatures that were previously exceptional. With what we are experiencing, it is evident that we need to adapt.
Are we prepared?
The situation has improved in the last decade and more and more cities have adaptation plans, but it is still not enough. Almost half still lack them. In addition, there are systemic risks, such as a combination of high temperatures and lack of precipitation in the Mediterranean basin, which could cause a major drought with effects on agriculture, health, etc. Although we do not know if it will happen, the simple fact that it is possible forces us to prepare.
There is a lot of talk about marine heat waves, what is happening?
The marine heat waves recorded in 2025 were extraordinary, both in the Mediterranean and the eastern Atlantic. They affect biodiversity, fishing and also our health. A warmer sea prevents nighttime temperatures from dropping in coastal cities, making it difficult to rest. In the last twenty years, deaths associated with heat stress in the EU have increased by 30%.
What do you think about geoengineering? Can it be part of the solution?
It is a topic that we do not analyze directly in Copernicus, although it arouses great interest in the European Commission. Not only for its possible benefits, but also to know if we would be able to detect deliberate manipulation of the climate carried out by other countries. At the moment, there are no large-scale experiments, only theoretical studies. The scientific community maintains an active debate and the general feeling is that we must act with great caution. There may be useful technologies, but they could also generate effects that are difficult to control and have consequences for years.
The United States is dismantling part of its climate observation programs. What consequences can it have?
When one country stops making observations, the problem affects the entire world. A measurement that is not done today is data that future generations will lose and that can never be recovered. Europe, on the other hand, has opted for a stable, long-term observation program. Having successive generations of operational satellites is a scientific, economic and strategic advantage, because it provides basic information from which to decide.
Do you fear that something similar could happen in Europe?
Political support remains very broad. I like to think that Europe maintains a culture of evidence-based decisions and understands that having quality information is essential to design good policies.
Could talking so much about climate change be causing fatigue in society?
Part of that fatigue has to do with how we communicate the problem. A speech based solely on guilt can be paralyzing. The important thing is that we must make decisions right now: how to adapt cities, build schools or manage traffic. They are decisions that town councils and governments can make using the enormous amount of information we have. We should put more focus on this ability to act thanks to scientific knowledge.
Are we going too far with alarmism?
I don’t believe it. The important thing is to have reliable information to make better decisions. Fifty years ago we barely knew how the climate was changing. Today we have almost daily data on water resources, the state of the sea, glaciers or the evolution of temperatures. Many news items are worrying, but this information allows us to accurately follow how the planet is changing and act accordingly. The challenge is no longer the lack of data, but the ability to convert that knowledge into decisions. Never before has humanity had such a complete image of the functioning of the planet. Now it is up to us to use it to confront climate change in the best possible way.