The global climate agenda has entered a defining moment. Limiting global warming to 1.5°C remains an essential global objective. Yet the pathway to achieving it is becoming increasingly uncertain, even as climate impacts are accelerating across every region of the world. From intensifying heatwaves and floods to disruptions in food and energy systems, the challenge is no longer only about preventing future risks—it is also about building the capacity to navigate an increasingly uncertain world.

This is why capacity building must remain at the center of global climate action.

Capacity building is often reduced to technical training or knowledge transfer. In reality, it encompasses the institutions, governance systems, financing mechanisms, partnerships, and human capabilities that enable climate action to move from commitments to implementation. Without these foundations, even the most ambitious climate targets risk remaining disconnected from realities on the ground.

Discussions at SB64 reinforced a recurring reality: ambition without implementation is insufficient. Countries may agree on increasingly ambitious goals, but without stronger institutional, financial, and human capacity, those commitments remain difficult to deliver.

Keeping 1.5°C within reach

Achieving net-zero emissions by the middle of this century while keeping 1.5°C within reach must remain a global priority. The scientific evidence continues to demonstrate that every fraction of avoided warming matters for ecosystems, economies, and human well-being.

Many countries remain committed to this ambition. Japan, for example, continues to emphasize the importance of pursuing the 1.5°C goal alongside technological innovation and transition strategies. At the same time, international climate negotiations have also revealed growing tensions, with some fossil fuel–dependent interests questioning the feasibility or urgency of the 1.5°C pathway.

Having participated in several climate negotiations, I have witnessed how these different perspectives shape global discussions. These debates are not only about targets—they are about the future direction of our societies and whether climate action can be accelerated in a fair and inclusive way.

The challenge ahead is not whether transformation is possible, but whether we can build the collective capacity, cooperation, and political commitment needed to achieve it.

Adaptation and mitigation must reinforce each other

A common challenge in climate discussions is the perceived competition between mitigation and adaptation. In reality, these efforts must be understood as mutually reinforcing.

Mitigation reduces future climate risks by addressing the drivers of climate change, while adaptation enables societies to cope with the impacts already unfolding. The most effective climate strategies are those that integrate both perspectives.

For example, renewable energy systems can contribute not only to emissions reduction but also to energy security, affordability, and resilience. Climate-smart agriculture can reduce emissions while strengthening food security and supporting vulnerable communities. Nature-based solutions can protect ecosystems while improving livelihoods.

Recognizing these synergies allows climate policies to deliver multiple benefits simultaneously, strengthening resilience while accelerating decarbonization.

Food and energy security at the heart of transformation

The climate transition must also respond to fundamental societal needs. Food and energy systems are deeply connected with climate, development, and equity. A transition that overlooks these connections risks creating new vulnerabilities.

Climate action must therefore move beyond sectoral approaches and embrace integrated solutions that consider ecological, social, and economic dimensions simultaneously. Delivering these integrated solutions requires institutions capable of working across sectors, governance systems that encourage coordination, and investment in local knowledge and leadership.

Building capacity for a just transition

A just transition requires more than technological innovation. It requires institutions capable of learning, communities empowered to participate, and governance systems designed for collaboration.

Capacity building should therefore not be viewed as an additional component of climate action—it is the foundation that enables all other actions to succeed.

As the world moves towards a warmer future, strengthening capacity across countries and stakeholder groups will determine whether societies can respond with resilience, innovation, and fairness.

In a world increasingly shaped by climate disruption, the defining question is no longer whether we know what needs to be done. It is whether we can build the institutional, financial, and societal capacity to do it at the scale and speed the moment demands. Climate ambition sets the destination. Capacity determines whether we arrive.

Dr. Avit Bhowmik is an Assistant Professor of Risk and Environmental Studies at Karlstad University, Sweden. He is a member of the Scientific Steering Committee of the AIMES Global Research Network.