UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

The IPCC AR6 Synthesis clearly states that the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C is very small and shrinking quickly. It emphasises that rapid, deep and sustained emission cuts in the 2020s are essential to keep this temperature goal within reach. Early action reduces the chances of overshoot, lowers long-term costs and avoids locking in high-carbon infrastructure. Therefore, the option that highlights urgent and strong mitigation in this decade captures the heart of the report’s message.

Option A:
This option is correct because it directly reflects the wording used by the IPCC about rapid, deep and sustained cuts. It recognises that mitigation must happen now, not at some distant future date. It also links the scale and speed of emission reductions to the 1.5°C limit, which is central to the report.

Option B:
This option is incorrect because delaying major emission reductions until after 2050 would make 1.5°C practically unattainable. The report warns that postponement increases costs and risks of irreversible impacts. Therefore, it contradicts the urgency stressed in AR6.

Option C:
This option overemphasises lifestyle changes and ignores the need for structural shifts in energy, transport and land use. The report stresses that both demand-side and supply-side transformations are needed. Hence, it is incomplete and not the best answer.

Option D:
This option wrongly suggests that mitigation no longer matters. AR6 repeatedly states that every fraction of a degree of avoided warming reduces impacts and risks. So, claiming mitigation has no effect is directly opposed to the scientific findings.

The IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report emphasises that the remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C is very small and that present policies are insufficient. It clearly calls for rapid, deep and sustained emission cuts in the 2020s to limit warming and avoid escalating risks. The report also highlights that delayed action increases future costs, lock-in and irreversibility, especially harming vulnerable people and regions. This framing links climate mitigation with development, equity and risk reduction. (World Resources Institute)

Option A:
This option is incorrect because the report does not argue that action can be postponed until after 2050. On the contrary, it underscores that emission reductions must accelerate now to keep 1.5°C within reach and to limit overshoot. Treating post-2050 reductions as sufficient ignores the urgency highlighted by the IPCC.

Option B:
This option correctly captures the core message that deep emission cuts in this decade are necessary for limiting warming and protecting vulnerable communities. It recognises the link between early mitigation, avoided damages and development outcomes. The IPCC explicitly warns that the window to secure a liveable future is rapidly closing without such action.

Option C:
This option misrepresents the report, which acknowledges some irreversible changes but simultaneously stresses that every fraction of a degree of avoided warming reduces risks. Declaring mitigation “pointless” contradicts the evidence that stronger mitigation substantially limits impacts on people and ecosystems.

Option D:
The IPCC has repeatedly stated that human activities, especially greenhouse gas emissions, are the dominant cause of observed warming. Denying this causal link goes against the consensus summarised in the assessment. Therefore, this option is factually wrong.