The Paris Agreement has seen the adoption of a 1.5° to 2 °C climate target, based on the belief that climate change becomes ‘dangerous’ above this level. Since then, the scientific community and the countries most affected by global warming have reiterated that the maximum limit to be reached should be 1.5 °C. This paper goes one step further by questioning the reasoning behind the adoption of these targets, arguing that the fossil fuel-dependent political context in which they were adopted has undermined justice concerns. We highlight the political influence of the fossil fuels industry within target-setting negotiations, analyzing the evolution of climate targets and fossil fuel lobbying. We then harness published scientific evidence and the Earth System Justice framework to analyze the impacts of the 1.5 °C target, and the injustices that have so far been implicitly deemed acceptable. We argue that 1 °C would have been a far more just target and was undermined by vested interests and status quo maintenance. Finally, we propose just supply-side policies to ensure an adequate placement of responsibility on the fossil fuel industry. This way we (a) identify political influences and scientific blind spots that have and could continue to hinder climate action, (b) reveal how these influences delayed more ambitious climate objectives, contributing to the adoption of an unjust climate target, and (c) promote a focus on supply-side measures and polluting industries in order to break free from the impasse in the energy transition and foster more just outcomes.

《巴黎协定》通过了 1.5°C 至 2°C 的气候目标，其基础是气候变化超过这一水平就会变得“危险”。此后，科学界和受全球变暖影响最严重的国家重申，要达到的最高限度应为1.5℃。本文更进一步质疑采用这些目标背后的理由，认为采用这些目标的依赖化石燃料的政治背景破坏了正义关切。我们强调化石燃料行业在目标设定谈判中的政治影响力，分析气候目标和化石燃料游说的演变。然后，我们利用已发表的科学证据和地球系统正义框架来分析 1.5°C 目标的影响，以及迄今为止被隐含地认为可以接受的不公正现象。我们认为，1°C 本来是一个更加公正的目标，但会被既得利益和维持现状所破坏。最后，我们提出公正的供给侧政策，以确保化石燃料行业充分承担责任。通过这种方式，我们（a）识别已经并可能继续阻碍气候行动的政治影响和科学盲点，（b）揭示这些影响如何推迟更雄心勃勃的气候目标，从而导致采用不公正的气候目标，以及（c）推动聚焦供给侧措施和污染行业，打破能源转型僵局，促进更加公正的成果。