A series of scientific studies published in a British journal on Monday echoes warnings from long-time critics of the Paris Agreement that meeting the accord’s main goals will not be enough to prevent “destructive and deadly” impacts of the worldwide climate crisis.

The May issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A explores the challenges of working to achieve the 2015 agreement’s foundational objectives, which are “to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C.”

While the agreement has the support of all the world’s nations except the United States—President Donald Trump has vowed to withdraw from it as soon as he can—it ultimately relies on signatories to develop their own pathways for meeting the goals, which has raised concerns among experts that the global community will fail to stay below the 2°C threshold.

Click Here: NRL Telstra Premiership

The new journal issue’s introduction emphasizes that this “multidisciplinary challenge”—a changing planet that is expected to influence nearly or all aspects of human life—requires “not only climate scientists, but the whole Earth system science community, as well as economists, engineers, lawyers, philosophers, politicians, emergency planners, and others to step up.”

Multiple studies from the journal warn that global warming is likely to exacerbate worldwide inequality, particularly in poor countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

One analysis concludes that “projected impacts on economic growth of 1.5°C warming are close to indistinguishable from current climate conditions, while 2°C warming suggests statistically lower economic growth for a large set of countries.” However, those researchers found that even 1.5°C warming would likely take a notable toll on economic growth in the Tropics and Southern Hemisphere.

Another study examines how “emission pathways consistent with limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C raise pressing questions from an equity perspective,” noting that “these pathways would limit impacts and benefit vulnerable communities but also present trade-offs that could increase inequality.” The researchers urge policymakers to more carefully evaluate the equity implications of various proposals and outline a strategy for doing so.