Forum Topic

Climate Change / Collapse the elephant in the room?

The weather has become more extreme, and the consequences of that, from drought, wildfires, reduced harvests, dying trees, excess deaths etc. has become uncomfortably apparent. It's odd that at the same time discussion about climate change has all but disappeared. What is going on?

Kathleen Healy ● 8d58 Comments

Sm, voice of reason. The UK will not make any difference to climate change regardless. So it makes no sense to create such high energy costs in the green race. Hammett have created fuel poverty for millions of citizens and destroys thousands of businesses why? The word then need to spell is balance. Labour has zero understanding of the word.

Jayne Thorburn ●

Kathleen - not sure where you are getting your stats from but Gov.uk says that in 2025  "UK territorial greenhouse gas emissions account for less than 1% of the global total, based on a range of estimates produced by the UN, the International Energy Agency and the World Resources Institute amongst others." No source that I can find suggests (as you do) that the manufacturing production that we have "off-shored" accounts for anything more than around half of one percent of gobal emmissions. Certainly not the 1% that you suggest.I am going to repeat myself because you clearly have either misunderstood what I have written or simply not read it.If all human activity in the UK ceased as  of today it would make only the tiniest difference to the rate of increase in climate change/global warming - it would certainly not stop global warming from increasing.I strongly suggest you click on this linkhttps://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-which-countries-are-historically-responsible-for-climate-changeThis states that national responsibility for historical CO2 emissions from 1850-2021 are as follows;The USA 20%China 11%Germany 4%UK 3%Your suggestions that Britain has contributed 20% of carbon emissions looks decidely "flaky". What is your source?The idea that we should push on to "net zero" regardless of the damage this will do to our economy because Britain has contibuted significantly to the historical carbon emissions really does not stand up to much scrutiny.It had to find an exact analogy but it is a little like saying "your grandfather had a small bonfire in his back garden a century ago and you are therefore responsible for the fire that is burning the house down NOW."We really must focus all our resources on protecting our citizens from the impact of global warming/climate change e.g. flooding, storms, overloaded infrastructure, collapsing agricultual yelds, out of control fires !

Sam Hearn ● 1h

Party politics aside, spending taxes or borrowing to bring down energy costs and provide energy security is good governance. Renewables are the cheapest form of energy and would reduce /end dependence on foreign imports. Cheap energy would help business and reduce energy bills for households.The failure to build some nuclear capacity as a back stop also seems very unfortunate now.Had the investment happened sooner, we would be in a better position.

Kathleen Healy ● 2h

The tax on farmers was the worst, they think we can import food, well their stocks are dwindling n the heat also.

Janice Evans ● 5h

Green Industrial Revolution funny, the truth is that Labour seem ignorant to the damage they are doing to the UK economy, high employment cost, increasing cost of living, ridiculous taxes will leave the country in a very poor state. It’s great to invest in cleaner technologies but not at the expense of society, there has to be transition period importing gas from Norway is ridiculous. About are ridiculous with so many policies they don’t seem to consider their consequences.

Jayne Thorburn ● 6h

Its labour costs. This often leads to environmentally damaging manufacturing, with stuff moved round the world, rather than produced in the UK. The high labour costs are linked to our high cost of living.

Kathleen Healy ● 1d

Including emissions from manufacturing in other countries UK emissions are 2%. Europe is 10 to 12%. Over all time and, having industrialised first on the world, Britain has contributed 20% of all carbon emitted.China and India industrialised relatively late but are massive countries now with a huge consumer base. Both are pushing hard to decarbonise, Both Countries are very vulnerable to climate change. 176 million people live in low lying Bangladesh, next door to India. 2 billion people incl in China and India rely on the Spring snow pack from the Indu Kush for water, it is shrinking. Adopting renewables and locating high energy users, like data centres, near sources of wind and solar energy would reduce emissions, lower energy costs, and give the UK greater energy security. The 2019 Labour manifesto was the most ambitious to date on transitioning to green energy, aiming to create a Green Industrial Revolution.

Kathleen Healy ● 1d

A lot of the decline in UK manufacturing is due to environmental policies.

Janice Evans ● 1d

Think the point is our effort alone will make no difference yet the highest energy costs is doing so much damage to many people and business. The world needs to achieve so much more, we live in a global world so no way to calculate goods and services. Services less of an issue than goods. CHina, India & US need to come to the table yesterday not in decades time. We all know that will not happen.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1d

>We contribute 1% of CO2 If we buy stuff from or use services in another country are you counting any  CO2 added to the atmosphere to run/produce it as our contribution or theirs?

Paul James ● 1d

Janice we stopped manufacturing due to cost we couldn’t compete with other countries on every level. We contribute 1% of CO2 but we do have the highest energy costs in the developed world so time to rebalance in order to get the economy growing again.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1d

That is true Janice, but taking account of carbon emissions in other countries, from UK consumption, still only takes it to 2%.The massive increase is due to very large countries China and India industrialising and increasing production, consumption and demand for energy. To some extent, everyone's fate rests on what they do and they are moving fast to decarbonise. America also needs to move fast, as the second largest emitter of CO2.I think a global effort and cooperation  is needed and wish the UK would, with Europe, take more of a leading role. Including leading by example.

Kathleen Healy ● 1d

Kathleen, the truth is we moved a quarter of UK manufacturing production overseas, so just moved our pollution elsewhere and now blame them forGlobal Warming, basically putting people out of work instead of dealing with the problem ourselves, probably due to the cost, I'm not sure of the reasoning behind it.

Janice Evans ● 2d

Where is Wilhelm Reich and his Cloudbusting machine when we need him ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloudbusting

Richard Greenhough ● 2d

It's due to underinvestment, and over population.

Janice Evans ● 2d

Ironically, Britain led in being the first industrialised nation which involved a lot of innovation, ingenuity and vision.The WW2 experience was extraordinary. I am always struck by the fact that we can't know what it must have felt like  because we know the ending. The most likely outcome was that Britain would lose. Many in the US thought Britain couldn't hold out against a German invasion, although Roosevelt gambled on Britain with Lend Lease. Germany looked overwhelmingly superior, having rolled through most of Europe. How did people keep going, putting up with being bombed and the privations of rationing, losing their homes and the fear that they would be invaded and occupied, like France. The national fortitude and effort was incredible. Reorganising industry to war production, reorganising the workforce bringing women into factories and agriculture.Rebuilding the economy and country after, so it was better for most people than before the war,  was equally impressive.Britain is part of the G7, the world's sixth largest economy. It has universities in the global top 5 and leads on research. The world wide web was invented by a Brit. almost half the worlds business contracts are based on English law.To tackle a global challenge you need global leadership. I think Britain with European partners is well placed to help provide that leadership. Particularly needed now, as the US is sadly lacking at the moment.

Kathleen Healy ● 2d

Why we should be taking this seriously and what we should be doing to live more sustainably:Some peoples across the world are suffering more than us.  Our Govt was taken to court many times because of the dreadful air quality in London but which Govts were too worried about being unpopular for dealing with and also of losing power than actually biting the bullet and dealing with.The court cases against the UK Govt can be found online.  We are even now suffering because of the mess made by the privatisation of water - a monopoly - which unlike electricity we have no choice of water company.  Leaving the EU may have avoided EU laws on this but hasn't avoided the parlous state of our water infrastructure and water companies.https://www.imperial.ac.uk/stories/polluters-on-trial/

Philippa Bond ● 3d

" Officials in Washington" and who would these officials be? Sidekicks of the orange one who want to drill baby drill!

David Burke ● 3d

But there are worries about what damage the chemicals used can do.Scientists will continue to look for ways to mitigate extremes of weather.  We ourselves should be looking for ways to use the methods that we already know and which are being rolled out by those who know how to deal with these extremes without just reaching for an energy switch.Too many politicians have been attracted by donations to their campaigns etc by oil and gas companies and those who have made fortunes out of and want to continue making fortunes out of fossil fuels.  This is one of the reasons that donations to our politicians have to be declared and need to be limited.

Philippa Bond ● 3d

Kathleen,I don't deny that the planet is warming and that our activities as a species have had a determental effect,but I doubt that Britain has any credibility any more amongst most countries,particularly since the loss of our empire.We are just as likely to be vilified nowadays.What 'leadership in the past' are you talking about that others have admired,excepting WW2?

Keith Iddon ● 3d

Kathleen, I fully appreciate how passionate you are about this subject, but have you taken in ANYTHING Sam Hearn has repeated on this thread?

Denis I. Fox ● 3d

Don't waste your breath, Kathleen. Some people are so sensitive that they perceive mere dissenting comment, however gentle the terms in which it is couched, as personal criticism. Others prefer to mock Ed Miliband rather than give a serious response to the climate issues he raises.

Robert Fish ● 3d

Rain Dance is what we need, do they work ?

Janice Evans ● 3d

China and India acknowledge climate change and are adopting renewables at a fast pace, though not fast enough. The US, the second biggest emitter of CO2, is led by someone who denies climate change, but individual states are doing a lot.China and India industrialised late, but as very large countries burn a lot of energy. An unfortunate reality not an excuse.Climate change is a global threat, so only global action will mitigate it. Britain emits only 1 to 2% of global CO2, but it is a large economy and influential. It is part of Europe, geographically, which emits 10% to 12%.Britain has shown global leadership in the past. The war was a huge crisis and threat. People did extraordinary things to get through it and after the war, there was great global cooperation to rebuild. We don't seem to be in the same place as then and our leaders certainly aren't of the same quality. The threat though is much greater.

Kathleen Healy ● 3d

Officials in Washington have given guitar-strumming Ed the nickname "Ed Milliwatt", mocking his net zero policies.

Denis I. Fox ● 3d

Thanks for the finger wagging, Kathleen.Perhaps you could travel to the main polluting countries,as we have cut our contribution to  1-2% of global carbon emissions, and wag it at their leaders as well.I would still love to hear how the weatherr is being manipulated by unseen hands.

Keith Iddon ● 3d

Ed Milliband never suggested the sun could be blocked. It was a made up story.Anyone who has supported the science warning about climate change has been attacked and ridiculed. That has undermined attempts to make people aware of the risk and to support policies and measures to move away from burning fossil fuels.

Kathleen Healy ● 3d

McBean, you really shouldn't post when you've just got back from the pub.

Richard Greenhough ● 3d

Sorry Silliband.

Janice Evans ● 3d

The kids call him Sillibean, because of his music 'attempt'

Janice Evans ● 3d

I remember that Millibean folly too Janice but my comment was about what the MB wrote.

Keith Iddon ● 3d

It did happen but cannot be bothered to look it all up, it's too hot 😉

Janice Evans ● 3d

On the one hnd I would be interested in knowing when this alleged manipulation of the weather began,but on the other hand...

Keith Iddon ● 3d

True, but think they can no longer afford the cost of manipulating the weather, they were trying to block sunlight up until this year.

Janice Evans ● 3d

Oh, and by the way, you do know that the NWO can manipulate the weather, don't you? Just sayin' like..

Michael Brown ● 3d

Did you lot not learn anything from The Great Covid Scam?! 🤣I see Dr. Fauci is in all sorts of trouble in the US over his role.. 👍😁

Michael Brown ● 3d

There are amazing economic opportunities for the UK.If we become a leading manufacturer of sodium ion technology and batteries, it would serve us very well. And save the planet.

Simon Pedley ● 4d

I believe we are the world's 8th largest historical CO2 emitter.

Philippa Bond ● 4d

https://www.wearepossible.org/wind-mythbuster-blog/what-happens-when-its-too-windy

Philippa Bond ● 5d

Countries with nuclear power stations are having to close them because there is not enough water that is used to cool them in their rivers - or their river water is too hot.  France did this last year.  Romania has been blowing up a river bed to try to increase the water for its nuclear power station.

Philippa Bond ● 5d

Sam, getting to net zero isn't to re set the clock to before global warming or to 40 years ago. It's to prevent further warming to a level that creates extremes far more severe than currently. It's to avoid hitting tipping points that cause a collapse of the climate humans have enjoyed for the last 12,000 years, the Holocene.12,000 is the period in which humans built civilisations and colonised most of the earth. The two things are intertwined. The Holocene supports the large human population we have. If it goes, large areas will become uninhabitable. Large areas will  burn and flood and places that currently produce food will be unable to.One of the predicted consequences of climate collapse is the creation of the greatest number of refugees the world has ever seen. They won't be from the usual areas; poor places afflicted by war and food insecurity. Climate collapse will not respect first and third world distinctions. We are already seeing that, in the fires in California. 16000 buildings were lost displacing tens of thousands of people who became refugees. We've recently seen images of French and Spanish people on camp beds in sports halls, many will have lost their homes. Valencia has been flooded and then burnt.All the capital cities in Europe, including London are on rivers, that's at the bottom of valleys and very vulnerable if sea levels rise.Yes, we need to adapt and mitigate, but no adaptations or mitigations will be of much use if we don't stop adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere. Scientist predictions of what will happen if we go past 1.5% of warming are severe. We will probably pass it this year, but briefly. Reaching net zero is now urgent.

Kathleen Healy ● 5d

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/07/millions-of-tonnes-of-toxic-sewage-sludge-spread-on-uk-farmland-every-yearThis might be OK for the Circular Economy if it was always stringently treated and tested.

Philippa Bond ● 5d

https://www.keepbritaintidy.org/e-wasteWe make a huge amount of e-waste - much of which is not recycled.

Philippa Bond ● 5d

I am sorry that I have made myself clear - there is not a cat's chance in hell of halting global warming (climate change) let alone reversing it in any of our life times. The damage is already done and cannot be reversed quickly.The UK can on its own do very little on a global scale. The CO2 emissions of India and China are at best plateauing - but this does nothing to remove/neutralise all the previous emissions. Globally CO2 emissions are still going up. Yes it is sensible to continue to pursue sources of energy that produce little or no CO2 for reasons of energy security. If only we had not listened to those "Atom Werke Nein Danke" clever idiots we probably would be carbon-neutral in energy production by now. Then there are those knuckle heads who fought tooth and nail to keep the coal pits open ....We face increasingly volatile weather and must rebuild our infrastructure and way of life to deal with this. Pumping huge volumes of water around the country is impractical the cost would dwarf any current civil engineering projects. There are other options.It is very clear that more water reservoirs are needed (the population increase alone requires this), the repair of leaking water pipes must be accelerated, all state and munipal buildings e.g. schools, univesities, hospitals and barracks must harvest rain water from their roofs and use it to flush the toilets. New homes must have similar water harvesting features perhaps funded by state loans repayable when properties are sold.Thame Water's London sea water desalination plant was built but is mothballed because Ken Livingstone refused it a license. This project needs to be unmothballed.As sea water levels rise and incidents of heavy rainfall increase flood prevention measures are desperately needed. Cities on the coast may have at least in part have to be abandoned. The cost of protecting them will be just to great. Cardiff is very probably doomed. It is not alone.Much of the east coast is being lost, yard by yard, to the sea. Do we just accept that large chunks of highly productive Lincolnshire, Norfolk and Suffolk farm land is sacrificed to the waves? Protecting the coast is hugely expensive - rural populations are small and cannot shoulder the cost alone.The decision on building London's new Thames Barrier needs to be revisited urgently. The current barrier had a predicted life of (I recall) 70 to 80 years. It is opening and shutting every year many more times than it was designed for - what happens when it fails - either open or shut? The London Underground has pumps working 24/7 removing around 50 million litres of water daily from the tube system. Will the pumps be able cope as even more water enters the system. Interestingly TFL are researching how to  harvest the heat contained in this water. The Tube system itself is heating up - how will we keep it cool?Our impressive but creaking largely Victorian sewerage system has one fundamental flaw - human sewage and rain water that enters street drains are combined and are treated in the same water treatment works. For us Mogden. When there is heavy rain fall the system overloads and the untreated sewage is transferred to "storm water tanks". When there is excessive rain these tanks reach their capacity and the excess is (and always has been) released into the river Thames. As we experience more heavy downpours the release of effluent from the storm water tanks will increase. Who pays to build new infrastructure that is up to the task? The tax payer or the water company customers?I could go on what about our care homes, hospitals ands schools - surviving climate change in good shape is a massive task and will require communal solidarity. We should be wasting very little time (certainly much less than we currently are) on the futile task of trying to reverse CO2 emissions by the inhabitants of these small islands. We have already reduced our emissions by over 50% since the 1990's and more reductions are already baked into current projects and plans. Please can public discusions focus on the elephant in the room.Oh yes and our Government has recently cut the aid given to developing countries to help them reduce their CO2 emissions. If its not a priority for developing contries why is it a priority for us? 

Sam Hearn ● 5d

Politicians who receive funding from oil and gas producers are a problem.Other countries manage to deal with building necessary infrastructure better.There is a lot of misinformation about renewable energy.  We need to reduce the need for energy as well - as we squander it.  Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil went to a lot of trouble to alert us to the coming problems as too many either do or did not want to heed the warnings given by scientists years ago.  Technology improves year by year.  China has been moving really fast on this.  Others have been blinded by power, wealth and huge donations to pet projects.Plug-in PV panels will soon be available in large shops.  These are suitable for flats with balconies.  We waste masses of food in this country and we waste a lot of water.  Instead of being so proud of how much recycling we do we should be proud of how much less waste especially food waste we are making and ensuring that excess food is used as food first for people and animals before any other kind of recycling.  Healthier food and less of it would also be better for a lot of us.  I hear there is a campaign to always offer to give you the remains of a meal to take home.  I'd prefer smaller portions to also be available to all!Our water is treated to drinking water standard (despite all the stories about poor state of our ALL our rivers.  This needs much more attention than it is getting.  There is a White Paper to be read and there is action to be taken but it is probably not enough.  We should be making a lot more use of 'grey' water instead ofvusing drinkingvwater for everything.  This year there was a lot of rain in Spring otherwise we would be in a much worse situation now.  Using drinking water standard water to constantly flush the loo and wash the car and water the garden is a dreadful waste!  Navy showers too would be something good to introduce to those who spend a lot more than 4 min in a shower unnecessarily!  An intriduction as to how bad it got in South Africa and how bad it is in countries where people are  denied water for one reason or another too might open a few more eyes!

Philippa Bond ● 5d

That’s madness surely we should build the infrastructure first rather than windmills , turn them off and we still pay the provider, it makes no sense. It like water why don’t we have a pipeline infrastructure so water can be diverted around the country hence no need for hosepipe bans. We get everything back to front. No other country has high energy costs like the UK so something is definitely wrong. The highest energy costs affect business which in turn affects jobs/investment.

Jayne Thorburn ● 5d

China is decarbonising at a phenomenal rate. At the same time becoming the global leaders in green energy technology and exporting it to the rest of the world. Its planted 66 billion trees to halt the spread of desertification from the Gobi and Taklamakan deserts.Terrible human rights etc. but seen the writing on the wall with climate change and the economic potential of renewables.Green energy is the cheapest to produce, we pay so much in the UK because the cost of energy is tied to the highest cost producer which is natural gas. I believe the argument goes, you have to make people pay for the highest cost energy to incentivise them to continue to invest in producing it, as its needed as a backstop if its cloudy and no wind. On very windy days they have to turn off the wind turbines in Scotland as there's nowhere for the energy to go because there isn't the infrastructure to bring it where its needed.

Kathleen Healy ● 5d

📊 Top Emitting Countries (Annual Share)China: ~33% of global total (~13.1 billion tonnes)United States: ~12-13% of global total (~4.6 billion tonnes)India: ~8% of global total (~3.1 billion tonnes)Russia: ~5% of global total (~2.0 billion tonnes)Rest of the World: ~37% combinedSays it all - the UK ranks 20th accounting for approx. .74% we do have the highest energy costs in the developed world. So the real question is are the rest of the world prepared to increase there energy costs to go green? I think we all know the answer to that…….

Jayne Thorburn ● 5d

Net zero is the only real means we have to minimise what is already a climate emergency and one that will only get worse. And the longer the world refuses to act  the worse it will be. Of course it will take time to reduce the impact of historical emissions but scientists who have spent their careers studying climate  believe that the least worse outcome requires quickly moving to net zero. Otherwise within a couple of hundred years life will be pretty much impossible, with much higher temperatures in the northern hemisphere than even in this summer, much higher seas with eg most of East Anglia under water.We can and must adapt but when fire, floods, crop failure, or war resulting from a fight for land/resources come our way no adaptation will help.Sure the UK has done way more than most but its emissions per head are still pretty high.  Net zero by 2050 is achievable and getting there offers all kinds of opportunities to be a world leader in renewable and storage technology. China, currently a huge polluter has and is investing in renewables and plans to get to net zero by 2060. Russia and the US are the main current obstacles to progress.The UK needs to join with the rest of Europe and argue the case for net zero. It may well fail but it is our only hope

David Turner ● 6d

The oil lobby has adopted various tactics and messaging over the years to prevent a move away from using fossil fuels, the basis of its masters vast wealth.That it is too late now to do anything, so just get on with it, is the latest message and its as deceptive as all the others.Where we have got to, isn't the final destination and a  new, fixed reality that we can adapt to, to live with.If we continue to add to the CO2 in the atmosphere, that is if we don't reach net zero, things will get very much worse.The oil lobby has managed to make net zero, which is an imperative, a term of derision and abuse. The latest in a series of staggering PR coups. But that lobby is funded by the richest people in the world, huge resources at its disposal. Them in one corner and poorly funded, academics in the other.The fairly tale ending is this latest oil lobby rhetoric; that we can do nothing, things won't get any or much worse than they are now and we can adapt and mitigate.We need to adapt and mitigate, but getting to net zero is vital if we want to try to avoid a catastrophe.

Kathleen Healy ● 6d

Oh, if only Ed Miliband had such clarity of thought, and Miatta Fahnbulleh likewise.I have erased another climate-change freak, Zack Polanski from all meaningful discussion

Denis I. Fox ● 6d

Can we please focus on how to deal with elephant in the room? Except for a vanishingly small number of people it is accepted that the much of the climate volatility that we are experiencing has been exacerbated and/or triggered by the effects of human activity.The question is how we deal with the climate volatility that is coming home to roost. The simple answer is that we can actually do little in the short to medium term. It is just too late. This is not pessimism it is realism and it is time all of us took this message on board.Even if ALL human activity were to cease NOW it would be decades before there was any measurable reduction in climate volatity. Furthermore it would take centuries for the climate to return to "normal". Follow the link for more information  https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-long-will-it-take-temperatures-stop-rising-or-return-normal-if-we-stop-emitting.There are many who believe that this country should persist with a "net-zero-by-2050" policy and that this will somehow save us all from the effects of climate volatility.The truth is that this country has already done much to reduce its carbon footprint and further reductions are already built into existing projects, plans and changes in laws and regulations. BUT, and it is a big BUT, the UK accounts for less than 1% of global emissions of greenhouse gases (perhaps 1.5% if off-shored industrial activity is included). Even if all human activity in the UK ceased tomorrow it would have little or no discernible impact on climate volatility - it would not even make the dial flicker.Once these truths are acknowledged we can begin to ask more sensible questions. Since we cannot make the elephant leave the room or reduce it in size can we learn how to live with it?In my opinion we should, as a nation, as a city, as a borough and as individuals be asking how we can build resilience and sustainability into our policies, projects and long term plans.    Building resilience and sustainability into all we do should be our first priority if we are not to descend into a dystopia where communal infrastructure fails, the strong survive and the weak die, and effective government at all levels fractures and unravels and chaos ensues.There are many obvious examples that I could quote but the clear direction for all of us should be to redirect scarce resources away from worthy net-zero-projects to those that directly support resilience and sustainability. That said some net-zero projects will improve resilience etc by reducing our exposure to foreign owned and controlled energy sources.Please, please do not continue to believe that there is a Hollywood style happy ending to the nightmare that we a living through. Some argue that we should not be explaining this to school children and young adults because it is "all too scary" - speaking frankly unless we do share this information widely with everyone how can we expect them to  make good life choices and vote for a government that acts sensibly.

Sam Hearn ● 6d

Most of us probably do what we can but we cannot stop wars, unnecessary wars at that, and they are ruining the planet, not to mention killing innocentpeople, no one gains anything from it.

Janice Evans ● 6d

These are what some of the low lying (no higher than 2m above sea level) small coral islands with a much lower carbon footprint than us and fewer alternatives and facilities to deal with it.  The growing number of cyclones and storm surges that climate change is bringing destroys and disrupts lives and livelihoods and flattens buildings and sea water contaminates any sweet water with salt and makes growing food an even greater problem.  And now this problem with changing water currents not to mention Executive Directions being issued willy-nilly to mine their pristine deep ocean:  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq57vxjvdy4oMost people prefer not to leave their homes and migrate but what do you do when your whole country becomes impossible to live in?We could all think a bit more about how we can reduce our acquisition of the unnecessary 'stuff' we thoughtlessly buy and don't look after, waste that we make and make more of and take more care of the great resources we are lucky to have.  There's always something we can do!

Philippa Bond ● 6d

Maybe you're right Janice. I think people will want to something eventually though, question is when. Pedro Sanchez PM of Spain said back in 2022;“I want to make something very clear. Climate change kills: it kills people, as we've seen; it also kills our ecosystem, our biodiversity, and it also destroys the things we as a society hold dear – our houses, our businesses, our livestock.” He has seen that happen this year.On the other hand Macron in France has just said "it was not the time to analyse lessons to be learned while France was still in “full battle” against fires."He also said "We’re facing a completely unprecedented fire,”  describing the situation as France’s worst fire-related crisis since World War II." He has also though described the fires as "atypical". Seems he recognises the scale of the events this year but reluctant to ascribe climate change as a cause. The contrast is interesting.

Kathleen Healy ● 7d

Plus all the idiot climate change deniers like Michael Brown have (hopefully) realised they were wrong, and have stopped reading all their new world order conspiracy bol**ks.

Andrew Jones ● 7d

A small Island is not going to change anything, with wars etc elsewhere it has no chance of change.

Janice Evans ● 7d

It's the summer holidays.

Julian Pavey ● 8d