Category: Climate Crisis

  • Children born in 2020 will face ‘unprecedented exposure’ to climate extremes

    Spread the love

    Original article republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license. 

    Children drink water from a pipeline in the village of Afraaga, Somaliland. Credit: Joe Giddens / Alamy Stock Photo

    Children born in 2020 will face “unprecedented exposure” to extreme weather events, including heatwaves, droughts and wildfires, even if warming is limited to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures.

    That is according to a new study, published in Nature, which calculates the number of unprecedented extreme events that people born in different decades and countries might live through.

    Using a case study focused on Brussels, the researchers find that people born in 2020 will experience an “unprecedented” 11 heatwaves in their lifetime – even if global warming is limited to 1.5C by the end of the century.

    In contrast, in a pre-industrial climate, a person living in the Belgian capital would likely experience just three such heatwaves, according to the study.

    More than half of children born in 2020 – around 62 million people – will experience “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heatwaves, even if warming is limited to 1.5C, the study finds. 

    However, this number nearly doubles to 111 million under a scenario where warming hits 3.5C.

    The study also analyses crop failures, river floods, tropical cyclones, wildfires and droughts. 

    The research “helps the climate community build new narratives that better clarify the impacts [of climate change] on younger generations and vulnerable populations”, one expert who was not involved in the study tells Carbon Brief.

    Intergenerational justice

    As the planet warms, extreme weather events such as heatwaves, floods and droughts are becoming more intense, more frequent and lasting longer.

    A popular 2021 study found that children born in the 21st century will be exposed to more extreme weather events in their lifetimes than their parents and grandparents.

    The paper found that in a scenario of 3C of warming above pre-industrial levels, a child who turns six in 2020 will experience twice as many wildfires and tropical cyclones, three times more river floods, four times more crop failures, five times more droughts and 36 times more heatwaves over their lifetime than a six-year-old living in a pre-industrial climate.

    The authors also found a “particularly strong increase” in children’s future exposure to extremes in the Middle East and North Africa.

    The lead author of the study – Prof Wim Thiery from Vrije Universiteit Brussel – told Carbon Brief at the time that today’s youth will live “an unprecedented life”, in which they will “face conditions which older generations have never experienced”.

    Four years later, Dr Luke Grant – a researcher in Thiery’s team – has led a new study building on the ideas of the 2021 paper.

    Grant tells Carbon Brief that rather than counting the number of extreme events that an individual might experience, his new study counts the number of people that reach an “unprecedented state” of exposure to extremes.

    Prof Kaveh Madani is the director of the UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health and was not involved in the study. He tells Carbon Brief that the paper “helps the climate community build new narratives that better clarify the impacts [of climate change] on younger generations and vulnerable populations”.

    The authors define “exposure” as the number of extreme events that a person experiences in their lifetime, relative to the number they would have experienced in a pre-industrial climate.

    “Unprecedented lifetime exposure” is defined as exposure so high that it has only a one-in-10,000 chance of happening in a world without any greenhouse gas emissions.

    ‘Unprecedented lifetime exposure’

    The authors present a case study of extreme heat in Brussels, Belgium, to explain their method.

    They define a heatwave as a three-day extreme heat event, which reaches average temperatures that would be expected once per century in a pre-industrial climate.

    Using models from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP), the authors calculate heatwave frequency in a world without climate change. They also assess scenarios in which warming is limited to 1.5C, 2.5C and 3.5C by the end of the century.

    They combine this data with demographic information, including how many people are born in the country each year and their average life expectancy, using data from sources including the ISIMIP database and UN population estimates and projections.

    In a world without climate change, the study finds that a person born in 1960 in Brussels would have a one-in-10,000 chance of experiencing six of the pre-defined heatwaves in their lifetime. Any member of this “birth cohort” who experiences more than six heatwaves in their lifetime has therefore faced “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to extreme heat, according to the study.

    The authors find that a person born in Brussels in 1960 is likely to experience three heatwaves on average during their lives under all of the three future warming pathways– meaning that they are unlikely to face “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heat.

    By contrast, the researchers find that many younger age cohorts will experience unprecedented heatwave exposure. For many younger age cohorts, lifetime exposure to heatwaves is greater for higher warming pathways. 

    For example, people born in Brussels in 2020 will experience 11 heatwaves in their lifetime if global warming is limited to 1.5C by the end of the century. If warming rises to 2.5C or 3.5C, they could experience 18 or 26 heatwaves, respectively. 

    The graphic below shows heat exposure since birth in Brussels for three “birth cohorts” of 1960 (bottom row), 1990 (middle row) and 2020 (top row). It presents three future scenarios, in which warming is limited to 1.5C (blue), 2.5C (yellow) and 3.5C (red) by 2100. The dotted line shows the threshold for an “unprecedented” lifetime exposure to extreme heat. 

    Lifetime exposure to unprecedented heat for people born in Brussels
    Lifetime exposure to unprecedented heat for people born in Brussels in 1960 (bottom row), 1990 (middle row) and 2020 (top row), under scenarios that limit warming to 1.5C (blue), 2.5C (yellow) and 3.5C (red) by the year 2100. The dotted line shows the threshold for an “unprecedented” lifetime exposure to extreme heat. Source: Grant et al (2025).

    Heat exposure

    The authors repeat their analysis across the Earth’s entire land surface, by dividing it into grid cells and using location-specific temperature and demographic data. 

    Of the 81 million people born in 1960, they find that 13 million are likely to face unprecedented exposure to heatwaves in their lifetimes. They add that for this age cohort, lifetime exposure to unprecedented extremes does not vary depending on the warming scenario.

    However, 21st century warming has a significant effect on exposure for younger generations. Under a 1.5C warming pathway, 52% of people born in 2020 will face unprecedented exposure to heatwaves. This rises to 92% under a 3.5C warming scenario.

    The study adds:

    “This implies that 111 million children born in 2020 will live an unprecedented life in terms of heatwave exposure in a world that warms to 3.5C versus 62 million in a 1.5C pathway.”

    The charity Save the Children has published a report which unpacks the findings of the study. The graphic below, from the report, shows the percentage of people from different countries born in 2020 who will face unprecedented lifetime exposure to heatwaves under the 1.5C (top), 2.5C (middle) and 3.5C (bottom) warming scenarios.

    Each circle shows a country, indicated by its three-letter countries code. The size of the circle indicates the number of people in the country. Darker circles indicate higher-income countries. 

    Circles on the right hand side of the graphic indicate that more than half of the country’s 2020 cohort will be exposed to unprecedented heatwaves in their lifetime. 

    The percentage of people born in 2020 who will face unprecedented lifetime exposure to heatwaves
    The percentage of people born in 2020 who will face unprecedented lifetime exposure to heatwaves under the 1.5C (top), 2.5C (middle) and 3.5C (bottom) warming scenarios. Each circle indicates a country, indicated by its three-letter countries code. The size of the circle indicates the number of people in the country. Darker circles indicate higher-income countries. Source: Save the Children

    “The evidence is now inescapable that heatwaves impact every community around the world,” Dr Luke Harrington, a senior lecturer in environmental science at the University of Waikato, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief. He adds: 

    “This paper offers the clearest view that climate change is verifiably unfair: those who have done the least to contribute to rising global temperatures will experience the most extreme impacts.”

    From floods to fires

    The authors apply the same method to five other climate extremes – crop failure, wildfires, droughts, floods and tropical cyclones.

    The graphic below shows the key findings. The coloured portion of the bar shows the number of people born in 2020 who will face unprecedented exposure to each extreme under a 1.5C warming pathway. The dark green and light green bars show the additional exposure under 2.7C and 3.5C warming.

    Number of people born in 2020 who will face “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heatwaves, crop failures, river floods, tropical cyclones, wildfires and droughts
    Number of people born in 2020 who will face “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heatwaves, crop failures, river floods, tropical cyclones, wildfires and droughts under 1.5C 2.7C and 3.5C warming. Source: Save the Children

    The authors find that unprecedented lifetime exposure to heatwaves will affect the most people, with 62 million people born in 2020 likely to face unprecedented exposure to heat in their lifetimes if warming is limited to 1.5C.

    This is followed by crop failures and river floods, which will impact 23 million and 10 million people from the 2020 birth cohort under the 1.5C warming pathway, respectively.

    Lead author Grant tells Carbon Brief that he is “most confident” about his heatwave findings because temperature is a “basic” metric for climate models to “get right”.

    Meanwhile, extremes such as crop failure depend on a range of factors including soil moisture, land-atmosphere interactions and rainfall, which can make it harder for the models to accurately capture changes, Grant explains.

    Vulnerability

    The authors also assess how “socioeconomic vulnerability” affects their findings using a global deprivation index – a tool which measures the level of disadvantage and hardship experienced by individuals or communities in a particular geographic area.

    The authors use the index to identify the 20% most and least vulnerable people in each age cohort. They find that the most vulnerable groups are overwhelmingly from African countries.

    The authors also conclude that “socioeconomically vulnerable people have a consistently higher chance of facing unprecedented lifetime heatwave exposure compared to the least vulnerable members of their generation”.

    The graph below, taken from a news and views article about the study, shows the percentage of high vulnerability (red) and low vulnerability (pink) people in each age cohort who would be exposed to unprecedented heat, under a 2.7C warming scenario. 

    The percentage of high vulnerability (red) and low vulnerability (pink) people in each age cohort who would be exposed to unprecedented heat,
    The percentage of high vulnerability (red) and low vulnerability (pink) people in each age cohort who would be exposed to unprecedented heat, under a 2.7C warming scenario. Source: Gualdi and Muttarak (2025).

    Dr Marina Romanello, a research fellow at the University College London and research director of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the paper “is an important addition to the scientific literature, showing how our delays in tackling climate change are putting the future of our children at risk”. 

    She adds:

    “The authors have used well-established models to project future health threats, framing them around what matters the most: the wellbeing, health and survival of present and future generations.”

    Grant, L. et al. (2025) Global emergence of unprecedented lifetime exposure to climate extremes, Nature, doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08907-1

    Original article republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license. 

  • Analysis: Attacks on Ed Miliband in UK newspaper editorials have already exceeded 2024 levels

    Spread the love

    Original article by Josh Gabbatiss republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license. 

    Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, at Downing Street, UK. Credit: Malcolm Park / Alamy Stock Photo.

    UK newspapers have already launched more editorials attacking Ed Miliband in the first four months of 2025 than they did during the whole of 2024, Carbon Brief analysis reveals.

    In the year to date, predominantly right-leaning publications have published 65 editorials – articles seen as the newspaper’s formal “voice” – criticising the UK energy secretary, compared with only 61 across the full year of 2024.

    Nearly four such editorials have been published every week so far in 2025, roughly three times the rate of the previous year.

    This is a significant escalation from a period that had already seen an unprecedented torrent of attacks levelled at the energy secretary.

    The articles, which primarily appear in the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, frequently seek to label Miliband as a “net-zero zealot” with a “messianic” devotion to climate action.

    The newspapers have focused specifically on Miliband’s support for renewables.

    They have also tried to blame him for the potential closure of the UK’s remaining steel plant and – most recently – misrepresented the words of former prime minister Sir Tony Blair to falsely present them as a personal rebuke to Miliband.

    Many of the articles urge prime minister Keir Starmer to “sack” Miliband due to his supposedly “radical” policy ideas, referring to him as a “liability” for the Labour government.

    Despite this near-obsessive stream of criticism and constant speculation about the energy secretary’s job security, the prime minister has said unequivocally that the net-zero agenda is “in my government’s DNA” and that Miliband is “doing a great job”.

    Record criticism

    The UK’s Labour government won an election last summer, with a large majority, on the back of a manifesto that focused heavily on climate action.

    As laid out at the time, one of the government’s “five missions” was to:

    “Make Britain a clean-energy superpower to cut bills, create jobs and deliver security with cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030.”

    Miliband, the energy security and net-zero secretary, is the minister overseeing this brief and the public face of much of the government’s net-zero strategy.

    This position has resulted in a relentless stream of criticism and personal attacks from right-leaning commentators and media organisations, against a backdrop of rising political and press opposition to net-zero.

    Carbon Brief analysis in January revealed the scale of the personal attacks levelled at Miliband in newspaper editorials during 2024, both in the lead up to the general election and in the months that followed. 

    However, the new analysis shows that the 61 critical editorials published last year have already been eclipsed in 2025 after barely four months of intense focus on Miliband. 

    As of 2 May, predominantly right-leaning newspapers have already published 65 editorials taking aim at the energy secretary this year. The chart below, which shows the cumulative number of such editorials, highlights this rapid escalation.

    Cumulative number of UK newspaper editorials criticising energy secretary Ed Miliband in 2024 (blue) and 2025 so far (red). Source: Carbon Brief analysis.
    Cumulative number of UK newspaper editorials criticising energy secretary Ed Miliband in 2024 (blue) and 2025 so far (red). Source: Carbon Brief analysis.

    Specific events, often only vaguely related to the energy secretary, have inflated the criticism of Miliband in the media. 

    One example was the imminent closure of the UK’s last remaining steel blast furnaces in Scunthorpe, in early April. Right-leaning newspapers blamed Miliband, among other things, for “banning new coal mines” in the UK, which they argued could have provided coking coal to the facility.

    (The Scunthorpe site’s owners prior to government control, British Steel, had said that the coal from a planned mine in Cumbria would not have been suitable for their needs.)

    More recently, right-leaning newspapers have used the furore around a report published by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI) as a further opportunity to criticise Miliband. 

    Many publications misleadingly interpreted comments by Blair as a criticism of the Starmer government’s net-zero policies and, by association, Miliband himself. They described the energy secretary as an “eco-loon” compared to the “uncontroversial” advice from Blair.

    Miliband the ‘fanatic’

    The majority of the criticism of Miliband in newspaper editorials in 2025 has come from the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Telegraph.

    The Sun remains the most consistent critic of Miliband, with 26 editorials published in 2025 so far. There have only been 18 weeks in 2025 to date. As the chart below shows, this spate of 26 editorials from the Sun is already approaching last year’s record of 29.

    UK newspaper editorials criticising Ed Miliband, broken down by publication, in 2024 and 2025. Source: Carbon Brief analysis.
    UK newspaper editorials criticising Ed Miliband, broken down by publication, in 2024 and 2025. Source: Carbon Brief analysis.

    The attacks levelled at Miliband by right-leaning newspapers are often both highly personal and somewhat melodramatic.

    They frequently imply that his focus on net-zero policies is a sign of mental instability or quasi-religious devotion, rather than being part of his job title – or acknowledging that reaching net-zero emissions is the only way scientists say climate change can be prevented from getting worse.

    The Sun has referred to Miliband’s “uncontrolled fanaticism”. The Sun on Sunday has described the “madness of Ed Miliband’s green crusade” and called him the “fanatical prophet of net-zero”.

    Another editorial from the Sun stated that “Miliband is so blinded by eco-ideology that he’s lost touch with reality”, referring to his “eco insanity”.

    In an editorial lamenting the state of the UK’s oil-and-gas industry, which shed 10s of 1,000s of jobs under the previous Conservative government, the Daily Mail mentioned:

    “Energy secretary Ed Miliband’s messianic desire to sacrifice a multi-billion pound industry on the altar of net-zero.”

    The newspapers also suggest that Miliband is unwilling to listen to any criticism. “Miliband has shown himself unprepared to countenance any suggestion that his efforts to decarbonise the grid within five years might be reckless,” the Daily Telegraph claimed.

    There have also been frequent calls from newspaper editorials for Starmer to sack the energy secretary. In an article titled “Miliband’s madness”, published at the end of April, the Daily Mail asked:

    “Isn’t it time Sir Keir Starmer accepted his colleague’s ideological net-zero fervour is damaging the government – and sacked him?”

    Beyond the editorial pages, there has also been a constant stream of comment pieces, many by climate sceptics, which often go even further in their attacks on the energy secretary. “Miliband belongs in a padded cell,” Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn wrote at the start of May.

    This has come amid much media speculation from commentators on both the left and right that Starmer is considering firing Miliband.

    However, Starmer has not given any indication of doing this. 

    On the contrary, at the recent energy security conference the UK government hosted in London, Starmer stated that he was fully committed to his government’s net-zero ambitions. “That is in the DNA of my government,” he stated in a widely covered speech.

    Original article by Josh Gabbatiss republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license. 

    dizzy: Miliband has been vilified by the same right-wing climate science deniers in a similar way to Just Stop Oil and others labelled zealots. I object to his and thereby the current Labour government’s policy of supporting Carbon Capture and Nuclear for different reasons. Both are false solutions needing huge government subsidies, carbon capture and storage is an unproved, false solution proposed by the fossil fuel industry to enable them to continue destroying the planet, nuclear supports producing nuclear weapons and [ed: is] hugely capital intensive producing radioactive waste that needs to be managed for thousands to millions of years. A far better response is rapid decarbonisation including conversion to renewables and to travel far less, prevent the rich from causing so much damage.

  • Revealed: Forecasts of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels soar in Trump’s first 100 days

    Spread the love

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/trump-drill-baby-drill-tariffs

    Expected greenhouse gas emissions from US oil and gas fields has jumped under Trump, after previously dropping under Biden, forecasts show. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

    Tariff chaos hampers Trump’s pledge to ‘drill, baby, drill’, but analysis still shows surge in planet-heating emissions

    Donald Trump’s ambitions for the US to “drill, baby, drill” for more fossil fuels have ironically been hampered by the economic chaos unleashed by his own tariffs, but the US is still on track to increase oil and gas extraction, causing a surge in planet-heating emissions, a new analysis shows.

    The US was already the world’s leading oil and gas power, producing more of the fossil fuels than any country in history during Joe Biden’s administration. But Trump has sought to escalate this further, declaring an “energy emergency” to open up more land and ocean for drilling and launching an unprecedented assault on environmental regulations in his first 100 days back in the White House.

    This new political climate means that the expected amount of greenhouse gas emissions from active and planned projects in US oil and gas fields has jumped under Trump, after previously dropping under Biden, forecasts shared with the Guardian show.

    Despite awarding more drilling leases than Trump in his first 100 days, Biden also pursued policies to combat the climate crisis that saw oil and gas companies revise down their production estimates. That situation has now reversed, threatening a pulse of new pollution that will further add to the fever of a planet already suffering from heatwaves, floods, droughts and other disasters accelerated by global heating.

    “The uptick in embodied emissions from forecast US oil and gas production is worrying,” said Olivier Bois von Kursk, policy adviser at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, which tracks emissions projections from the lifetime of projects, based on data from research consultancy Rystad Energy. “The world can’t afford more climate chaos.”

    …

    The International Energy Agency, which has forecast that global oil and gas demand will peak by 2030, has said that no new major fossil fuel projects can occur if the world is to stay within agreed temperature limits and avoid catastrophic climate impacts. Last year was the hottest, worldwide, ever recorded and governments are collectively failing to meet targets to avert escalating disasters.

    …

    Tariffs on solar panels from Vietnam, Cambodia and Malaysia have been ratcheted up to as much as 3,521%. “We don’t want windmills in this country,” the president said shortly after his inauguration in January. “We don’t want windmills. You know what else people don’t like? Those massive solar fields.”

    …

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/02/trump-drill-baby-drill-tariffs

    Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
    Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
    Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
    Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
    Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes' concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country's economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.
    Orcas discuss Donald Trump and the killer apes’ concept of democracy. Front Orca warns that Trump is crashing his country’s economy and that everything he does he does for the fantastically wealthy.

    ‘A ruthless agenda’: charting 100 days of Trump’s onslaught on the environment

  • Activists disrupt Drax’s shareholder AGM

    Spread the love

    https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/activists-disrupt-draxs-shareholder-agm

     Activists hold a banner as they blockade the entrance

    MORE than 50 activists disrupted Drax’s annual investor meeting in London today, bringing proceedings to a halt for an hour.

    The firm operates a wood-burning power plant in Yorkshire, which has received some £6 billion in green subsidies, while operating as Britain’s largest carbon emitter.

    Despite a BBC investigation finding that it has burned wood from rare forests in Canada, the firm is set to continue to receive taxpayer money until at least 2031. 

    Activists blocked the entrance to the venue, preventing shareholders from entering, and dropped a large banner reading “Drax Kills.”

    Inside, activists physically disrupted proceedings, rushing to the stage shouting “Drax kills,” before the meeting was forced to close.

    Axe Drax spokesperson Sam Johnson said: “We’ve seen over the last year repeated desperate attempts from Drax to silence dissent — from spending millions working with the police to shut down peaceful protest, to silencing whistleblowers. “

    …

    Article continues at https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/activists-disrupt-draxs-shareholder-agm

  • Why Katy Perry’s celebrity spaceflight blazed a trail for climate breakdown

    Spread the love
    Katy Perry after emerging from the Blue Origin space capsule. EPA-EFE/Blue Origin

    Steve Westlake, University of Bath

    What’s not to like about an all-female celebrity crew riding a rocket into space? Quite a lot, as it turns out.

    Katy Perry and her companions were initially portrayed in the media as breaking down gender barriers. On their return to Earth, the team enthused about protecting the planet and blazing a trail for others. Perry even sang What a Wonderful World during the flight, and kissed the ground on exiting the spacecraft.

    But the backlash was swift. Fellow celebrities piled in to highlight the “hypocrisy” of such an energy-intensive endeavour from a former Unicef climate champion. Evidence was quickly presented to dispute the pollution-free claims of the Blue Origin rocket, which is fuelled by oxygen and hydrogen. (In fact, the water vapour and nitrogen oxide emissions it creates add to global heating, on top of the emissions from the programme as a whole.)

    But it’s the negative social effects of this kind of display from celebrities (of any gender) that our research sheds light on. I’m part of a team of social scientists researching the powerful effects of politicians, business leaders and celebrities who lead by example on climate change – or don’t.

    Social kickback

    Space tourism, and other energy-intensive activities by people in the public eye, such as using helicopters and private jets, have a much wider knock-on effect than the direct damage to the climate caused by the activity itself.

    We carried out focus groups with members of the public to understand their reactions to the high-carbon behaviour of leaders in politics, culture and business. We also conducted experiments and surveys to test the effects of leaders “walking the talk” on climate change. We found that observing unnecessary high-carbon behaviour demotivates people and reduces the sense of collective effort that is essential for a successful societal response to climate change.

    Solving climate change and other environmental crises requires fundamental changes to economies, societies and lifestyles according to climate science. Using much less energy, not just different kinds of energy, can play a big part in halting the damage. And it is the wealthiest people in the richest countries who use the most energy and set the standards and aspirations for the rest of society. That’s why the Blue Origin dream (of space exploration for the unfathomably wealthy) is a nightmare for the climate because it perpetuates an unsustainable culture.

    Our findings reveal that when people see public figures behaving like this, they are less willing to make changes to their own lives. “Why should I do my bit for the climate when these celebrities are doing the opposite?” is the question people repeatedly asked in our research.

    Many of the changes to behaviour necessary to tackle climate change will require people to accept trade-offs and embrace alternative ways of living. This includes using heat pumps instead of gas boilers, trading in large, fossil-fuelled vehicles (or even avoiding cars altogether) and forgoing flights – because there is no way to decarbonise long-distance flights in time.

    When celebrities (or politicians and business leaders, for that matter) ignore the environmental damage of their choices, it sends a powerful signal that they are not really serious about addressing climate change.

    Not only does this undermine people’s motivation to make changes, it reduces the credibility of leaders. That in turn makes coordinated climate action less likely, because shifting to a low-carbon society will require public trust in leadership and a sense of collective effort.

    Individual choices matter

    The widespread aversion to Perry’s space flight contradicts the popular argument that tackling the climate crisis “is not about individual behaviour”.

    On the contrary, the response shows that these actions from celebrities and other leaders have much greater symbolic meaning than is captured by the idea of an “individual choice”. People are highly attuned to the behaviour of others because it signals and reinforces the values, morals and norms of our society. As such, few if any choices are truly “individual”.

    This message of collective responsibility is one our current economic and political system works hard to suppress by championing unlimited freedom to consume, while ignoring the loss of freedom that such behaviour causes: freedom to live in a stable climate, freedom from pollution, freedom from extreme weather, freedom for future generations.

    In fact, research reveals that most people understand the interconnectedness of society and the need for a coordinated response to the climate crisis. Climate assemblies, which convene ordinary citizens to discuss and deliberate a course of climate action, have revealed a willingness to curtail some activities in a fair way.

    When it comes to preserving a liveable planet and a stable climate, most people know that space tourism and ultra-high-carbon living are off the agenda. Celebrities have a positive role to play in leading by example. It’s not rocket science.


    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


    Steve Westlake, Lecturer, Environmental Psychology, University of Bath

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.