Nigel Farage

OBR: Net-zero is much cheaper than thought for UK – and unchecked global warming far more costly

Spread the love

Original article by Simon Evans republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license.

Aerial view of a solar farm, north west England, UK. Credit: Paul White – UK Industries / Alamy Stock Photo

Reaching net-zero will be much cheaper for the UK government than previously expected – and the economic damages of unmitigated climate change far more severe.

These are two key conclusions from the latest report on risks to the government finances from the independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), which includes a chapter on climate change.

The new OBR report shows very clearly that the cost of cutting emissions to net-zero is significantly smaller than the economic damages of failing to act.

Here are four key charts from the OBR report.

Climate damages could reach 8% of GDP by 2070s

The UK could take an 8% hit to its economy by the early 2070s, if the world warms by 3C this century, according to the new OBR report.

(This aspect of the OBR report has been picked up in a Reuters headline: “Global 3C warming would hurt UK economy much more than previously predicted, OBR says.”)

Its latest estimate (blue line) of the impact of “climate-related damages” by the 2070s is three percentage points (60%) higher than thought just last year (yellow), as shown in the figure below.

Chart 1.9: Impact on GDP and government borrowing of climate change damage
Left: Impact of climate damages on UK GDP, if global warming reaches 3C by the end of the century. Right: Impact on government borrowing. Blue lines show the latest estimates whereas yellow lines are from last year’s report. Credit: OBR

The OBR says that the increase in its estimate of climate damages is due to using a “more comprehensive and up-to-date analysis”.

(The world is currently on track to warm by only slightly less than 3C this century.)

Unchecked damages could double hit to borrowing

The impact of climate damages on government borrowing would be nearly twice as high by the 2070s, if global warming goes unchecked and reaches 3C, according to the OBR report.

This is shown in the figure below, which compares additional government borrowing each year, as a share of GDP, if warming is limited to less than 2C this century (left) or if it climbs to 3C (right).

Chart 4.6: Additional public sector net borrowing from climate damage costs
Additional government borrowing each year due to climate damages, as a share of GDP, %, if warming is limited to less than 2C this century (left) or 3C (right). Credit: OBR.

The OBR explains that the largest impact of climate damages on government borrowing is “lower productivity and employment and, therefore, lower tax receipts”.

Cost of net-zero halved

When it comes to cutting UK emissions, the OBR says the government will only need to invest just over half as much on reaching net-zero, compared with what it expected four years earlier.

This is shown in the figure below, with the latest 2025 estimate (right) showing a cumulative government investment of 6% of GDP across the 25 years to 2050, down from 11% (left).

(Note that the large majority of “lost government receipts”, shown in yellow in the figure below, are due to fuel duty evaporating as drivers shift to electric vehicles. As the OBR notes, the government could choose to recoup these losses via other types of motoring taxes.)

Chart 4.12: Change in cumulative real spending and receipts impacts by 2050-51
Cumulative change in government lost receipts (yellow) and extra investment (green), as a share of GDP, %. Left: OBR’s 2021 report. Right: Latest 2025 report. Credit: OBR.

The OBR takes its estimates of the costs and benefits of cutting emissions to net-zero from the government’s Climate Change Committee (CCC). The CCC recently issued significantly lower estimates for net-zero investment costs, due to more rapidly falling clean-technology costs.

Acknowledging this shift, the OBR says the latest CCC estimates on the cost of reaching net-zero are “significantly lower” than earlier figures.

It notes that the net cost to the economy of reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 is now put at £116bn over 25 years, some £204bn lower than previously expected.

In very rough terms, this figure – which excludes health co-benefits due to cutting emissions and avoided climate damages – is equivalent to less than £70 per person per year.

Cost of action far lower than cost of inaction

Taken together, the OBR findings show more clearly than ever before that the cost of taking action to tackle climate change would be far lower than the cost of unchecked warming.

For the first time, its latest report combines the estimated cost of cutting emissions with the expected damages due to rising temperatures in a single figure, shown below.

The comparison illustrates that climate damages (blue bars in the chart) are set to impose severe costs on the UK public finances, even if warming is limited to less than 2C this century (left).

The OBR also shows how the cost of government investment in cutting emissions (yellow) is both temporary and relatively small in comparison to climate damages.

Moreover, it highlights how unchecked warming of 3C this century (right) would impose far higher climate damages on the UK government’s finances than if global temperatures are kept in check.

Specifically, global action to limit warming to 2C instead of 3C could prevent more than 1 percentage point of climate damages being added to annual government borrowing by the 2070s.

In contrast, the combined estimated cost to government of action to cut emissions never exceeds 0.6 percentage points – even if lost receipts due to fuel duty are not replaced (green).

CHart 4.13: Annual additional primary borrowing from the combined costs of damage and transition, relative to the 2024 FRS central long-term projection
Annual additional government borrowing as a result of action to cut emissions (yellow, green) and from climate damages (blue, purple). Left: 2C of warming this century. Right: 3C. Credit: OBR.

Beyond these new numbers, the OBR acknowledges that it still does not include the cost of adapting to climate change, or the impact this could have on reducing damages.

Nor does it consider the potential for accelerated transitions towards clean energy, technological advances that make this shift cheaper or the risk of tipping points, which could cause “large and irreversible changes” to the global climate.

Original article by Simon Evans republished from Carbon Brief under a CC license.

Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Neo-Fascist Climate Science Denier Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Continue ReadingOBR: Net-zero is much cheaper than thought for UK – and unchecked global warming far more costly

Nearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll

Spread the love
Simon Dawson/Number 10/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND

Marc Stears, UCL

Exhausted from a long campaign but buoyed by an extraordinary victory, Keir Starmer stood on the steps of Downing Street just over one year ago to deliver his victory speech. “Your government,” the new prime minister said, “should treat every single person in this country with respect.”

This message of respect resonated strongly in the year leading up to the campaign, coming as close as anything to providing a central argument to Labour’s case for government. And, according to polling and focus groups that my team at UCL Policy Lab designed along with polling company More in Common, it seemed to work.

As our research at the time showed, voters felt that “respecting ordinary people” was the most important attribute that any politician could have, more important than having ideas for the future, managing effectively or having real experience. And they thought Starmer was the leader who displayed that respect most.

A year later, the picture looks quite different. In new polling, we asked a representative sample of over 7,000 people to evaluate the government one year on. On respect, the judgement has not been good.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

During the general election campaign, 41% of the electorate said that they believed that Starmer “respected people like them”. One year on, that stands at only 24%. At the same time, the number who say that he does not respect them has risen from 32% to 63%. Starmer is now outstripped on that question by Nigel Farage – 33% say the Reform UK leader respects people like them.

Losing support

This view has had crucial political consequences. Of those who voted for Labour in the general election, only 60% of our respondents say they would vote for the party in an election held tomorrow.

And that is not because some other political party is suddenly swooping in for their supporters. Labour’s voters are defecting in a host of different directions: 11% say they would vote Reform; 8% would vote Liberal Democrat; 4% would vote Green and 4% would vote Conservative. A further one in ten say they simply don’t know how they would vote.

Labour’s losses have been most dramatic among their first-time voters. Of those who voted for Labour in 2024 but not in any other general election since 2010, barely a third still support the party, while a fifth would vote for Reform UK.

These political failures, our report contends, are directly related to the declining sense of respect. The top reason voters gave for turning away from Labour are the broken promises and U-turns made by Labour in government, followed by the party’s failure to reduce the cost of living and changes to the winter fuel payment.

The idea of “respect” being key to the public’s sense of whether a government is on their side or not has been growing for many years now, both in academia and in politics itself. Since at least the 2007/8 financial crisis there has been a sense that large swathes of the public feel neglected, overlooked and even disdained by those who govern them.

When people talk about wanting to see “change” in Britain, this is often what they mean. It was a theme I touched on recently in two books, Out of the Ordinary and, with my co-author Tom Baldwin, England.

A smiling Keir Starmer delivers his victory speech, with a crowd of supporters behind him
Just over a year ago, a happier Starmer delivers his victory speech. Shutterstock

But respect is not just an abstract idea. People appear to judge whether they are respected by those who govern them or not primarily on the basis of whether the government stands up for them against powerful vested interests.

Our earlier research demonstrated that there is a widespread sense among the British public that certain groups have had it too easy for too long. This is either because they have been able to intimidate the government, or because government ministers and advisers have themselves been recruited from among these groups.

In our new report, therefore, we see that the new government’s most popular act was their willingness to raise the minimum wage by £1,400 in April, against the objections of some in business who suggested that such a move was too burdensome on them.

Changes to the winter fuel allowance and proposed changes to the disability benefits system, on the other hand, registered poorly. They suggest that the interests of ordinary and vulnerable people count for too little in decision-making.

These judgements currently shape the mood of the country and probably top the list of issues that the government now needs to address. There is still time for the government to rebuild its appeal, of course. Indeed, our respondents who said they would vote for Labour said they would do so because the party needs more time to fix the problems they inherited.

But as it seeks to do so, voters will want to know who this government stands for. Whose interests does it put first? What kind of people does it respect?

Much of the electorate thought they knew the answer to these questions one year ago. Now they’re not so sure.

Marc Stears, Director of UCL Policy Lab and Professor of Political Science, UCL

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

Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership all feel a small part of Scunthorpe.
Keir Starmer says that the Labour Party under his leadership all feel a small part of Scunthorpe.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone obect to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza's hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Keir Starmer objects to criticism of the IDF. He asks how could anyone obect to them starving people to death, forced marches like the Nazis did, bombing Gaza’s hospitals and universities,mass-murdering journalists, healthworkers and starving people queuing for food, killing and raping prisoners and murdering children. He calls for people to stop obstructing his genocide for Israel.
Keir Starmer chases Nigel Farage's racist bigot vote.
Keir Starmer chases Nigel Farage’s racist bigot vote.

Continue ReadingNearly two-thirds of voters think Starmer doesn’t respect them – new poll

Survey shows support for electoral reform now at 60% – so could it happen?

Spread the love

Alan Renwick, UCL

Public support for reforming the UK’s first past the post electoral system has risen markedly of late. So is there any serious chance that such reform could actually happen?

The annual British Social Attitudes survey (BSA) has been tracking public attitudes to electoral reform (and other issues) since 1983. It found consistent majorities for the status quo up to 2017, but charts a dramatic shift since then. In the latest BSA, support for reform has risen to 60%, with just 36% backing the current arrangements.

It’s true that these views are unlikely to be deeply held: most people rarely think about electoral systems. But they do reflect a profound disillusionment with the way the political system is working.

Significant electoral reforms are very rare outside times of regime change. When I wrote a book on the subject in 2010, there had been just six major reforms (from one system type to another) in national parliaments in established democracies since the second world war. That number has increased a little since then, but only because Italy has got into a pattern of endless tinkering. The basic pattern is one of stability.

The main reason for that is obvious: those who gain power through the existing system rarely want to change it.

Yet the cases where reform has happened reveal two basic routes through which such change can take place.

First, those in power can conclude that a different system would better serve their interests. In 1985, for example, France’s president François Mitterrand replaced the system for electing the National Assembly because he feared heavy losses for his Socialist party in the looming elections.

Second, leaders can cave into public demands for reform because they fear that failing to do so will add to their unpopularity. This requires a scandal that affects people in their daily lives, and campaigners who successfully pin blame for that scandal on the voting system. It typically also needs at least a few reform advocates within government.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

These conditions characterised three major reforms in the 1990s, in Italy, Japan, and New Zealand. In the first two cases, rampant corruption fed economic woes and was attributed to the voting system. In New Zealand, first past the post enabled extreme concentration of power, which allowed successive governments to unleash radical, and widely disliked, economic restructuring.

Prospects for reform in the UK

If Labour continues to lag in the polls and votes remain fragmented across multiple parties, we might imagine reform by the first route in the UK. Ministers could calculate that a more proportional system would cut Labour’s losses, clip Nigel Farage’s wings, and reduce uncertainty.

Yet majority parties facing heavy defeat almost never change the system in this way. Mitterrand’s reform of 1985 was a rare exception. Such parties always hope things will turn around. They don’t want to look like they have given up. And they are used to playing a game of alternation in power: they want to hold all the levers some of the time, and will tolerate years in the wilderness to get that.

Reform by the second route is equally improbable. Notwithstanding great public dissatisfaction with the state of politics in the UK, there is little narrative that the electoral system is the source of the problem.

But, depending on the results, the chances of reform could grow after the next general election.

A Reform win could spark change. EPA

Change by the first route is most likely if no party comes close to a majority and a coalition is formed from multiple fragments. Those parties might all see reform as in their interests. Perhaps more likely, the smaller parties in such a coalition might push their larger partner into conceding a referendum – much as the Liberal Democrats did with the Conservatives in 2010. If support for the two big parties is disintegrating, referendum voters might opt for change – though that is not guaranteed.

As for the second route, a majority victory for Reform UK that was generated by first past the post from a small vote share could – given the party’s marmite quality – trigger widespread public rejection of the voting system. A clear path to change might open up if Reform then lost a subsequent election, particularly if it lost to a coalition of parties, some of which backed reform already.

In short, the shifting sands of politics are making electoral reform more likely. But almost certainly not before the 2030s. And much will depend on how the party system evolves in the years to come.

This article includes links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

Alan Renwick, Professor of Democratic Politics, UCL

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

Continue ReadingSurvey shows support for electoral reform now at 60% – so could it happen?

🩻 Climate Reality: The Diagnosis We Can’t Escape

Spread the love

Original article by Roger Hallam republished from https://rogerhallam.com/. I don’t have permission to republish this article, hopefully he doesn’t mind.

The climate crisis is no longer a future threat — it’s a terminal diagnosis, and the only moral response now is to act like everything depends on us, because it does.

🩻 Climate Reality: The Diagnosis We Can’t Escape
Francisco Goya – The Third of May 1808 (1814), A scream against institutional violence and helplessness.

There comes a point in your life when the facts won’t let you look away. You feel it before you know it: something is terribly wrong, and we are running out of time.

So let’s begin with something simple. How do you know something is true?

Take the example of cancer. If you feel a lump or have symptoms, you don’t just ask your mate what they think. You go to a doctor. And not just any doctor — you want a specialist. Someone who’s legally obliged to tell you the truth, however hard it is to hear. You want the tests, the scan, the data. And above all, you want a number: “What’s the likelihood I have it?” Because that number changes everything.

You don’t want vague reassurances. You want the truth. If the doctor says there’s a 50% chance, your life changes in that moment. You go into action. You start making decisions — fast. Because the alternative is death. And no one can run from that.

It’s this same clarity, this same objectivity, that we need to bring to the climate crisis. Because the truth is — and I mean this literally — the planet has cancer. It is spreading. It is terminal. And it is going to kill us if we don’t act, immediately.

This isn’t ideology. It’s not politics. It’s not “just your opinion.” It is physical reality. And just like cancer, it doesn’t care what you believe.

In 1989, NASA scientist James Hansen warned the UN that if we didn’t slash emissions, society would collapse. That was 35 years ago. In 2025, global temperatures have now risen to 1.6°C above pre-industrial levels. And the rate of warming is accelerating. For most of the 20th century, the rise was around 0.18°C per decade. In the last ten years, it’s more than doubled to 0.37°C per decade. We’re now on course to hit 2°C around 2035 — and that’s being optimistic.

But what does that number mean?

A landmark peer-reviewed paper, “The Future of the Human Niche,” published by Tim Lenton and colleagues, makes it brutally clear: at 2°C of warming, around 1 billion people will no longer be able to live where they currently do. That’s 25% of the Earth’s surface becoming uninhabitable. One billion refugees — in just a few years.

To put that into context: there were 50 million refugees after the Second World War. That was the worst war in human history. What’s coming is twenty times worse.

And that figure — one billion — only covers the effects of extreme heat. It doesn’t include what happens when rising sea levels drown coastal cities, when droughts kill crops, when wildfires consume whole regions, when freshwater disappears. The truth is, climate collapse is not just an environmental issue. It is a full-system breakdown. It affects food, health, housing, energy, migration, and war — all at the same time.

Still think this is just about polar bears?

If you’re still not convinced, don’t take it from me. Take it from the insurance industry. In 2024, the British actuarial society — a group of people whose job it is to measure risk for a living — released a report projecting that at 2°C of warming, we’ll see 2 billion deaths. At 3°C? 4 billion. That’s half the population of the Earth.

And this is not worst-case modelling. This is their baseline. This is what the people who insure your life, your business, your pension, believe is most likely to happen if we stay on our current course.

It gets worse. Because climate breakdown isn’t a one-off crisis — it triggers runaway feedback loops. Ice melts and reduces the planet’s ability to reflect sunlight, which makes it heat up faster. Permafrost thaws and releases methane, a greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than CO₂. Forests burn and release carbon. Soils lose their ability to absorb emissions. Everything begins to feed on itself. Even if we stopped all human emissions tomorrow, these systems may continue warming the planet — potentially beyond the point of recovery.

Most tipping points are estimated to be triggered between 1°C and 2°C. We are already at 1.6°C. We are now in the danger zone. There is no longer a buffer. There is no margin of error. This is happening in real time.

So what do we do?

Well, the answer is no different from the cancer patient. Two things: stop making it worse, and start trying to repair the damage. That means ending fossil fuel emissions as fast as humanly possible. That means scaling up emergency carbon removal. That means mobilising everything we’ve got.

Will it work? We don’t know. But what we do know is this: if we do nothing, billions will die. And not in some abstract future. In our lifetimes. In the lifetimes of our children.

This is not a problem for “someone else to solve.” This is your responsibility, your emergency, your world.

Edward Burtynsky – Manufactured Landscapes, a pyre waiting to burn.

And if you think you still have a choice — let me be blunt: you don’t. If your actions or inactions contribute to this collapse, you don’t just destroy your own future. You destroy the lives of everyone around you. You condemn entire generations to hell on Earth because you couldn’t face the truth.

It’s not just foolish. It’s not just selfish. It’s evil.

Let me speak personally for a moment. I’ve met hundreds of people who, after hearing this reality, decided to act. Ordinary people. Teachers, nurses, students, grandparents. They quit their jobs. They faced arrest. Some went to prison. Not because they were heroes. But because they understood this one, simple thing: if we don’t fight, we die. If we don’t rise up, we burn.

You can’t half-commit to this. You can’t give a little donation, feel a bit guilty, and move on. Once you’ve heard the truth, you are accountable. And the only question left is what you’re going to do about it.

So this is your moment. This is the turning point. If you’ve read this far, you already know. You know what’s coming. You know the scale of the crisis. You know the failure of our leaders.

You also know this: we are not powerless. There are millions of us waking up. Rising up. Organising. We are building the resistance that history will remember.

Join us.

Because history is watching.
And your children will ask what you did.
And one day, in the final hours of your life, you will ask yourself the same question.

Don’t wait for the flood. Don’t wait for the fire.
We have no choice but to act. And act we will.

Support the Revolution

This was meant to be Roger Hallam’s climate briefing for the Rev21 Convention.
But prison authorities blocked it.
They’ve now banned him from posting on social media altogether.

To keep up with Roger’s work and the revolutionary movement he helped build, follow Rev21 across platforms:

📺 YouTube: youtube.com/@Revolution21c
📸 Instagram: instagram.com/revolution.21c
✖️ X / Twitter: x.com/revolution_21c
📘 Facebook: facebook.com/profile.php?id=61575178389798
📢 Telegram: t.me/revolution_21C
🧵 Threads: threads.net/revolution.21c
🔵 Bluesky: bsky.app/profile/revolution21c.bsky.social
🎵 TikTok: tiktok.com/revolution.21c
👥 Reddit: reddit.com/r/Rev21

Update on Roger’s Imprisonment

Roger’s release has once again been delayed — originally expected in March, then May, and now postponed indefinitely. First, his designated home was deemed “unsuitable” for rehabilitation because someone associated with Just Stop Oil was present. Then, following press coverage that included the name of his probation officer (quoted directly in the piece), Roger was placed on a high-risk list — supposedly due to the psychological impact on staff. That probation officer has since been replaced, but the new officer has refused to respond to legal communications from Roger’s team.

It now appears that prison staff are refusing to meet with Roger directly, citing the “risk” he poses to them. His lawyers have written to the prison, but there is no legal requirement for them to respond within a set timeframe, leaving him in a state of limbo.

At the same time, Roger’s ability to contribute to public work has been severely restricted. Prison authorities have blocked over 20,000 words of his writing, and his input into the Convention and our social media efforts has been censored. Despite this, Roger continues to engage with projects through prison phone and email, where possible. He remains deeply committed to the cause and continues to support our work with unwavering clarity and determination.

Original article by Roger Hallam republished from https://rogerhallam.com/. I don’t have permission to republish this article, hopefully he doesn’t mind.

Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.
Orcas discuss how Trump was re-elected and him being an insane, xenophobic Fascist.

Continue Reading🩻 Climate Reality: The Diagnosis We Can’t Escape

Report Shows How Deadly Texas Floods Were Driven by Human-Induced Climate Crisis

Spread the love

Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Vehicles sit submerged as a search and rescue worker looks through debris for any survivors or remains of people swept up in the flash flooding on July 6, 2025 in Hunt, Texas. (Photo: Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

“Very exceptional meteorological conditions” preceded the Texas floods, climate scientists have found.

A new report from a trio of prominent climate researchers has concluded that the devastating floods that hit central Texas over the last three days were made significantly worse due to the impacts of human-induced climate change.

A study published on Monday by ClimaMeter found that the floods in Texas were caused by “very exceptional meteorological conditions” that cannot be explained merely by natural variability.

The authors—Davide Faranda of the Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace in France, Mireia Ginesta of the University of Oxford in the U.K., and Tommaso Alberti of the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia in Italy—contend that the meteorological conditions present at the start of the Texas floods on July 4 “were characterized by slightly negative surface pressure anomalies over Central Texas, with values ranging up to –2 hPa, indicating the presence of a weak low-pressure system over the region.” They also found that “temperatures were significantly below the climatological average for this time of year, with anomalies reaching –5°C across much of the area affected by the flooding.”

The researchers then compared how extreme weather events that occurred under meteorological conditions similar to those present during this week’s floods would have manifested had they occurred in the years from 1950 until 1986, a three-decade period during where human-induced climate change had yet to cause a global surface temperature spike. They concluded that the meteorological conditions ahead of the deadly Texas floods this year were up to 7% wetter than those that had proceeded past floods in the region.

The ClimaMeter study adds heft to statements made by climate scientists over the weekend who argued that there was no question that human-induced climate change—which is driven largely by the extraction and burning of fossil fuels—had tipped the floods into historic disaster territory.

“The tragic events in Texas are exactly what we would expect in our hotter, climate-changed, world,” said Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysics and climate hazards at University College London. “There has been an explosion in extreme weather in recent years, including more devastating flash floods caused by slow-moving, wetter, storms, that dump exceptional amounts of rain over small areas across a short time.”

As of this writing, at least 80 people have been confirmed dead as a result of the Texas floods while dozens more people have been reported as missing. The Washington Post reports that data from the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Integrated Public Alert and Warning System shows that Kerr County, Texas didn’t send out an Amber Alert-style push message to local residents until Sunday, two days after the floods overwhelmed the area’s rivers and creeks.

Original article by Brad Reed republished from Common Dreams under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). 

Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Donald Trump urges you to be a Climate Science denier like him. He says that he makes millions and millions for destroying the planet, Burn, Baby, Burn and Flood, Baby, Flood.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him. He says that Reform UK has received millions and millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
Power-mad orange gasbag Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.
Power-mad climate science denying Neo-Fascist orange gasbag Donald Trump says Burn, Baby, Burn.

Continue ReadingReport Shows How Deadly Texas Floods Were Driven by Human-Induced Climate Crisis