The extreme heat of the summer weather in France has caused grapes to wilt and be scalded. Photograph: sportpoint/Alamy
Estimates suggest drop in production with vineyards also concerned ‘smoke taint’ from wildfires may affect quality
French vineyards hit by severe drought and heatwaves are expected to report a 30-year low in wine production after the country’s hottest ever recorded summer, according to the agriculture ministry.
Initial estimates suggest winemakers will produce just under 34m hectolitres from this year’s harvest: a drop of 6% on last year, and 17% less than the 2021-2025 average.
Agreste, the government’s farming food, forestry and fishing statistics body, said the drop was partly caused by a reduction in the number and size of vineyards, but mostly the result of extreme weather conditions.
“The summer was particularly hot and dry: soil drought has intensified throughout the country and heatwaves have caused localised sun scald, scorching, defoliation, and wilting of the grapes, reducing harvest volumes,” it reported.
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 and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.
As the latest UNEP reports we will blow past 1.5°C, we must prioritise solutions that work, rather than focusing on complex, unproven technologies
For anyone who’s been paying attention, it’s no surprise that the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) reports that we will now inevitably blow past the global average temperature threshold of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
Climate scientists like myself have been warning for years that we are about to cross this invisible red line, while quietly worrying that global average temperatures will end up being double that. Personally, I said goodbye to 1.5°C several years ago, but it still feels momentous to see it written in print, and that too by the UN.
The target to keep warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures isn’t some hard red line in the sand, because all warming carries some risk, but it’s relevant because limiting warming to 1.5°C gives us a good chance of avoiding some of the worst impacts of climate heating. We’ve already had a glimpse of what this looks like in the myriad heatwaves, wildfires, floods, droughts and storms that have made headlines this year.
Every tenth of a degree of heating means real-terms impacts for peoples’ lives, livelihoods and property, and increases the risk of the extreme events that we’ve already seen tragically claim so many lives. It also increases the likelihood of exceeding critical tipping points such as the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, beyond which there’s no return.
We’ve already had single years that have exceeded the 1.5°C limit, but the widely discussed Paris Agreement target is a multi-year average. That means we won’t know we’ve reached it until it’s in the rearview mirror, but it’s also possible to “overshoot” 1.5°C, temporarily peak at higher temperatures, and then bring them back down – and that’s now the best-case scenario outlined by UNEP.
This would mean we would have to take drastic action to bring temperatures back down again rather than continuing to drive them ever upwards. Which, in the current political climate, feels like a bit of a stretch.
Temperatures won’t stabilise until we reach net zero emissions, where we remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as we add to it. Until then, we will still be increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and turning up the dial on the thermostat. Net zero isn’t a nice to have, despite what certain parts of the political spectrum would have you believe, it’s an essential if we want to have a liveable planet.
In fact, UNEP’s latest report points to the need to take action beyond net zero:
Once we have limited heating to 2°C or below — which currently feels optimistic — we will have to roll out carbon dioxide removal (CDR) to reduce temperatures on an enormous scale.
CDR often connotes high-tech solutions to suck carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, but it can also mean one of the oldest technologies in the world: trees. That’s why restoring nature and preventing deforestation is so important for climate action.
But UNEP reports that CDR only works if we limit heating to 2C or below. As the stakes of climate heating continue to rise, another idea is moving from the sidelines to centre-stage: geoengineering, or deliberate technological interventions to alter the Earth’s climate.
Geoengineering is a spectrum, ranging from the comparatively reasonable and well-researched (injecting particles into the stratosphere to reflect incoming sunlight and cool the surface, much like major volcanic eruptions have done) to downright barmy (launching mirrors into space – you can imagine which silicon valley billionaires love that idea). And while there are sensible (if heated) scientific discussions about how to actually do it, there are also some very serious ethical and governance hurdles to overcome.
The tech bros will tell you that geoengineering will save us and allow us to keep doing what we’re doing while still ‘fixing’ climate change. But beware any arguments that downplay the importance of emissions cuts. We can’t simply geoengineer our way out of this crisis.
For example: who decides when to deploy? What happens if an intervention makes things better for some and worse for others? How do we safeguard against bad actors acting unilaterally? These questions are largely unanswered, and that’s before we get to the scientific questions around unintended consequences, like disrupting the Arctic food chain while trying to refreeze ice, or what happens if we stop the intervention, resulting in a so-called termination shock, where temperatures would shoot back up with devastating effect.
In some senses the climate crisis is relatively simple: we’re pumping planet-heating carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and it’s heating the planet. To reverse it, we need first to stop adding planet-heating carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and then to start removing it.
The good news is that we do know what we need to do to achieve that. Climate action is less a knowledge problem, and more an implementation one.
Proponents of geoengineering argue that it’s not an either/or between emissions cuts and major interventions. But in a world with finite resources, expensive and unproven geoengineering solutions should not be a priority, rather, we should prioritise the simple stuff we know works: decarbonising energy production, improving public transport, retrofitting and building greener housing, reducing meat and dairy consumption, restoring natural ecosystems.
That said, we are now committed to some level of change, and we need to behave as such. That means we need to prepare for the sea level rise that’s to come, and adapt societies, behaviours and infrastructure to a less predictable and more extreme climate.
If the summer of 2026 has taught us anything in the UK, it’s that our houses, schools, offices, railways, emergency services, power networks and public transport are simply not fit for purpose in the heat. Nor are they built to withstand the wet, stormy, flood-prone autumn and winter that is on its way. We’re not equipped to deal with the rapidly extremifying climate or the weather whiplash it brings. Simply put: our infrastructure was built for a climate that no longer exists.
If we are to survive the coming decades, we need to build preparedness and climate resilience into our society. Extreme events are already exposing our vulnerabilities, and if we thought 2026 was bad, count my words: we ain’t seen nothing yet.
In the wake of our hottest summer on record, it’s abundantly clear that we need to slash emissions to save lives, and at the same time prepare for the changes that are now committed.
The geoengineers are right about one thing: It’s not an either/or. We have to reduce emissions to net zero and remove carbon from the atmosphere and adapt to what’s in store. There’s no other safe option.
Dr. Ella Gilbert is a climate scientist and multi-award-winning presenter with a PhD in Antarctic climate change.
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 and his Deputy Richard Tice. He says that Reform UK has received £Millions and £Millions from the fossil fuel industry to promote climate denial and destroy the planet.Elon Musk urges you to be a Fascist like him, says that you can ignore facts and reality then.
Reform has accepted more large donations than any other party in 2026, despite mounting funding scandals, new data shows
Nigel Farage’s party received large donations totalling almost £15m in the first six months of this year, according to Electoral Commission records, including millions of pounds from a crypto billionaire who was pardoned by Donald Trump last year.
Reform’s fundraising operations continue to prove highly effective in spite of its ongoing scandals. The party is amassing a massive financial war chest ahead of the next general election, which many in Westminster believe could take place as soon as next autumn.
The latest donations data comes as Reform suspends two senior aides pending an investigation, after an undercover sting exposed their alleged role in facilitating secret donations, including from impermissible donors overseas. Rival parties said they have reported Reform to the police, while the Electoral Commission said it is “considering all relevant information” and is “in touch with the Met Police”. Reform has denied any wrongdoing.
The events have overshadowed the party’s conference in Birmingham this weekend, and are the latest in a series of scandals the party has faced over its funding this year. In July, openDemocracy travelled to Montenegro to investigate the lives and business interests of key Reform allies and donors, including ‘Posh George’ Cottrell and billionaire crypto investor Christopher Harborne, in the glamorous coastal resort of Tivat.
At the same time, a number of news reports raised serious questions about Cottrell and Farage, after The Sunday Times reported the Clacton MP had failed to disclose in-kind support from the 32-year-old convicted fraudster. The allegations led to calls for an investigation by parliamentary authorities, which were already probing a £5m gift that Farage allegedly failed to declare having received from Harborne.
Reform’s crypto funding
The latest data shows Reform continues to bring in significantly more from large donations than the other parties: £5.3m in the second quarter of 2026, compared to £3.6m for Labour and £2.8m for the Conservatives.
That brings the party’s total donations this year to almost £15m, meaning it has accepted almost twice as much as Labour (£8m) and more than double the Conservatives (£7m).
Reform receives the vast majority of its funding from a small number of high-value donors, with Harborne, a crypto investor based in Thailand, by far the party’s most significant donor to date.
Now, the party has added another crypto billionaire with offshore links to its ranks of mega donors; Sheffield-born Ben Delo gave the party £4m in April, following two £2m donations in January and March.
British crypto entrepreneur Delo has rapidly become one of Reform UK’s largest individual donors, having given the party £8m across the first half of 2026 – £4m in each quarter. If he continues this trend throughout the rest of the year, he could surpass Harborne’s current total.
Delo is one of many Reform donors with strong interests in the crypto sector. He was a software engineer at IBM and later built high-frequency trading systems at JPMorgan and GSA Capital in Hong Kong, before co-founding cryptocurrency derivatives exchange BitMEX. In 2020, US federal authorities charged the BitMEX founders with violating the Bank Secrecy Act over inadequate anti-money-laundering controls; Delo pleaded guilty in 2022, paid a $10m penalty and served 30 months’ probation, which ended in December 2024. Trump pardoned him in March 2025.
Delo’s latest donations come after the government imposed a £100,000 cap on donations from overseas residents in March 2026. At the time, Delo said he would move back to the UK to sidestep the restriction, and he has reportedly signalled plans to keep funding the party from Britain going forward.
Big finance and former Tories
Reform also continues to add new donors with interests in the financial sector. Over the past year, senior figures in the party have engaged with lobbyists in the City of London, seeking both policy ideas and financial support.
Lucas Bitencourt, a young finance entrepreneur, gave the party £100,000, while private equity firm Bryden Capital gave £50,000 and a Jersey financial adviser who works with “the world’s first bitcoin investment fund” gave £25,000.
A Scottish corporate lawyer specialising in private equity and technology continues to provide funding, giving £100,000 in May. He has now given the party £300,000 in total.
An investment firm linked to Chelsea owner Todd Boehly – a significant donor to conservative politics in the US – also gave the party £75,000.
Robert Jenrick, Reform’s Treasury spokesman, also received a significant donation after defecting to the party from the Conservatives. Jenrick received £50,000 from a donor with ties to financial services and crypto, Michael Cohen of Capital Group, an investment firm that the Wall Street Journal last year reported was “ploughing billions into crypto”.
Three former Tory donors continue to make up a significant portion of Reform’s funding base: Bassim Haidar, Johan Christofferson and Roger Nagioff all contributed six-figure sums in recent months and have now given over a million between them since the last election. Excluding Harborne, who gave Boris Johnson £1m in 2022, former Tory donors have given Reform over £3m since the 2024 vote.
Nigel Farage is scathing at the £250,000 cost to the taxpayer of his unnecessary and ridiculous Clacton-on-Sea election campaign that he caused to avoid scrutiny and acccountability for the £5MILLION ‘gift’ that he didn’t declare.Nigel Farage urges you to ignore facts and reality and be a climate science denier like him and his Deputy Richard Tice. 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 admits to being a whore willing to do anything for someone with a big fat wallet and asks whether drinking pints and smoking fags is not enough for the stupid plebs.
Nigel Farage drinks a pint at The Ship pub in Clacton on 13 August 2026. Ben Montgomery/Getty Images
With its discriminatory plans for PIP and social housing, Farage’s party has made clear that we’re not part of its gang
Reform’s political statements are short, blunt and make crystal clear who it does and doesn’t want in its gang. So far, refugees and other foreign nationals have borne the brunt of the party’s hostility and vitriol, but in recent weeks, it has also turned the spotlight of rejection on Disabled people.
Last month, Nigel Farage’s party announced that, should it take power at the next election, it will abolish Personal Independence Payment (PIP). The benefit is paid to Disabled people who experience barriers to living independently, and there are around four million recipients across England and Wales, 83% of whom are of working age.
Having a disability adds an average of £1,095 a month to household bills, according to research by Scope, a disability charity. PIP recognises and contributes to these extra costs (although, even at its highest rate of £778.40 a month, it often doesn’t cover them in full). It helps pay for charging an electric wheelchair or turning the heating up in a cost-of-living crisis; for pre-prepared food and specific diets; for the specialised transport needed to hold down a job; for the essential personal care that enables a person to get out of bed in the morning, and any other support that allows Disabled people to live independently in their communities.
The vast majority of Disabled people don’t receive PIP; accessing the payment is widely recognised as an arduous, barrier-heavy process that often deters or denies the very people it is supposed to support. Rather than overhauling the system to reduce the unwieldy bureaucracy or fix the high error rates – two-thirds of PIP rejections are overturned at tribunal, with no new evidence presented in the vast majority of cases – Reform wants to scrap it altogether.
The party plans to provide payments only to an ill-defined group of Disabled people whom it deems most in need. The rest of us will be forced to go cap in hand to local authorities for support, much as Disabled people in the 19th century were required to depend on the charity of the parish. Rather than ‘saving taxpayer money’, as the party has claimed, such proposals will offload costs onto an already crumbling NHS and underfunded social care sector, while driving Disabled people towards institutionalised care.
The party’s attack on Disabled people hasn’t stopped there. Also last month, it said it would prioritise British-born working people under 35 for social housing, with additional preference given to married couples with children. The discriminatory divisiveness of this policy proposal is breathtaking. To base the allocation of scarce social housing on where a person was born, their employment status, age, or relationship status, rather than on their need, is unfair and unjust.
Entire sections of our society would effectively be excluded from social housing under the policy, including: older people, Disabled people of all ages who are unable to work due to impairments or health conditions, single people, and everyone born outside the UK, including those who have fled violence in their home countries.
These deeply divisive policy statements fail to provide the underlying analysis that led to the plans, or any vision for system change. The stats show that a large number of people on the social housing waiting list are Disabled people, so what is Reform’s rationale for turning their back on this real and sizeable need?
Disabled people already face significant societal disadvantages. Around half of those in poverty are disabled or have a Disabled person in the household. We experience physical and digital barriers to education and employment. Navigating the street can be challenging, and public transport is often a no-go zone. We are over-represented amongst homeless people, struggle to pay high rents in the private sector, often live in homes that are not accessible and are placed in inaccessible and inappropriate temporary accommodation for far too long.
So, how do the above Reform policy announcements address this kind of deep-rooted, long-standing discrimination? They don’t. The party has no plans to make society more inclusive and equal, no plans to make the social security system fairer and no plans to allocate social housing based on need. We’re just not part of its gang.
Nigel Farage admits to being a whore willing to do anything for someone with a big fat wallet and asks whether drinking pints and smoking fags is not enough for the stupid plebs.Nigel Farage explains the politics of Reform UK: Racism, Fake anti-establishmentism, Deregulation, Corporatism, Climate Change Denial, Mysogyny and Transphobia.Climate science denier Nigel Farage explains that it’s simple to blame asylum-seekers or Muslims for everything.
