Paul Behrens, University of Oxford

I joined eight other experts to deliver a national emergency briefing in late November on the climate and nature to around 1,200 of the UK’s leaders — across politics, business, faith and culture — in Central Hall Westminster.

Much like the televised national briefings delivered during COVID, the aim was to deliver sober, science-based overviews of the various climate and nature crises that the UK faces. Chaired by the academic and author Mike Berners-Lee, the aim was to set off a tipping point of engagement among politicians, faith leaders, CEOs, sport and cultural figures. TV presenter and naturalist Chris Packham opened the event.

The alignment among the scientists speaking was clear. Several of us had never met before, yet our research all linked to tell a story of unprecedented threat and opportunity.

Nathalie Seddon, a professor of biodiversity at the University of Oxford, laid bare the nature crisis. Nature, she emphasised, is not a luxury. It is critical infrastructure, and the state of depleted nature across the country is a national security issue.

Kevin Anderson, a professor in energy and climate change at the University of Manchester, presented the clear carbon arithmetic of how quickly we need to cut emissions. He pointed out what our political discourse studiously avoids: “It is now too late for non-radical futures.”

Hayley Fowler, spoke about how Valencia-style flooding is perfectly possible in the UK. Tim Lenton, a professor of Earth system science at the University of Exeter, spoke about how climate-driven changes in ocean currents may impact the UK.

I spoke about food security and the great food transformation that’s needed, including dietary change, waste reductions, production improvements and increased resilience. I explained how more plants in our diets are necessary to reduce climate and nature impacts, improve our health, increase food resilience and reduce reliance on imports.

Hugh Montgomery, chair of intensive care medicine at UCL, said: “You don’t respond to an emergency with talk and homeopathy. You respond with genuine action. … Climate change is the greatest threat to human health in the 21st century.”

Lieutenant General Richard Nugee, a retired senior British Army officer, spoke on national security implications and how the energy transition means greater stability and security for the UK, as the country would be less vulnerable to petrostates and the inherent volatility of fossil fuels.

Angela Francis, director of policy solutions at the environmental charity World Wide Fund for Nature, spoke about how innovation is the key to productivity and healthy economies. She highlighted how faster energy transitions are cheaper, and the cost of the UK energy transition is now 73% cheaper than what was thought five years ago. Had we made the transition already, recent inflation would have been 7% lower.

Tessa Khan is an environmental lawyer and the co-founder of the Climate Litigation Network: a global coalition of organisations using litigation to compel governments to ramp up their climate mitigation ambition. She described how the price of renewables has dramatically reduced, their efficiency has soared, and how investment in renewables pays dividends.

The science was news to many

The message was consistent: these are not distant projections but rapidly accelerating realities that will profoundly affect every aspect of British life.

There was anger too. Frustration at vested interests blocking action, and at the inequality of climate impacts. The UN’s annual climate summit, Cop30, had just concluded in Belém, Brazil, attended by a record 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists.

The words “fossil fuel” were removed from the final Cop30 text. Our current collective response could not be more inadequate.

Some people I spoke to suggested that the panel at this event was preaching to the choir. It’s important to remember that MPs radically underestimate the urgency of the situation. Fewer than 15% of the 100 MPs surveyed in one study knew that global emissions needed to peak by 2025 to have any chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C.

The science was news to many present. The planet is heading into dangerous overshoot above 1.5°C within the next few years. As Anderson pointed out: for the UK to meet its fair share obligations in emissions reductions without relying on highly speculative and costly carbon dioxide removal, we would need to see roughly 13% year-on-year reductions for just 2°C – let alone 1.5°C.

There was a catharsis during the briefing. Knowing that people with the power to act were finally hearing the full picture: the health effects, the extreme weather, the collapsing nature, the food insecurity, the economic and geopolitical risks. As Rabbi Jonathan Wittenberg, senior rabbi of Masorti Judaism (a traditional movement for modern Jews), wrote afterwards in the Observer: “Those facts were hard to hear, but I also felt thank goodness, we’re being told it as it is.”

A just, equitable transition to a clean economy would improve countless aspects of our lives, from creating jobs and improving health to strengthening communities and increasing resilience. We will look back on this moment bewildered that we did not act sooner, if we are able to act in time.

This is why we are calling for a televised national emergency briefing, so that what happened in Central Hall Westminster can reach the public. Anyone can sign this open letter, calling on the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the heads of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, S4C and the media regulator Ofcom, for urgent, honest communication about the scale of the crisis and the solutions available.

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 47,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor, Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford

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