EXPANDED and UPDATED: Zack Polanski’s ‘reality check’ to the Prime Minister: act now on extreme heat emergency

Spread the love

At a press conference today, Zack Polanski delivered a ‘reality check’ to the Prime Minister as he sounded the alarm on the emergency of extreme heat and outlined three immediate actions he would take to tackle the crisis.

After highlighting the multiple threats we face – to our safety, our food and water supply, and our way of life – Zack called for action to keep people cool and safe, taxes on oil and gas giants to fund our fire services, and public ownership of water to end the failed experiment of privatisation.

Zack was joined on stage by an ex-soldier and engineer, a doctor, and a firefighter, who described the consequences of extreme weather they had seen in their work – as well as broadcaster and environmental campaigner Chris Packham who warned of the present and future risks of the climate crisis.

“Trees reduced to charcoal”

Zack started his press conference with a vivid description of the consequences of the extreme heat that has hit the UK this year.

The day before he had witnessed the aftermath of the devastation caused by a wildfire in Oxfordshire.

“Trees reduced to charcoal. Cars turned to burnt out wrecks. The smell of smoke still lingering in the air, on the site of what was once a thriving local business – now reduced to ash.

“Wildfires. Literal scorched earth. And that looming sense that this is only the beginning.

“These days feel exceptional, but what we’re living through right now are likely some of the least extreme summer temperatures we’ll experience in our lifetimes.”

This is what climate failure looks like. Nature, homes and livelihoods are being destroyed. The Government must act now.

The Green Party of England & Wales (@greenparty.org.uk) 2026-08-05T11:01:03.072Z

This is an alarm that needed sounding.

The week before, while a wildfire the size of two hundred football pitches was raging across Suffolk, Zack had called on the Prime Minister to urgently call a COBRA meeting to address the crisis.

Six days later, and with another heat alert having just ended, where is the Government response? There has been no COBRA meeting, no emergency briefing, no new plan.

And so Zack stepped up to challenge the Prime Minister to act.

“We are facing the biggest threat to this country since the Second World War”

His challenge to the PM started with a stark reality check: “We are facing the biggest threat to this country since the Second World War.”

“Extreme weather is now the new normal – and without action, the impact on the people of this country will be unimaginably grave.”

And Zack broke down exactly what that impact will be.

First, the threat to our safety.

The dangers of extreme heat to our health are very real – especially for older people and those with pre-existing conditions – forcing people to stay indoors for days on end, to try to wait out the heat.

Zack Polanski delivers ‘reality check’ to Burnham over ‘biggest crisis since WWII’ after summer of extreme heat

The Green Party of England & Wales (@greenparty.org.uk) 2026-08-05T11:30:36.274Z

But the heat takes its toll.

As Zack explained, “Almost three thousand people have died from the effects of extreme heat this summer.”

Those “whose bodies were under such intense strain in trying to stay cool that their hearts or kidneys could no longer cope.”

And then there are the fires – forcing hundreds to evacuate their homes, “while many thousands more wait anxiously with flames on the horizon and smoke in their lungs.”

And Zack pointed to Europe as a warning of how bad things can get.

“Hundreds of thousands evacuated. Half a million acres burnt.

“The sheer scale of the devastation is hard to comprehend. But we need to look it in the face – because this is only a taster of what’s to come if we don’t act now.”

Decimated crops, leaking pipes, and no new reservoirs since 1992

After the danger to our physical safety, the second threat Zack identified concerned the basis of any society: our food and water supply.

Half of England is currently experiencing serious drought, and eight of our water reservoirs are at risk of running dry.

“The threat is so severe”, Zack said, “that the UK’s national risk register warns that if we had three years of exceptionally dry weather like this, we could face water rationing.”

And what of the private water companies?

The private water companies that haven’t built a single new reservoir since 1992.

Well, they are losing nearly three billion litres of water a day from leaky pipes – or as Zack put it “five times more than a nationwide hosepipe ban would save”.

Our farmers and growers, meanwhile, are on the frontlines of climate breakdown – facing in turn the extreme rainfall and flooding of recent winters, and the extreme heat and drought of our summers.

Zack noted that despite farmers working through the nights to avoid the heat, food production has been hit by this chaotic combo of flooding and drought, and food prices are set to rise as a result.

“A threat to our way of life”

The third threat Zack named was far-reaching: the threat to our way of life.

“Parents unable to take their children to the playground because the slides are so hot it could burn their skin off. Temperatures so high they keep us inside for days for the sake of our health. Cities feeling like ghost towns. Parks turned into deserts.”

As climate change progresses – bringing more frequent, more damaging extreme weather – the way each of us lives our life will be more severely impacted.

Zack Polanski holds a press conference to deliver an urgent message to Prime Minister Andy Burnham
Zack Polanski holds a press conference to deliver an urgent message to Prime Minister Andy Burnham. (Photo: Aldo Ciarrocchi)

And we don’t have to look far to see what may face us in the years ahead.

Zack pointed to the “apocalyptic” scenes of “Wildfires. Droughts. Deadly floods.” coming out of Europe, noting that the continent “is heating at twice the rate of the rest of the world.”

It is there for all of us to see.

And yet the response from the Government, and most of the media, has been to look the other way.

In Zack’s words: “It’s an astonishing dereliction of duty from those whose first responsibility is to keep us safe.”

Zack’s demands for action: cool spaces, water in public hands, and taxing oil and gas giants to fund fire services

The need for action is urgent.

And Zack set out immediate steps the Prime Minister could take “to protect people right now and keep us safe from what we know is coming down the track.”

“We need to keep people safe from extreme temperatures. That means a free, accessible cool space in every local area. And financial support for households to heatproof their home.”

Secondly, Zack called for a robust wildfire prevention strategy – and a fire service with the resources it needs to tackle blazes when they come.

“This should be funded,” Zack said, “by taxing the fossil fuel giants who are profiting from fuelling these infernos.”

And thirdly Zack called for public ownership of our water.

“To secure our water supply, prevent droughts and protect our food system we need to bring water back into public hands.”

“Every penny households pay for their water needs to go back into strengthening our infrastructure, building new reservoirs, and protecting us from the droughts of the future.”

Extreme weather is now the new normal.The Prime Minister must act like this is the emergency it is.

The Green Party of England & Wales (@greenparty.org.uk) 2026-08-05T10:15:07.597Z

Zack’s message to the PM: “There can be no new drilling for oil and gas”

Before handing the microphone over to the assembled experts, Zack finished with a powerful message direct to the Prime Minister.

“If we are to secure a liveable future for our children and grandchildren, there can be no new drilling for oil and gas. On this, the science is crystal clear.

“As politicians, we have a moral responsibility to do what’s right for the people we serve, even when it’s not politically convenient.

“And I know that whatever our differences, we both care deeply about the people of this country – and the future of our world.

“So when the time comes, I hope you will have the courage to be truthful, be brave – and hold firm to your party’s commitment to no new oil and gas drilling in the north sea – including both Rosebank and Jackdaw.

“Some will say we can’t afford to make these changes. These last few weeks are showing we can’t afford not to.”

“A dereliction of duty”: four expert voices on extreme heat

Zack was followed by four speakers with unique expertise on the extreme heat emergency.

First up was Carl Benfield, a former soldier and engineer, who since leaving the military has turned his engineering expertise to the challenges posed by climate breakdown.

His view? “Climate change is the single greatest threat to human security that we face.”

And his conclusion on successive governments’ failure to prioritise this threat was damning: “A government’s first duty is to keep its citizens safe. Ignoring extreme heat and raging fires isn’t just complacency, it’s a dereliction of duty.”

He was clear about what’s required: “We need an immediate COBRA-level response. We need climate change reinstated at the top of our defence and security agenda. And we need the bold leadership of Zack Polanski for our nation.”

"Ignoring extreme heat and raging fires isn't just complacency. It's a dereliction of duty."Experts warn the climate crisis is already costing lives and urgent action from the Government is needed.

The Green Party of England & Wales (@greenparty.org.uk) 2026-08-05T13:01:10.841Z

Next to speak was London firefighter James Rodgers.

His powerful testimony of a worker on the frontlines of extreme heat highlighted the immediacy of the crisis, and how rapidly the conditions in which firefighters work are changing due to extreme heat.

“When people talk about climate change, they often talk about the year 2050. I’m a firefighter and I want to talk about now.”

“Because for firefighters, climate change isn’t a prediction. It’s a shift we are already working.

“Climate change is the fire call to multiple back gardens alight, children’s clothing burning on the washing line.

“Climate change is the acrid smell as you affect entry into a flat because someone has succumbed to heat stroke and hasn’t been checked on in weeks. Climate change is the sound of people in floods of tears when they are stuck in a lift 20 floors up in 30 degree heat.

“Climate change is the taste of dust in your dry mouth, watching a fire sweep uncontrollably across a park you used to play football in as a child in your summer holidays. Climate change is this becoming a day to day reality. ”

Dr Veena Aggarwal speaks at the press conference on the emergency of extreme heat
Dr Veena Aggarwal speaks at the press conference on the emergency of extreme heat. (Photo: Aldo Ciarrocchi)

Next was Dr Veena Aggarwal, a GP in Bristol and the Climate and Sustainability Co-Lead and Clinical Adviser at the Royal College of GPs.

She emphasised the growing danger to health, and – as with the fire services – the extreme pressure placed on health services by the heat:

“As a GP, I’ve been seeing firsthand the health impact of the recent heat waves.

“Ambulances are so stretched we couldn’t get an ambulance for a patient with sepsis or another one with very low oxygen levels, because the ambulance service was so completely overwhelmed.

“The London Ambulance Service saw its busiest ever day during the heatwave in June, on 26th June. That’s even busier than the days at the height of the Covid pandemic emergency.

“We’re seeing people having more asthma attacks; having flares up of their chronic lung disease so extreme they need to be in hospital; more people having heart attacks, strokes; or having falls and collapsing due to the heat, especially those who are frail and more vulnerable.”

Dr Aggarwal also highlighted the impact of the heat on staff and patients in NHS buildings, the human cost of the heat waves, and the need for immediate action.

“An extra almost 3000 deaths occurred within just one week in June during the heatwaves. That’s almost double what was recorded in that season in 2025. In Europe those deaths are 14,000 in that same period.

“We need to act now. The climate crisis is a health crisis.”

Chris Packham speaks at the press conference on the emergency of extreme heat
Chris Packham speaks at the press conference on the emergency of extreme heat. (Photo: Aldo Ciarrocchi)

The final speaker was broadcaster and nature campaigner Chris Packham.

Chris was excoriating in his appraisal of the Government and media’s response to the climate crisis.

Citing the same death figures as Dr Aggarwal, he said “If these deaths had been the result of terrorism or a pandemic, the Government would have cancelled its summer holiday.

“There would have been COBRA meetings, and there would have been public information campaigns the likes of which we saw during Covid, designed to protect us in this time of crisis.”

“And yet what do we get?

“We get rumours of possibly more drilling for oil and gas, and we get articles in the Telegraph suggesting we ought to adapt to a Mediterranean climate…

“If that isn’t reckless and irresponsible, I don’t know what is.”

Long video of the Press Conference.

Continue ReadingEXPANDED and UPDATED: Zack Polanski’s ‘reality check’ to the Prime Minister: act now on extreme heat emergency

Spanish PM visit to China emphasizes importance of multilateralism and cooperation

Spread the love

This article by Ana Vračar republished from peoples dispatch under under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez with Chinese counterpart Li Qiang, April 2026. Source: La Moncloa/X

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez completed his fourth visit to China in four years, marked by cooperation agreements and focus on multilateralism and peace.

While European Union officials have largely maintained frosty ties with China, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez completed his fourth visit in four years to the Asian country – announcing agreements spanning trade, science, agriculture, food, and other sectors. Between April 11-15, Sánchez met Chinese President Xi Jinping, Prime Minister Li Qiang, and Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress Zhao Leji, signaling an alternative path to other EU member states.

The meetings emphasized cooperation between China and Spain in global affairs, particularly concerning international law and multilateral institutions. “China and Spain are both countries that value principle and justice, and both opt for the right side of history,” Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Guo Jiakun reported on these exchanges, conveying President Xi’s observations. “The two countries need to jointly uphold true multilateralism, and reject any backslide into the law of the jungle.”

Discussions on multilateralism and diplomacy occurred amid ongoing assaults on several countries in West Asia and Latin America led by the United States and Israel. Throughout these attacks, Chinese and Spanish officials have called for an end to the violence, with the Sánchez administration being the only EU government to stand up to Donald Trump in the early phases of the illegal war he launched on Iran alongside Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu.

Read more: Spanish government stands up to US threats, says it will work for peace and international law

During a speech at Tsinghua University in Beijing, Sánchez again emphasized the need for countries to work together for peace and counter those who view multilateralism as outdated. “Because a multipolar world without rules leads to rivalry, and rivalry only gives rise to wars, trade conflicts, and ruin,” he stated.

Instead, the Spanish Prime Minister suggested existing institutions, including the United Nations, should be strengthened in a way to provide fairer representation of Global South countries and others outside the West.

“In my opinion, what is happening today is not a shift in hegemony,” he said. “It is a proliferation of poles – not just of power, but also of prosperity. And this is great news for Europe. Because for the first time in contemporary history, progress is taking root simultaneously in many parts of the world – places that do not resemble one another and do not share the same culture. Nor do they share the same political system or the same social conditions. And they don’t need anyone’s permission to grow.”

Read more: Ibrahim Traoré: We do not want a democracy that kills

Unlike many other Western nations, Sánchez stated, Spain embraces this change. “We do so out of realism, out of pragmatism, and, without a doubt, out of a sense of responsibility,” he said. “But I would also like to emphasize that we do so out of hope.”

While adopting a more constructive approach than other European interactions with China, the Spanish Prime Minister’s visit also raised concerns about equitable trade relations, praising recent EU agreements with various countries – agreements that have raised concerns about likely impacts on local economies and rights – and proposed acting as a bridge in discussions to maintain economic cooperation between China and the European bloc.

This article by Ana Vračar republished from peoples dispatch under under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-SA) license.

Continue ReadingSpanish PM visit to China emphasizes importance of multilateralism and cooperation

I’m facing 10 years in prison for climate protest. I’d still do it again

Spread the love

Original article by Ella Ward republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

Matthew Chattle/Future Publishing via Getty Images

The UK’s broken justice system is locking young activists like me away – and we’ll all suffer the consequences

My name’s Ella. I am a fairly average 22-year-old from Birmingham, central England. I have friends, a supportive family, and hopes and dreams for after graduation. I’m also facing up to ten years in prison.

On 5 August last year, I was arrested along with three others on a side street in Gatley, near Manchester, just after 4am. We had been planning to enter Manchester Airport’s airfield – provided it was safe to do so – to block the taxiway by glueing our hands to the tarmac. 

We didn’t get near the airport, but I have been held in HMP Styal, a women’s prison just outside Manchester, ever since. I was charged with conspiracy to cause a public nuisance and spent six months in prison awaiting trial. I was found guilty in February and will have served three months by the time I am sentenced at the end of this month.

So what drives a young person like me to take nonviolent action as drastic as this? You may have realised that I am a member of Just Stop Oil. At the time of my arrest, I was carrying boltcutters, glue, a hi-vis jacket, and a banner reading ‘sign the treaty’ in all caps.

Get our free Daily Email

Get one whole story, direct to your inbox every weekday.

Sign up now

It was the summer of 2024, the hottest year ever recorded. We were trying to send a message to the British government: it must sign the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and make an immediate plan to transition away from oil, gas and coal to prevent further global heating, climate breakdown, and eventual societal collapse.

We wanted to go to an airport – a symbol of the carbon economy – to make clear that the UK’s ‘business as usual’ approach is sending humanity over a cliff edge into destruction, displacement, and massive loss of life. 

Our protest may have seemed drastic, but as I tried to explain to the judge and the jury, it was proportionate to the scale of the crisis we are facing. We all stand to lose everything. 

Until my arrest, I was a final-year environmental science student at the University of Leeds. As I told the court, the science is clear: burning and extracting fossil fuels is heating the planet and leading to mass crop failure, with food insecurity and starvation for large parts of the world and drastic price hikes on staples for the rest of us. Crop failure on this scale will kill millions and displace many more. A billion people could be on the move within 25 years. The impacts will be felt everywhere, by everyone. 

I spoke about my university lecturers, who are prominent climate scientists and are fearful for their children’s lives. They feel they aren’t being listened to, that the government is implementing policies contrary to science. I said that the knowledge I had gained from studying gave me a responsibility to act.

Court trials like mine are remarkably technical – you must submit a legal defence if you want the judge to allow jurors to consider your motivation, or the context of your actions. I did not have a lawyer and, like my co-defendants, put forward a defence of ‘self-defence’ and ‘necessity’.  

I argued that I acted not only to protect the lives of the millions already living on the frontline of climate breakdown, but in defence of myself and young people globally. I told the court how I am afraid for my own future, the future of my brother, my friends, my cousins, and all young people everywhere. 

The judge dismissed this, saying the climate crisis does not pose an ‘immediate threat to life’. He told jurors to ignore the context around our actions and focus only on whether we had planned to commit a ‘crime’, saying that anything they’d heard about climate change during the hearing was irrelevant as it was a political or philosophical belief.

But the climate crisis is not a belief, it is science, and science doesn’t care about legal defences, judges’ rulings or prison sentences. It will continue to worsen and take more lives until governments work together to stop burning fossil fuels.

Related story

Anti protest legislation

How the UK’s ‘free speech’ government banned protest

19 May 2025 | Sian Norris

Conservative ministers loudly championed free speech – right up until they outlawed it. Now, we’re all at risk

Over the past six months in prison, this truth has become clearer and clearer. Climate breakdown is no longer something I read about in textbooks, study in lectures, or write about in exams. I’m seeing it through the bars of my cell window. 

On New Year’s Day, a state of emergency was declared as Greater Manchester was hit by heavy rains. Over a thousand people were evacuated from flooded homes – HMP Styal’s prison officers among them – their possessions ruined, and huge disruption caused. 

The rising waters cut off the roads leading to the prison, causing a staffing crisis that compromised our safety, with no one allowed to leave their wings or houses. The prison’s library and workplaces were flooded, ruining books and leaving some prisoners with no work or activities even after the regime returned to normal. 

Such extreme weather is being seen everywhere. On the penultimate day of my hearing, 14 people were killed in floods in the US state of Kentucky, including a seven-year-old girl and her mother, who were washed away in their car. I used my closing speech to tell jurors about this, about how upset it made me. How many people will die before we open our eyes? 

The judge ruled it irrelevant.

Having been barred from considering almost everything we’d said, the jury had little choice but to find us guilty. I am grateful to all twelve of them, though, for listening to what we had to say for three weeks and making the only decision they could within the constraints given.

Despite the guilty verdict, being in prison and my impending sentencing, I am at peace. I should have had my whole life ahead of me, and my future now hangs in the balance, but I know that I acted in line with my conscience and moral convictions and, above all, nonviolently: without violence and actively against violence. 

Being on trial at a crown court in my early twenties was the scariest thing I’ve ever done. But what choice did I have? At university, I studied the truth, and now I have to act on it.

Original article by Ella Ward republished from Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.

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.
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.
Continue ReadingI’m facing 10 years in prison for climate protest. I’d still do it again

10 reasons why US president-elect Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action

Spread the love
Ahn Young-joon/AP

Wesley Morgan, UNSW Sydney and Ben Newell, UNSW Sydney

If you care about saving Earth from catastrophe, you might be feeling a little down about the re-election of Donald Trump as United States president. Undeniably, his return to the White House is a real setback for climate action.

Trump is a climate change denier who has promised to increase fossil fuel production and withdraw the US from the Paris climate deal, among other worrying pledges.

But beyond Trump and his circle, there remains deep concern about climate change, especially among younger people. Support for climate policy remains high in the US and around the world. And studies based on data from 60,000 people in more than 60 countries suggest individuals’ concern about climate change is widely underestimated.

So now is a good time to remember that efforts to tackle the climate crisis – both in Australia and globally – are much bigger than one man. Here are ten reasons to remain hopeful.

Beyond Trump and his circle, there remains deep concern about climate change around the world. HAYOUNG JEON/EPA

1. The global clean energy transition can’t be halted

The global shift to clean energy is accelerating, and Trump can’t stop it. Investment in clean energy has overtaken fossil fuels, and will be nearly double investment in coal, oil and gas in 2024. This is a historic mega-trend and will continue with or without American leadership.

2. Clean energy momentum is likely to continue in the US

Much of the Biden-era spending on clean energy industries went to Republican states and Congressional districts. New factories for batteries and electric vehicles will still go ahead under the Trump administration. After all, entrepreneur Elon Musk – who is expected to join the Trump administration – makes electric vehicles.

Some of Trump’s financial backers are receiving subsidies for clean energy manufacturing and 18 Republican Congress members have gone on record to oppose cuts to clean energy tax credits.

The clean energy shift will continue in the US. Piictured: a solar panel array floats on a water storage pond in New Jersey. Seth Wenig/AP

3. The US still wants to beat China

There is bipartisan concern in Washington about the US losing a technological edge to Beijing. China currently dominates global production of electric vehicles, batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. So internal pressure in the US to counter China’s manufacturing might will continue.

4. The federal government is not everything in the US

When Trump was last in power, he withdrew the US from some climate commitments, such as the Paris Agreement. But many state and local governments powered ahead with climate policy, and that will happen this time around, too. For example, California – the world’s fifth largest economy – plans to eliminate its greenhouse gas footprint by 2045. Even Texas, a Republican heartland, is leading a shift toward wind and solar power.

5. The US climate movement will be more energised than ever

During Trump’s first presidency, the US climate movement developed policy proposals for a “Green New Deal”. Many of these proposals were later implemented by the Biden administration. Initial reactions to Trump’s re-election suggest we can expect similar policy advocacy this time around.

Efforts to tackle the climate crisis are much bigger than one man in the White House. Kevin Wolf/AP

6. Global climate cooperation is bigger than Trump

If Trump makes good on his promise to leave the Paris Agreement (again), he will only be leaving the room where the world’s future is being shaped. The US has walked away from global climate agreements before – for example, refusing to join the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. But other nations rallied for global action, and will do so again.

7. The rules-based global order will remain

When a nation walks away from rules that have been agreed after decades of negotiation, responsible countries must work together to bolster global cooperation. This applies to trade and security – and climate is no different.

As our Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently explained, Australia, as a middle power on the world stage, wants:

a world where disputes are resolved by engagement, negotiation and by reference to rules [and] norms […] We don’t want a world in which disputes are resolved by power alone.

8. Australian diplomacy matters

Australia is seeking to co-host the United Nations climate talks with Pacific island countries in 2026, and is emerging as the favourite. Hosting the conference, known as COP31, would be a chance for Australia to help broker a new era of international climate action, even if the US opts out under Trump.

Hosting the talks would also help cement Australia’s place in the Pacific and assist our Pacific neighbours to deal with the climate threat.

Co-hosting COP31 would help assist our Pacific neighbours to deal with the climate threat. Mick Tsikas/AAP

9. Australia’s clean energy shift is accelerating

About 40% of Australia’s main national electricity grid is powered by renewables and this is set to rise to 80% by 2030. Some states are surging ahead – for example, South Australia is aiming for 100% renewables by 2027.

Australians love clean energy at home, too. One in three households have rooftop solar installed, making us a world-leader in the technology’s uptake. Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office cannot stop this momentum.

10. Trump cannot change the science of climate change

The science is clear – burning coal, oil and gas fuels climate change and increases the risk of disasters that are harming communities right now. In Australia, we need look no further than the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20 and unprecedented Lismore floods in 2022.

And the damage is happening across the globe. In October, twin hurricanes in the US – made stronger by the warming ocean – left a damage bill of more than US$100 billion. And hundreds of people died when a year’s worth of rain fell in one day in Spain last month.

The devastating floods in Spain remind us that climate change has arrived. ANA ESCOBAR/EPA

On gloomy days – like, say, the election of a climate denier to the White House – it might feel humanity won’t rise to Earth’s biggest existential challenge. But there are many reasons for hope. The vast majority of us support policies to tackle climate change, and in many cases, the momentum is virtually unstoppable.

Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney and Ben Newell, Professor of Cognitive Psychology and Director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

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

Continue Reading10 reasons why US president-elect Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action

WaPo Says Not to Worry About Climate Disruption’s Disastrous Costs: 

Spread the love

Original article by Julie Hollar republished from FAIR under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

Reassuring report based on long-debunked climate contrarian

The Washington Post (10/24/24) claims that “the rise in billion-dollar disasters, while alarming, is not so much an indicator of climate change as a reflection of societal growth and risky development.”

As the country begins to vote in an election that will be hugely consequential for the climate crisis, the central task of news outlets’ climate beats should be informing potential voters of those consequences. Instead, the Washington Post‘s “Climate Lab” seems to be working hard to cast doubt on whether climate change is really causing weather disasters to be more expensive.

In a lengthy piece (10/24/24) headlined “The Real Reason Billion-Dollar Disasters Like Hurricane Helene Are Growing More Common,” Post Climate Lab columnist Harry Stevens highlighted a NOAA chart depicting a notable increase in billion-dollar weather disasters hitting the US that he says is widely used by government reports and officials “to help make the case for climate policies.” But, in fact, Stevens tells readers:

The truth lies elsewhere: Over time, migration to hazard-prone areas has increased, putting more people and property in harm’s way. Disasters are more expensive because there is more to destroy.

The takeaway is clear: The (Democratic) government is lying to you about the supposedly devastating impacts of climate change.

Distorting with cherry-picked data

The problem is, it’s Stevens’ story that’s doing the misleading. It relies heavily on the work of one source, Roger Pielke Jr., a longtime climate contrarian beloved by climate denial right-wingers, who cherry-picks data to distort the truth.

What’s worse, from a media critic’s perspective, is that it’s not even a new story; it’s been debunked multiple times over the years. Pielke—a political scientist, not a climate scientist, which Stevens never makes clear—has been promoting this tale since 1998, when he first published a journal article that purported to show that, as Stevens describes, “after adjusting damage to account for the growth in people and property, the trend [of increasing economic costs from weather disasters] disappears.”

A review of Roger Pielke’s book The Climate Fix in the journal Science (11/26/10) accused him of writing “a diatribe against the IPCC and other scientists that is based on highly selective and distorted figures and his own studies.”

When Pielke published the argument in his 2010 book, the journal Science (11/26/10) published a withering response, describing the chapter as “a diatribe against the IPCC and other scientists that is based on highly selective and distorted figures and his own studies.” It detailed the multiple methodological problems with Pielke’s argument:

He makes “corrections” for some things (notably, more people putting themselves in harm’s way) but not others. Some adjustments, such as for hurricane losses for the early 20th century, in which the dollar value goes up several hundred–fold, are highly flawed. But he then uses this record to suggest that the resulting absence of trends in damage costs represents the lack of evidence of a climate component. His record fails to consider all tropical storms and instead focuses only on the rare land-falling ones, which cause highly variable damage depending on where they hit. He completely ignores the benefits from improvements in hurricane warning times, changes in building codes, and other factors that have been important in reducing losses. Nor does he give any consideration to our understanding of the physics of hurricanes and evidence for changes such as the 2005 season, which broke records in so many ways.

Similarly, in discussing floods, Pielke fails to acknowledge that many governing bodies (especially local councils) and government agencies (such as the US Army Corps of Engineers) have tackled the mission of preventing floods by building infrastructure. Thus even though heavy rains have increased disproportionately in many places around the world (thereby increasing the risk of floods), the inundations may have been avoided. In developing countries, however, such flooding has been realized, as seen for instance this year in Pakistan, China and India. Other tenuous claims abound, and Pielke cherry-picks points to fit his arguments.

That year, climate expert Joe Romm (Climate Progress2/28/10) called Pielke “the single most disputed and debunked person in the entire realm of people who publish regularly on disasters and climate change.”

Debunked a decade ago

In response to Pielke, climate scientist Kerry Emanuel (5383/31/14) pointed out that it’s not necessarily appropriate to normalize damages by gross domestic product (GDP) if the intent is to detect an underlying climate trend,” since “GDP increase does not translate in any obvious way to damage increase,” as “wealthier countries can better afford to build stronger structures and to protect assets.”

Pielke peddled the story in 538 (3/19/14) four years later—and lost his briefly held job as a contributor for it, after the scientific community spoke out against it in droves, as not being supported by the evidence.

The backlash led 538 to give MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel (3/31/14) a column to rebut Pielke, in which she explained that while it’s of course true that “changing demographics” have impacted the economic costs of weather disasters, Pielke’s data didn’t support his assertion “that climate change has played no role in the observed increase in damages.” She pointed to the same kinds of methodological flaws that Science did, noting that her own research with Yale economist Robert Mendelsohn projected that through the year 2100, “global hurricane damage will about double owing to demographic trends, and double again because of climate change.”

That all happened ten years ago. So why is Pielke’s same old ax-grinding getting a platform at the Washington Post shortly before Election Day?

Stevens does tell readers—quite far down in the article—that Pielke has “clashed with other scientists, journalists and government officials” over his research—though Stevens doesn’t give any details about those clashes, or about Pielke’s reputation among climate scientists more generally.

Stevens also briefly notes that Pielke was recently hired by the American Enterprise Institute, which Stevens characterizes as “center-right,” but more helpfully might have characterized as “taking millions from ExxonMobil since 1998.” But in the same paragraph, Stevens also takes pains to point out that Pielke says he’s planning to vote for Harris, as if to burnish Pielke’s climate-believer bonafides.

Pielke agrees with Pielke

Roger Pielke “agrees with studies that agree with Pielke” (Environmental Hazards10/12/20).

Stevens tells Post readers that the science is firmly on Pielke’s side:

Similar studies have failed to find global warming’s fingerprint in economic damage from hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and crop losses. Of 53 peer-reviewed studies that assess economic damage from weather events, 52 could not attribute damage trends to global warming, according to Pielke’s 2020 review of the literature, the most recent and comprehensive.

You’ll notice Stevens just used Pielke’s own review to bolster Pielke’s argument. But the journal that published that review (Environmental Hazards8/5/20) immediately followed up with the publication of a critique (10/12/20) from researchers who came to the opposite conclusion in their study on US hurricanes. They explained that there are “fundamental shortcomings in this literature,” which comes from a disaster research “field that is currently dominated by a small group of authors” who mostly use the same methodology—adjusting historical economic losses based strictly on “growth in wealth and population”—that Pielke does.

The authors, who wrote a study that actually accounted for this problem and did find that economic losses from hurricanes increased over time after accounting for increases in wealth and population, point out that Pielke dismissed their study and two others that didn’t agree with his own results essentially because they didn’t come to the same conclusions. As the authors of the critique write drily: “Pielke agrees with studies that agree with Pielke.”

A phony ‘consensus’

Stevens includes in his article an obligatory line that experts say

disputing whether global warming’s influence can be found in the disaster data is not the same as questioning whether climate change is real or whether society should switch from fossil fuels.

He also adds that

​​many scientists say that global warming has intensified hurricanes, wildfires, droughts and other extreme weather, which must be leading to greater economic losses.

Note that he frames it as only “many,” and suggests they are only using (faulty, simplistic) logic, not science. But of course, climate change is intensifying extreme weather, as even Stevens has reported as fact recently (in the link he provides in that passage). In contrast, Stevens writes that

the consensus among disaster researchers is that the rise in billion-dollar disasters, while alarming, is not so much an indicator of climate change as a reflection of societal growth and risky development.

But in fact, as mentioned above, there’s not consensus even among disaster researchers (who are primarily economists). And the “many scientists” who disagree with Pielke aren’t the scientists the Post chooses to focus on. While Stevens quotes a number of different experts, including some who disagree with Pielke, they are not given anywhere near the space—or credence—Pielke and his arguments are. (Pielke’s name appears 15 times across the article and its captions.)

When he does get around to quoting some of the scientists, like MIT’s Emanuel, whose research shows that extreme weather events are intensifying, Stevens presents the conflicting conclusions as a back-and-forth of claims and counterclaims, giving the last word in that debate to a disaster researcher whose goal is to refocus blame for disasters on political decisions—like supporting building in vulnerable locations—rather than climate change.

Changes in our built environment, and governments’ impact on those changes, are certainly an important subject when it comes to accounting for and preventing billion-dollar disasters—which virtually no one disputes. (Indeed, the four government reports Stevens links to in his second paragraph as supposedly misusing the NOAA data explicitly name some variation of “increased building and population growth” as a contributing factor to growing costs.) It’s simply not an either/or question, as the Post‘s teaser framed it: “Many blame global warming. Others say disasters are more expensive because there is more to destroy.” So it’s bizarre and frankly dangerous that ten years after climate scientists debunked Pielke’s claim that there’s no evidence climate change is increasing extreme weather costs, Stevens would take, as the “urgent” question of the moment, “Is global warming to blame” for the growing billion-dollar disaster tally?

By giving the impression that the whole thing is basically a government scam to justify climate policies, Stevens’ direct implication is that even if climate change is indisputable, it doesn’t really matter. And it feeds into climate deniers’ claims that the climate change-believing government is lying about climate change and its impacts, at a time when a large number of those deniers are seeking office.

Continue ReadingWaPo Says Not to Worry About Climate Disruption’s Disastrous Costs: