Over the course of Britain’s sweltering summer, the landlord of the building inhabited by the Observer periodically informs us that our air-conditioning is undergoing an “automated controlled shutdown,” because the weather has become so hot and humid that the system is at risk of damaging itself.
So just when you really need cooling air, you cannot have it. One to be filed under: You could not make it up.
This is not uncommon. The offices, factories, homes, roads and railways of Britain were designed on the assumption that it is a country of blessedly temperate conditions, immune to extremes of heat and cold.
Illustration: Mountain People
When people say that Britain is not built to withstand a sizzling summer, this is more literally true than they might know.
We can avoid thinking about what this intense heat wave could mean for the future of the planet by taking careless refuge in the consolation that others are having it much worse.
The devastating wildfires in Greece have killed at least 87 people and ignited national fury about the state’s inadequate response. Japan has declared a national disaster after more than 20,000 people were taken to hospital in a week.
Algeria has reported the highest temperature ever reliably recorded in Africa: 51.3?C. That is hot. Forests are blazing within the Arctic Circle. That is not usual.
Scientists tell us to expect weird weather to become more familiar. The fiery conditions we have seen this summer are the result of the jet stream stalling, an effect caused when the poles heat up more than the equator does.
There is further broad and deep scientific consensus that climate change is at the heart of it. The jet stream has been hinky in the past. The consequences are more severe this time, because global warming has raised baseline global temperatures.
This is a glimpse into a frazzled future, a warning every inhabitant of the third rock from the Sun would be wise to heed.
Extreme weather events — ferocious heat waves, epic floods and violent storms — are going to happen with increasing frequency. The most catastrophic consequences will be felt by other, often much poorer nations, but Britain will not be unscathed.
You cannot run from climate change and you cannot hide. Not absent the ability to get to another planet suitable for human life.
The question then becomes a political one: What, if anything, are we going to do about it?
There is a school of thought that contends that politics is fundamentally incapable of addressing this challenge. It is just too overwhelming for politicians and electorates to handle. The problem is so complex and so global that it induces fatalism in the leaders and the led.
I find this view to be self-defeating and self-harming. There are things that governments can do and they have even managed to achieve some of them.
There are now days when Britain meets all its energy needs without burning any coal, something that has not happened since before the Industrial Revolution and a development that would have astonished earlier generations.
We last year produced more electricity from renewable and nuclear energy than from gas and coal, making it the first year that low-carbon resources met most of the nation’s demand for power.
That is a legacy of good decisions made by earlier governments. This is progress. It is not sufficient progress, but it does demonstrate that there are things that can be done to mitigate climate change and there are smarter responses to this threat than burying your overheated head in your sweaty hands.
Political engagement has fluxed depending upon who is in charge, how much pressure there is from the public and what else is happening.
It was on the agenda of Labour Party governments after 1997. Former British prime minister David Cameron then positioned the Tories as a party that liked the planet. He once campaigned with the slogan “vote blue, go green,” which rather gave away that rebranding his party was his primary motive.
More voters and opinion-shapers have become engaged. Witness the pressure to do something about plastics. Michael Gove’s positive response can be welcomed, even while recognizing that the greening of Gove is another attempt at a rebranding, in this case of himself.
The past decade has seen a compelling accumulation of frightening data about what is happening to the planet, but the world and its politicians have been distracted by other threats that seemed more immediately menacing, especially the financial crash of 2008 and subsequent austerity.
Former British chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne — who was blue, but never green as chancellor — strangled the budget for developing carbon capture and storage.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has never been animated enough by climate change to make a major speech about it. Her government scrapped the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon power scheme, dashing hopes that Britain could lead development of a new source of renewable energy. Scrubbing a planet-friendly project followed the decision to press ahead with the Heathrow Airport expansion.
The international picture has deteriorated. Global warming has been crowded out as a subject energizing international leadership and the push to tackle the danger has lost momentum.
The Paris climate agreement signed in 2016 was supposed to commit more than 170 nations to measures to hold the increase in the global average temperature to “well below” 2?C above pre-industrial levels. What it lacks is any mechanism for holding the signatories to their promises, and not one of the major industrialized nations has published a full and plausible strategy for meeting their targets.
A growing number of the scientists of climate change fear that global warming is going to be in excess of 2?C.
US President Donald Trump, who dismisses climate change as a hoax made up by the Chinese to hurt US industry, has ripped up the commitments made by his predecessor.
The US’ withdrawal is a double disaster. The Paris agreement is much less of one without the signature of the world’s most profligate emitter of greenhouse gases. Absent a commitment from the US, other nations are likely to feel less incentive to make good on their pledges and less shame when they break them.
This disappointing international picture is something to lament, but not an excuse for Britain to do nothing. We live on a windy island inhabited by a lot of clever people and surrounded by a lot of sea. With the right levels of public investment and well-targeted incentives for the private sector, this country could be a world leader in tidal and wave power.
There are changes that will be simply forced on Britain as the heating planet has an increasing impact on the way we live and work.
Lawmakers on the environmental audit committee have just offered some useful, if largely remedial, suggestions, including making buildings and transport systems more heat-resilient and using water more efficiently.
Such recommendations are, of course, measures to relieve the symptoms of global warming. They do not address the causes.
Stronger action would require politicians to be ready to drive global warming up the agenda, lead public opinion and take bold decisions, many of which will be tough and some of which will not be popular with everyone.
This politicians will do only if they genuinely care about climate change or are made to care because a critical mass of their voters tell them that they want something done.
A British Social Attitudes survey reports that more than 90 percent of Britons agree that climate change is a fact, but the rub is that only about one-quarter describe themselves as very worried about it and only a minority feel a responsibility to reduce it.
Climate change struggles to get into the top 10 of issues that voters tell pollsters that they are most bothered about and almost never reaches the top three.
This means that, while most Britons appreciate that there is a threat, not enough grasp its scale or think that it ought to be a serious priority for the government.
That could change. It certainly ought to change and is more likely to change as extreme events become a more regular occurrence.
Britons have been accustomed to the weather forecast coming after the news. For most of us, for most of the time, the only information we required was whether we needed to take a brolly with us.
Britons might adjust their attitudes and demand a lot more leadership and action from their politicians when the weather leads the news.
Andrew Rawnsley is an Observer columnist.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations