Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United Kingdom Earth

Leaked UK Government Plan To Protect Against Climate Heat 'Very Weak' (theguardian.com) 59

Posted by msmash from the poor-show dept.
The UK government's plan to cope with the climate crisis has been condemned as "very weak" by experts, who say not enough is being done to protect lives and livelihoods. From a report: Responding to the document, which was leaked to the Guardian, one highlighted its failure to adequately protect people in the UK from extreme heat. The heatwave in 2022, when temperatures surpassed 40C for the first time, led to the early deaths of more than 3,000 people, wildfires, buckled rail lines and farmers struggling with drought. Southern Europe is in the grip of a searing heatwave. Another expert said there was a "yawning gap" in measures to restore nature, which is a vital part of adapting to climate change.

The National Adaptation Programme is expected to be published on Tuesday by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which is required by law to produce a plan every five years. In March, the government's official advisers, the Climate Change Committee, said its publication would be a "make-or-break moment." Ministers have been criticised for years over the failure to make adequate plans for the impacts of global heating. The CCC said in March that the UK was "strikingly unprepared" and that there had been a "lost decade" in action on adaptation. It said heatwaves, droughts, floods and storms would intensify in the coming years until carbon emissions reached net zero.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Leaked UK Government Plan To Protect Against Climate Heat 'Very Weak' More

Leaked UK Government Plan To Protect Against Climate Heat 'Very Weak'

Comments Filter:

  • I heard from various sources that air conditioning is quite rare in the UK, and Europe in general, something like only 10% of homes have air conditioning. In the USA it is something like 90% of homes have air conditioning. Deaths in Europe from heat are higher than in the USA largely because so few people have air conditioning. It's not like people are getting cooked alive from the heat but more like existing medical conditions are worsened from the heat which leads to an early death.

    To power all these a

    • Yeah, let's feed a new feedback loop. What could go wrong [weforum.org] ? Even though I kinda agree that nuclear would at least provide low-carbon electricity for that use case, you are forgetting the rest of the "greenhouse gases" costs: manufacturing, installation, refrigerants leaks (which are often potent greenhouse gases themselves too...). There is no free lunch.

      That said, it doesn't seem that deaths from heat in Europe are so much higher than in the US. This article talks about 13000 to 20000 deaths per year in th [time.com]

      • you are forgetting the rest of the "greenhouse gases" costs

        ...and you are forgetting that you have these costs for ANY power generation, even things like renewables - particularly wind and hydro - which have huge carbon costs for all the concrete needed. As you said there is no free lunch but the difference in carbon costs per GW to build different types of power stations is generally negligible compared to the CO2 emitted over the life of stations that burn fossil fuel, even gas.

        Also, the coolants used in nuclear power stations are not generally greenhouses wi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spitzak ( 4019 )

          I really doubt the amount of CO2 leaked from Nuclear reactor cooling systems is any amount to be concerned about. Also CO2 coolant is used in lots of other things too. Also suspect the source of that CO2 would have just leaked it directly into the atmosphere if nobody had bought it.

          There are all kinds of problems with every power source, but making up nonsense does not help any arguments.

        • My bad. My wording was wrong. I was talking about the impact of the AC units (which is not negligible if we are talking about 90% of homes with them).

          I do agree nuclear is low-carbon, same as renewables, and more reliable for most usages. I post a more detailed follow-up here [slashdot.org].

      • When there are heat waves, elderly die at home or worsen at home and die at the hospital. During the 2003 heat wave in Europe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] there is an estimate of 70,000 excess deaths, many among elderly. This lead to government plans on how to better monitor people in risk situation for heart (old people living alone) such that local authorities can commission a visit at their place; alerting their relatives or taking the elderly to a local day care if their housing is not appropriate.

        • But if the climate is changing, we need to either build houses for the new climate or, well, use AC.

          Before building new houses and using AC, which will add to the climate change problem (feedback loop), there are easy ways to mitigate the risk of short (as in a few weeks) heatwaves:
          - stay inside, don't go to the beach or on a trek
          - move your labor work to early morning (farmers do that)
          - insulate your home
          - open your windows at night
          - ....

          If you have a brain, the current heatwaves in Europe are not a problem: temperatures go down at night at least. The heatwaves in countries like Bangladesh are more probl

      • Even though I kinda agree that nuclear would at least provide low-carbon electricity for that use case, you are forgetting the rest of the "greenhouse gases" costs: manufacturing, installation, refrigerants leaks (which are often potent greenhouse gases themselves too...). There is no free lunch.

        Right, because all the anti-nuclear power people never thought to add in the greenhouse gas emissions from construction and such into the calculations in their fight to keep nuclear power plants from being built. That is sarcasm in case you missed it. From what I've seen they don't bring up greenhouse gas emissions because that is a fight they cannot win.

        For about 40 years it appears that is has simply been assumed that nuclear power was not an option to solve our energy and/or environmental concerns. Th

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spitzak ( 4019 )

          Your argument would work better if you didn't make up statments. What you are calling "alternative energy" is actually called "renewable energy", for precisely the reason you state.

        • My meaning got lost in translation, and my wording was not ideal.

          I wasn't talking about greenhouse gas emissions from the nuclear plants: those are low when taking the whole nuclear plant lifecycle, which is why nuclear is at the same level than renewables when talking about CO2 emissions (and can actually provide electricity more reliably than renewables, but that's another debate; I am just saying that to see if the anti-nuclear trolls on slashdot will be triggered).

          I was talking about CO2 emissions and o

    • Re:Nuclear power and air conditioners (Score:4, Insightful)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Monday July 17, 2023 @07:10PM (#63694814)

      Deaths in Europe from heat are higher than in the USA largely because so few people have air conditioning.

      No they aren't. Deaths in Europe from heat are due to people being unprepared with what to do with such heat. You can see the absurdity in action on any UK beach, when it gets hot people go to the beach. Quite the opposite action from what people do in countries which are routinely hot like Australia where people stay the hell out of the sun on hot days, or the middle east or south of Spain where people routinely don't work in the height of the heat and resume activity after it has cooled down. The UK especially has deaths due to heat is not correlated against other county's use of air-conditioning.

      You don't need air-conditioning. You need understanding. You need shade, air, water, and you can withstand 40C just fine. Or if you're truly incapable of basic thought, sure throw in an air-conditioning, turn it on, hope for the best, all the while contributing to the very situation you currently find yourself in right now.

      and they have it with nuclear fission.

      They do not have that with nuclear fission. Any proposed additional load needs to be considered with any proposed additional generation. Unless you're suggesting your magical solution is that the UK should buy air-conditioning units in 30 years they don't magically get powered by nuclear.

      • Want to bet that in 30 years the energy problem will still not be solved, and we will be wishing we didn't listen to anti-nuclear morons like you 30 years ago?

        • Re:Nuclear power and air conditioners (Score:4, Insightful)

          by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @05:03AM (#63695740)

          Want to bet that in 30 years the energy problem will still not be solved, and we will be wishing we didn't listen to anti-nuclear morons like you 30 years ago?

          I'm not anti nuclear. I actually *worked in the industry* and wish I still did. I just have enough of a clue to face the stark reality: If we started building nuclear now we won't solve anything in 30 years either. As it stands the UK has a couple of planned nuclear projects. As it stands they can find ... no one to build them. A fantasy we can't realise is not a solution to a problem. The nuclear industry is in tatters. The major EPCMs can't even get the few projects they have off the ground. The actual experts have aged out or changed careers. The support industry for construction ceased existing 30 years ago.

          There's no amount of money you can throw at nuclear now to make it a viable solution in 30 years, or 50 years (though maybe ... 70 years could be a stretch goal).

          So no. I don't want to bet. I know the energy problem will not be solved in 30 years. Not without nuclear. Not with nuclear. Nuclear is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

          • Want to bet that in 30 years the energy problem will still not be solved, and we will be wishing we didn't listen to anti-nuclear morons like you 30 years ago?

            I'm not anti nuclear. I actually *worked in the industry* and wish I still did. I just have enough of a clue to face the stark reality: If we started building nuclear now we won't solve anything in 30 years either. As it stands the UK has a couple of planned nuclear projects. As it stands they can find ... no one to build them. A fantasy we can't realise is not a solution to a problem. The nuclear industry is in tatters. The major EPCMs can't even get the few projects they have off the ground. The actual experts have aged out or changed careers. The support industry for construction ceased existing 30 years ago.

            There's no amount of money you can throw at nuclear now to make it a viable solution in 30 years, or 50 years (though maybe ... 70 years could be a stretch goal).

            So no. I don't want to bet. I know the energy problem will not be solved in 30 years. Not without nuclear. Not with nuclear. Nuclear is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

            France, under Messmer plan, went from announcement in 1974, to first reactors working in 1980, and 56 running in 1989. They had no "developed nuclear industry" prior to that either. It's perfectly possible, just need to cut the red tape put in place by antinuclear morons, and put some political will into it. And if you doubt your own nuclear industry then you can buy from Koreans, Japanese, French even, whoever - either directly buy reactors, or negotiate a technology transfer and build your own.

            • France, under Messmer plan, went from announcement in 1974, to first reactors working in 1980

              Look any time you want to compare nuclear now to nuclear 50 years ago. Don't. In 1980s we built things. Just built them. Then spent many years fixing the problems identified. The industry now is many orders of magnitude more complex than it was back then. Additionally the construction industry back then was well suited for nuclear reactors with much of the process world designed based on local production and assembly. In the past 30 years that has fundamentally changed, we no longer build things locally, we

      • Unless you're suggesting your magical solution is that the UK should buy air-conditioning units in 30 years they don't magically get powered by nuclear.

        Maybe they should have built those low-CO2 emitting plants 30 years ago. Maybe they should built them now (oh wait, they are, as are a lof of other countries). Or they can start in 30 years to build them, and watch people die in the meantime.

        The best time to plant a tree was 30 years ago. The second best time is today.

        And if you are the guy that prevented us from planting it 30 years ago, at least have the decency to shup up.

        • Maybe they should have built those low-CO2 emitting plants 30 years ago.

          Yes absolutely. But we can't travel in time.

          Maybe they should built them now (oh wait, they are, as are a lof of other countries).

          No we aren't. The rate at which we are cranking out nuclear plants is absolutely abysmal. Additionally nuclear construction requires a lot of local expertise, the fact that China cranks out a few reactors (which fall apart right after startup) doesn't mean the UK has any ability to build one locally.

          Or they can start in 30 years to build them, and watch people die in the meantime.

          At least you're admitting people die in the meantime. We're too late to use nuclear as a solution to the problem. To be honest we're facing the same issue with green e

          • At least you're admitting people die in the meantime.

            People are not only dying in the meantime. They have been dying since 30 years and the failure of some countries to act when it was more necessary to act.
            CO2 and climate change, pollution from coal plants, are the silent killers of the last 50 years. People think that because coal is burnt far from them, it doesn't impact them. This is just not the case, as had been shown by respiratory diseases they can see in France, that is linked to lignite burning from their Germany neighbor.

            We're too late to use nuclear as a solution to the problem. To be honest we're facing the same issue with green energy stuff.

            This is because you are lo

  • Shut down all industry and transportation.

  • “We’re gonna wait (Score:3)

    by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Monday July 17, 2023 @06:47PM (#63694764)
    until at least half the world actually take the problem seriously” That’s the plan. That’s literally the best that any government can currently do.

    Absolutely no country is taking this problem seriously. A third of the world actually cares, a third of the world is too poor, weak, disorganized or uneducated to do anything about it, and a third is actively fighting any climate action whatsoever. The dictators and emperors don’t give a rats ass about anything beyond their own lifetimes, and democracies are hamstrung because anytime conservatives take power they put every climate change document they can get their hands on into the shredder. No serious planning is possible. Obama probably initiated some climate change planning, Trump made a dumpster fire out of it, Biden has probably restarted it, but the next president will probably be republican and it’s back to square zero.

    We are not going to take this seriously until entire country-sized regions of the world get badly wrecked. And it’s gotta happen in the rich world. If it just affects the poors, nobody with power is gonna care.

    I tend to be an optimist, but not on this topic. As a species, we blew it on this one. It’s gonna hit us, it’s gonna hit us hard cause we’ve done literally zero planning or mitigation. We’ll deal with the train AFTER it hits us.

    • Yup. It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck, where the rear cars have already veered off track while the individuals in the front cars remain oblivious, believing they will remain unscathed as they continue to watch their Netflix show.

      At first, I feel like a bystander, watching the train and its spectators. Then, I realize I'm actually on the same train, a remarkably long one, and the consequences are gradually reaching us.

      Fun times.

    • That's a pretty grim prognosis there, sunshine.

      I share your concern, but I am not so pessimistic. There is still time to mitigate this disaster to some extent. Yes a lot of global warming is baked in already and it will be bad, but it could be a lot worse.

      The current administration in the US has done a pretty commendable job of moving things toward net zero. I agree that if the GOP gets the presidency all of that progress will be put on hold or destroyed.

      • The current US administration has increased immigration dramatically. I think in 2021 & 2022 the combined numbers were close to 4 million people. Not sure what 2023 will be, but I've heard more. I don't see how all the additional people coming from presumably lower per capita energy consumption locales to the USA can be moving the the world's or USA's energy consumption lower.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      All the government in the UK needs to do is get out of the way. There are investors just waiting to throw money at new renewables here, but planning rules and a very slow offshore opportunity auction process are holding them up. There is currently a ban on all new on-shore wind, and solar is hard to get planning permission for too.

      To deal with the inevitable heat, planning rules need to be urgently reformed. A lot of buildings still don't have dual aspect windows. We need to mandate that, and exterior shutt

  • Nature will restore itself. We just wonâ(TM)t be about to see it

  • The plan is "Have the waiter put ice in my gin and tonic" while the poor and the elderly die in droves.

  • in climate change action - the planets fucked for human life,
  • Asking the foxes to guard the henhouses. Sunak is a Tory shill protecting big money including petrochemical plutocrats. XR is spitting into a hurricane because no one wants to admit that the current organization of industrial society is unsustainable in its present form. End ff extraction, ICEs, meat agriculture, and traditional cement/clinker manufacturing and then get to work on biologically-assisted carbon capture and sequestration at scale. Our only hope is the insurance industry will beat the big money

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Users know your home telephone number.

Close