Are parties taking climate change seriously in the election? 

The Green Party get around 10 seconds! If you want a proper appraisal, at least give them adequate time on this to outline what they consider necessary. It is one of their core policy positions.

I find it quite difficult to understand how it’s only the Lib Dems and the Greens who have seriously campaigned on the environment this election cycle. Quite why the other parties aren’t able to appreciate the urgency, I’m not sure…

The first action the Tories took in power was to remove solar subsidies. Never forget.

We are completely screwed thinking any of these corrupt politicians would ever make an unselfish decision to help the entire planet and its inhabitants

The Tory minister Rebecca Pow sounds completely clueless, no idea at all regarding the seriousness of these issues.

Politicians can't see past about 4 years

It reminds me of Cassandra in Greek mythology. We're all screaming the truth and nobody believes us.

We have reduced our co2 production by reducing our industrial base . The destruction of our steel industry for example. And importing steel instead therefore exporting our co2 production .

1.5 degrees of warming is already baked in. We’ll struggle to keep temperature rises below 2 degrees. We need action now.

Are private jetsetting politicians taking climate change seriously,......hilarious.

Maybe it’s not a good idea to put the fox in charge of the henhouse.

He said, "we are going to spend more money to make it cheaper."

I would be voting green from now on. 💚 They have the best environmental, transport, housing and services policies that work best for the people of the UK. Reform UK have way too many negatives, some positive policies, but the climate and transport policies would be horrific! 😮

Stop worrying about this non event - live your life and enjoy yourself. Fly everywhere and enjoy a juicy steak 🥩

In that interview she brought up the government rolling back the EV adoption plan... she stayed on oil and gas and they NEVER got back to the EV adoption rollback. That was a CRUCIAL mistake. Huge. Any party delaying EV adoption needs to be kicked out of office. For the climate, nature, energy efficiency, and air pollution impacts, air pollution that kills 5 to 9 million human beings a year... unforgivable.

Are the super rich, the people who run the world, taking it seriously? I think most people know the answer to that. However, looking at most of the other comments here, so many of you are confused as why that would be. Isn't it clear, that what they (and the media they own) ARE taking seriously is telling us that 'we' need to take it seriously? People, please use your brains!

I hope we have a series of awful environmental catastrophes. The only thing voters and politicians seem to respond to is immediate danger and catastrophe, they forget about it by next year, and politicians blame all the spin-off problems on other sources. More pain now will kick our butts into gear so we can secure a more prosperous future.

1.5 is over.

Definitely voting Greens, for their inspiring humanitarian and environmental policies. They seem the only party with a viable vision for a fairer future for us all 💚

When tf are we going to get over our addiction to money and profit and get serious about the future of our descendants? It’s the 21st century ffs 🤦‍♀️🤬

Voting Green this year, and have joined the party. No other party is taking this seriously enough.

THERE'S NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!!

Can't think how any of this is going to make any measurable difference to the climate. The sun drives the climate. We are just along for the ride. We do need to get a grip on pollution. But a lot of their solutions do just as much damage as they are trying to avoid. Take electric cars, for example. The damage they cause to manufacture.

Honestly, watching this from outside the UK, I envy you on this issue. Even the Conservatives sound quite reasonable, they are not denying climate change, they are building renewables, though maybe a bit slower than would be ideal. In many other countries politicians right of center are screaming about "stopping Green ideology", with of course most dangerous being Trump, because the US is the most powerful and influential country in the world.

The latest estimates on the AMOC collapse is worrying (an average 10 degree drop in temperature for the UK) and the WAIS seems to be a done deal, so that's Lincolnshire gone in the next 100-300 years. We will have to relocate all the oil refineries and nuclear power stations located on vulnerable coastal areas, and that'll take a while. Meanwhile the media seem to think the most important 'news' is the relationships between celebrity politicians. You couldn't make it up.

1990's was the time to vote. The science was crystal clear what would happen if the world continued to warm. Now we are stuck with the consequences of poorly chosen greedy politicians.

I m voting green it is the only way. I have 5 grand children i want them to enjoy a clean environment and a long life

It’s a tax scam

No, neither party thinks it is real. They are rich and out of touch.

The average Brit understands this and doesn't do anything meaningful to campaign for change. We basically don't care about our kids or grandchildren, about British wildlife, or about our own lives down the line. What has to change?

Why don’t you get Carolyn Lucas to challenge this woman. Rubbish. Barb

Why do we have a housing shortage when we have more houses in the UK than ever before and a birth rate that has declined since the 1960s and with many people deciding not to have children at all or remaining in their parental home to a greater age. The Tories stopped onshore wind power development and removed subsidies for solar expansion

I’m voting green even if others in my area won’t

It is about time it was brought back to everybody’s attention!!🙂‍↕️

A Poll on Channel 4 news yesterday evening had Climate Change/Environment at the bottom by quite a long way. The poll was taken from 16 to 24 year olds.

"Prediction is central to the process of science-it is fundamental to the scientific method." Accept no prediction as to how the climate will respond to net zero.

The solution is extremely simple: decrease the human population by not having so many offspring. A lot of people on Earth have 6, 7, 8 or more kids... if everyone had two kids the population would naturally decrease. It took from the beginning of humanity over several million years until 1980 to get the population to 4 billion people and now, only 45 years have passed and we're up to 8 billion people. Population control is the biggest issue. We're like a bacterial colony in a petri dish and we've covered to entire surface... We're the number one global invasive species.

'...should be worried when they are literally ostriches with their heads in the sand.' She's right, ostriches might be extinct within our lifetimes

Going to Chester Zoo for this was nice but feels like a bit of an unneccessary flex.

oh dear she has no plans at all

The UN's IPCC AR6, chapter 12 "Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment", section 12.5.2, table 12.12 confirms there is a lack of evidence or no signal that the following have changed: Air Pollution Weather (temperature inversions), Aridity, Avalanche (snow), Average precipitation, Average Wind Speed, Coastal Flood, Agricultural drought, Hydrological drought, Erosion of Coastlines, Fire Weather (hot and windy), Flooding From Heavy Rain (pluvial floods), Frost, Hail, Heavy Rain, Heavy Snowfall and Ice Storms, Landslides, Marine Heatwaves, Ocean Acidity, Radiation at the Earth’s Surface, River/Lake Floods, Sand and Dust Storms, Sea Level, Severe Wind Storms, Snow, Glacier, and Ice Sheets, Tropical Cyclones. How about some quotes from the UN's IPCC AR6? "There is low confidence in the emergence of heavy precipitation and pluvial and river flood frequency in observations, despite trends that have been found in a few regions." "There is low confidence in the emergence of drought frequency in observations, for any type of drought, in all regions." "Observed mean surface wind speed trends are present in many areas, but the emergence of these trends from the interannual natural variability and their attribution to human-induced climate change remains of low confidence due to various factors such as changes in the type and exposure of recording instruments, and their relation to climate change is not established. . . The same limitation also holds for wind extremes (severe storms, tropical cyclones, sand and dust storms)." There is no objective observational evidence that we are living through a global climate crisis. None.

promises meant to be broken

I loathe what the Tories have done to this country and could never vote for them. However, the manifesto from Labour is extraordinarily weak and inadequate. Where are Labour's plans to reduce wealth inequalities? The Greens even have a vastly better tax plan than Labour - 1% annual wealth tax on assets above £10m and 2% on assets above £1bn, along with reforms to Capital Gains Tax to align with workers' income tax, and removing the upper earnings limit on national insurance.

Remember the movie the road. Well thats humanitys downfall.

Wild disposable bbq fires.

I live in a cold weather climate. I'm hoping for a little global warming. It will improve my life.

We belong to nature not the other way around . 😢

To be honest I'm more worried about the child trafficking.

The climate is returning to where it was two thousand years ago and it will take two thousand years for it to happen (again). There is no climate crisis.

You have to watch Climate Change - The Movie

Lots of finger pointing ... not good enough

Cheeky BP putting up adverts during this video about how green they are becoming. Clever cookies, what they don't tell you on the advert is how minuscule of of a proportion of their investments is whatever greening of their operations really is. Come on CEO, Murray Auchincloss, BP can afford to do better, and as the benefiters of this destruction you ought to do better!!!

Please stop arguing, its hard to understand one another. Come on

No. Nor Brexit. Nor Palestine either.

Never seen & heard so many grifters in one upload. This would be good for my roses. 🌹 🥀 🌹

the zoo looks gorgeous today

For God's sake stop lying!

When are they ever going to listen,….to my opinion

From the analysis and studies published by Mr. Belisario H Romo PhD 2020-2023 This further reinforces the argument that attributing atmospheric temperature changing forcing to anthropogenic causes “is and absolutely ignorant, stupid and unsupported dogma,” given the immense thermal inertia and timescales involved in the Earth's climate system, particularly the soil respiration, photosynthesis, trees and plants, continental rift, and oceans degassing (97.03% of CO2 equivalent emissions). Present technology can not "model" all these variable parameters not even in a magical mode. That's why 126 climate+ models are WRONG! A joke. A bad one. On top of which other major forcing have to be accounted for: water vapor, particulate matter, dust, cosmic rays’ albedo ...and of course, the main source of energy the Sun. Now beyond these considerations, we have physics, thermodynamics, and nuclear chemistry. To convert gigatons of carbon (GtC) to gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2), we use the molecular weight ratio of CO2 to C, which is approximately 44/12. Photosynthesis: 120 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 440 GtCO2 Ocean Degassing: 90 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 330 GtCO2 Soil Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Plant Respiration: 60 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 220 GtCO2 Fossil Fuel Emissions: 10 GtC × (44/12) ≈ 37 GtCO2 Updated CO2 emissions Summary 2023: Photosynthesis: 440 GtCO2 per year 35.28% Ocean Degassing: 330 GtCO2 per year 26.47% Soil Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Plant Respiration: 220 GtCO2 per year 17.64% Fossil Fuel Emissions: 37 GtCO2 per year 2.97% ~Total: 1,247 GtCO2 per year 100% Conclusion: Natural earth's emissions of CO2 eq are in fact, 32.7 times larger than anthropogenic emissions. Annual increments of 2.5 ppmv into the atmosphere include all sources. Since man-made or anthropogenic contributions are only ~ 2.97% of the total earth’s emissions, the unfeaceble results from the global ignorant + stupid policies of Net Zero CO2 are perverse, twisted, and fraudulent, since the retarded, childish, and silly absurdity of reducing absolutely all anthropogenic CO2 emissions will refer exclusively to that ~ “2.97%” therefore the reduction of the total earth atmospheric temperature will reflect an infinitesimal change only relative to that minuscule percentage. Unless all emissions and forcing remained univariable which will never happen. Soil respiration has a season variability of up to ~30-50 % this variability alone is 17 times greater than all anthropogenic coal, gas, and petroleum emissions combined. Conclusion: water vapor, particulate matter, dust, cosmic rays’ albedo ...and of course, the main source of energy the Sun (not included) The estimated temperature changes due to each source of CO2, based on their radiative forcing contributions, are as follows: • Photosynthesis: 0.365°C • Ocean Degassing: 0.275°C • Soil Respiration: 0.185°C • Plant Respiration: 0.185°C • Fossil Fuel Emissions: 0.030°C arxiv.org/html/2406.07392v1 Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase R. Lindzen Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.A W. Happer Department of Physics, Princeton University, U.S.A W. A. van Wijngaarden Department of Physics and Astronomy, York University, Canada (June 11, 2024) Abstract Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO2 emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ∘C (0.015 ∘F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO2 emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ∘C (0.13 ∘F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ∘C (0.061 ∘F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). Conclusion As shown by (1), (23), (25) and (26), there appears to be no credible scenario where driving U.S. emissions of CO2 to zero by the year 2050 would avert a temperature increase of more than a few hundredths of a degree centigrade. The immense costs and sacrifices involved would lead to a reduction in warming approximately equal to the measurement uncertainty. "It is impossible to find a more perfect example of a sublime global stupid policy: "all pain and no gain. Data, physical facts, and calculations conclusively determine that even if the entire world achieved “net zero” emissions by 2050, even with the perversely exaggerated IPCC’s 4 larger positive feedbacks climate sensitivity, the reduction in global warming would be a mere 0.28 ∘C (0.50 ∘F). The net zero policy is a dogmatic, narcissistic global initiative that is utterly absurd. Natural factors like solar cycles, atmospheric dust, water vapor variability, volcanic activities, soils respiration, ocean degasification, and naturally generated aerosols will vastly outweigh any negligible temperature reduction from eliminating global CO2 emissions. The Net Zero Global Agenda, based on fabricated false syllogism of a non-existent climate change crisis, is indisputably stupid: "all pain and zero gain." Even if every nation on the planet could miraculously reduce their CO2 emissions to Net Zero by 2050 (or any other “always in the future target” year), the temperature increase averted would only be a few hundredths of a degree Celsius, a change too minuscule to be measure accurately, and well within the margin of error and uncertainty. This fact demonstrates the sheer futility and absurdity of the “Net Zero” imposing by decree and obscene subsidies, the even more polluting Green “Sustainable + Clean” Energies agenda. Dogmatic: The term implies an unyielding adherence to a particular doctrine and blind activism, without considering facts, data, or science. Given that the Net Zero policy is promoted based only on beliefs, consensus, and manipulated false convictions, crisis, and urgency, disregarding the scientific method and data, describing it as "dogmatic" is appropriate. Narcissistic: The climate change crisis is a self-centred, grandiose approach to a fabricated existential false threat. Global policies are being pushed with an “argumentum ad baculum” sense of moral superiority, with total disregard for data, knowledge, science, logic, or the practical real-world impacts on humans. It is, in fact, sociopathic narcissism. Global Stupid Policy: The Net Zero “goal” is indeed a global initiative. Climate change is a natural and ongoing process, with the Earth's climate always experiencing fluctuations. Globalists have rebranded “Global Warming” as “Climate Change” as a sale publicity pitch. In reality, the Earth is still recovering from the last Ice Age, a process that undeniably and naturally involves periods of warming none of these caused by anthropogenic emissions, since man did not exist at the time or didn’t use coal gas or petroleum. If globalists assume they can control the global climate, they might naively believe they can achieve a state where the climate remains static. This delusion leads to the absurd conclusion that they could inadvertently halt natural climate variations altogether, potentially causing more harm than good. Such a belief exemplifies sublime stupidity-an Olympic-class level of ignorance. The notion that human intervention can regulate the Earth's climate to a perfect equilibrium is not only scientifically baseless but also dangerously arrogant. Furthermore, increased CO2 levels have directly contributed to numerous benefits, including enhanced food production, higher GDP, improved greenery, and increased human longevity. These factors demonstrate the complexity of the climate system and the essential role CO2 plays in supporting life and economic growth. Reducing CO2 emissions drastically without considering these benefits could lead to unintended negative consequences, making the Net Zero agenda not only impractical but also criminal, genocidal and suicidal. Utterly Absurd: Since there is absolutely not a single potential benefit of the Net Zero global policy to justify the social and economic costs and self-imposed civilization collapse, furthermore when natural emissions overshadow any minimal impact of human emissions.

There has been a 10% decline in natural disasters since 2000 (CRED). Normalised disaster losses have decreased since 1990 and human mortality due to extreme weather has decreased by more than 95% since 1920, so you're 50 times less likely to die from a climate-related disaster in a world that's 1°C warmer than 100 years ago (EM-DAT, CRED/UC). Deaths from drought have declined by 99%! As an example of good news, Climate Change saved 555,103 lives in England and Wales between 2001 and 2020 (ONS, 2022).

CLIMATE SCAM.

You'd need to address geoengineering stratospheric aerosol injections of various nano particles to be serious .

Thanks for posting

I live in the Philippines. Even if you all stopped using electricity and turned to eating grass - there's 12 people to ur 1 here going full speed in the other direction. On the road going to my next municipality (7km) they built 12 gas stations.

So biased. What about energy security for the country? How you going to do that without nuclear

No one’s taking it seriously because we all know it’s bollox 😂

Its doesn’t exist, that’s why no one cares.

all lies

Still waiting for the millions of climate refugees. They have been assuring us for 50 years that this would come to pass. Of course always 5 years from now..😄

Jill Stein 2024

Europe 7% of global emissions. China 36%. The USA 16%. All Asia 46%. Who the heck are you kidding!

Cold 🥶 this summer , Freezing, Got heating on , Climate is getting colder in uk 🇬🇧

Reform party makes more sense, As it is cold 🥶 this summer ☀️

Go vegan

What about the giants of the world....uk is miniscule compared to India China ect

So much buull$hit ...still...so little time!!

At 6 min this woman cab lie and con better than trump

Let's hope not.

stop lying🤐🤐🤐🤐🤐

Too bad we're already over 1.5 degrees. Whoops.

Our leaders are high on power and greed, they are not worthy of our vote….vote green. Barb

Time to vote green!

VOTE REFORM

What about massive demographic changes to our social environment? When do we get Net-zero immigration to protect our natural cultural eco-system?