The annual British Fashion Council (BFC) industry awards and fundraiser held this week concludes an uneasy yet persistently buoyant year in fashion.

This autumn the London Design Festival (LDF) – a behemoth of all things design – clashed with London Fashion Week (LFW), another monster of events, which in turn overlapped with the legendary Goodwood Vintage Revival Festival.

Trying to attend everything  mammoth task.

Latest innovations

Several shows at LFW took a less prominent role than usual, which felt odd. The festival acts as a barometer of future fashion, not only in terms of style, but in signalling sources of inspiration for designers. 

The festival platformed the latest innovations and hosted independent discussions that explored the ways in which current political and social issues are affecting fashion and design. There was a notable emphasis on ethics, an area only recently a focus for fashion.

These discussions asked, what will be translated from show to High Street store as ‘retail for the people?’ How will fashion editors, bloggers, buyers, students and stylists utilise catwalk finds – for example, at the Paul Costelloe show, with its beautifully, arduously tailored collections, bursting with colour. 

This show consciously utilised Irish and Italian heritage materials noted for their quality. Such gaiety may be read as a response to these politically unstable times, where Costelloe’s futuristic, oversized sculpted shapes brimmed with optimism not to mention escapism. 

Access

All this is LFW in the normal scheme of things. But fashion week is never ‘normal’, given its often ludicrous expectations and implications, for designers and associates alike. And its hierarchy. Oh yes, attendees best ‘dress to impress’ and ‘know their place’, as reflected by exclusive-access areas and seating allocation. Over the seasons I’ve witnessed several spats between attendees coveting the front row or ‘frow’.

Reportage from LFW is changing too, as social media continues to snowball and shake things up. Plus, this season’s move by the British Fashion Council to sell tickets to the public to some shows significantly opens upon up what has traditionally been a trade-only event.

There is also greater pressure annually from environmental protesters at LFW, particularly from PETA, which played a part in changing policies at LFW – and rightly so. 

Brexit 

Added to this, lest we forget, Brexit! Fashion is facing much uncertainty. So this September especially, normality was an anomaly. What will LFW morph into post-Brexit? Deal or no deal? A no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for the fashion industry, which employs over 10,000 European staff and where freedom of movement is key. It is estimated that switching to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules would cost the industry around £900million, according to the BFC.

With designers keen to achieve high artistry, adopting a global approach to business – from sourcing fabric, through to finding quality pattern cutters – fashion’s component parts traverse borders multiple times before arriving as a finished product. 

Samples are also taken to a variety of international markets and shows during selling season. This adds a level of complexity not dissimilar to other component goods industries such as the automotive industry.

British fashion is an artistic industry comprised of anarchy, progressive talent, influential retail, arts and crafts. This attracts tourists and attendees from overseas.

Pam Hogg

High priestess of punk, Pam Hogg is one such designer who not only champions diversity and anarchy but frequently works on a budget.

Here couture and ready to wear (RTW) garments are often decidedly niche and resultantly ‘artistic anarchy in motion’. Her cult following is loyal and includes many musicians and celebrities. 

This season’s show is one of her best. And just as well, given the oppressively hot venue with bright lights, rammed with Pam-devotees, but with little air and nowhere to get water-without losing one’s coveted space. Folk began wilting.

Photographers in the ‘pit’ proved particularly irate, intensely uncomfortable and glued to each other in their own tiered hierarchy. They began shouting at an audience member seated in the front row whose feet protrude onto part of the runway. The ‘offender’ moved them to cheers all round. For a freelance photographer, space is money.

Best in show

Suddenly the lights were lowered then raised again, beaming the brightest rays and loudest music. ‘Rrrruuuuf’,  a dog barks on a soundtrack that opened the show and immediately there are ‘people pooches’ on parade.

There is often an element of an underworld of unashamed stylish seediness to Hogg’s work, referencing club-land and ‘outsiders’.  But this show is far more ‘chic flounce’ and, as ever, a welcome relief from the conventional ‘pretty’ in mainstream fashion.

Entitled ‘Best in Show’ its all pomp and ‘poodle-ness’ akin to the often ostentation of a dog show. The clothes look fantastic, fitting skin tightly in their shiny gold, gaudy glam.

One t-shirt reads ‘Pam’s poodle parlour’ and I want it. Heart-warmingly, the model walks nonchalantly out as though his wholly eye-catching outfit is everyday wear. Followed by confident women of all shapes, skin colour and age.

Men are in make-up. Each model beautiful, uniquely individual and enhancing the designs. Pinks and patterned prints depicting dogs are writ loud on frilly full-skirted dresses. High hats that would be at home in ‘Alice in Wonderland’ add to the impact.

Two young men in high heels emerge, one leading the other on a dog leash, referencing S&M, drag queens and the music scene. All signify self expression and freedom through fashion. The marvellous misfits strut as though made for modelling and confident in their outfits. This is the stuff which makes LFW.

Proudly different

As well as championing diversity, Hogg channels contemporary new wave and its spirit of DIY crossed with couture.

Every show has something recycled. She’s been doing this for years with her own clothes since aged 6, with ‘hand-me-downs’. All the Hogg handmade couture pieces are made from leftover and found fabrics from way back.

Hogg explained: “The gold fabric I’ve re-used over and over, utilising the last in this show and purchased fifteen years ago. Some fabrics are 30 years old. The print I designed is new and for the ‘selling collection’. The commercial element enables me to maintain studio rent. I’ve not sold to shops for years.”

In this respect Hogg has always done it ‘her way’. Not the easiest path but persistently hedonist and realist in the sense of better enabling and encouraging people to ‘be who they are’. Or in Hogg’s couture, who they want to be.

This Author

Wendyrosie Scott is an anthropologist, journalist & stylist focusing on design & creative communities. She looks at positive partnerships between lifestyle trends & the natural world.

Image: ⓒ Simon Armstrong.

The majority of the British public – including almost half of Tory voters – support the total decarbonisation of the UK economy in 10 years, a poll conducted last month shows. 

To put this into context, we have to remember where we were a year ago: the British government had a target of an 80 percent reduction in emissions by 2050 and this was considered pretty good at the level of the general public. There was little discussion about the efficacy of the Paris agreement – the UN and international bodies had climate change under control, we were on the way to saving the world.

Climate wasn’t a topic for energised political discussion. It certainly wasn’t seen as an emergency.

Extraordinary shift

I had a quick look this morning at the polls subsequent to the 2017 general election showing the top issues that motivated people to vote, just to dispel any confirmation bias I might be experiencing. The issues ranked in importance were: Brexit, terrorism, NHS, immigration and the economy.

Now one year later the majority of the British public wants to finish off the fossil fuel industry in a decade. This is an extraordinary shift. A poll a couple of weeks ago showed climate and environment as the number three issue, ahead of crime and the economy and close behind health and Brexit.

Critiques of Extinction Rebellion notwithstanding, no one could suggest in all seriousness that this monumental shift in public opinion would have been possible without XR’s actions over the past year, and – I would contend – without the 3,000 people who have been arrested.

Of course the school strikes have made a huge contribution, and I think Labour’s Green New Deal plans have been important in moving a significant number of left activists into the climate space. But in terms of communicating the urgency to take action, and framing climate change as a crisis, XR led the charge.

Now comes the hard bit. 

Citizens Assembly 

XR has three demands: for governments to tell the truth and declare a climate emergency; to legislate for net zero emissions by 2025; and to establish a Citizens’ Assembly to formulate the policies to reach that 2025 target.

I want to focus on this final demand because it illustrates how I think XR and the climate movement more widely might think about future strategy.

The Citizens’ Assembly demand enabled XR to build a mass movement in a very short period of time. The demand crosses ideological boundaries and the message that political institutions are failing and we can’t trust politicians to sort out the climate crisis, landed at just the right time, in the midst of the never-ending psycho-drama of Brexit.

I have spoken to probably thousands of people over the past year and delivered the message that we need a Citizens’ Assembly. And while I still think it can be an extremely powerful tool to democratise policy making, it has a major, fundamental design flaw – it fails to acknowledge the existence of power relations and the deep roots of the climate crisis.

This demand assumes – blithely – that power will surrender itself voluntarily whilst simultaneously dismantling its own institutions by handing over power to determine the future of our economic and social structures to randomly chosen people.

This, I think, is naïve if you have any understanding of state power, and the history of the British state in particular.

As Marx said, power is a resource, which means that it is always in limited supply. By not engaging seriously with this failing, I believe XR has left some people adrift and is in danger of creating the conditions for climate action to perpetuate the horrors and oppressions of extractivist colonialism.

Naming the system

So how can we fix this? I think we have to do better at, as Jason W. Moore puts it, “naming the system.” Specifically, naming capitalism and neo-colonialism as the systems of oppression underpinning the crisis.

I think we have to start explaining to people that the climate crisis is not the start of a scary new thing but the end of a 500-year process.

There’s this graph that shows that more carbon has been released from burning fossil fuels in the last 30 years than in all of human history. Among other data points, this framing has helped create an artificial sense of the newness of climate crisis – that if only governments had put up more solar panels and wind farms in the 80s and 90s we could have averted this thing. I’ve been guilty of framing it this way myself at times.

And in a very narrow sense that is true, but it completely fails to engage with the geo-historical nature of the climate crisis. Neo-colonial capitalism was never going to stop burning the fossil fuels – is never going to stop burning fossils. The climate crisis is the inevitable end of the underpinning systems.

So unless we start naming the system, and educating people that the roots of the crisis are hundreds of years old, and are intimately bound up with slavery, with the genocide of Indigenous people, the plunder of resources, cultures and bodies, I think XR is in real danger of re-creating the old oppressions, just this time powered by solar panels. And none of us should aspire to a climate-safe future of oppression. It is nothing worth fighting for – and nothing worth handing to our children.

Eco-fascism 

So why has this come about? I think one reason is that for a long time there was an idea that action on climate change would automatically be left wing, inclusive and compassionate. The resistance of the right to climate politics sort of logically suggested this would be the case.

But we can see how this is obviously not the case. The far-right terrorist who massacred 50 Muslims in New Zealand explicitly called himself an eco-fascist, as did the Trump supporting white supremacist who murdered dozens of mainly Hispanic people in the Walmart in Texas a couple of months ago.

In September 2017, American Renaissance, a white nationalist magazine, presented a question to its readership: “What does it mean for whites if climate change is real?” and said the biggest danger was the population explosion in the global south and liberal open borders.

Marine Le Pen has promised to make Europe the world’s “first ecological civilisation” and the National Front has said borders are the environment’s “greatest ally”. The real fear has always been not that the nationalist right would keep denying climate change – but that eventually they would wake up to it.

Climate justice 

So the first thing I think XR needs to do is to start naming the system and talking explicitly about justice.

This conversation is starting, with some advocating that a fourth demand is added centred on justice, and I hope this conversation results in that fourth demand being added. But we cannot just tack justice on as a demand – it needs to be embedded in how we think and talk about solutions to the crisis.

Justice has to be the over-arching framework within which the future is considered and solutions are formulated.

For some in XR the addition of justice takes the movement away from the narrow focus on climate that has helped us grow so quickly. Yes, it does. And that’s why I think it’s necessary.

I believe XR – as a powerful and trusted new cultural voice – has a deep responsibility to guide the conversation towards justice. If we ever get a Citizens’ Assembly, the people sitting on that Assembly won’t step into the room from a political vacuum. They will take with them underlying assumptions and narratives swirling around the culture. We must start the work now of shaping those narratives.  

Class solidarity 

The second thing I think XR and the climate movement more broadly needs to do – related to this – is to turn climate action into much more of a class interest. We need to build a kind of climate-class solidarity that would really broaden the movement and help deliver the outcomes that have a better chance of empowering – and freeing – more people.

I have a bit of insight into this I think. I grew up working class on a council estate with two parents who struggled every month. They don’t particularly feel climate is a real problem or really understand why I am an activist on this issue. Let’s just say they didn’t congratulate me for getting arrested at London City airport.

My parents have lived their lives with more pressing, immediate problems to deal with, which is entirely understandable right? If you’re struggling to pay the rent or the mortgage or having to carefully budget to put food on the table for two sons, you have no time to think about threats beyond the next few days, let alone in 30 years’ time.

It’s not going to be easy to change this but we need to engage with working communities in order to build climate solutions into a broader vision of a new economy and society.

If climate action continues to be seen as antagonistic – rather than supportive – of working class communities we fatally wound our cause. Embedding justice in our demands can help us do this – but only if we actually go out into those communities and engage with people. 

Moving forwards

Related to this, the climate movement has to guard against the kind of organising that channels influence to those with the resources to free up their time. Because naturally this tends towards cliques and an unrepresentative concentration of decision-making power, and unrepresentative outcomes.

As someone with a full time job I am feeling this a bit at the moment myself. I also think we may have seen this dynamic at play with the the much-criticised tube action in October.

The final challenge we have is turning this huge upswell of activity and public engagement into action. As much progress as we’ve made, the earth systems don’t care about polls or blocked roads. Emissions are still going up, ecosystems are still collapsing and the fossil fuel industry still has us in a choke hold.

We have to concern ourselves with politics as it exists, rather than airily claiming to be “beyond politics.” This means engaging with parliamentary politics and with elections, and looking for mechanisms of real power within existing systems to deliver climate justice.

We don’t have the luxury of waiting for perfect conditions, or the perfect political party. When the opportunity to make large leaps within the bounds of an imperfect system present themselves, we have to seize them.

This Author 

Nathan Williams is a climate activist with experience working on climate change policy. 

This article is based on speech delivered at Historical Materialism (2019).

Hot temperatures – which will become more common as climate breakdown takes hold – has been linked to premature births, scientists say.

A study found a spike in birth rates when temperatures reach 32.2C when researchers looked at birth records of 56 million Americans born between 1969 and 1988.

During this period, an average of 25,000 babies were born up to two weeks early each year as a result of heatwaves, according to the study.

Births

This represents a loss of more than 150,000 gestational days annually, according to scientists from the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA).

Shorter gestational periods have been linked to negative health and cognitive outcomes later in life.

Previous research has linked hot weather to an acceleration of childbirth and shorter gestations.

Scientists used estimated changes in daily birth rates from counties across America to quantify the total number of lost days of gestation associated with heat over a span of two decades.

The sample for the research published in Nature Climate Change (NCC) included 56 million births.

Hot weather

Researchers estimate that birth rates increase by five% on days with a maximum temperature above 32.2°C (90°F), with an average gestational reduction of 6.1 days – some births occurred two weeks early.

The authors, Dr Alan Barreca from UCLA, and Dr Jessamyn Schaller of the National Bureau of Economic Research, in Massachusetts, write: “We find that extreme heat causes an increase in deliveries on the day of exposure and on the following day and show that the additional births were accelerated by up to two weeks.”

They add: “While we posit climate change will cause gestational losses, the exact magnitude of the future costs is highly uncertain – households may adapt as expectations about the frequency of hot weather events increase, which could mitigate impacts on infant health.

“Indeed, we find that access to air conditioning is an effective adaptation strategy and one that is likely to be adopted more in places where hot weather is currently infrequent.”

Risk

Andrew Shennan, professor of obstetrics, King’s College London, said: “The findings are valid and well researched, but they do not take into account why women deliver.

“As a large proportion of births, especially in the USA are precipitated by doctors – inductions or Caesareans, there may be social reasons – eg: women requesting delivery earlier when they are uncomfortable with the heat.

“This requires further evaluation to understand mechanisms.

“Extremes of temperatures, both hot and cold have previously been linked to risk of both stillbirth and delivery. Mechanisms are not clear.

“Given the wide variety of temperatures around the world, and that most women have normal pregnancies, this is unlikely to be an important risk factor for any individual.”

This Author

Nina Massey is the PA science correspondent.

This year has been one of the hottest on record, as the world comes to the end of a decade of “exceptional” heat, the World Meteorological Organisation has said.

The past decade, from 2010 to 2019, has almost certainly been the warmest in records dating back to the 19th century, and the past five years from 2015 have also been the hottest on record, the UN body said.

This year temperatures have been 1.1C above pre-industrial levels, putting 2019 on course to be the second or third hottest year on record, data from January to October shows.

Extreme

The WMO provisional statement on the state of the global climate also warns that sea levels are rising ever faster, ice is melting and “once in a century” heatwaves and floods are now becoming more regular occurrences.

Millions of people were forced from their homes as a result of extreme events such as cyclones, hurricanes and flooding.

The past year has also seen droughts in many parts of the world and two major heatwaves in Europe in late June and late July – with a new temperature record of 38.7C set in the UK.

WMO Secretary-General Petteri Taalas: “If we do not take urgent climate action now, then we are heading for a temperature increase of more than 3C by the end of the century, with ever more harmful impacts on human well-being.

“On a day-to-day basis, the impacts of climate change play out through extreme and “abnormal” weather.

Melting

And he warned: “One of the main impacts of climate change is more erratic rainfall patterns.

“This poses a threat to crop yields and, combined with population increase, will mean considerable food security challenges for vulnerable countries in the future.”

The report is released as countries meet in Madrid for the latest round of UN climate negotiations, known as “Cop25”, amid pressure to increase their ambitions to cut the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate change.

The assessment warns concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached new record levels in 2019.

And the rate at which sea levels are rising has increased as a result of melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, reaching new highs this year.

Temperature 

The world’s oceans take in much of the extra heat and carbon dioxide caused by human activity, but it has serious impacts for the marine environment.

Ocean heat is at record levels, there have been widespread marine heatwaves and sea water is increasingly acidic, damaging wildlife.

At the poles, Arctic sea ice is in long term decline and has been a relatively low levels in Antarctica since a sudden drop in late 2016.

The year 2016, which began with an exceptional “El Nino” weather phenomenon in the Pacific that pushes up global temperatures, remains the hottest year on record.

The report draws on information from other UN bodies and three major global temperature datasets, including from the Met Office Hadley Centre and the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit

Warmest

Colin Morice, of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said: “Our global temperature figures are in agreement with other centres around the world that 2019 is set to join each of the years from 2015 as the five warmest years on record.

“Each decade from the 1980s has been warmer than the previous decade. 2019 will conclude the warmest decade in records that stretch back to the mid-19th century.”

Prof Tim Osborn, from UEA’s Climatic Research Unit, said: “The five warmest years for average global surface temperature since records began in 1850 have all occurred in the last five years; by contrast the five coldest years all occurred before 1912.

“This is climate change and not a coincidence.”

This Author

Emily Beament is the PA environment correspondent.

Channel 4 has been cleared over its use of an ice sculpture to stand in for Boris Johnson during a debate on climate change, regulator Ofcom has said.

The watchdog’s Election Committee said the prop “was not a representation of the Prime Minister personally”, and that “little editorial focus was given to it, either visually or in references made by the presenter or debate participants”.

The Conservatives complained that the broadcaster failed to allow the former environment secretary Michael Gove to be its representative for the debate, which saw party leaders face questions over how they would tackle climate change. But the regulator rejected the Tories’ complaint.

Editorial

In its ruling, Ofcom’s Election Committee said: “Broadcasters have editorial freedom in determining the format of any election debate.

“Depending on the circumstances, they may choose to proceed without having agreed the participation of a particular political party or politician, providing they take steps to ensure the programme complies with our due impartiality and elections rules.

“In this case, the Election Committee concluded that, across the one-hour debate and a subsequent news programme, Channel 4’s use of editorial techniques ensured that the Conservative’s viewpoint on climate and environmental issues was adequately reflected and given due weight.

Sculpture

“The committee also took into account that the globe ice sculpture was not a representation of the Prime Minister personally, and little editorial focus was given to it, either visually or in references made by the presenter or debate participants.

“The committee therefore considered that this programme, including the use of the ice sculpture, did not raise issues warranting further investigation under our due impartiality and elections rules.”

Mr Gove turned up at the television studio with the Prime Minister’s father Stanley Johnson before the debate was due to kick off, on Thursday November 28, but was not permitted to take to the stage.

Policy

An ice sculpture of the world with “Conservatives” written on it was placed on a podium in place of the Prime Minister, while another was used for Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage, who also snubbed the event.

A Channel 4 spokesman said: “We welcome the Ofcom Election Committee’s conclusion that the Channel 4 News Climate Debate did not raise issues warranting investigation under the Broadcasting Code.

“We’re pleased that the Committee noted in the decision that Channel 4 had given due weight to the viewpoint of the Conservative Party on climate change and environmental policy.”

This Author

Ryan Hooper is the PA chief reporter.

Policymakers have for years relied on a get-out clause in the climate change forecasting that implied that current emissions would be removed from the atmosphere by negative emission technologies, and that we’d somehow restore the climate to an agreeable state for life on Earth.

The report from the WMO delivered today at COP25 offers no such salvation. The reality of high impact global events – drought, ecosystem collapse, forest fires, disrupted weather, ocean acidification, cyclones, floods and much more – are up on us. Temperatures are now at ~1.1ºC above the preindustrial period and atmospheric CO2 topped 407.8 parts per million in 2018.

The ocean has been storing over 90 percent of the excess energy and so masking the dangers posed. Unfortunately the mask is now slipping and we are starting to see an increase in marine heatwaves categorised as “severe” in places like the north-east Pacific.

Indicators

CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries, and the oceans for even longer, which is how we know that climate change and all associated impacts are locked in.

The WMO has collected data from a wide range of sources including many national meteorological organisations around the world. The following is a summary of the indicators used to identify the state of our climate.

The global mean temperature for the period January to October 2019 was 1.1 ± 0.1 °C above pre-industrial conditions (1850-1900). The five-year (2015-2019) and ten-year (2010-2019) averages are, respectively, almost certain to be the warmest five-year period and decade on record. Since the 1980s, each successive decade has been warmer than the last.

This year, 2019, is expected to be the second or third warmest year on record. 2016, which began with an exceptionally strong El Niño, remains the warmest year.

Large areas of the Arctic were unusually warm in 2019. Most land areas were warmer than the recent average, including South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Oceania.

Record greenhouse gas concentrations

In 2018, greenhouse gas concentrations reached new highs, with globally averaged mole fractions of carbon dioxide (CO2) at 407.8±0.1 parts per million (ppm), methane (CH4) at 1869±2 parts per billion (ppb) and nitrous oxide (N2O) at 331.1±0.1 ppb.  These values constitute, respectively, 147 percent, 259 percent and 123 percent of pre-industrial 1750 levels.

Global average figures for 2019 will not be available until late 2020, but real-time data from a number of specific locations indicate that CO2 levels continued to rise in 2019.

Acceleration of global mean sea level rise

The rate of sea-level rise has increased, due partly to melting of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica. In October 2019, the global mean sea level reached its highest value since the beginning of the high-precision altimetry record (January 1993).

Ocean heat

In 2019, ocean heat content in the upper 700m (in a series starting in the 1950s) and upper 2000m (in a series starting in 2005) continued at record or near-record levels, with the average for the year so far exceeding the previous record highs set in 2018.

So far in 2019, the ocean has on average experienced around 1.5 months of unusually warm temperatures. More of the ocean had a marine heatwave classified as “Strong” (38 percent) than “Moderate” (28 percent). In the north-east Pacific, large areas reached a marine heatwave category of “Severe”.

Continued ocean acidification

In the decade 2009-2018, the ocean absorbed around 22 percent of the annual emissions of CO2, which helps to attenuate climate change. However, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations affect the chemistry of the ocean.

Ocean observations have shown a decrease in the average global surface ocean pH at a rate of 0.017–0.027 pH units per decade since the late 1980s, which is equivalent to an increase in acidity of 26 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Decline of sea ice

The continued long term decline of Arctic Sea Ice was confirmed in 2019. The September monthly average extent (usually the lowest of the year) was the third lowest on record with the daily minimum extent tied for second-lowest

Until 2016, Antarctic sea ice extent had shown a small long-term increase. In late 2016 this was interrupted by a sudden drop in extent to extreme values. Since then, Antarctic sea-ice extent has remained at relatively low levels.

Greenland ice sheet

Total ice Mass Balance (TMB) for the Greenland Ice Sheet gives a net ice loss for September 2018 to August 2019 of 329 billion tonnes.

To put this into context, data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites tell us that Greenland lost about 260 billion tonnes of ice per year over the period 2002-2016, with a maximum of 458 billion tonnes in 2011/12.

High impact events

Floods

The Central USA, Northern Canada, Northern Russia and Southwest Asia received abnormally high precipitation. The 12-month rainfall averaged over the contiguous United States for the period for July 2018 to June 2019 (962 mm) was the highest on record.

The onset and withdrawal of the Indian Monsoon were delayed, causing a large precipitation deficit in June but an excess of precipitation in the following months.

Very wet conditions affected parts of South America in January. There was major flooding in northern Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil, with losses in Argentina and Uruguay estimated at US$2.5 billion.

The Islamic Republic of Iran was badly affected by flooding in late March and early April. Major flooding affected many hitherto drought-affected parts of east Africa in October and early November.

Drought

Drought affected many parts of southeast Asia and the southwest Pacific in 2019, associated in many cases with the strong positive phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole. Exceptionally dry conditions prevailed from mid-year onwards in Indonesia and neighbouring countries, as well as parts of the Mekong basin further north.

Long-term drought conditions which had affected many parts of inland eastern Australia in 2017 and 2018 expanded and intensified in 2019. Averaged over Australia as a whole, January-October was the driest since 1902.

Dry conditions affected many parts of Central America. It was substantially drier than normal in Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador, until heavy rains in October. Central Chile also had an exceptionally dry year, with rainfall for the year to 20 November at Santiago only 82 mm, less than 25 percent of the long-term average.

Heatwaves

Two major heatwaves occurred in Europe in late June and late July. In France, a national record of 46.0°C (1.9°C above the previous record) was set on 28 June. National records were also set in Germany (42.6°C), the Netherlands (40.7°C), Belgium (41.8°C), and the United Kingdom (38.7°C), with the heat also extending into the Nordic countries.

Australia had an exceptionally hot summer. The mean summer temperature was the highest on record by almost 1°C, and January was Australia’s hottest month on record. The heat was most notable for its persistence but there were also significant individual extremes, including 46.6°C in Adelaide on 24 January, the city’s highest temperature on record.

Wildfires

It was an above-average fire year in several high-latitude regions, including Siberia (Russian Federation) and Alaska (US), with fire activity occurring in some parts of the Arctic where it was previously extremely rare.

The severe drought in Indonesia and neighbouring countries led to the most significant fire season since 2015.

The number of reported fires in Brazil’s Amazonia region was only slightly above the 10-year average, but total fire activity in South America was the highest since 2010, with Bolivia and Venezuela among the countries with particularly active fire years.

Tropical cyclones

The Northern Hemisphere, to date, has had 66 tropical cyclones, compared with the average at this time of year of 56, although accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) was only two percent above average. The 2018-19 Southern Hemisphere season was also above average, with 27 cyclones.

Tropical Cyclone Idai made landfall in Mozambique on 15 March as one of the strongest known on the east coast of Africa, resulting in many casualties and widespread devastation.

Idai contributed to the complete destruction of close to 780 000 ha of crops in Malawi, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe, further undermining a precarious food security situation in the region. The cyclone also resulted in at least 50,905 displaced persons in Zimbabwe, 53,237 in southern Malawi and 77,019 in Mozambique.

One of the year’s most intense tropical cyclones was Dorian, which made landfall with category 5 intensity in the Bahamas. The destruction was worsened as it was exceptionally slow-moving and remained near-stationary for about 24 hours.

Typhoon Hagibis made landfall west of Tokyo on 12 October, causing severe flooding.

Climate-related risks and impacts

Health at increasing risk

In 2019, record-setting high temperatures from Australia, India, Japan, and Europe impacted health and well-being. In Japan, a major heatwave event affected the country in late July to early August 2019 resulting in over 100 deaths and an additional 18 000 hospitalizations. 

Europe experienced two significant heat waves in the summer of 2019. In June, a heatwave affecting southwestern to central Europe resulted in a number of deaths in Spain and France.

The most significant heatwave was in late July, affecting much of central and western Europe. In the Netherlands, the heatwave was associated with 2,964 deaths, nearly 400 more deaths than during an average summer week.

Changes in climatic conditions since 1950 are making it easier for the Aedes mosquito species to transmit dengue virus, increasing the risk of the occurrence of disease.

In parallel, the global incidence of dengue has grown dramatically in recent decades, and about half of the world population is now at risk of infection. In 2019, the world has experienced a large increase in dengue cases, compared with the same time period in 2018.

Food security continues to be negatively affected

In Southern Africa, the start of the seasonal rains was delayed and there were extensive dry periods. Regional cereal output is forecasted to be about eight percent below the five-year average with 12.5 million people in the region expected to experience severe food insecurity up to March 2020, an increase of more than 10 percent from the previous year.

Food security has been deteriorating in several areas of Ethiopia, Somalia, Kenya and Uganda due to a poor long/Gu rainy season. Overall, about 12.3 million people are food insecure in the Horn of Africa region. Between October and November 2019, Somalia was further affected by intense flooding.

Disasters increase population displacement

More than 10 million new internal displacements were recorded between January and June 2019, seven million being triggered by disasters such as Cyclone Idai in Southeast Africa, Cyclone Fani in South Asia, Hurricane Dorian in the Caribbean, flooding in Iran, the Philippines and Ethiopia, associated with acute humanitarian and protection needs.

The number of new displacements associated with weather extremes could more than triple to around 22 million by the end of 2019.

Will COP25 decide the climate crisis?

The scale of the crisis now demands urgent action and certainly two weeks of negotiations is never going to be enough.

Last year we saw emissions continuing to rise and countries backing away from their Paris pledges.

With climate denial and ignorance displayed with contempt by several key world leaders, the prospects for humanity and for many other organisms do not look good without radical action starting right now.

This Author

Nick Breeze is a climate change writer and interviewer and also writes a great deal about wine. He is an organiser of the Cambridge Climate Lecture Series and Secret Sommelier. 

Denmark – a longstanding defender of European energy security and the climate – has issued a green light to the construction of the contentious Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in its exclusive economic zone.

European institutions reaffirmed their ambition to be leaders in the fight against climate change this past September, setting the target of climate neutrality by 2050. But remarks by incoming energy commissioner Kadri Simson had already highlighted one of the major threats to the EU’s green credentials: its embrace of natural gas as a “bridge” to renewable energy.

Now, with Denmark’s go-ahead, the EU is set to greatly expand its gas consumption for the long haul. Not only is the Nord Stream 2 from Russia to Germany set to open imminently, but plans also exist to double the volume of US gas imports by 2023.

‘Bridge’ fuel

Methane emitted by natural gas consumption is over 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide. So can the EU hope to maintain its environmentally conscious pretensions while at the same time consuming an ever greater quantity of natural gas from irresponsible methane emitters? 

Ever since Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed natural gas as the bridge fossil fuel of choice to cover the potential energy gaps created by her country’s energy transition policy – which aimed to shut down German nuclear capacity in quick succession after the Fukushima disaster – it was clear that Gazprom would further expand its domination of Europe’s gas market.

The first Nord Stream pipeline, which launched in 2006, has been supplying Germany directly with Russian gas since 2012; Nord Stream 2 will now double the amount of gas that can be carried along that route.

After the completion of Nord Stream 1, predictions of increased gas use have already come to fruition.

Imported gas reached an all-time high of 77.9 percent in 2018, with 15 member states even reporting a 90 percent import dependency to meet their needs.

Moscow and Washington 

Historically, Russia has been the key supplier of natural gas to the bloc, given its proximity and its status as the largest natural gas producer in the world.

Gazprom currently supplies more than one third of gas to EU member states, a market share it hopes to secure with its new pipeline project.

Now, however, competition for the EU’s gas order is in fierce play. Not only have the Americans beaten Russia for the gold medal in global gas production following its shale gas revolution, but their efforts to overcome the technical challenges of transporting gas across the Atlantic are proving successful.

Thanks to the construction of terminals in the EU to process American liquified natural gas, or LNG, US exporters were able to direct 24 percent of their product in October 2018 to EU markets – a 14 percent increase on the previous year. This trend expected to speed up as more terminals come online.

Natural gas is not a green solution

While the EU is once again becoming the epicentre of US-Russian competition, the bigger picture is being ignored.

According to a recent Cornell University study, the production of natural gas – either by conventional methods or the hydraulic fracturing which produces shale gas –  has become the latest threat to efforts to reduce emissions and tackle climate change.

While it’s marketed as a cleaner fuel, every step of the process emits methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. As the study makes abundantly clear, methane is the “second most important greenhouse gas behind carbon dioxide’’, although it impacts the climate in a different way.

Whereas methane stays in the atmosphere for up to twelve years, CO2 emissions can last for centuries. During those twelve years, however, methane’s potency is 84 times the rate of CO2, meaning its contribution to global warming is dozens of time greater than carbon dioxide over the short term. 

Methane leaks are part of all gas processing stages from extracting to storing to burning, and are a disturbing reality of this supposedly “cleaner” fossil fuel. The true extent of leaks is consistently and grossly misreported, even in the US. It therefore stands to reason that the true volume of Russian’s “notoriously leaky Gazprom production system” is certain to be substantially worse.

Even based on official data, Gazprom  is already regarded as one of the main government-owned companies responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, partly because Russia sticks to outdated practices like oil and gas flaring.

A convenient façade?

Following the success of the shale gas industry in the USA, large reserves of shale gas were identified in Europe, leading gas companies to push hard to develop the industry on the continent.

Poland, for example, was once seen as the potential home of the gold rush of European shale gas. In November 2014, majors including Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Total cumulatively maintained 67 ongoing drilling explorations. By January 2015, however, most companies had withdrawn. 

Failed attempts by the industry’s drillers to kickstart Europe’s limited gas production were replicated in Romania, Hungry and the Czech Republic. All were put down thanks to a combination of obstacles that included legislative restrictions, public opposition, geological complications, and falling oil prices. These factors ultimately forced the energy companies driving European fracking to conclude the ventures were an ineffective use of resources. 

But rather than taking this as a warning and abandoning natural gas altogether, EU leaders have opted instead for the next worse option, making the EU dependent on Russian and American exporters whose emissions records, environmental regulations, and future production plans are worse for climate change than what the EU would allow within its own borders. 

This Author 

Louise Montgomery is a freelance writer on environmental and climate change affairs. She previously worked as a legal consultant on pesticides law in Vietnam and as a policy official for the Scottish Government relating to marine legislation. She holds an LLM in Global Environment and Climate Change Law from the University of Edinburgh.

Image: NCPA, Flickr. 

Denmark – a longstanding defender of European energy security and the climate – has issued a green light to the construction of the contentious Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline in its exclusive economic zone.

European institutions reaffirmed their ambition to be leaders in the fight against climate change this past September, setting the target of climate neutrality by 2050. But remarks by incoming energy commissioner Kadri Simson had already highlighted one of the major threats to the EU’s green credentials: its embrace of natural gas as a “bridge” to renewable energy.

Now, with Denmark’s go-ahead, the EU is set to greatly expand its gas consumption for the long haul. Not only is the Nord Stream 2 from Russia to Germany set to open imminently, but plans also exist to double the volume of US gas imports by 2023.

‘Bridge’ fuel

Methane emitted by natural gas consumption is over 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas compared to carbon dioxide. So can the EU hope to maintain its environmentally conscious pretensions while at the same time consuming an ever greater quantity of natural gas from irresponsible methane emitters? 

Ever since Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed natural gas as the bridge fossil fuel of choice to cover the potential energy gaps created by her country’s energy transition policy – which aimed to shut down German nuclear capacity in quick succession after the Fukushima disaster – it was clear that Gazprom would further expand its domination of Europe’s gas market.

The first Nord Stream pipeline, which launched in 2006, has been supplying Germany directly with Russian gas since 2012; Nord Stream 2 will now double the amount of gas that can be carried along that route.

After the completion of Nord Stream 1, predictions of increased gas use have already come to fruition.

Imported gas reached an all-time high of 77.9 percent in 2018, with 15 member states even reporting a 90 percent import dependency to meet their needs.

Moscow and Washington 

Historically, Russia has been the key supplier of natural gas to the bloc, given its proximity and its status as the largest natural gas producer in the world.

Gazprom currently supplies more than one third of gas to EU member states, a market share it hopes to secure with its new pipeline project.

Now, however, competition for the EU’s gas order is in fierce play. Not only have the Americans beaten Russia for the gold medal in global gas production following its shale gas revolution, but their efforts to overcome the technical challenges of transporting gas across the Atlantic are proving successful.

Thanks to the construction of terminals in the EU to process American liquified natural gas, or LNG, US exporters were able to direct 24 percent of their product in October 2018 to EU markets – a 14 percent increase on the previous year. This trend expected to speed up as more terminals come online.

Natural gas is not a green solution

While the EU is once again becoming the epicentre of US-Russian competition, the bigger picture is being ignored.

According to a recent Cornell University study, the production of natural gas – either by conventional methods or the hydraulic fracturing which produces shale gas –  has become the latest threat to efforts to reduce emissions and tackle climate change.

While it’s marketed as a cleaner fuel, every step of the process emits methane, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. As the study makes abundantly clear, methane is the “second most important greenhouse gas behind carbon dioxide’’, although it impacts the climate in a different way.

Whereas methane stays in the atmosphere for up to twelve years, CO2 emissions can last for centuries. During those twelve years, however, methane’s potency is 84 times the rate of CO2, meaning its contribution to global warming is dozens of time greater than carbon dioxide over the short term. 

Methane leaks are part of all gas processing stages from extracting to storing to burning, and are a disturbing reality of this supposedly “cleaner” fossil fuel. The true extent of leaks is consistently and grossly misreported, even in the US. It therefore stands to reason that the true volume of Russian’s “notoriously leaky Gazprom production system” is certain to be substantially worse.

Even based on official data, Gazprom  is already regarded as one of the main government-owned companies responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, partly because Russia sticks to outdated practices like oil and gas flaring.

A convenient façade?

Following the success of the shale gas industry in the USA, large reserves of shale gas were identified in Europe, leading gas companies to push hard to develop the industry on the continent.

Poland, for example, was once seen as the potential home of the gold rush of European shale gas. In November 2014, majors including Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Total cumulatively maintained 67 ongoing drilling explorations. By January 2015, however, most companies had withdrawn. 

Failed attempts by the industry’s drillers to kickstart Europe’s limited gas production were replicated in Romania, Hungry and the Czech Republic. All were put down thanks to a combination of obstacles that included legislative restrictions, public opposition, geological complications, and falling oil prices. These factors ultimately forced the energy companies driving European fracking to conclude the ventures were an ineffective use of resources. 

But rather than taking this as a warning and abandoning natural gas altogether, EU leaders have opted instead for the next worse option, making the EU dependent on Russian and American exporters whose emissions records, environmental regulations, and future production plans are worse for climate change than what the EU would allow within its own borders. 

This Author 

Louise Montgomery is a freelance writer on environmental and climate change affairs. She previously worked as a legal consultant on pesticides law in Vietnam and as a policy official for the Scottish Government relating to marine legislation. She holds an LLM in Global Environment and Climate Change Law from the University of Edinburgh.

Image: NCPA, Flickr. 

The Green Party has promised to end the “throwaway economy” with a new suite of policies designed to encourage repair and reuse.

The launch took place at the Goodlife Centre, Southwark, a community focused studio and workshop space. The Party will announce two key policies: enacting a “Right to Repair” and developing “Repair Cafes”.

A comprehensive “Right to Repair” will require manufacturers to keep goods operational for years after purchase and encourage repair and reuse. The practice of producing goods with the deliberate intention that they will become obsolete within a few years time will be banned.  

Right to Repair

“Repair Cafes” will give local communities the skills and tools to repair, upgrade and customise their belongings. Using and borrowing equipment will give people access to expensive items such as power tools and sewing machines. 

Based on figures from WRAP, this policy could save the average UK household around £800 a year, which is the value of electrical equipment thrown out and replaced.

Green Party Co-Leader, Sian Berry, and Deputy Leader, Amelia Womack, will deliver a keynote speech.

Sian Berry, Co-Leader of the Green Party, said: “From the coffee cup you chuck in the bin, to the smartphone you upgrade year after year, disposability is at the heart of our economic model. And we all know it’s not right. It doesn’t feel right. It doesn’t make us happy. Nobody wants to add to the mountains of junk choking our natural world

“We are pleased to propose a real Right to Repair, which would make it a legal requirement for companies to lengthen the lifespan of their products, make spare parts available, and build them in ways which can be fixed by everyday tools.

“This is an essential step towards cutting waste and going net-zero by 2030, and none of the other parties are even talking about it.”

Rebuilding

Amelia Womack, Deputy Leader of the Green Party, will say: “Today, we’re excited to pledge that Greens will support the creation of a repair cafe on every high street in Britain.

“Our high stress have been devastated over the last ten years. We need to rebuild the fabric of our communities. Repair cafes are just one step to deliver innovative ideas that support people’s needs and save people money, while helping the environment.”

This Article

This article is based on a press release from The Green Party UK. 

Image: Karen Blakeman, Flickr. 

Record levels of greenhouse gases are already leading to killer floods, droughts and famines which are disproportionately affecting some of the poorest people in the world. The response of rich developed countries has failed to reduce emissions or address the systemic inequalities and injustices at its core, despite the countless warnings by climate scientists.

Climate talks are entering a critical phase before the Paris Agreement formally comes into force in 2020. COP25 talks will focus on strengthening the weak pledges that will lead to a warming of at least 3°C, preventing governments and the private sector from trading their emissions, and delivering climate finance to address loss and damage caused by global heating.

War on Want will highlight the work of our partner organisations in the Global South on the front lines of climate violence, and put forward the case for a justice-oriented approach to the climate crisis, as part of a Global Green Deal for People.

Scrutiny

War on Want’s executive director, Asad Rehman, will participate in COP25 talks and the Social Summit for Climate in Madrid.

War on Want’s Senior International Programmes Officer for Latin America, Sebastian Ordoñez Muñoz, will participate in the People’s Summit in Santiago.

COP25 talks were moved to Madrid in early November after President Sebastian Piñera’s government announced Chile’s withdrawal from hosting the summit in late October, after massive anti-austerity and anti-government protests across Chile.

Campaigners condemned the decision as an attempt to evade scrutiny on policies that have led to widespread economic and climate injustice.

Asad Rehman, Executive Director at War on Want, said: “With the cost of climate damages racking up to a possible $4 trillion by 2030, the time for warm words about the climate emergency is over. We are in the last chance saloon.

“Governments such as the UK’s can no longer claim they are acting on the climate crisis whilst trying to shift the burden to act onto poorer countries, and whilst UK companies continue to profit from environmental injustices. The UK must show real leadership by committing to its fair share of the global effort, by paying its climate debt and by holding UK companies to account for the damage they are causing.”

Green colonialism

Rehman continued: “Despite countless UN reports warning of the need for urgent action, the climate crisis is already devastating the lives and livelihoods of millions, plunging the poorest into yet another crisis of hunger and poverty.

“An opportunity exists to tackle both the climate crisis and the crisis of inequality with a Global Green Deal for People that guarantees everyone the right to dignified life. Our political leaders will not be forgiven if they fail to grasp it.”

Sebastian Ordoñez Muñoz, Senior International Programmes Officer – Latin America at War on Want, said: “The Chilean government’s decision to withdraw Santiago as the host city of COP25 is a desperate attempt to divert attention away from the social inequalities and environmental injustices harming communities across the country, and the state’s violent repression against the uprising.

“The crisis unfolding in Chile cannot be isolated from the country’s water crisis – a mega-drought caused by the overexploitation of resources by industrial agriculture and mega-mining industries. Meanwhile, the global mining industry is using the climate crisis as an opportunity to greenwash its image and carbon emissions, while increasing its destructive extraction of ‘green’ or ‘critical’ metals such as copper.

“To resist Green Colonialism, we need to embrace grassroots-led transformations towards post-extractivism.”

This Author

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist. This article is based on a press release from War on Want.