Transcription
The economy that we have is not sustainable. It cannot keep going. It will collapse [music] in some way if we don't end our dependencies on these unsustainable things. You do have to take on vested interests. In a country like the UK where we have, for example, [music] a significant domestic oil and gas industry, I mean, it is fossil fuels that have sent [music] people's household energy bills shooting through the roof.
>> How are we going to get most of the British people to say this is worth doing?
>> People actually understand this. It's the politicians who are getting it wrong.
Hello and welcome to the forecast. I'm Christian Giri Murphy. Britain has entered its third week in an unprecedented heat wave after record-breaking temperatures were hit in both May and July with a team of climate experts reporting that as many as 2,700 excess deaths have been registered in the period. It's raised questions about whether Britain's infrastructure is suitable for the modern age. And with temperatures only due to rise in the coming decades due to climate change, what needs to be done now and in the coming years to prepare for a warmer world?
Joining me to discuss this, Rebecca Willis, a professor in energy and climate governance at the University of Manchester and who recently advised the government's climate change committee. Tessa Khn, an environmental lawyer and executive director of Uplift, a group focused on the transition from oil and gas production. and Smith Morac, an architect and former chief executive of the UK Green Building Council.
Smith, are we just doomed effectively because our housing stock is old? Uh we can't really upgrade it and new stuff costs money.
>> Of course, we can upgrade it. [laughter] We're not doomed. Um I'm not saying it's not a challenge. Of course, it's a challenge. Um and I think it's really important that we don't panic as well. um which is you know maybe counterintuitive like climate activists are always telling us to panic we must act now but I think the thing with this summer is obviously it's an extreme series of um weather events that we've seen this year it is an extreme year it's not that it's just going to get worse every single year right from now on. So what I really don't want to see is lots of like peacemeal little bits and bobs of solutions. You know, the people who have the most money going out and getting the best AC, for example. What I want to see is strategic infrastructural solutions that improve the situation for everybody. And so I think that's kind of what we're at risk of at the moment. is like yes obviously we've seen that our infrastructure our housing buildings and so on is struggling with these kinds of temperatures but what we need is like sensible clear-headed solutions that um I'm sure ensure that we're improving things for everyone not just the few that can afford it.
>> At the moment are are we still building housing that it can't cope with these kinds of temperatures?
>> Sometimes yeah it's it's really really heartbreaking but our current building regulations are not fit for the future climate we still need better building regulations that allow for you to to make sure that housing that we're building now isn't going to need to be retrofitted because it's going to be overheating because it's going to be too cold because it's still running on gas boilers and so on. So, yeah, we're still building housing that isn't fit for the future. Um, but also we're still, you know, we're still focusing on the new buildings rather than retrofitting our existing buildings, which is, you know, where most of us live. Of course.
>> Rebecca, I mean, why are we in this mess?
>> We're in this mess because we've had centuries of reliance on fossil fuels. We've um done a huge amount to build up the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But what we're seeing now is possibly starting to turn a corner in that actually the cheapest and most efficient way to power our economies now is not fossil fuels, but it's through electrification and through renewables. So we we are seeing the solutions coming out there but that's building on you know many many decades of um of harmful greenhouse gases being released.
>> I mean are we victims of uh you know the establishment, government, business and individuals basically saying it's only a few days a year it's not actually worth adapting to heat.
>> What we've really got to concentrate on is the cold. Heat waves are one of the symptoms of climate change. What actually happens when the planet as a whole heats up is that the you get more of the extremes. So you see um more extreme hot weather and heat waves like we're seeing at the moment. you also see and in fact a really significant impact for the UK [snorts] is um greater flooding because that's more intense rainfall um over um you know shorter periods in in winter and summer. So what you're seeing is you know the hot getting hotter and the wet getting wetter.
>> But I mean we've been saying this for years and we don't seem to be doing that much about the heat and the flooding.
>> Yeah. So one thing that that I find strange and you know my my work looks at um public responses and one thing that I find strange is that is that people actually understand this. It's the politicians who are getting it wrong because people know that climate change is happening. Um they're worried about it. It's probably not maybe in a heat wave things are a bit different but generally speaking it's not something at the front of people's minds but it's an area where they really want to see action from government and they know that their own um that their what they do as individuals does have an impact but they actually look to government to put the infrastructure in place get the tax system right get the investment right so that we can take action as a country as a whole.
So why I mean you know there have been dozens of government initiatives over the last 20 30 years to try and get people to upgrade housing you know whether it's heat pumps insulation solar panels all sorts of grants feed in tariffs um they haven't changed behavior on a mass scale.
>> Are they you know are we not thinking big enough is there not a sense of urgency you know what is the problem?
>> Yeah I I'm not sure that I agree with that I think when we have seen concerted efforts by government to change the framework to make the lowcarbon solution the the the cheaper and more obvious option. We we see um we see the outcome of that. So at a at a you know the level of business and industry we've seen incredible take up of renewable energy um because of the um the way that the government changed the energy market to make sure that renewables um paid off that that investment paid off. Um we also saw, you know, when it comes down to the level of the individual household, we saw, I mean, something like the the two pound bus fair, which wasn't actually necessarily a climate policy, but it increased bus ridership. um what's happened in Manchester, which obviously [laughter] there's a tension on now in terms of um you know really sorting out public transport infrastructure has had an effect because people want to do the right thing but you try telling someone to get on a bus if there is no bus service or if they can't afford it and you're just going to irritate people. So, it's about getting those um getting those signals sort of coherent um being very clear about the fact that that um we need to take action on climate and also that's in our um economic interests. Being very sort of upfront and positive about that message and we haven't really seen that from from any government yet.
>> Well, I mean Tessa, you know, it's that last bit that it's in our economic interest that is the most contested. Uh, and in a time when we've been seeing all these extreme weather events, you would have thought um that Ed Milliban was the most popular politician in Britain because he'd been banging on about um climate change and net zero and yet he is still the most controversial um and the arguments of the right um against net zero are are still riding high. I mean what what's the what's the problem?
>> Yeah, I would say controversially in some quarters. I mean in others Ed Milliband for example I think among the Labour party membership and among MPs is actually very popular and I think it's because he's been among the most productive ministers in cabinet um in recent years. But the thing that is challenging about his brief is that and about you know any approach to that that takes the climate crisis seriously is that you do have to take on vested interests. And in a country like the UK where we have for example a significant domestic oil and gas industry and ultimately there is no addressing the climate crisis without shifting rapidly away from oil and gas. You are going to come up against companies that in recent years have made historic profits off the back of selling fossil fuels. So that I think is a large part of where that challenge and controversy is coming from. But if you balance that against the British public and where their interests lie, I mean it is fossil fuels that have sent people's household energy bills shooting through the roof in recent years. It's our dependency on gas that's exposed the UK more than any other economy in Europe to the recent energy shocks caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine and most recently the crisis in Iran. uh renewable energy is without question as a source of electricity cheaper than generating electricity from oil and gas in that it's free forever. Um so the economic arguments from the public's perspective are clearly in favor of transitioning away from oil and gas.
>> Well that but that's what I mean. you know, you would think Britain has, you know, lived in the last few years through, you know, the Ukraine war energy price shock, the straight of Hormuz energy price shock. Um, and that, you know, that that might shift attitudes, but but what seems to be the case still is that there's a large number of people who think that transitioning to net zero or renewable energy involves a lot of cost on our bills. Um, and there's some truth to that. The government's tried to cut it, but there's still quite a lot on our bills. And in the cost of living crisis, that's unpopular.
>> Yeah, there absolutely is no question that there are upfront costs associated with making this transition. It involves upgrading huge amounts of our infrastructure, whether that's at the domestic household level or at the grid level. But it's an investment in that it will, according to the climate change committee, you know, countless experts, the the Office for Budget Responsibility and others. It is the cheapest solution in the medium to long term. There is no future that is more expensive than one that keeps us hooked on the status quo in terms of fossil fuels and exposed to the impacts of climate change and the billions of pounds that takes off the British economy each year as well.
So >> Smith, let's come back to, you know, how our lives could be changed. I mean, g give me a vision of what Britain could be like um in terms of weathering our extreme weather, whether it's in the summer or the winter.
>> Yeah. I mean, I I I do want to tie this back to the the economics that you've just been talking about because I think part of the vision for a a beautiful, fair, and sustainable future is a fair future. And so that means like that means the economy working for everybody not not just a few people not just those that have the vested interests in the oil and gas industry for example fossil fuel industries and and also, you know, things like extracting loads and loads of money out of the built environment gentrification rentism, you know, all of this stuff that is actually really really great for a few people but for most of us it's terrible um and these things are completely interlin. So I think if we want to create a vision of a future that is much more fair and also literally ly sustainable. The economy that we have is not sustainable. It cannot keep going. It will collapse in some way if we don't end our dependencies on these unsustainable things. And that includes unsustainable inequality. So a vision would be um an economy that works for everyone.
>> That's very, you know, all-encompassing. I suppose what I mean is a vision of how we live. You know, um at the moment, a lot of us are living in houses that are cold and drafty in the winter and extremely hot and uncomfortable in the summer. Um, our journey to work is disrupted by railway lines that seem to bend in the heat uh or leaves on the line. Um, we go to offices that, you know, can't seem to get their air conditioning right. I mean, we've got one here. Um, but even, you know, a lot of new buildings now um seem to be very hot um in the summer and don't have adequate cooling.
>> What could it be like?
>> Well, say the opposite of all of those things and and you've got it right. Like,
>> But is that doable? I mean, I think [laughter] most people just kind of, well, that'd be very nice, but it just seems unrealistic.
>> It's like, okay, the work we need to do work. We need to move some resources around. We need to better share stuff in order to make those things possible. But that's completely doable. Like, you know, installing in insulation, installing heat pumps, installing shutters, better cooling, more like green spaces, better flood retention, um, you know, systems and so on. All of that is very, very doable. None of this is technology that we don't have. most of which we've had for hundreds, even thousands of years. It's all very very very very doable. The only struggle is mobilizing the the resources and the labor to do those things. And that is an economic question and is a political choice.
>> And and do you think you could get people to actually buy into I mean I've been talking about this stuff for years. Um I have a house that was built in 189. um to put in a heat pump and solar and cooling as well as heating is major disruption, you know, um and and major expense. And I'm, you know, amongst the well-off. So, if for me it's kind of off-putting at the moment, how how are we going to get most of the British people to say this is worth doing? But
>> I mean, we've done much bigger things before. We used to have no central heating. We used to have no indoor plumbing. We didn't used to have toilets indoors. like the built environment of Britain and many many places has already been through lots of changes. It's a similar level of sort of upheaval and it's very very very doable. The key thing is doing doing it in such a way that is like we're helping each other. We're sharing resources and and this is what I mean by like infrastructural and systemic solutions rather than just like leaving everybody to do it by themselves and then like sure you might be able to do that easily and great good small number of sort of relatively well-off middle class people who can afford to convert their homes. Yeah.
>> And might be able to afford to go and rent somewhere while their house is being ripped apart. Most people can't do that.
>> Yeah. But there are easy ways of organizing and we you know in terms of thinking about you know how we have housed refugees during wars you know like there's much much more difficult things that we have done and the core to being able to achieve these things is sharing stuff and helping each other.
>> That's a big political problem isn't it Rebecca it's a big challenge.
>> The the interesting thing is that these debates always go down to the level of the individual like the you know the supposed man in the street or person in the street like that and and we at my research group, we've done a a large number of interviews with MPs and they all say, you know, we talk to them anonymously and they kind of sigh and they say, you know, climate change is a big problem, but if only we could take people with us. And in fact, the evidence is entirely the other way round. Politicians routinely underestimate uh public [music] concern about climate and also they underestimate um public support for climate action. So you know for example um you know 70% of people support onshore winds think that's 19%. So
>> What are those numbers from?
>> They're way out. It's a climate barometer survey from last year. So and I mean that's just one. So in our in our work when we interview MPs we find the same picture. It's like politicians say you know we really want to do this but it's very difficult for people and when we go to the other side of that picture and we talk to people and most of our work is sitting in rooms with you know a representative sample of people and they say that they they they really want to do this. So
>> But is there a gap between the sort of the notional support for something and the actual action that needs to be done?
>> Yeah. So, so this is >> most people don't apply for those grants even when they might be you know eligible and that it might transform their lives on the whole.
>> So most people like 60 70% depending on the measure want are concerned about climate change and want um government to take the lead. When you unpack that a bit support for individual policies is obviously more conditional. So, for example, um the and the climate change committee ran a citizens panel which I helped with which unpicked this a bit. Um people are um willing to um have a heat pump installed, but they want a sort of seven-year payback. That's for houses who can afford it, who can afford the upfront cost. Um everyone thinks that for um for poorer households, they there should be government support for that. So you know you then get an idea of the sort of conditions under which people um are are are happy to go along with policies. Public transport is another one like actually we're always bowled over by the level of support for for public transport. But also people get really frustrated if you tell them to use public transport and it's just not there. at the moment is there in the cities but elsewhere if they hear this message like get out of your cars and there is no alternative then that's just going to turn people against it.
>> Tell us about this research you did. Was it a a people's assembly you're saying or
>> So we've run I mean to give you an example we've over the past two years we've convened a citizens panel which looked at how you achieve um uh the the the net zero target and we did that because we wanted to um to really pick apart government forecasts on this because the government forecasts are incredibly conservative about um anything to do with people's lives. So the extent to which people would be prepared to reduce car use or uh switch to a heat pump or switch to an EV, they tend to have incredibly conservative assumptions um about what what changes people will make. Whereas actually when you talk to people, they are quite happy to make those changes, but it has to be done in in certain ways. It has to, you know, at the very least not be really problematic and expensive. So, another one where there's actually quite widespread support is over is for um uh a frequent flyer levy where you would pay more tax if you fly more because most people see that as quite a fair and reasonable option and a way of limiting um the growth of uh of of of aviation. Um if you tax people's family holidays, they will not like it. But if you um move to a frequent flyer levy, which um which then has an impact on people who um fly a lot because they can afford it, then that actually has really widespread support. Obviously, not unanimous support, but you know, pretty pretty decent level. Um so there's a lot more room for maneuver than than most politicians think when it comes to putting policies in place. And if politicians were willing to take that lead, then what our research shows is that they'd be rewarded for it.
Tessa, I mean, do you think there's a problem with the language, you know, that we're using and debating at all. You know, that net zero has become a problematic phrase.
>> I think it's always a a problem to sell the journey and not the destination. You know, I think it is important that we don't just speak about how we get to a safer climate and actually speak, you know, as you kind of encouraged Smith to do, we spell out what that world looks like for people. And especially compare it to the one that we're living in now. You know, it is warmer, drier homes. It's transport that's easier to access and that's cheaper. It's, you know, neighborhoods that are greener. It's jobs for your kids. It's prosperity in the parts of the country that need it the most. you know, it's re-industrialization of parts of the country that need it most. You know, these are the things that actually the climate agenda, the net zero agenda would deliver. And so I think, you know, it absolutely is helpful to remind people what net zero is, which is the scientific imperative to reduce fossil fuels to the point where they're balanced out so that they're, you know, net zero because without that, the climate continues to change. But I think within the public debate, it's important for us to remind people that this isn't just about some abstract atmospheric phenomenon. It's about introducing practices and changes in our lives. That regardless of whether you care about climate change or not will put us on a path to a more more affordable, more enjoyable, more prosperous future.
Do you think we need to change the way we're discussing it though given you know the political party that's way out in front at the moment refers to it as stupid net zero or you know whatever it is. Um and so there's a huge chunk of the public now who will associate net zero with bad you know with cost who are who are being encouraged to look to America um where although the you know of course there's a huge amount of uh advance in technology in America as well but they have gone you know fracking they are energy independent they've gone hell for leather on on oil and gas and their economy is growing. Yeah. uh and they're not suffering the same problems as us. And so that there is a dream that's being sold by a certain type of politician at the moment that says, "Well, we could be like that and instead we're doing what they call stupid net zero." [snorts]
>> Well, I mean, I guess the first thing I'd say is that I'm not sure that people want the UK to emulate the US under President Trump. He's one of the least, you know, popular.
>> But we quite like the economic growth. Well, in terms of oil and gas though, I mean, one of the things that President Trump's grappling with at the moment is that Americans aren't paying for cheap petrol. You know, despite his attempts to max out oil and gas production, aside from the fact that the oil and gas industry has its own reservations about the approach that he's taking, it's not making a difference to the cost of living for most Americans. So, that's going to come back um to, I think, haunt the president at the midterm elections. But I you know I do think it's important to remember that as you know Becky's been saying um the mo where most of the public is is supportive of climate action and there is a contrived concerted campaign to create division where none currently exists by using terms like net stupid zero and trying to import tactics from the US and elsewhere to really toxify a debate that you know is totally oblivious to the fact that the net zero agenda in in constituencies that have reform mayors, for example, is creating tens of thousands of jobs, you know, and that's why they're finding that when they actually govern, it's a huge challenge to back that rhetoric with actual policy. You know, ask Luke Campbell, ask Andrea Jenkins, the mayor's, you know, within um Lincolnshire and Hull, whether or not they support clean energy. And the answer is, well, it actually is creating jobs in my constituency. So, how am I going to reconcile that with my hostile opposition to net zero? you know, the stuff just doesn't survive contact with reality. And I think the British public experiences the actual material benefits of of an approach to our economy, an approach to our energy system that is going to bring down bills, that is going to create prosperity, and that has already created, as the Confederation of British Industry confirmed just a couple of weeks ago, more than a million jobs across the economy in the net zero economy. part of the economy that's growing at a faster rate than other economic sectors and that's often creating good jobs as well that are better paid than those on average. So I you know I have confidence in the British public's ability to to sift what that rhetoric is trying to achieve from what their lived experience is of of policy and practices that try and shift us away from fossil fuels.
>> Do you think net zero smith can be separated from culture war or is it now firmly embedded?
>> I mean this happens with language right like um any term that is seeing any sort of success and traction will then get sort of picked on and weaponized and sort of used against us. So it kind there's there are no words that are immune to this and we've seen it in so many different sort of walks of life. You know as a as a queer person I know that that term being reclaimed is like very very difficult. So maybe in a way we can reclaim net zero. Maybe we just use another term. Maybe we, you know, stick to sustainability. Maybe we go back for sort of, you know, uh, other ways of of of thinking about it. It it kind of doesn't matter. like any wording that we use when we start to see some success, when we start to see some traction, when we start to see it like, you know, the the lived reality aligning with the vision that is being um spoken about, then those that are unhappy about that because they, you know, a certain kind of politician that might be uh trying to serve a certain other kind of vested interest is going to use it against us. So, I I don't think we should get too caught up in exact language and wording that we use. I think we should keep talking about the underlying meaning behind those.
>> So, how how would you sell the need for transition and uh you know to upgrade everything in our infrastructure and housing to a reform voter who says why can't we just drill for more oil and gas and create cheap energy um and and and reduce my bill.
>> I think that the reason that there's so much success on this is that people are struggling, people are suffering, like the the the levels of poverty that we have in this country that have been increasing are very very like felt, deeply felt. And like the material reality of most people's lives has got worse for the last 20, 30 years. And so anything that sounds like, oh, maybe that will be freedom over there, or maybe that would be a better life over there if we do this, if we don't do that. like it's it's almost um it's just it's it's playing into that kind of desperation of like well can something make this better please and so I think this is why it's so important to make sure that any kind of arguments that are pitching pitting net zero against eradicating poverty or putting net zero against social concerns in any way that needs to be quashed that that's the thing that we need to like say no these two things are completely aligned a fair and sustainable future is the same future.
How important, Rebecca, do you think is sort of consistency and and policy that doesn't contradict itself? So, there is rumor, you know, that the government's going to um give in on I can't remember which one, whether it's Jack Door or Rosebank. They're thinking of uh of saying yes to one and maybe no to the other. Yes to the gas and no to the no to the oil. Um which sends a sort of a contradictory message, doesn't it? You know, I mean, these are things that government ministers and uh, you know, have said is is madness and contrary to uh, tackling climate change. If they do it because it, you know, they will say it raises revenue, it's just practical. We're going to be using gas anyway, so let's just use a bit more gas. Um, and it eradicates the political problem of of every, you know, of people on the right screaming, why aren't you doing these things? you know, does does that mix the message and make it harder to sell or is it just, you know, practical politics and you just get on with whatever works?
>> Yeah, I mean, I think it it's undoubtedly true that if you have sort of very clear and consistent leadership, that's better. Um but beyond that I think the problem when governments start introducing contradictory policies or don't take action on trying on on restricting the growth of flying for example or you know consent more fossil fuel development um the problem is that people then lose trust in government you know and I've having having done so much rese arch with, you know, groups of ordinary, very sensible people, I come to the conclusion more and more that the problem is not whether or not people are worried about climate change, but whether they trust government because when they, you know, we we talk to them about the the the problem, about what they want done about it, and they know that it's not just going to be, you know, them um their own personal actions. They know that it needs government to set those frameworks and then they look at [laughter] that they look at those contradictions and they look at you know various scandals that have [snorts] rocked one government after another and they say I don't trust this lot. So you get this sort of weird contradictory thing where the more you talk to people the more they want to see government acting and actually the less confidence they have that government's up to the job. So the only way out of that bind is to come out with a really clear, consistent and positive framework. Um and you know I think as as as uh Tessa articulated this is very much about um you know better transport about better quality homes and so on. So that that that argument is there for the taking. Um, but I think in the face of hostility and um, opposition to net zero, which actually flies in the face of the science, whether or not they're saying that outright, in the face of that opposition, it's the easy option has been to go quiet on climate.
>> Yeah. George Osborne famously said, "We're not going to save the planet by putting the country out of business." And he sort of articulated it, but it's something that happens every so often, isn't it? I mean um Tessa if they do give way on either uh Jack Door or Rosebank will you be screaming betrayal?
>> Uh yeah, in short, I mean because unlike when George Osborne made that statement, the economic argument is on our side is on the side of those who are advocating for more climate action. And that's because it's fossil fuels that are causing major economic disruption both at the macro level and also at the household and individual level in the UK at the moment. But also the reality of North Sea oil and gas at this point in 2026 is that it is an ultram mature basin that's been in decline for geological reasons for the last 20 odd years. And so if what you're worried about is energy security or energy affordability. Consenting additional fields is a distraction from the renewable energy resources that are actually going to deliver those things. And not only that, but um you know we know for example that more than 80% of the oil that gets produced in the North Sea ends up being exported. It doesn't even end up in British industry or in British cars. Um the industry concedes that more production here won't change the price that we pay for it. But the science is crystal clear that we're now at a point where if you were to burn the oil and gas in existing global fields and those that have already been consented, then it would push us way past internationally agreed safe climate limits. So there isn't any room to add new oil and gas supply to existing global supply. And you know, if the last few weeks haven't convinced you that we've got to do everything in our power to curb fossil fuel use and it, you know, it is the principal way in which we address the climate crisis, then, you know, I would point you to all of the other economic arguments and energy security and affordability arguments for why North and Gas isn't the answer either.
>> Smith, I mean, most what we've been talking about is fairly long term. You know, most people will be thinking, "Oh, you know, if there's another heat wave, you know, e either this year or next year or whatever it is, how are we going to cope?" Are there shortterm policy things that we should be thinking about to get us through until we have the new infrastructure that you want?
>> Yeah. I mean I think a lot of the solutions can be pretty short term as well you know like insulation doesn't take ages to put through you know like that that it's not like uh a huge infrastructure project necessarily that's going to take 20 years you know it's it's a lot quicker than uh building a new you know power plant or something like that right so that there is lots that we can do quickly so but at the same time there are also things that you can do very immediately quickly like you know for example not having your windows open when it's hotter outside than it is inside you know like little things like this that we can still be doing like the number of people that are buying these air conditioning units, putting them on inside the house and then opening all the windows. So, it's just like ah um so that there are simple and quick things that we can do that make ourselves more comfortable and you know even simple things like go and hang out in a public space that is air conditioned rather than like necessarily every single individual person need to having an air conditioned space. Um, so there are things that we can do quickly and there are things that we can we can make that more e we can make that easier as well through policy. For example, for things like not having to work on the hottest days of the year if there aren't >> you know uh things in place to make that comfortable and stuff like that changing on working day. Exactly. Working at different hours, looking at you know how school care and all. So there's stuff that is just sensible and there's lots and lots of places all over the world that have been dealing with warmer weather for a very long time and we just need to remember that we are we can be on the uh receiving end of a lots of very very very important knowledge.
Should we all get air conditioning?
>> We do not all need air conditioning. However, in London and the southeast there are a lot of homes that over time are going to need some form of active cooling. Um what that means is more than we have now. So it doesn't have to mean an air conditioning unit of the sort that you know you can go buy down at your local big box store. Um there are lots of different ways to provide active cooling and there are also very cool ways and very sustainable ways to create that that we could go into all kinds of cool technologies.
Well, what's a sustainable way to cool your house?
>> Well, so for example, Bedz um a development in South London has these chimneys that will draw cool air up through um the house so that you can um actually create essentially active ventilation, but it's just propelled through the wind that goes past um above the roofs. So, it's not like you're plugging that in. You don't have to plug anything in. There's no need for energy generated by renewables or otherwise. So, it's it's still it's like a it's a smart solution that allows then for sort of more ventilation. And that can also be combined with my favorite piece of uh cooling technology, a rock store, which is where you have like a load of rocks in a basement and a labyrinth. It's particularly useful for public buildings. And you basically pass the air over these cool rocks that are a little bit like the whiskey stones that you might put in your drink that don't, you know, dilute the whiskey. um and they cool the air and then that cool air is drawn through the building um and so it's like creating essentially a kind of air conditioning but again nothing is plugged in so I'm just saying there's cool ways to do this um but it is true that especially in London and the southeast and especially in buildings that are for example a single aspect so you can't get a through draft um and buildings that you know might not be close to any sort of trees um green other kind of green spaces and so on where there will be some form of active cooling that is needed. And I just want to reiterate what I said at the beginning. We need to not panic and all get in all have individual solutions. We need to work together for systemic solutions. There's cool stuff like, you know, ambient heat loop networks and things like this that can provide this in an energyefficient and sustainable way that doesn't end us up sort of just really perpetuating the problem by plugging in using lots of coal powered and gaspowered energy to further the problem in order to solve it at an individual level.
Well, air conditioners are sold out, aren't they? You can't get them at the moment. So, obviously, thousands have been sold. Yeah.
>> Uh this summer and that worries you.
>> It does. Yeah. Yeah. Because I think I think there's a fairer way to do this um that ensures that we are comfortable and we are um averting these unnecessary premature deaths, but at the same time, we're not actually just making the problem worse.
What's the easy thing that we could just learn from European cities in terms of how to deal with hot weather?
>> So one of the biggest problems that we've got in the UK is um especially in London where we are today um is the urban heat island effect. So, that means that the pavements, the stone, the bricks and so on, they heat up and they stay hot for a really really long time. So, you can have up to 10 degrees more uh higher temperatures in city centers than you have just outside the city. 10 degrees just from being in those extreme environments. And you can fairly quickly like deal with that by introducing more green and blue spaces. So more water, more trees, more plants, more sort of soft spaces, soft spaces and things like that. Places like Rotterdam and Amsterdam have done brilliant work on things like this. And that also helps with resilience um in terms of being able to accept more flood waters when there are these flash kind of um extreme weather events and things like that. So there there are lots of things that we can do to make our cities more resilient for those extreme weather events both in the heat and also in other ways.
And do we need to change all our roofs from gray and black to white?
>> [laughter] [gasps] >> I mean some of them should make a difference.
>> Yeah. Like I don't know how much the albido effect is going to it's it's there. Okay.
>> The you know you go on holiday to Greece and you go yeah that makes sense. All the buildings are white and all our buildings at home are gray slates.
>> It does make sense. But roofs are also a really good place for solar panels. So I would like to maybe put them up there as well. Um and green roofs are really really helpful. They also help with insulation and also biodiversity. We have to remember we must not only focus on carbon. We have to think about the ecological um sides of this as well. So things like green and blue spaces and green roofs and things like that will help with climate mitigation and resilience, but also help with the ecological crisis that we're also facing.
And just finally, Tessa, I mean, if you if you got your, let's say it was a very long lift ride with Andy Burnham and you get to make your [laughter] elevator pitch, what are you going to say?
>> I would say that he should recognize that climate policy is the way to unlock so many of the other issues and challenges that he's really concerned with. Cost of living primarily. Um but also, you know, this question of finally bringing prosperity to the parts of the UK that have been missing out. you know, really thinking about how we can create local economies with devolved powers and people feeling like they have a real sense of agency, whether that's over local energy assets or the jobs that are being created through, you know, the industries that we know the UK has massive global competitive advantage in, like offshore wind, for example. You know, I just say that this is an agenda that even if you didn't care about climate change will help you to deliver so many of the things that you care about. But also, you know, climate change is here now. It's causing ordinary people, as we've just heard today, you know, thousands of people to die prematurely, let alone all of the other ways in which it's harming households and particularly people who are already vulnerable. You know, this is a crisis that needs addressing, but it is also a massive economic opportunity for the country.
What would you say to him to make sure he doesn't do what others have done and end up dropping um you know these policies as a way to give people a shortterm boost in living standards?
>> I would say remember the quiet majority. So you know you have a vocal wellunded minority shouting against climate. You also have um a vocal proclimate lobby who have the science on their side uh um but who are you know people who sort of live and breathe climate probably about sort of 20% of the population and then you've got like 60 or 70% who are quietly supportive who want to be part of the solution who want to see government taking that leadership And you know, I work at the University of Manchester. I've seen how things like a decent public transport infrastructure can put a spring in people's step. There's some amazing stuff on on on on houses. You know, there's carbon co-op locally, which is sort of um which is cooperative funding of um street by street energy efficiency improvements and and and um collectively owned renewables. So, you know, some of the solutions are living and breathing in Manchester. So, I think I'd do a bit of sort of pro-Manchester boosterism to to to get him on side. But, you know, cities like Manchester do actually show what's possible with that kind of vision and leadership.
Thank you all very much indeed. Thank you for joining us. That's the forecast. Until next time, bye-bye.