National Security Threatened By Climate Crisis, UK Intelligence Chiefs Due To Warn (theguardian.com) 57
The UK's national security is under severe threat from the climate crisis and the looming collapse of vital natural ecosystems, with food shortages and economic disaster potentially just years away, a powerful report by the UK's intelligence chiefs is due to warn. The Guardian: However, the report, which was supposed to launch on Thursday at a landmark event in London, has been delayed, and concerns have been expressed to the Guardian that it may have been blocked by number 10. The destabilising impact of the climate and nature crises on national security is one of the biggest risks facing Britain, the joint intelligence committee report is understood to say.
Already, food import supply chains are coming under pressure, with the price of some commodities increasing. This could be exacerbated in the near future, the defence experts have warned, with the UK over-dependent on imports. Other industries will also be affected by ecosystem collapse in places such as the Amazon and by the worsening impacts of extreme weather around the world. These impacts will not be encountered far off in the future as some had complacently assumed, ministers have been told, but are already being felt and will grow in significance as temperatures rise beyond 1.5C above preindustrial levels.
The hard-hitting report was to be published on Thursday at a landmark event in London. But the Guardian understands that the report, prepared by experts over many months, has been halted.
Already, food import supply chains are coming under pressure, with the price of some commodities increasing. This could be exacerbated in the near future, the defence experts have warned, with the UK over-dependent on imports. Other industries will also be affected by ecosystem collapse in places such as the Amazon and by the worsening impacts of extreme weather around the world. These impacts will not be encountered far off in the future as some had complacently assumed, ministers have been told, but are already being felt and will grow in significance as temperatures rise beyond 1.5C above preindustrial levels.
The hard-hitting report was to be published on Thursday at a landmark event in London. But the Guardian understands that the report, prepared by experts over many months, has been halted.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes. If they are already "over-dependent on imports" for food, perhaps they need to reduce demand. Bringing boatloads of more mouths to feed is just going to make the problem worse.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. The UK is already housing more than 4 times as many people as it could sustainably hold. Naturally there is increasing pressure on food, water, housing, and everything else. Together with growing hostility as people from different and violently clashing cultures are crammed together in the absurd belief that the pressure will somehow crush them into a homogeneous whole according to the wrongheaded "melting pot" theory.
Now that reality is making itself felt, what is left for the political class to do
Re: (Score:2)
The UK is already housing more than 4 times as many people as it could sustainably hold
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
The UK is already housing more than 4 times as many people as it could sustainably hold
Citation needed.
https://8billionangels.org/ear... [8billionangels.org]
https://data.footprintnetwork.... [footprintnetwork.org] (Click UK on map)
CONgrats! (Score:1, Insightful)
Your London mayor is a Muslim.
Congrats for exposing yourself as the fucking xenophobe you are.
Re:UK, your issue isn't "climate change" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But you are leaving out the difference in fertility. The fertility rate of the UK, which as you noted is a population dominated by native britons who trace their ancestry on the island back a millennium or more, is 1.4 live births per woman. The replacement rate is 2.1. In a hundred years the UK will have a smaller population than Haiti.
Re: (Score:1)
are we admitting brexit was a utter failure and all you tory dummies got swindled by idiots like boris johnson, nigel farage and tommy robinson
if you can admit that maybe we'll care about your opinions about anything again
Re:UK, your issue isn't "climate change" (Score:5, Funny)
Real issues for fake (Score:2)
Sounds like you're feeding a troll, but I don't even know what kind of food "gammon" is. But does it come in kosher and halal versions?
Re:Real issues for fake (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for providing an explanation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Surely you jest. I was told brexit would solve all immigration issues. Do you mean to tell me that was an outright lie?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change is real, stop misdirection (Score:1, Troll)
Sorry, but what kind of far-right misdirection do you spread? The mayor of London may be a favorite object of hate from far right groups for being both of the wrong faith, and because he is implementing progressive policy on for example local air quality, climate and slightly better social equality. And leads a city where people of many ethnicities and religions mostly get around together rather OK. Which is a powerful counter-example to xenophobic rants. (The support for LGBTQ+, women's rights, factual sci
Translation: (Score:1, Insightful)
UK, your most pressing issue to your own sovereigngty and security isn't "climate change" but Unchecked Immigration
Your London mayor is a Muslim.
Translation: "whaaaa! Mommy I'm scared!!!!"
Someone call the fucking whambulance.
Re: (Score:1)
UK, your most pressing issue to your own sovereigngty and security isn't "climate change" but Unchecked Immigration
Maybe we could just try to stay on-topic, for once.
Re: (Score:2)
Because under a true system of sovereignty, people wouldn't be allowed to vote for a Muslim mayor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also while not in the legislature the Russian Orthodox Church is effectively a tool of the state as well, something I am sure that group looks upon fondly as many here in the US do as well; Patriarch Kirill of Moscow [wikipedia.org]
On 9 March 2022, after the liturgy, he declared that Russia has the right to use force against Ukraine to ensure Russia's security, that Ukrainians and Russians are one people, that Russia and Ukraine are one country, that the West incites Ukrainians to kill Russians to sow discord between Russ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My bible is a little rusty but we all know Jesus said the clergy should present gaudy displays of wealth and gold. When he saw the money changers at the temple he sat down and gave them business pointers. "Gotta look rich to be rich"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:UK, your issue isn't "climate change" (Score:5, Interesting)
Your London mayor is a Muslim.
So? I'm a Jew. Also not a racist piece of shit, so I don't mind having someone who's brown and from a different religious background. He's been doing a pretty decent job, good enough that he'd get my vote again.
You are being invaded by the boatload, your own people are starting to rebel against you, and yet you push harder -- arrest anyone who dares voice a differing opinion
Ah yes, alternative facts land. Right wing domestic abusing racists attack the police: 25 arrests. Grannies holding cardboard signs quietly that support Palestine and attack the governments abhorrent use of the terrorism act: 2000 arrests.
You see people flying the Union Jack as racists.
So?
You see your own people in a very negative light.
Only the racist ones.
Re: (Score:2)
You see your own people in a very negative light.
Only the racist ones.
That's precisely the part that he doesn't like!
Re: (Score:2)
People outside the UK and Europe might not be aware of the history of flag shaggers here. Germany in particular is very careful to avoid displaying their flag outside of specific circumstances, due to the history of it being abused by the far right.
Back in the 1930s we had the same thing with our far right, Oswald Mosley and his British Union of Fascists. So when people see the far right using the British flag again, or the English flag, while ranting about immigration using the same language as they did in
Re: (Score:1)
Your London mayor is a Muslim.
Oh no! Not someone with a religion you don't like. Whatever will we do? Joking of course, this isn't a real question. The answer is nothing. We will do nothing because unlike you we aren't raving bigoted arseholes.
Re: (Score:1)
we aren't raving bigoted arseholes.
Unless we're talking about Christians, then it's game-on with all the pedo/skydaddy remarks.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never seen a post that does not scream PROPAGANDA paid for by enemies of the west as badly as yours.
1) You ignored the actual article entirely.
2) You bring up an another issue, picking an obviously evil and false opinion, designed to focus on conservative old people not capable of realizing all the red flags you write.
3) You use racist statements that are not even relevant to the issue you claim to be against.
4) You make extreme and obnoxious claims that the good guys are being insulted, when they ar
Re: (Score:2)
Ghu, what a fucking "Christian" white-supremecist asshole.
The UK is an *island*. The big cities are all *ports*, at sea level.
Before the nutcases in the US took over, the US DoD was seriously concerned about sea level rise. Quick, what's one result of increasing heat and sea level rise?
Oh, that's right... immigration.
Re: (Score:2)
If you BELIEVE it... (Score:2)
it's not a lie. - G. Costanza
More government using the Costanza maxim to guide their policy.
Good that UK is building more nuclear power plants (Score:2)
From a few weeks ago:
https://www.bbc.com/news/artic... [bbc.com]
Of course mention of nuclear power bring out the usual suspects to scare monger.
But Greenpeace questioned the UK's focus on nuclear power.
"If these proposals for new reactors scattered around Britain really materialise, the net effect will be higher bills from nuclear's relentlessly spiralling costs, and more CO2 as we wait for the builders to overcome their inevitable construction delays," said Dr Douglas Parr, chief scientist for Greenpeace UK.
But if the UK never gets experience on building nuclear power plants then they costs will not come down. Once the costs come down from experience then what is your complaint.?
Centrica's chief executive Chris O'Shea told the BBC's Today programme that increased costs and delays "can happen in all large projects".
But he said: "What you need to do is you need to do more than just one every 20 years in order to get better. So, the more you practice, the better you get which is why small and advanced modular reactors are particularly interesting because they'll be repetitive so you'll produce the same thing over and over again.
"That should bring improvements both in terms of cost and schedule and reliability and cost as well."
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has previously said he wants the UK to return to being "one of the world leaders on nuclear".
If the argument against nuclear power was that it hasn't been done before were to hold then we'd never have deployed solar PV because there was a time that solar PV wasn't tried before. This is a bulls
Re: (Score:1)
The arguments against it in short are that it is: dangerous, costly (Im not sure I understand your argument about gaining experience building it out as infrastructure? - seems a bit bizarre - it is eg. Chinese companies that are building it for us as far as I can see?), time-consuming to build, generates impossible-to-dispose-of radioactive waste and is ultimately unnecessary. Why it seems at all popular I can only put down to greed, misinformation and possibly corruption? Renewables are not profitable, nuc
Re: (Score:1)
The arguments against it in short are that it is: dangerous
Nuclear power is quite safe. Source: https://ourworldindata.org/saf... [ourworldindata.org]
costly
Nuclear fission is quite competitive on price. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
(Im not sure I understand your argument about gaining experience building it out as infrastructure? - seems a bit bizarre - it is eg. Chinese companies that are building it for us as far as I can see?)
Whomever is building the power plants will gain experience and therefore find ways to reduce costs. I don't much care if the people building the plant come from France, China, Japan, South Korea, Wakanda, Narnia, or Latveria. So long as these same construction companies are invited back to build more they will do so with more experience the next
Re: (Score:1)
Nuclear fission is quite competitive on price. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
According to your link, nuclear fission is entirely uncompetitive. I am not saying there are no applications for nuclear sites especially as a base load provider but cost of generation is firmly in the renewable camp now, and has been for quite some time. I see any technology that lowers global CO2 outputs as the way to go.
Re: (Score:1)
Im sorry to hear it sounds like you feel a bit aggrieved in your tireless crusade for nuclear power? Im glad though that you have steeled yourself with plenty of cold, hard incontrovertible data that proves that the nuclear option is the sole solution available? Seriously though, if you genuinely have everyone's best interests at heart then I sincerely wish you more power! I am certainly not an expert (are you?) but here is my quick attempt at providing some links with counter-arguments:
'wind and solar will
Re: (Score:1)
'wind and solar will power datacenters more cheaply than nuclear, study finds':
No, that's not what the study said. It specified SMR, small modular reactors, not all nuclear power. That level of specificity tells me that they likely found more traditional (commonly referred to as "3rd generation") nuclear power lower cost but they didn't want to reveal that as it would be counter to their anti-nuclear agenda. It appears to be working as people are misinterpreting the results, just as you have.
'The report, prepared by independent expert bodies CSIRO with the Australian Energy Market Operator.. finds firmed renewables, including transmission and storage costs, provide Australians the cheapest power, at between $83/MWh and $120/MWh in 2030, when they account for 80 per cent of variable generation"':
That report also limits the options for nuclear energy to SMR. Why are studies on nuclear
Re: (Score:1)
Ok - first things first: please try not to be so defensive/perjorative/exasperated - I think we are basically on the same side in wanting to replace fossil fuels with something that provides cheaper and more abundant energy for the UK?
Could we agree for example on an independent source of data? Maybe something like:
https://www.iea.org/data-and-s... [iea.org]
Or would you suggest an alternative source?
I wasnt aware of third-generation reactors as a separate category so I appreciate you informing me about them. For anyo
Re: (Score:2)
But if the UK never gets experience on building nuclear power plants then they costs will not come down. Once the costs come down from experience then what is your complaint.?
The UK doesn't build anything. The building and experience will come from the French, the most experienced there is. And they also experience the most incredible cost overruns.
The most experienced companies have gone bankrupt in the nuclear industry. That doesn't fit your narrative at all now does it.
The UK won't be building anything in the near future, or the distant one. What they will do is spend a lot of money.
Re: (Score:2)
You need things that are powered by BATTERIES if nuclear power (or any other type of electricity) is going to fix the climate problems.
You have posted anti-battery propaganda.
Therefore I conclude you actually don't care one bit about nuclear power and are just trying to be a nay-sayer. Good day.
Re: (Score:1)
Are you being serious?
You are being so absurd it looks like some kind of parody.
Clickbait fraud (Score:3, Interesting)
"the report... has been halted"...
"the joint intelligence committee report is understood to say"
The rumor mill has gone wild! Somebody is trying to create a headline
This is a perfect example of bullshit fake news. Brought to you by the ubiquitous "people familiar with the matter"
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian is usually fairly reliable on this sort of thing. They have editorial standards.
It makes complete sense anyway. One of the biggest threats facing the UK is climate change. It's going to cost us a fortune, a lot of people are going to die prematurely, and we aren't doing nearly enough to limit it, or to adapt to it.
Danger is running AMOC (Score:1)
TFA has a register-wall, but the potential "AMOC catastrophe" would really kick UK in the head. Their farms would become nearly useless.
National security? What does that mean anymore? (Score:2)
In the US, "national security" is a phrase that is now thrown about by any President who wants to do something unpopular. Is that what this is?
Not becomming a second priority news item (Score:2)
Oddly, there is a trend of those with long standing and well entrenched political or social issues, non-profits for them, NGOs and paid-speaking tours about them doing a "our topic is the most important, needs the most government funding, needs the most news coverage, ..." for the last year.
We can and have in the past held multiple priorities in the center of political discourse, debate, news, media focus, political campaigns and government program funding.
What we are seeing is the different political / soc