Pursuing Net Zero Makes the UK Vulnerable to Bad Weather, BBC, Not Climate Change

From ClimateREALISM

Linnea Lueken

A recent article at the BBC, “Government told to prepare for 2C warming by 2050,” claims that the United Kingdom needs to prepare for increasing extreme weather as the planet approaches 2°C warming. This is false in its framing. Although it’s always a good idea to harden infrastructure against weather, the UK is not suffering more extreme weather due to human emissions of carbon dioxide, and the recommendation of attempting to prevent temperature rise is not going to help anyone.

The BBC’s post discusses a letter written by the UK government’s “Climate Change Committee” (CCC), which the BBC reports said, “[t]he country was ‘not yet adapted’ to worsening weather extremes already occurring at current levels of warming, ‘let alone’ what was expected to come.”

The CCC asked the government to “set out a framework of clear long-term objectives” to prevent further temperature rise, with new targets every five years and departments “clearly accountable” for delivering those goals. It warned that “a global warming level of 2C would have significant impact on the UK’s weather, with extreme events becoming more frequent and widespread.”

These include increases in heatwaves, droughts, floods, and longer wildfire seasons.

These claims are fearmongering, and no amount of deindustrialization – which is what’s implied by the “objectives to prevent further temperature rise”—will stop bad weather from happening, nor will it have any measurable impact on global average temperature.

The simple fact is that the UK contributes a very small amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which would in theory contribute an even smaller amount to warming. According to emissions data, the global share of all UK carbon dioxide emissions is 0.88 percent. Not even 1 percent. Eliminating UK emissions would do absolutely nothing to slow or stop any amount of warming that could be connected to human emissions, if they are, in fact, driving temperature changes.

On top of that, data do not show that weather is becoming more extreme in the UK.

The BBC claims that global warming will increase the wildfire season in the UK, and presumably they believe it must have already done so during the past 150 years of planetary warming. A longer wildfire season should result in more fires. Available data, however, does not show that wildfires are getting more frequent or more intense in the UK. Satellite data from Copernicus show no trend at all.

For another example, looking at Central England as this Climate Realism post did, the number of days per year breaching 25°C (77°F) show no rising trend, nor does the measured highest daily maximum.

Long term historical data for Europe show that drought is likewise not worse today than it was during the Renaissance, long before industrialization.

What is really notable is that Europe alone has actually already warmed 2°C since about 1820, according to historic European temperature averages, but no catastrophic change in weather has occurred. (See figure below)

Berkeley Earth average European temperature showing a 2.0°C rise since about 1820. Source: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/europe Annotated by Anthony Watts

Weather isn’t getting worse, but bad weather does still happen. The UK’s largest industrial solar facility, for example, blighting the landscape of Anglesey, North Wales, was recently destroyed by a bad storm. That should be enough to give government agencies pause when it comes to at least some net-zero policies, but the real point is that hardening infrastructure against weather should be a priority regardless of climate change. Bad weather will occur, and it will wreck fragile facilities, including solar complexes.

Hardening against weather extremes, which always have and always will exist, is just common sense. As technology develops and new ways of protecting against bad weather are discovered (like the invention of air conditioning) they should be implemented where they can be, as they can be. Achieving net zero – especially for a county that emits negligible amounts of greenhouse gases anyway—will not save the UK from bad weather events.

As a news organization, the BBC should not carry water for its government or government advisory boards that want to continue wasting money on futile “objectives to prevent further temperature rise” when direct efforts to improve infrastructure and harden it against weather extremes, which have happened throughout history, would be far more effective in saving lives and reducing harm.

5 9 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

50 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Real Engineer
October 23, 2025 2:20 am

I can offer a paper on the physics of thermodynamics and the ridiculous CO2 concept. I cannot understand why the CO2 nonsense continues, when it is completely false.
davezawadi@yahoo.co.uk
This should cause some good discussion in comments! Story Tip.

Reply to  The Real Engineer
October 23, 2025 7:17 am

Some of these people making these judgements have no real idea of numbers and frequently have arts degrees . Whilst I’m not a Qualified engineer I did leave college in the 70s with A level Maths and Physics so I have some appreciation of numbers .
a great site for Uk weather maximums and minimums is
https://www.torro.org.uk/extremes

strativarius
October 23, 2025 2:38 am

The Tony Blair Institute strikes back….

Tony Blair says UK should drop clean power targets
It’s the second time the former prime minister has weighed in on the government’s energy strategy.

Britain should scrap its flagship target of cleaning up the power system by 2030 and focus instead on cutting energy costs, according to former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s think tank. – Politico

Why now you may well ask? Well…

Miliband defends clean power goal after energy bills rise
The energy secretary told an industry conference the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels was its “Achilles’ heel” and argued clean power was the only way to reduce bills.

Miliband insisted renewable power was cheaper than gas.BBC

The UK is more than vulnerable, it’s about to hit the rocks. The energy secretary is not going to change tack and Starmer failed to oust him. So in the vernacular, we”re right up **** creek without a paddle.

Blair hasn’t abandoned net zero, he like the Conservatives, wants to delay it. The uniparty is alive and well.

Reply to  strativarius
October 23, 2025 5:25 am

“Crash and Burn” Miliband is doubling down on stupid.

Stupid leaders stumbling blindly forward with Net Zero to the detriment of their nation.

Nothing Miliband does will accomplish the lowering of world temperatures or the lowering of electricity prices. Miliband is spinning the UK’s wheels, accomplishing nothing, and forcing the nation into bankruptcy.

Stupid people do stupid things. That’s what Miliband is doing. A little stupidity in the wrong place can bring down a whole country. I hate watching this slow-motion trainwreck.

strativarius
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 23, 2025 5:46 am

You and me, both.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 23, 2025 11:27 am

But I bet he’ll get a really nice pension.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  strativarius
October 26, 2025 8:30 am

No, this freight train is barreling to the school of hard lessons and failure. Is it the mindset of former colonialists that causes this delay process?

StephenP
October 23, 2025 2:39 am

The main problem seems to be that so many of the people crying wolf have only very limited experience of the range of weather events and think that any extreme events are unprecedented.
In 79 years in the UK there have been extremes of heat and cold, wet and dry seasons.
The 2 degree rise in temperatures in Europe since 1820 can be attributed to our coming out of the Little Ice Age. Do the activists want us to go back there?
Many of the problems have been exacerbated by poor infrastructure maintenance.
For example the flooding of the Somerset levels was made worse by the lack of dredging of the rivers and poor management.
If the money being wasted on unreliables had been spent on infrastructure many of the disasters would have been alleviated.
As the article says, the UK is responsible for a miniscule percentage of world CO2 emissions,
and is no higher than in 1880.
Considering the amount of industry that is being destroyed by the NZ policies, we are on track for the ever increasing bloated public sector being financed by an ever decreasing pool of productive businesses who actually generate the tax revenue needed.
Back in the 1970s a friend said that the socialists wouldn’t be happy until everyone worked for the government and lived in state housing, except for the elite of course.
At present we seem to be well on our way, “going to hell in a handcart” as the saying goes.
End of rant.

strativarius
Reply to  StephenP
October 23, 2025 2:43 am

Do the activists want us to go back there?

Considering their attempts to remove the trace gas of life from the atmosphere, by hook or by crook, one can only conclude that they do.

StephenP
Reply to  strativarius
October 23, 2025 3:03 am

I see that Tony Blair is promoting digital ID which make future control of the populace even easier.

strativarius
Reply to  StephenP
October 23, 2025 3:31 am

Last time (2000s) it was the answer to terrorism and 9/11

This time twenty years later it’s the answer to illegal imigration and the small boats invasion…

Reply to  strativarius
October 23, 2025 4:08 am

The Europeans have an enduring love for identity papers. They’ve had them for years, fingerprints and all. I remember attending a police station in Belgium in the 1960s with my parents to get their fingerprints recorded.

It has not proven very effective keeping economic migrants out of Europe.

The attraction for many migrants is not that we eschew identity papers; it’s that we use a language they were taught in school.

strativarius
Reply to  quelgeek
October 23, 2025 4:30 am

In an old box I have my mother’s identity card from WWII. The one thing that wasn’t on a British ID card was a photograph.

That fact struck me when I came across it after she passed.

October 23, 2025 2:41 am

On 26th. January 2026 twentyeight random people held a meeting at which it was decided that the BBC no longer could give balanced reports on climate and any BBC employee who breached this decision would be dismissed.

strativarius
Reply to  Oldseadog
October 23, 2025 2:50 am

2006…

Reply to  strativarius
October 23, 2025 3:05 am

Yep.
Chronometric disfunction strikes again.

SxyxS
Reply to  Oldseadog
October 23, 2025 5:45 am

Maybe there is an imperial system for this too – to make life easier.

An inch past five or three miles past the civil war.

strativarius
Reply to  SxyxS
October 23, 2025 5:47 am

Check your watch… two hairs past three pimples..

StephenP
Reply to  Oldseadog
October 23, 2025 2:54 am

The person who interviewed Nigel Lawson got a rollocking for having him on his programme.
The current environmental correspondents seem so biased that they make me want to switch off, although I do keep watching as it’s interesting to pick holes in their arguments.

strativarius
Reply to  StephenP
October 23, 2025 3:04 am

Journalists? Hacktivists.

StephenP
Reply to  Oldseadog
October 23, 2025 2:55 am

2026?

Reply to  StephenP
October 23, 2025 3:05 am

See above. Thanks both.

atticman
Reply to  Oldseadog
October 23, 2025 4:36 am

And one of those 28 was BBC’s Head of Comedy! You couldn’t make it up…

strativarius
Reply to  atticman
October 23, 2025 5:36 am

BBC comedy is soakingly woke and right on. Deniers, as they call us, are the butt of the jokes as are people who understand basic biology.

Reply to  strativarius
October 23, 2025 11:31 am

And maths, and physics …

MarkW
Reply to  Oldseadog
October 23, 2025 6:27 am

The really amazing thing was that they actually thought that prior to 2006, they were giving balanced reports.

willhaas
October 23, 2025 3:11 am

Yes! Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science.

strativarius
October 23, 2025 3:57 am

On the subject Quixotian futility…

Sadiq Khan’s Ulez Expansion Had No Impact on Air Pollution, Study Finds

a breakthrough study suggests that fervent opposition at the time was well-judged. 
Scientists at the University of Birmingham say the expansion of the Ulez in August 2023 had no significant impact on lowering air pollution.

In addition, London still faces air pollution levels well above international health-based guidelines, according to the experts. 

Campaigners are now calling for Ulez to be scrapped altogether as it is saddling “Londoners with mountains of debt”. 

“This is just further evidence that the Ulez expansion was about raising money rather than improving air quality,” Thomas Turrell, Transport and Environment spokesperson for City Hall Conservatives, told the Daily Mail.  – Daily Sceptic

atticman
Reply to  strativarius
October 23, 2025 4:37 am

Why am I not surprised?

John Hultquist
Reply to  strativarius
October 23, 2025 7:35 am

ULEZ = Ultra Low Emission Zone
Wikipedia has a page with map

Reply to  strativarius
October 23, 2025 5:39 pm

“International health based guidelines” were significantly tightened when it became apparent that cities like London were going to be deemed healthy under the old ones. Yet for key pollutants, a city like Kathmandu (in an enclosed mountain valley) or Mexico City (ditto) have pollution levels that are more than an order of magnitude higher and nobody does anything.

The new guidelines do not appear to have been set with any proper evidence that they will make any significant change to health outcomes compared with their predecessors. Once again, it’s models all the way down.

atticman
October 23, 2025 4:34 am

“The energy secretary told an industry conference the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels was its “Achilles’ heel” and argued clean power was the only way to reduce bills.”

Yes, Ed, and black is white. For once, I agree with Mr. Blair.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  atticman
October 23, 2025 9:03 am

It’s the moon. No! It’s the sun!

StephenP
October 23, 2025 4:46 am

The photo at the top of the article looks like Glastonbury Tor in Somerset, home to the Festival, centre of the Glastonbury Zodiac and mecca for New Age believers (especially in climate change.)

1saveenergy
Reply to  StephenP
October 23, 2025 5:25 am

Yes, it is.

October 23, 2025 5:24 am

I wonder who is on that Climate Change Committee.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
October 23, 2025 5:33 am

Below is a list of the current members:
Lord DebenChair
Chris StarkChief Executive
Professor Keith BellMember
Professor Swenja SurminskiMember (also on Adaptation Committee)
Professor Michael DaviesMember (also on Adaptation Committee)
Baroness BrownChair of the Adaptation Committee
Additional MembersVarious experts in climate science and policy
The CCC is an ‘independent body’ established under the Climate Change Act of 2008,

1saveenergy
October 23, 2025 5:27 am

Pursuing Net Zero Makes the UK Vulnerable. 

That’s all you need to say !!

October 23, 2025 6:07 am

The BBC has it own truth. An interlocutor asks an in-house correspondent questions and the answer is irrefutable fact, is the truth. Most modern news outlets configure fore and against commentary. The head of BBC issued an instruction to all its broadcasters some time ago instructing them never to counter the then unopposable narrative about the climate, an instruction never rescinded. To see how this pans-out in a real life scenario you have to hear the rebuttal voiced by the President of Guyana, when accused of bad faith by one of the BBC’s most prominent reporters, Stephen Sackur. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001xt5x

1saveenergy
Reply to  Europeanonion
October 23, 2025 2:28 pm

Stupid Sackur wasn’t expecting that, (:-))
a self-righteous, arrogant, white hypocrite being schooled by a Blackman & all Sackur could do was whine that greenpiss said ….

Well done Mohamed Irfaan Ali
A year later, Sackur got the sack (:-))

(Nb: The surname Sackur is derived from an occupation related to making sacks)

October 23, 2025 7:11 am

So they reckon a 2C increase would be a disaster for UK ! Yet millions of UK residents go to Spain for holidays where it is frequently 5C higher in temperatures than the UK , and guess what they all survive . I like to go to Gran Canaria which is a Spanish island of the coast of North West Africa and in the winter when it’s 5C in Uk it’s 22C in Gran Canaria and lovely and I survive maybe with a few sore heads from the San Miguel or Tropical lager .

Reply to  Northern Bear
October 24, 2025 1:01 am

Yes, and there is no guarantee that the UK will see that 2C increase in temperatures any time soon.

If weather history is considered, it is just as likely that the UK will experience a 2C decrease in temperatures, rather than a 2C increase.

John Hultquist
October 23, 2025 7:28 am

If the fire-season is longer it is because of more people doing things that cause fires over a slightly longer week or three. Education programs about things that spark fires is the best approach to reducing the burden of fire. Since about 2012/2014, when the State of Washington hosted several toasty fires, this approach has been helpful. 

October 23, 2025 8:22 am

A desperate cry for more and longer lasting blackouts…maybe this lunacy will end the hardest way…because I sincerely doubt reason will bring it to it’s knees.

Reply to  varg
October 23, 2025 11:36 am

And they will blame the blackouts on the greedy utility companies.

October 23, 2025 11:01 am

They love to blame bad weather (and everything else deemed “bad”) on “Climate Change”.
What do they blame nice weather and other good things on?

Bob
October 23, 2025 12:45 pm

Very nice Linnea. There is nothing surprising here, a year or two ago a 1.5 C increase in average global temperature was the measure for catastrophe. My understanding is we passed that and slipped back a little. That took the emergency out of the 1.5 figure so now as expected they moved on to a 2 C increase. It is all so predictable. What isn’t being said though is that even if we reached the 2 C increase by 2100 that would only be a half of one degree C increase in the next 75 years. These guys are full of road apples.

October 23, 2025 8:36 pm

There seems to be great resistance to the UK energy policy, and Milliband in particular, but Milliband and the policy persist. Is there a reason such perversions of rational thought persist?

Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
October 24, 2025 1:22 am

“but Milliband and the policy persist”

That’s the problem. I don’t know how it gets solved. The politicians who could fire him don’t seem to want to do that, so they are as much the problem as he is.

They have already done great damage to the UK, and things will only get worse if they continue.

ResourceGuy
October 26, 2025 8:27 am

The UK government needs to prepare for recession and budget collapse first.

Verified by MonsterInsights