Essay by Eric Worrall
“… we are calling for a televised national emergency briefing, so that what happened in Central Hall Westminster can reach the public …”
What we told UK leaders about climate and nature at a national emergency briefing
Published: December 3, 2025 11.03pm AEDT
Paul Behrens
British Academy Global Professor, Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of OxfordI joined eight other experts to deliver a national emergency briefing in late November on the climate and nature to around 1,200 of the UK’s leaders — across politics, business, faith and culture — in Central Hall Westminster.
…
I spoke about food security and the great food transformation that’s needed, including dietary change, waste reductions, production improvements and increased resilience. I explained how more plants in our diets are necessary to reduce climate and nature impacts, improve our health, increase food resilience and reduce reliance on imports.
…
The science was news to many present. The planet is heading into dangerous overshoot above 1.5°C within the next few years. As Anderson pointed out: for the UK to meet its fair share obligations in emissions reductions without relying on highly speculative and costly carbon dioxide removal, we would need to see roughly 13% year-on-year reductions for just 2°C – let alone 1.5°C.
…A just, equitable transition to a clean economy would improve countless aspects of our lives, from creating jobs and improving health to strengthening communities and increasing resilience. We will look back on this moment bewildered that we did not act sooner, if we are able to act in time.
This is why we are calling for a televised national emergency briefing, so that what happened in Central Hall Westminster can reach the public. Anyone can sign this open letter, calling on the prime minister, Keir Starmer, and the heads of the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, S4C and the media regulator Ofcom, for urgent, honest communication about the scale of the crisis and the solutions available.
Read more: https://theconversation.com/what-we-told-uk-leaders-about-climate-and-nature-at-a-national-emergency-briefing-270992
Just what everyone wants right – even more breathless BBC climate coverage.
Their main website is nebriefing.org, the claim they have collected 39,419 signatures on their petition to pressure broadcasters into carrying their “emergency briefing” at the time of writing this article.
If you look at their youtube channel, it’s pretty obvious why they are demanding national TV coverage. Their viewer numbers for most of their broadcasts are in the low hundreds – the kind of numbers you would expect if friends and family took an interest. Perhaps everyone who wanted to watch was in the hall when they delivered their briefing.
Why are climate scientists being forced to be for TV time? Why aren’t Britons taking more of an interest?
I guess its hard to take an interest in the pontification of comfortable well fed establishment climate scientists, when you are shivering under a blanket in an unheated house, wondering how many meals you’ll have to skip that week to pay the green electricity bill and your kids school expenses – a daily reality which way too many Britons are currently experiencing.
It would help matters if the said ‘expert ‘ could actually count!
He claims to have joined eight other experts but the panel has ten sat there not nine?
Perhaps Paul can tell us which one of the group presenting was not an expert?
The problem for these kinds of folks is overreach and overstretch. If you stack up too many issues it’s hard to keep focus.
That is why the focus has always been on CO2 emmission reduction, no matter what the real motivation is or was.
But you can’t hide that for long. You can argue about the level of state intervention, organic farming, pollution, commercialism, energy policy etc but these people want everything in extremis and they want it NOW. That is why, in any conversation they take a false moral highground and do not address specifics except putting up targets etc.
From Downton Abbey: “don’t you feel rather cold up there on your moral highground?”
Everyone will remember that ‘Paris’ said Two Degrees. Clearly would take decades to reach and not frightening enough so the IPCC was told to write SR1.5 in time for the failed Katowice COP. It rambles for pages about how much safer 1.5 is but the science was laughed at. The basis for the 1.5 lying scare has no scientific weight. Why is it not challenged every time an alarmist mentions it? Because actually the Great British Public couldn’t care a toss about the climate arguments.
More plants, to a certain point, do improve health. Beyond that point, no.
We are omnivores. We need meat to be healthy.
“honest communication about the scale of the crisis”
That’s the heart of the dishonesty.
Another sign of a passing/complacent generation. They want attention and their go to is … broadcast TV?
Mindset from a bygone day when media consumers had no choices.
Their fearsome message will boom out into the empty living rooms of lonely old widows with landlines.
Hello, I’m new here, and also, late. It took me a while to dredge this up from memory. Is there a relation to this?
Q112 Baroness Young of Old Scone: […] Is it possible to generate a short-term crisis, as it were, in climate change that kickstarts through a communications programme across the Government the sort of enthusiasm, commitment and energy that we saw during Covid
From Environment and Climate Change Committee Corrected oral evidence: Mobilising action on climate change and environment: behaviour change, Tuesday 26 April 2022
UK scientists wetting their pants again I see. Sounds like a re-run of Covid where we were all going to die from the ‘flu.