Miliband says UK's way of life ‘under threat' amid extremes of heat and rainfall
From earlier spring events in nature to record warm periods in 2024, which have already been beaten again this year, Met Office experts say the UK's climate is 'notably different' from just a few decades ago.
Ed Miliband and Steve Reed at the Ock and Thame Farmers floodplain restoration project in Oxfordshire (Jonathan Brady/PA)
The report details the climate in 2024, and over the longer term, highlighting how the UK has warmed at a rate of about 0.25C a decade and is now about 1.24C warmer than from 1961 to 1990.
For the first time, the report also found UK sea levels to be rising faster than the global average.
The Energy Secretary called the findings 'a stark warning' to take action on climate and nature.
'Our British way of life is under threat,' Mr Miliband told the PA news agency.
Heavy rain in September last year caused flooding in some areas (Joe Giddens/PA)
'Whether it is extreme heat, droughts, flooding, we can see it actually with our own eyes, that it's already happening, and we need to act.
'That's why the Government has a central mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower and tackle the climate crisis.'
On those who oppose Labour's green policies, he said: '(U)nless, we act on the cause of what is happening, the cause of what is changing our climate, then we will be betraying future generations.'
He spoke during a visit to a project restoring a rare alkaline fen at Hinksey Heights, Oxfordshire, with Environment Secretary Steve Reed, ahead of the report's release.
Conservationists told the ministers how the fen, which is part of a national effort to expand the country's best freshwater habitats, was helping to boost wetland biodiversity and sequester planet-heating carbon in the atmosphere.
Environment Secretary Steve Reed speaks to the media at the Ock and Thame Farmers floodplain restoration project (Jonathan Brady/PA)
Responding to the report, Mr Reed told PA it 'lays absolutely bare the damaging impact of climate change on people living in this country'.
But he said that through projects like the fen, 'we're tackling the problem of nature loss and also we're tackling the problem of climate change at the same time'.
One year in, Labour has been fiercely criticised over its approach to the environment, including concerns around planning reforms sidelining nature in pursuit of growth.
The Environment Secretary defended the Government's actions, pointing to boosting funding for sustainable farming and developing the nature restoration fund so that money from house builders goes towards more impactful landscape-scale projects.
'We'd become one of the most nature-depleted countries on earth,' he said. 'This Government is calling time on that decline.'
Elsewhere, the report said that the last three years have been in the top five warmest on record for the UK.
Last year was the fourth warmest in records dating back to 1884, while the year had the warmest May and warmest spring on record – already beaten by 2025's record hot spring.
But Mike Kendon, Met Office climate scientist and lead author of the report, said: 'It's the extremes of temperature and rainfall that is changing the most, and that's of profound concern, and that's going to continue in the future.'
The hottest summer days have warmed about twice as much as average summer days have in the past decade in some parts of the UK, according to new analysis in the report.
And as the UK's climate warms, it is also getting wetter, with extremes of rainfall, floods and storms in 2024, as in recent years.
England and Wales had the wettest winter from October 2023 to March 2024 on record in more than 250 years, as floods hit Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, the West Midlands and eastern Scotland.
But while red warnings were issued for storm Isha in January and storm Darragh in December, observations do not currently suggest the UK is becoming stormier or windier.
Overall, however, the country's weather is changing because of rising greenhouse gases pushing up global temperature, Mr Kendon said, with records being broken 'very frequently'.
Floods in Loughborough, Leicestershire (Joe Giddens/PA)
'Every year that goes by is another upward step on the warming trajectory our climate is on,' he said.
'Observations show that our climate in the UK is now notably different to what it was just a few decades ago.'
The report also said tide gauge records since the 1900s show sea level rise around the UK is speeding up, with two-thirds of the rise of that time taking place in just the last three decades.
Dr Svetlana Jevrejeva, from the National Oceanography Centre, said the UK's coasts would start to see more events where rising sea levels combined with high tides would lead to coastal inundation, even without storms.
'This extra sea level rise contribution is leading to an increase in the frequency of extreme sea levels and an intensification of coastal hazards,' she said.
To highlight the impact of the UK's warming climate on wildlife, the report drew on Nature's Calendar, a volunteer-fed database of the natural signs of the changing seasons managed by the Woodland Trust.
Records for 2024 show that spring was earlier than average for 12 of the 13 spring events monitored, and the earliest in the data running back to 1999 for frogspawn appearing and blackbirds nesting.
The period of the year in which leaves were on trees from spring to autumn was also longer than average, mostly because of the earlier spring in 2024.
Chief executive of the Royal Meteorological Society, Professor Liz Bentley, said the report reinforced the 'clear and urgent signals of our changing climate'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
7 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Fujitsu ‘kicking can down the road' on compensation, says Post Office campaigner
Conservative peer Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, who played a pivotal role in exposing the outrage, accused the Japanese tech giant of holding out with a view to reducing the amount it would ultimately have to pay. He argued the only way to change the under-fire company's attitude would be for the Government to stop awarding it contracts. Despite its involvement in the Post Office debacle, the firm has continued to secure multimillion-pound deals with Whitehall, bankrolled by the taxpayer. Fujitsu has already acknowledged it has a 'moral obligation' to contribute to compensation, pending the outcome of the public inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams. The firm has come under renewed pressure after the publication of the first part of Sir Wyn's final report. It found around 1,000 people were wrongly prosecuted and convicted after Fujitsu's defective Horizon accounting system made it appear that money was missing at their Post Office branches. Some victims were sent to prison or financially ruined, others were shunned by their communities, and some took their own lives. The long-running battle for justice accelerated dramatically after ITV broadcast the drama Mr Bates Vs The Post Office, which highlighted the scandal. Sir Wyn said around 10,000 people are eligible to submit compensation claims following what has been dubbed as the worst miscarriage of justice in British legal history. Speaking in Parliament, Lord Arbuthnot said: 'This matter has taken place over many years, under Labour ministers, Lib Dem ministers, Conservative ministers, 'We should all, frankly, hang our heads in shame.' He added: 'I went along to The Oval last week to listen to Sir Wyn give his excellent report, and he used a telling phrase about Fujitsu, namely that they were kicking the can down the road. 'That's exactly what they are doing. 'The longer they think they can stave off paying a single penny towards the victims of this matter, the less they think they will have to pay. 'Does the Government recognise that the only way we can change that behaviour is to stop giving them contracts?' Responding, business minister Baroness Jones of Whitchurch said: 'I must pay absolute tribute to him for all of his involvement in this running scandal over many years, and for helping to bring the scandal to light.' She said the Government was in 'active dialogue' with Fujitsu on the issue of compensation. The company has said it will not bid for contracts 'with new Government customers' until the Post Office Horizon inquiry concludes. However, this still leaves it open to tender for work with existing Whitehall clients or 'where there is an agreed need for Fujitsu's skills and capabilities'. Latest figures show a further 12 new deals had been struck with the company over the last year, in addition to extensions of existing contracts. The Government has said the majority are for services already provided by Fujitsu and were put in place to ensure continuity of services. Lady Jones told peers: 'The extent of Fujitsu's role on the scandal is not fully known, and therefore we feel it would be inappropriate for the Government to take further action until we have all parts of the inquiry before us.' A Fujitsu spokesperson said: 'We have apologised for, and deeply regret, our role in subpostmasters' suffering. We hope for a swift resolution that ensures a just outcome for the victims. 'We are considering the recommendations set out by Sir Wyn in volume one of the inquiry's report, and are engaged with Government regarding Fujitsu's contribution to compensation.'
Telegraph
7 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The awful truth about Labour? They're just continuity Sunak
At Prime Minister's Questions this week, Keir Starmer told us 'Mr Speaker, we're only just getting started'. I fear so. It's time to cower under the beds. For if this first year of Labour government is anything to go by, we have a grim prospect ahead. Let's review the record. GDP per head is at the same level as mid-2022. It flatlined in Labour's first six months, grew in the first quarter of this year only by pulling activity forward to avoid the April tax increases, and will no doubt shrink in the second. Nobody is getting better off – or if they are, it's at someone else's expense. In parallel, and not coincidentally, Rachel Reeves pushed up the tax burden by around 1.5 per cent of GDP, driving it to the highest levels for over 70 years – and yet managed to increase rather than reduce the deficit too. Labour's backbenches won't allow any spending cuts or even restraint. It is not surprising, then, that the OBR said this month that 'UK public finances [are] in a relatively vulnerable position and facing mounting risks.' So Reeves is now in a vicious circle: tax increases cause slower growth, receipts then fall, tax goes up further, and the real economy starts to collapse. Accordingly, wealth creators are fleeing, employment is falling and unemployment is growing, and inflation is well over target. The once outlandish idea of a wealth tax – rejected even by the 1970s Labour government – now seems a real prospect. We are well into a downward spiral. All this is made worse by the deranged doubling down on net zero, a policy which is based on simple untruths about the cost of wind and solar power. Indeed the so-called renewables industry is not a business in any meaningful sense of the word: it only exists because of subsidy and government regulation and therefore destroys value for the country rather than creates it. Its results are that Britain pays some of the highest electricity prices in the Western world, energy-intensive industry flees the country, and the government's 'industrial strategy' robs Peter to pay Paul to subsidise energy costs for their favoured clients. Meanwhile, Reeves denounces the burden of regulation but does nothing about it. The new Employment Bill will disastrously weaken Britain's labour market. The Renters' Rights Bill will push up housing costs further. Bridget Phillipson's Schools Bill is destroying one of the successes of recent years. Even football has got its new regulator. The planning system is not being deregulated, just worked harder, and housebuilding is still falling, disastrously so in London. The country's social contract feels dangerously close to fraying. Non-European legal net migration in 2024 was over half a million, 544,000 to be precise. The overall figure was only lower, at 431,000, because more Brits and EU citizens left than arrived – and who can blame them? Illegal immigration on small boats is at its highest level ever, and there is now a growing culture of suspicion and confrontation, not surprisingly, between communities and illegal arrivals dumped in hotels. Dissent is repressed and awkward facts are covered up. That's why, as shadow minister Alex Burghart put it on Thursday, the potential for civil unrest is 'underpriced'. And finally, Starmer points to his trade deals with India and the US, yet can't bring himself to admit that neither would be possible if we were still in the EU. And he has just agreed a deal with the EU itself that allows Brussels to set our food and agriculture rules and our carbon prices, without any say in them, makes us pay for the privilege, and gives away our fishing grounds for another 12 years too: a joke negotiation with a dangerous result. Truly, Britain has not had such a dreadful and incompetent government for many years, a government that not only doesn't govern in the interests of the people but doesn't even seem to like them very much, a government that feels more like an imposed colonial regime than one with any genuine popular consent. Yet one thing must be acknowledged. Yes, things are getting worse fast. But the direction of travel hasn't changed, only the pace. High taxes and spending; net zero; high immigration; the destruction of the rental market; the football regulator; the smoking ban: all these were the projects of the last years of the Conservative government. In many ways, the premiership of Starmer is a mere continuation of Rishi Sunak's 20 months in office. Labour has doubled down on them, and added madnesses of their own, but they are on a well-travelled path which the Conservative Party has not yet convincingly disowned – as its poll ratings show. Kemi Badenoch claims that the Tory party is 'under new management': well, maybe, but there isn't yet a new plan. One is needed soon. British voters' consent for the current ways of doing things is now fragile. Yet much of our insouciant political class seems simply indifferent to this reality. A prospectus for radical change is needed if there is to be an effective opposition and if we are, as a country, to dig ourselves out of this mess. Who can pick up the baton and get us onto a new track? Perhaps we will find out this autumn.
Rhyl Journal
10 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
What happened the last time a Labour government opted to lower the voting age?
The Representation of the People Act 1969 was a major milestone in the development of modern democracy, as the UK became the first country to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. The Act triggered change elsewhere as other democracies soon followed suit. The economic and social conditions in the late 60s have clear parallels with those facing the current Labour Government, while the announcement of its intention to lower the voting age to 16 has been described as the biggest reform to our electoral system since 1969. Sir Keir Starmer said it was 'important' to lower the voting age, as 16-year-olds were old enough to work and 'pay in' through tax, so should 'have the opportunity' to say how they wanted their money spent. Polling suggests Labour stand to gain the most from reform, with 33% of 16 and 17-year-olds polled by ITV news saying they would back the party, while 20% said they would choose Reform UK and 18% the Greens. Therefore, while ministers will not accept that electoral advantage is a motivating factor for the changes, some opponents may argue that this is the case. Some historians suggest an expectation of a boost in vote share was not a factor in decision making within Harold Wilson's administration at the time. This, it is claimed, was because the voting intentions of younger people were far from clear. But in his history of the Labour Party, Andrew Thorpe claimed the lowering of the voting age was 'less a principled commitment to young people than a piece of gerrymandering based on the assumption that young people were more likely to vote Labour than Conservative'. While today some argue that lowering the voting age will counter political apathy or disenchantment among the young, research by the University of Huddersfield found no evidence that this fuelled demands for reform in the 1960s. It highlighted that there was no significant difference in turnout between young and older voters prior to the 1969 Act, with large numbers of young people joining youth organisations linked with the main political parties. However, amid contemporary concerns about radicalisation, the push for voting at 18 in the 1960s has been linked in part to growing concern that social alienation among the young could lead to 'widespread antidemocratic embrace of either far-left or nationalist causes'. The path to reform was set when the government in 1965 announced that a committee chaired by Justice John Latey would examine at what age individuals are considered an adult. Published in 1967, the committee concluded that young people aged 18 should have adult rights, including owning property and being able to marry without the consent of their parents. The report said: 'This Committee is convinced that we must ensure that the young go out into the world as fully prepared for their adult responsibilities as possible, and that in giving them adult status at 18 we are doing no more than recognising the simple facts.' Some in Harold Wilson's cabinet were against reform, but the matter was resolved in favour of change and the government published a white paper. Some of the subsequent arguments against reform at the time were said to focus on what can be considered the appropriate age of 'maturity' and contained 'assertions over the extent to which young people were competent, sentient humans, capable of voting', according to the University of Huddersfield research. However, advocates at the time echoed arguments regularly heard today under the principle of 'no taxation without representation'. Conservatives repeatedly requested a free vote on the issue, but the Labour government – with an overall majority of 67 – whipped its MPs, suggesting a nervousness over the depth of commitment to reform. The Representation of the People Bill passed into law in July 1969, but by the following year the Labour Party had lost a total of 16 seats in by-elections. The economy was showing signs of improvement, boosting Labour's standing in the polls and prompting Mr Wilson to call a general election. But, in what many observers considered a surprise result, Labour was defeated by the Conservatives led by Edward Heath. In the context of arguments then and now about political engagement and lowering the voting age, it is notable that the 72% turnout at the election was the lowest since 1955. Census data suggested that although about 800,000 newly-enfranchised 18 to 20-year-olds were due to be added to the electoral register for the general election, only 464,000 were actually registered. Lowering the voting age was also considered under the last Labour government led by Tony Blair and later Gordon Brown. Neither leader formally declared a commitment to enfranchising 16-year-olds, but the issue was debated in Parliament and supported by some Labour MPs. However, there was not widespread cross-party backing for reform at the time, with many Conservatives either opposed or unenthusiastic about reform, raising the prospect of legislation facing a difficult passage through Parliament. Competing policy priorities have also been cited as a factor in electoral reform being sidelined, with issues such as constitutional reform, health and the economy taking up political bandwidth. Historians have also referenced concerns over potential controversy due to doubts over public support, while the lack of a prominent campaign for change is said to have prevented votes at 16 gaining momentum.
