Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

UK government accused of trying to ‘stoke culture war on climate issues’

News Feed
Wednesday, March 13, 2024

Green MP Caroline Lucas has accused the government of stoking a culture war on climate issues by calling for more investment in new gas-fired power plants ahead of a general election.Lucas used an urgent question in the House of Commons to challenge the energy minister, Graham Stuart, on the plans set out on Wednesday, which could see a string of new plants built in the coming years despite the government’s commitment to phase out fossil fuels.She called on Stuart to admit that “this is the government’s latest attempt to stoke a culture war on climate”. The MP for Brighton Pavilion warned that the plans to encourage more investment in unabated gas power in the 2030s would jeopardise Britain’s climate goals.The shadow climate change minister, Alan Whitehead, echoed the concerns and accused the government of trying to “conjure a culture war” with energy policy. He challenged Stuart to set out how many new gas plants the government was hoping to build, adding: “There is no mention of that in the 1,500 pages of documents that were published yesterday.”The government plans to extend the life of many existing power plants, but it estimates that it will need to have around 5 gigawatts of new gas power capacity in reserve to provide a limited amount of backup power when renewable energy is in short supply.The planned reforms to the UK’s electricity market have angered environmental campaigners but have won favour among Conservative MPs including the former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.He suggested during the debate that the UK’s legally binding net-zero targets should be “postponed indefinitely” to level Britain’s economic playing field with the US and China, which have cheaper energy costs.The UK has a legally binding target to reduce its emissions to net zero by 2050. The government’s official advisers at the Committee on Climate Change have forecast that gas-fired power generation can make up only 1-2% of the UK’s power generation in the 2030s if it hopes to keep its climate goals on track. The UK used gas to generate almost 40% of its electricity last year.Rees-Mogg said the government’s plan to call for more investment in gas power projects was “a good first step against the net-zero obsession” but called on the government to go further.“We have become fundamentally uncompetitive because of this green obsession,” he told the Commons. “We want cheap electricity, and we should have gas and we should have coal and we should postpone net zero indefinitely, because we are only 1% of global emissions, we are making no difference and the US economy is growing consistently faster than ours because of cheap energy.”Stuart responded to Rees-Mogg saying “there is a climate challenge and a climate emergency, that’s why we’re looking to reduce our emissions”.

Green MP Caroline Lucas says call for investment in gas-fired power plants is election ploy that will jeopardise UK’s net zero targetGreen MP Caroline Lucas has accused the government of stoking a culture war on climate issues by calling for more investment in new gas-fired power plants ahead of a general election.Lucas used an urgent question in the House of Commons to challenge the energy minister, Graham Stuart, on the plans set out on Wednesday, which could see a string of new plants built in the coming years despite the government’s commitment to phase out fossil fuels. Continue reading...

Green MP Caroline Lucas has accused the government of stoking a culture war on climate issues by calling for more investment in new gas-fired power plants ahead of a general election.

Lucas used an urgent question in the House of Commons to challenge the energy minister, Graham Stuart, on the plans set out on Wednesday, which could see a string of new plants built in the coming years despite the government’s commitment to phase out fossil fuels.

She called on Stuart to admit that “this is the government’s latest attempt to stoke a culture war on climate”. The MP for Brighton Pavilion warned that the plans to encourage more investment in unabated gas power in the 2030s would jeopardise Britain’s climate goals.

The shadow climate change minister, Alan Whitehead, echoed the concerns and accused the government of trying to “conjure a culture war” with energy policy. He challenged Stuart to set out how many new gas plants the government was hoping to build, adding: “There is no mention of that in the 1,500 pages of documents that were published yesterday.”

The government plans to extend the life of many existing power plants, but it estimates that it will need to have around 5 gigawatts of new gas power capacity in reserve to provide a limited amount of backup power when renewable energy is in short supply.

The planned reforms to the UK’s electricity market have angered environmental campaigners but have won favour among Conservative MPs including the former minister Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg.

He suggested during the debate that the UK’s legally binding net-zero targets should be “postponed indefinitely” to level Britain’s economic playing field with the US and China, which have cheaper energy costs.

The UK has a legally binding target to reduce its emissions to net zero by 2050. The government’s official advisers at the Committee on Climate Change have forecast that gas-fired power generation can make up only 1-2% of the UK’s power generation in the 2030s if it hopes to keep its climate goals on track. The UK used gas to generate almost 40% of its electricity last year.

Rees-Mogg said the government’s plan to call for more investment in gas power projects was “a good first step against the net-zero obsession” but called on the government to go further.

“We have become fundamentally uncompetitive because of this green obsession,” he told the Commons. “We want cheap electricity, and we should have gas and we should have coal and we should postpone net zero indefinitely, because we are only 1% of global emissions, we are making no difference and the US economy is growing consistently faster than ours because of cheap energy.”

Stuart responded to Rees-Mogg saying “there is a climate challenge and a climate emergency, that’s why we’re looking to reduce our emissions”.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Intensive livestock farms fail to declare climate impacts in ‘emissions scandal’

Local councils are giving the green light to large-scale pig and poultry farms with patchy or non-existent climate dataPlans for intensive livestock “megafarms” are omitting crucial climate impacts, it can be revealed.Campaigners last year celebrated a “beginning of the end” to polluting factory farming, after the landmark Finch supreme court ruling on a Surrey oil well confirmed that applications for major developments should consider all significant direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions. Continue reading...

Plans for intensive livestock “megafarms” are omitting crucial climate impacts, it can be revealed.Campaigners last year celebrated a “beginning of the end” to polluting factory farming, after the landmark Finch supreme court ruling on a Surrey oil well confirmed that applications for major developments should consider all significant direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions.However, a review of 35 proposed developments across the UK’s largest farming counties since the June 2024 ruling found that applications routinely ignored or downplayed the industry’s carbon footprint.The research by advocacy group Sustain, which was analysed by DeSmog and the Guardian, looked at all applications for Herefordshire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, Yorkshire, Wales and Northern Ireland which were under consideration by local councils between the 2024 ruling and September this year.Farms housing more than 900 sows, 3,000 pigs, 60,000 hens for eggs, or 85,000 chickens for meat are required to provide information on expected environmental impacts under UK law when applying for planning permission.The applications reviewed were mainly submitted by UK-based farm companies, but some were from major meat producers – including Crown Chicken, a subsidiary of Cranswick, which is one of the largest meat companies in Europe and slaughters nearly 60 million birds a year. Cranswick was responsible for three million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in 2024.If all applications reviewed were accepted for development, an additional 30,000 pigs and nearly five million chickens would be farmed across England, Northern Ireland and Wales – amounting to more than 37 million additional animals reared in the UK each year.Intensive pig and poultry farms are high emitters of methane and nitrous oxide, potent greenhouse gases that cause about 30 and 300 times more global warming respectively than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. According to Sustain’s estimates, if all the applications analysed were approved this could generate an estimated 634,000 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions annually — the equivalent of 488,000 return flights from London to New York.None of the 35 applications provided figures on likely emissions from the farm, despite the fact that councils are required to factor in climate harms in planning decisions. Government policies say that local planning should support the country’s goal to reach net zero by 2050.The findings come as numbers of intensive livestock farms increase across Europe, with more than 1,500 industrial-scale pig and poultry farms operating in the UK.“Vital information is being kept from councils and the public,” Ruth Westcott, campaign manager at Sustain, said.“It’s clear that agribusinesses don’t want to come clean about the pollution they cause because it could affect whether they are allowed to expand, and thus make more profits at the expense of our communities,” she added. “It’s an emissions scandal.”Councils are facing growing pressure from residents to refuse planning permission to companies which fail to robustly assess climate impacts.In April, after public pressure, King’s Lynn & West Norfolk borough council denied planning permission for the Methwold megafarm that would have housed almost 900,000 chickens and pigs, partly due to its lack of climate assessment – making it the first-known refusal on these grounds.Breckland council in Norfolk likewise refused planning permission to the Cherry Tree Farm in October, in part because it had not provided an updated environmental impact assessment, including “project-specific carbon emissions”. The farm – which is owned by Wayland Farms, also a subsidiary of Cranswick – was forced to apply for retrospective approval for previously completed construction. Local residents had made complaints over the “stench” after its expansion in 2019.When asked about the lack of climate data in its applications, Cranswick declined to comment.In total, four of the applications reviewed have been refused so far – three of which were submitted by Cranswick.However, other councils in Norfolk, Nottinghamshire, Suffolk, Lincolnshire and Yorkshire have approved six farms that have not provided any specific information on the farm’s climate impacts in the past 12 months, the research shows.Councils which responded to requests for comment said they had complied with planning regulations, and that they were unable to comment on individual planning applications.More than half (57%) of the planning applications reviewed were for major extensions and alterations, and the remainder for new farms.Jan Palmer – a resident of Methwold village in Norfolk who campaigned against the Cranswick megafarm that was denied planning permission in April – has called for greater scrutiny of impacts from proposed farms.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotion“These are industrial developments. It’s called industrial farming, and it has industrial emissions,” she said. “If my local megafarm application hadn’t been so fiercely challenged, and by so many, it would’ve slipped through the system like so many others do – quietly and without scrutiny but with devastating consequences.”Companies seeking permission for any large-scale developments – ranging from motorways and oil and gas extraction sites to intensive farms – are required to conduct environmental impact assessments showing the likely effects of developments on biodiversity, the climate, and other environmental factors.Applications for intensive livestock farms routinely include information on issues such as air pollutants and unpleasant smells, the review showed. However, the vast majority of applications overlooked climate impacts.Of the applications reviewed, 35% mentioned the farm’s operations only in passing, while 55% did not discuss these climate impacts at all.Large projects must assess all “significant environmental impacts” under UK planning law. Lawyers said few cases had so far tested the threshold for significant climate impacts from farms in the courts, but given the well-documented emissions from intensive farming, applications could face growing challenges in coming years.“Where the companies are not assessing their climate impacts, they may be open to legal challenge,” said Ricardo Gama, an environmental lawyer at Leigh Day solicitors. “Agriculture has flown under the radar on so many of these issues, but I think that is changing.”Over the past year, six local councils have granted permission to applications which did not contain any assessment of the farms’ likely emissions, as well as one that granted permission to a farm with only passing discussion, the research shows.Planning authorities have an obligation to consider all relevant environmental impacts before granting permission, according to legal experts.While applicants propose which environmental impacts should be assessed as part of planning applications, it is the council’s legal responsibility to ensure that all significant effects are covered and that adequate information on these is provided before granting planning permission.“When the council or the inspector or the secretary of state is considering whether to grant planning permission, climate impacts need to be weighed in the balance,” Gama said. “I think councils’ approach[es] will change as the public becomes more aware of the climate impact of agriculture.”The research found that environmental assessments also repeatedly failed to discuss emissions that did not directly arise on the farms. Of the 35 applications reviewed, just one included information on the farm’s likely emissions from animal feed – the largest source of greenhouse gases for both big livestock and poultry.The majority of pigs and chickens in the UK are fed soy, which is one of the biggest drivers of deforestation in regions such as the Amazon. According to campaign group WWF, the UK’s demand for soy requires more than 1.7m hectares of land each year – an area larger than Northern Ireland.One environmental impact assessment for the expansion of a poultry megafarm currently under consideration in Shropshire – which would increase its total number of birds to up to 350,000 – stated that carbon dioxide emitted from the development would be offset “due to the reduction in emissions from transporting poultry meat from elsewhere”.Transportation accounts for between just 5-7% of total emissions from chickens reared in the UK.A Shropshire council spokesperson said applications were processed “in accordance with [EIA] regulations”, which included taking into account direct and indirect effects of the proposed development on the environment.

Climate
Agriculture
Business

Mark Carney sets his sights on Trudeau's legacy

The prime minister’s first budget revisits a decade of Liberal policy on climate, taxes and the public service.

OTTAWA — Canada’s prime minister unveiled his first federal budget plan on Tuesday, a long-awaited moment in the annual cycle of Canadian politics when Ottawa tells the country how it wants to spend hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars.And with that plan, Mark Carney is openly dismantling parts of Justin Trudeau's legacy — an ongoing project in service to economic growth and a more muscular Canada.Carney’s ambitious blueprint aims to slim down the federal public service that ballooned under Trudeau’s watch, while spending tens of billions on national defense and billions more on trade, transport and health infrastructure.The plan also sets its sights on reworking, winding down or eliminating various climate, energy and tax policies that helped define Trudeau's decade in power.Farees Nathoo, a former director of parliamentary affairs and issues management to then-Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, said the budget stands out from the Trudeau era because of its policy focus and fiscal discipline."The budget quite tactically conveys Prime Minister Carney’s economic policy and puts forward a new brand — including by very explicitly differentiating himself from some of Mr. Trudeau’s hallmark commitments," said Nathoo, who is now vice president of strategy and risk at Enterprise Canada. "Carney is focused on infrastructure, housing, defense and productivity."But Carney is skating on thin parliamentary ice. His Liberal government is two seats short of a majority in the House of Commons, and will need the support of at least one opposition party to approve the fiscal plan and avoid an election.Carney is also fending off a Conservative Party that nearly won power after Trudeau's departure — and NDP and Bloc Québécois MPs who've threatened to vote against his budget.Trudeau, we hardly knew yeThe budget book is peppered with reminders that this is no longer Trudeau's Ottawa. The former PM brought in ambitious social programs, including child care, pharma care and dental care. He also prioritized climate and energy programs and regulations that reshaped Canada's effort to curb emissions, and raised the bar for resource project approvals.Carney preserved most of those measures, but not everything made the cut.Gone is a decade-long effort to plant 2 billion trees — a pledge first made in 2019 that struggled mightily to keep pace with planting goals.And federal workers are in for anxious times.Carney's plan notes the federal bureaucracy ballooned by 40 percent during the 10 years Trudeau was in power, an "unsustainable" pace that has "left federal finances strained." Departments and agencies are planning to shed roughly 10 percent of the workforce — "about 40,000 positions."In a stark departure from the former PM's aims, fine print in the budget acknowledges that men will disproportionately benefit from some proposals.Trudeau came to power on a promise to infuse gender equality into government operations.He famously explained that his front bench featured an equal number of men and women "because it's 2015." Ten years later, Carney has maintained that parity.But he's also proposing measures that, by the government's own admission, favor men.One example: The government will eliminate a Trudeau-era luxury tax on aircraft and boats, which an annex at the back of the budget documents takes time to explain will favor buyers who are "disproportionately higher income and primarily men."A shift on climate changeCarney's first order of business in office was using a Sharpie to zero out an unpopular consumer carbon price that he called "divisive."Carney is not getting rid of an industrial price on carbon that has Conservatives howling, nor is he moving to repeal a tanker ban on the West Coast or controversial environmental assessment regulations.The government is, though, hinting at winding down an oil and gas emissions cap that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has for years claimed is a drag on industry — one of several climate-focused measures that soured relations between Smith and Trudeau.The government didn't exactly promise to eliminate the cap, but it signaled a suite of other emission reduction policies could make it unnecessary.The budget document claims carbon markets, methane regulations and carbon capture technology could render an emissions cap redundant, "as it would have marginal value in reducing emissions."Smith has joined industry voices in railing against anti-“greenwashing” provisions that penalize companies that make false or misleading environmental claims. Smith says the law poses a threat to free speech.Carney intends to amend part of that law, which is "creating investment uncertainty and having the opposite of the desired effect."Earlier this year, Carney also paused a Trudeau-era push to mandate the sale of electric vehicles. The budget documents promise "next steps … in the coming weeks."In 2022, when German then-Chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Canada, Trudeau took heat for raising doubts about the "business case" for LNG exports to Germany.The government is now renewing an expired measure that allowed LNG companies to write off the depreciated cost of liquefaction equipment. That measure, in place as of Wednesday only for "low-carbon" facilities, is meant to "accelerate the type of business investment that will drive productivity growth in Canada."Hey America, this one's for youCarney is also ratcheting up defense spending as an olive branch to a Trump administration that demanded NATO members bulk up their contributions to the alliance.Trudeau eventually promised to spend the NATO benchmark of 2 percent of GDP by 2030. Earlier this year, Carney promised to hit it by March — and then agreed to meet NATO's new 5-percent minimum by 2035.In another nod across the border, Americans who own property in Canada will also welcome the government's plans to cancel a 1 percent annual tax on the value of "vacant or underused" properties.Former Rep. Brian Higgins, a Democrat who represented part of Buffalo, New York, long railed against the levy. He argued it unfairly punished Americans — and he even advocated for retaliation.The budget documents acknowledge the group of taxpayers who will benefit from the axed measure "likely includes a high percentage of non-resident, non-Canadians."

Climate
Business
Government

Vietnam Rethinks Its Flood Strategy as Climate Change Drives Storms and Devastation

Vietnam is rethinking how it copes with floods after a year of relentless storms has collapsed hillsides and turned streets into rivers

HANOI, Vietnam (AP) — Vietnam is rethinking how it copes with floods after a year of relentless storms collapsed hillsides and left vast parts of cities under water. From mapping high-risk areas to reimagining “sponge cities” that can absorb and release water naturally, Vietnam is investing billions to adapt to what experts call a new era of climate extremes. Under a national master plan running through 2030, the government has pledged more than $6 billion to build early-warning systems and move communities out of danger. In smaller cities like Vinh in central Vietnam, these ideas are taking shape. Drainage networks are expanding, flood basins are being carved and riverbanks turned into green spaces that can absorb and then drain off after heavy rains. An onslaught of storms this year has underscored the urgency of that work: Ragasa, Bualoi, Matmo — each carved its own path of ruin. Record rainfall turned streets into rivers and sent slopes sliding, with barely any time for the land to recover between storms. As Typhoon Kalmaegi was gathering strength on its path toward Vietnam this week, scientists warned it may not be the last. It's a glimpse of the country’s climate future — warmer seas fueling storms that form faster, linger longer, and dump heavier rain, hitting the poorest communities hardest.“Vietnam and its neighbors are on the front lines of climate disruption,” said Benjamin Horton, a professor of earth science at City University of Hong Kong. Climate change is reshaping Vietnam’s storm season Scientists say the succession of storms battering Vietnam is not a fluke but part of a broader shift in how storms behave on a warming planet. Vietnam usually faces about a dozen storms a year, but the 2025 cluster was a “clear signal” of global warming, said Horton.Ocean waters are now nearly 1 degree Celsius (33.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than before the industrial era. So storms carry more moisture. The economic toll has been severe for Vietnam, a developing country that wants to become rich by 2045. Floods routinely disrupt farming, fisheries, and factories — the backbone of its economy. State media estimate extreme weather has cost the country $1.4 billion in 2025.Vietnam estimates it will need to spend $55 billion–$92 billion in this decade to manage and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Vietnam’s cities aren’t built for climate shocks About 18 million people, nearly a fifth of Vietnam’s population, live in its two biggest cities, Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City. Both are on river deltas that once served as natural buffers against flooding. But as concrete spread over wetlands and farmlands, the cities lost their capacity to absorb downpours.Flooding in Hanoi in October lingered for nearly a week in some neighborhoods. The city of over 8 million has outgrown its infrastructure and its colonial-era drainage system failed as streets turned into brown canals. Motorbikes sputtered in waist-deep water and the Red River’s levees were tested.Vegetable seller Dang Thuan's home flooded knee-deep, spoiling her stock. Her neighborhood used to have several ponds, but they were filled in to build houses and roads. Now the water has nowhere to go.“We can’t afford to move,” she said, “So every time it rains hard, we just wait and hope.”In 1986-1996, the decade coinciding with ‘Doi Moi’ economic reforms that unleashed a construction boom, Hanoi lost nearly two-thirds of water bodies in its four core urban districts, according to a study by Kyoto University's Center for Southeast Asian Studies. Between 2015 and 2020, it lost water bodies spanning the area of 285 soccer fields, state media have reported.More than three-quarters of Hanoi’s area — including much of its densely populated core — is at risk of flooding, according to a 2024 study. Flooding in the city can’t be solved by building more, said Hong Ngoc Nguyen, lead author of the study and an environmental engineer at the Japanese consultancy Nippon Koei.“We can’t control the water,” she said, pointing to Singapore’s shift from concrete canals to greener riverbanks that slow and hold stormwater instead of rushing it away. A global problem with lessons in nature The idea of designing cities to “live with water” is gaining traction globally, including in Vietnam. Vietnam's recent floods have sparked a wider conversation about how cities should deal with storms. The former director of the National Institute of Urban and Rural Planning, Ngo Trung Hai, told the state-run newspaper Hanoi Times that the city must learn to live with heavy rainfall and adopt long-term strategies. European business associations have urged Vietnam’s financial capital Ho Chi Minh City to adopt a “sponge city” approach.Real estate developers have faced criticism in state media for improper building practices, such as building on low-lying land or roads unconnected to storm sewer systems and treating water bodies as “landscape features” rather than ways to drain storm water.Some of Vietnam’s biggest property developers have begun to adapt. In the coastal tourism hub of Nha Trang, the Sun Group is building a new township modeled as a “sponge city” with wetlands covering 60 hectares (148 acres), designed to store and reuse rainwater to reduce flooding and absorb heat.City planners must account for future climate risks, said Anna Beswick, who studies climate adaptation at the London School of Economics.“If we plan based on past experience, we won’t be resilient in the future,” she said.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

Climate
Business
Nature

Ancient Greeks and Romans knew harming the environment could change the climate

They worried deeply about the impact climate change would have on us as individuals, and on broader society.

Universal History Archive / Contributor/GettyHumans have known about, thought about and worried about climate change for millennia. Since at least the fourth century BC, the ancient Greeks and Romans recognised that the climate changes over time and that human activity can cause it. They worried deeply about the impact it would have on us as individuals, and on broader society. The earliest mention of climate change? Greek writer Theophrastus of Eresus (who lived roughly from 372 BCE to 282 BCE) was a student of Aristotle. He is sometimes credited with the earliest reference to climate change. In his treatise On Winds, Theophrastus notes people in Crete recognised their climate had changed over the centuries: [they say] that now the winters are longer and more snow falls, presenting as proof the fact that the mountains once had been inhabited and bore crops, both grain and fruit-tree, the land having been planted and cultivated. For there are vast plains among the Idaean mountains and among others, none of which are farmed now because they do not bear (crops). But once, as was said, they were in fact settled, for which reason indeed the island was full of people, as heavy rains occurred at that time, whereas much snow and wintery weather did not occur. It’s unclear how accurate Theophrastus’ account of Crete’s climate might be or what time period is meant by the word “once”. Modern scientific studies suggest that from 8000 BCE to 600 BCE Crete experienced various alternations of climate, for example from humid and warm to dry and warm to cold and humid, while in the time when Theophrastus was writing the climate is meant to have been relatively warm and dry. Theophrastus’ observation shows people handed down information about climate change from generation to generation. Ancient awareness of the role of humans in climate change In ancient Greek and Roman times, some were even aware that human actions could contribute to changes in climate. The Roman aristocrat Pliny the Elder (23/24-79 CE) wrote a work titled Natural History, in which he gave examples of human induced climate change. In one passage, Pliny noted that in the district of Larisa in Thessaly the emptying of a lake has lowered the temperature of the district. According to Pliny, because of this change of climate: olives which used to grow there before have disappeared, also the vines have begun to be nipped (by frost), which did not occur before. Pliny noted this kind of change caused by human activity had happened elsewhere in Greece: The city of Aenos, since the river Maritza was brought near to it, has experienced an increase of warmth and the district round Philippi altered its climate when its land under cultivation was drained. Ancient awareness of long-term climate changes Ancient Greeks and Romans understood the climate is not static over time. The Roman writer Columella (active around 50 CE) noted in his work On Agriculture that climate change had been mentioned by earlier writers: For I have found that many authorities […] were convinced that with the long passing of the ages, weather and climate undergo a change. Columella refers to the Roman writer Saserna (who was active in the early first century BCE). Saserna had observed how: Regions which formerly, because of the unremitting severity of winter, could not safeguard any shoot of the vine or the olive planted in them, now that the earlier coldness has abated and the weather is becoming more clement, produce olive harvests and the vintages of Bacchus (wine) in the greatest abundance. Saserna did not, however, attribute these long-term climactic changes to human activity. He suggested they were caused by the position of the Earth in relation to the Sun and the other planets, writing that: The position of the heavens has changed. Ancient responses to climate change Greek and Roman writers sometimes complained about the destruction being done to the environment. Roman writer Pliny the Elder said that: We taint the rivers and the elements of nature, and the air itself, which is the main support of life, we turn into a medium for the destruction of life. However, most ancient authors tended not to link environmental damage or pollution with climate change as much as we do today. The exception is when they talk about the draining of lakes or diversions of rivers, which worried many. Some ancient leaders, such as Roman emperor Nerva, took action to clean up the environment. Universal Images Group/Getty Ancient authors did, however, see protection of the environment as a serious concern. Their view was making the environment unhealthy would make people unhealthy, too. For example, the physician Galen (129-216 CE) said that in his time the Tiber River in Rome was so polluted that it was not safe to eat fish caught there. Nonetheless, many people ate the fish, got sick, and died. The main pollution sources were sewage and rubbish. Some ancient leaders took action to clean up the environment. For instance, the Roman emperor Nerva (who ruled 96-98 CE) undertook construction works that caused the appearance of the city to be “clean and altered” and made the air “purer”, according to the Roman writer Frontinus. What the modern world can learn Ancient Greek and Roman writings reveal ancient concerns about our negative impact on the environment. They show that places once rich and fertile later became desolate and barren. Although the Greeks and Romans linked environmental harm with climate change to a more limited extent than we do today, they nevertheless knew harming the environment could change the climate. This, they understood, can ultimately bring harm to ourselves personally and to our societies as a whole. Konstantine Panegyres does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Climate
Agriculture
Mountains

The Ideal Shower Is This Many Minutes Long, According To Experts

Here’s what your skin, the planet and your wallet wish you knew.

The more stressed some of us get, the more we can find ourselves wanting to double (or triple) down on our self-care routines. Case in point: the “everything shower.” It all started on TikTok, and now the platform is exploding with people demonstrating hours-long shower sessions that include exfoliation, shaving, hair masks, body scrubs, face masks, oils, serums and more. The appeal, in large part, lies with the fact that it’s a way to take control of one small part of your life, when so much else seems out of control.It’s a little bit washing up, a little bit spa treatment and a whole lot performative wellness ritual — and even more water. Many everything shower proponents describe it as a reset after a hard week and a way to “start over” with a scrupulously groomed body, head to toe. They sing the praises of time spent focused just on themselves, tending to each square inch of flesh and treating themselves with kindness and devotion.But is it a little too much? Should our skin be under running water for such a long period of time? And what about a long shower’s impact on our increasingly drought-ridden planet? Here’s what science-based experts, not TikTok influencers, have to say about the everything shower trend. Cleansing our skin is important, but stripping it can be detrimental.You need to keep your skin clean for all sorts of reasons, said dermatologist Dr. Nada Elbuluk, a professor of clinical dermatology at the University of Southern California. “Cleansing is important for removing dirt, dead skin cells and other contaminants that we may come into contact with throughout the day, such as bacteria, viruses and fungi,” she added. FG Trade via Getty ImagesKeep it to five minutes, sir.You should make sure you’re keeping “hot spots” clean, said dermatologist Dr. Mojgan Hosseinipour: “There are a few areas you should always wash daily, including armpits, groin, feet and face, because those accumulate sweat, bacteria and oil more quickly.” Hosseinipour also recommended showering after every workout, and possibly more frequently if you live in a hot and humid climate or are prone to sweating and body acne.But overdoing it is a strong “no” from these doctors. “Overwashing the skin may strip natural oils and lead to excessive dryness,” Elbuluk said. “Avoid hot water, too, because the hotter water is, and the longer the exposure to it, the more it ultimately dries out the skin.”“My motto is: keep it simple,” Hosseinipour said. “Occasionally adding a few extra steps to create a spa-like self-care experience can be enjoyable, but regularly taking an everything shower isn’t necessary. My main concern lies with exfoliation, because excessive scrubbing or over-exfoliating can cause redness, dryness and itching, and it can even damage the skin barrier. A gentle, consistent routine is far more beneficial for long-term skin health.”In summary, an everything shower might make you feel like a brand-new person, but it can also leave your skin barrier feeling prematurely old and excessively dehydrated, which is pretty much the exact opposite of what you were hoping to accomplish. The environmental impact is significant.With droughts and water shortages increasing globally, long showers also raise real sustainability concerns. Reducing the length of your shower doesn’t just protect your skin, but also results in fewer gallons being drawn from overstressed reservoirs and less energy being used to heat and pump that water. Significant water shortages are already an issue for some parts of the world, and many of us can anticipate that the situation will have a negative impact on our lives in the near future. The United Nations projects that within just five years, global demand for freshwater will exceed supply by 40%. The need for water is increasing, thanks to the emergence of “megadroughts” that have recently affected the West Coast, southern Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa. Reducing the time you spend in the shower may seem like a small act, but enough of us taking action together can reduce community demand on fragile freshwater systems and the energy required to treat, heat and move that water to our homes. In the United States, for example, the average shower lasts for 7.8 minutes and uses approximately 15.8 gallons of water, according to the nonprofit organization Alliance for Water Efficiency. The organization states that the duration of the shower has a direct impact on water usage. If you’re doing a full-blown 30- to 45-minute “everything shower,” you could be burning through 75 to 110 gallons of water. Every time. That’s basically the equivalent of running three loads of laundry for just one shower.Many of us act as though water appears like magic when we turn on a faucet, but the city you live in has to pump, treat and distribute every gallon, which is an energy-intensive process. The EPA estimates that water and wastewater treatment often consumes 30 to 40% of a city’s total energy consumption. Wasting water doesn’t just affect your own household’s water and heating bill — it also puts a strain on your area’s systems and reserves. Shorter showers save you money.Acting to help the planet can also have a positive impact on your monthly energy and water bills, too. According to the EPA, the average American family of four uses approximately 400 gallons of water per day, so any way to reduce that amount can make a significant difference. Cutting your shower time from a typical 10-minute one to five minutes saves roughly 10 to 12 gallons each time.Besides saving on water, shorter showers save on the energy needed to heat the water you’re using, so less time spent under warm or hot water is a savings of fuel, as well. Research has shown that reducing shower durations from six to 10 minutes to four minutes can lead to energy savings ranging from 0.1 to 3.8 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per person per day. These shorter showers represented a combined water and energy cost savings of between $37 and $500 per household per year.So, how long should a shower be? “In general, dermatologists recommend no more than 5 to 10 minutes of warm water exposure per day for showers,” Elbuluk said. If you have atopic dermatitis and/or very dry skin, you may want to stay closer to, or under, the 5-minute point.From an environmental standpoint, taking shorter showers, around five minutes, is considered an effective way to conserve water. Can you stick to a five-minute shower routine? If you prep everything before turning on the water, including getting out shampoo and locating your washcloth or scrubber, it’s more than possible. If you have to wait for hot water to reach the shower before you can step in, you can save even more water by collecting that initial “run off” of cold water in a bucket for watering plants. If you need to do more than a quick shampoo, conditioner and body wash, turn the water off while you shave or deep condition.YourSupportMakes The StoryYour SupportFuelsOur MissionYour SupportFuelsOur MissionJoin Those Who Make It PossibleHuffPost stands apart because we report for the people, not the powerful. Our journalism is fearless, inclusive, and unfiltered. Join the membership program and help strengthen news that puts people first.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.We remain committed to providing you with the unflinching, fact-based journalism everyone deserves.Thank you again for your support along the way. We’re truly grateful for readers like you! Your initial support helped get us here and bolstered our newsroom, which kept us strong during uncertain times. Now as we continue, we need your help more than ever. We hope you will join us once again.Support HuffPostAlready a member? Log in to hide these messages.Some environmentally conscious folks set a five-minute timer as soon as they turn on the faucet, or sing a few choruses of their favorite song, timed in advance. One British energy company has even issued a “Short Shower Playlist” of tunes that run no longer than five minutes. With a little focus and some preplanning, you may be able to turn an “out in five” shower into a win-win for your skin, your household expenses and the planet.

Climate
Energy
Health

Suggested Viewing

We Trees

Ever wonder what trees think of us now that we have created a climate disaster? This 2-minute film answers that question. As Bill McKibben recently tweeted about the film, “Who speaks for trees? In this short and elegant video, the trees themselves.” It has been screened at Green Fest (Serbia), The Colorado Environmental Film Festival, The Wildlife Conservation Film Festival and Winner of Merit at the Nature Without Borders Film Festival.

Forests
Chemicals
Climate

The Wisdom To Survive: Climate Change, Capitalism & Community

This film reveals how diverse environmental problems, from climate change to species extinction to ruined ecosystems, are all ultimately rooted in the “growth at all costs” attitude that pervades modern industrial society. Through beautiful and disturbing images and interviews with ecological scholars, spiritual leaders and activists, The Wisdom to Survive argues that the survival of humanity and most living beings on the planet will not come from technology, but from a profound raising of consciousness and deep spiritual transformation of humans who finally realize that we must live differently on planet earth.

Climate
Business
Extinction

Crossing the Divide

An Iowa farmer reacts swiftly when he hears that radical climate marchers plan to disrupt peace in his tiny town. What he does after that offers a lesson for would-be peacemakers everywhere.

Inspirational
Activism
Climate

Resilience

In 1998, a vast power grid serving 5 million people in Canada was destroyed by an ice storm. Twenty years later researchers of that disaster are developing a new kind of resilient power grid. Based in part on the book The Grid and the Village, the film explores how to protect grids and the people they serve from war, terrorist attack, and extreme weather.

Energy
Climate
Crisis

Saving Jaguars and Ourselves

This feature film has already won 3 top awards: Best Environment and Climate Feature, Semi-Finalist, and Quarter-Finalist. Are you ready for an adventure out on the rivers of the Pantanal Wetland, south of the Amazon Rainforest in Brazil? Here we spot wild jaguars like Medrosa and her cubs, giant river otters, and giant storks, while hearing harrowing memories from locals Elizeu, Eduarda, and zoologist Abbie about the climate change fires they have been fighting for 4 years due to severe climate droughts that threaten to destroy this exquisitely beautiful area and the Earth we live on. The Amazon Rainforest is struggling to survive. It affects the global climate. The Pantanal cannot survive without the Amazon and neither can we. We discover that saving jaguars is also saving ourselves and in the process, we discover real solutions and actions that will help save us all. The cinematography and wildlife in this film is described by professionals as stunning, amazing. The Pantanal is the only place in the world where wild jaguars live peacefully with people through ecotourism. These jaguars are known individually by name thanks to the work of Abbie Martin of the Jaguar Identification Project and citizen science efforts of the local community. They are identified by their individual rosette spot patterns. This film includes examples of human--jaguar interaction and communities safely living in close proximity with jaguars. The Pantanal has 5,000 species of wildlife, and is the world's largest wetland, bigger than Florida. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Gutteres describes the extreme urgency of addressing climate change. Al Gore explains that we have everything we need to solve climate change. What is lacking is political will. This film is includes many practical solutions that everyday people can do to address climate change!

Solutions
Animals
Climate

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.