Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Woods, Senior Lecturer in Physiology, University of Lincoln

Colostrum is often called “liquid gold” by lactation specialists, midwives and infant-health researchers. It’s the early milk produced in the first days after childbirth: thick, yellow and rich in antibodies, proteins and nutrients.

Newborn babies benefit greatly from it because their immune systems are not yet fully developed and their stomachs can only hold very small amounts. For babies, there’s no debate: colostrum is incredibly beneficial.

But some wellness brands are marketing colostrum to adults. Kourtney Kardashian Barker’s Lemme range sells it as sweet gummies and as a sugar-free liquid supplement and creamer.

The appeal is easy to understand. Colostrum has a powerful reputation in infant health. If it protects newborns, many assume it must offer something extraordinary for adults too – but does it?

Babies and adults have very different nutritional needs. A newborn’s stomach holds only a few millilitres, and their immune system is immature. Colostrum provides highly concentrated immune and nutritional factors that the baby needs in its first days of life.

Adults, by contrast, have fully developed digestive and immune systems and can obtain nutrients from a varied diet. An adult stomach holds around one to one-and-a-half litres and expands further after eating. What is essential for a baby is not automatically useful or necessary for an adult body.

While colostrum has undeniable benefits in early life, the versions sold to adults are processed, flavoured and taken in much smaller amounts. That’s why it’s important to look closely at what these products contain and what their marketing suggests they can do.

Colostrum-based supplements are often promoted using persuasive wellness language and health-related suggestions, but scientific evidence for their effectiveness in adults remains limited, early and often based on small studies involving specific groups rather than healthy people. Here’s a closer look at the ideas behind some of these marketing messages and what research actually tells us.

Gut health, digestion and reduced bloating

Some small studies suggest that bovine colostrum might reduce temporary increases in intestinal permeability, sometimes called “leaky gut”, where the lining of the intestine becomes less effective at keeping out bacteria and toxins. These changes can occur after intense exercise or when taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicines, drugs that can irritate the stomach and gut lining.

However, these studies involved only a small number of participants in specific contexts, not healthy adults in everyday life. The findings are considered preliminary and would require larger, well-designed clinical trials before any conclusions could be drawn about general digestive benefits.

The prebiotic fibres inulin and xylooligosaccharides, sometimes added to supplements, are much better studied. Inulin has been shown to increase levels of beneficial gut bacteria such as bifidobacteria, while xylooligosaccharides have been linked to greater bacterial diversity and small improvements in markers related to bowel health, obesity and type 2 diabetes in early research.

But these fibres are not unique to colostrum-based products. They also occur naturally in foods such as onions, garlic, leeks, bananas and chicory root and are widely available as standalone fibre supplements.

Immune system support

Colostrum helps newborns develop immunity by providing antibodies at a time when their immune systems are still forming. This does not mean that taking colostrum will strengthen a healthy adult’s immune system.

The idea of “boosting” immunity – a phrase used in promotional material for Kardashian Barker’s Lemme colostrum supplements – is common in wellness marketing, but it can be misleading. A healthy immune system doesn’t usually need boosting, and an overactive one can cause harm by attacking the body’s own tissues, as happens in autoimmune conditions such as type 1 diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis.

Some research has explored the potential of bovine colostrum in specific conditions, such as ulcerative colitis and travellers’ diarrhoea. But these studies are small, focus on people who are already unwell and cannot be generalised to the wider population. Anyone with health concerns should seek medical advice before taking any supplement.

In Lemme’s products, references to immune support appear to rely primarily on vitamin D. Vitamin D does help regulate the immune system and supports bone health, and low levels are common in winter or in people with limited sunlight exposure. However, vitamin D is inexpensive and widely available as a standalone supplement.

---

Read more:
Vitamin D deficiency is widespread – but overusing supplements can also be dangerous

---

“Full body wellness”

This is a broad phrase without a specific scientific definition. On the Lemme website, the company states that vitamin D supports healthy bones and teeth, which is accurate, but that benefit is not unique to its colostrum products.

“Glowing skin”

This phrase has appeared in some advertising coverage but not on the official product page. “Glowing skin” has no clinical definition and no standard method of measurement. There’s currently no evidence that colostrum, or any of the ingredients in these supplements, produces this effect.

How language influences trust

Lemme’s website includes the standard disclaimer found on most dietary supplements, stating that the products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

The brand also describes its ingredients as “clinically studied.” This is not the same as “clinically proven.” The phrase typically means that an ingredient has been tested in some form of study, but it does not indicate whether the results were positive, significant or relevant to human health.

Research shows that consumers often confuse these terms. It sounds scientific but does not demonstrate proven efficacy.

Colostrum is extraordinary for newborns. Nature designed it to protect babies during their most vulnerable days. For adults, however, there is no strong evidence from large, well-designed trials that colostrum supplements improve skin, digestion or immunity in healthy individuals. Some ingredients in these products may show potential in specific medical conditions, but that is not the same as demonstrating general wellness effects.

Colostrum supplements primarily market the idea of something pure, powerful and natural. At present, the science does not fully support these suggestions.

Rachel Woods 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.

– ref. Can colostrum supplements improve your skin, gut and immune system? A nutritionist explains – https://theconversation.com/can-colostrum-supplements-improve-your-skin-gut-and-immune-system-a-nutritionist-explains-269256

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Collins, Reader in American Studies and Chair of The British Association for American Studies, King’s College London

For legal reasons, David Adjmi and Will Butler’s play is absolutely not about the recording of Fleetwood Mac’s 1977 album Rumours. But like that famous album, it is a dizzying amalgamation of influences, mercurial talents and creativity that sits among the defining achievements of its generation. And like Fleetwood Mac, too, it is hard to pinpoint precisely what witchy alchemy makes Stereophonic work so well.

Suffice it to say that it does. The play is a masterpiece. A must-see by all accounts. The legendary 13 Tony Award nominations and smash-hit period on Broadway, followed by doubly-extended runs in London’s West End (where I saw it) are fully deserved.

The play follows a group of musicians in their recording studio in late-1970s California putting together an album that, once again, is expressly not Fleetwood Mac’s Rumours. For a play that is about a band on the verge of titanic artistic, critical and popular success, the principal theme of the work is failure. Or rather, how to learn and grow from it: how to cut a great track; when to cut and run from a toxic relationship; what to keep or cut from our chequered lives so that we can carry on living.

Some of their rock-star lives seem like a lot of fun, but this really is play about work. The work of music and the work of life itself. Sure, the office might not be cubicles and water coolers. It is more like chez longues and gigantic communal bags of the cocaine (probably the hardest working prop currently on the London stage). Yet this is office politics all the same.

Writer Adjmi’s brilliance is that, for all their rockstar antics, the band in Stereophonic are genuinely labouring for the execution of their vision. At the expense of the health and wellbeing. The beleaguered recording engineer, Grover (Eli Gelb), is in almost every scene working tirelessly at the recording desk. He is the Sisyphus of the soundcheck.

The physical mass of the recording desk placed centre stage takes up much of the space typically reserved for the cast. They teeter tipsily around it. It recalls the omnipresence of the tape recorder driving Samuel Beckett’s play Krapp’s Last Tape (1958), a work with which Stereophonic has a surprising amount in common. Like Beckett, Adjmi is using recording technology to ruminate on the problem of time, which is where the play transcends its immediate setting and becomes most salient and meaningful.

The stage is split in half with upstage placed behind a glass screen. We can sometimes hear behind it and sometimes cannot. It is a wall. But it is also a stage of its own on which the characters perform. As a metaphor, the staging stands for how in their relentless rock theatricality the characters can’t always communicate. It asks, when does image or spectacle overtake the truth art seeks to reveal to the world?

All this (70s rock bands, heaps of cocaine, beige upholstery, unimpeded sexual license) could be put down to our cultural moment’s obsession with nostalgia – a sign of our being stuck politically and socially. But that would be to miss the point of Stereophonic wholly.

The London theatre scene is awash with jukebox musicals with ropey plots built around forcing famous songs into some weak narrative. These are mostly not musicals so much as tribute acts forced to do skits. Stereophonic channels the nostalgia in a different direction. The songs are not actual Fleetwood Mac songs – but so good is Will Butler’s (of Arcade Fire) score that they could be.

Some of the performances (really performed live by the actors) just soar. This is a nostalgia that does not dwell in the past alone but is pointing forward. It is more like what the late, great critical theorist (following Jacques Derrida) Mark Fisher called “hauntology”.

As the characters disappear from downstage to appear behind the glass wall of the recording booth, this ghostliness is referenced directly. The recording booth makes the actors unreachable. But so does fame and the process of becoming legend. When one of them speaks into the mic it is like someone communicating through the void from the other side.

What makes classic rock so appealing, and such a great subject for a play, is partly the bildungsroman (fiction focused on the growth and development of young people) and crisis central to its story. It’s almost religious. There was no autotuning available to them. There’s no possibility of endlessly recording and recording over. They try to do this, but there are material limits to their endeavours. They have to get it right.

Adjmi’s script suggests that magnetic tape and goodwill can, like a record label’s patience, like our youth itself, run out suddenly and painfully. One day all this hedonism and earthly pleasure will end for them. As it will for us all.

When the label gives the band more time half way through, it is like they have been granted immortality or a stay of execution. Adjmi manages to make the whole enterprise feel as high stakes as a family tragedy.

Indeed, family (found or otherwise) looms large in the minds of the musicians. Singer Holly and bassist Reg’s marriage is breaking down, drummer Simon misses the kids he has neglected for a year recording and boozing in Los Angeles, singer and guitarist Peter reveals the origin of his perfectionism in a conflict with his Olympic-swimmer brother.

The script works by transforming the musicians’ meaningless, very stoned, profusions of words into moments of sudden beauty and clarity. Their druggy murmurings come suddenly to resemble a stunning lyrical murmuration of form and idea.

This technique replays in microcosm the play’s engagement with the surprising human process of discovery and, let’s call it, genius, that happens within the fold of limited mortal time. This is not just a play about rock. It is so much more.

---

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

---

Michael Collins 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.

– ref. Stereophonic: this play about an ailing rock band is a must-see masterpiece – https://theconversation.com/stereophonic-this-play-about-an-ailing-rock-band-is-a-must-see-masterpiece-269227

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Aimee Grant, Associate Professor in Public Health and Wellcome Trust Career Development Fellow, Swansea University

The term “neurodiversity” is still relatively new. Even now, there’s no firm agreement among experts about what it should include. Does it refer only to neurodevelopmental differences such as autism, ADHD and dyslexia? Or should it stretch further, to include mental health conditions too?

Until recently, no one had asked neurodivergent people themselves what they thought about the language used to describe them. So, we decided to do just that. Our new research found a mixture of positive and negative views about words like “neurodiversity” and “neurodivergent”.

Neurodiversity refers to the different ways in which people think and behave. Just as everyone has an ethnicity, everyone has a neurotype. Around 15% of people are thought to be neurodivergent, meaning their brains function differently from what society considers “typical”. The remaining 85% are neurotypical.

In our survey of more than 900 neurodivergent adults across the UK, almost everyone had heard of the word “neurodiversity”. Also, 74% said they used related language, such as “neurodivergent”, to describe themselves.

One finding stood out in particular: how often the language of neurodiversity is used incorrectly. The word “neurodiverse” refers to a group that includes both neurotypical and neurodivergent people. In other words, it’s a mix of different brain types. But it’s often used to describe individuals or groups of neurodivergent people, when the correct term would be “neurodivergent”.

For many participants, this mistake was more than a harmless slip of the tongue. Some described it as deeply irritating, while others saw it as a warning sign. When an expert or organisation got it wrong, especially one claiming to be inclusive, it could be seen as a “red flag”. Some participants thought this was a sign that they used fashionable inclusive language while failing to change exclusionary practices.

Participants also felt differently about how useful the term “neurodivergent” actually is. Some described it as a “safe umbrella” – a simple, inclusive way to talk about their identity without listing multiple diagnoses. One person explained that it saved them from reeling off a “laundry list” of conditions.

Others said it felt safer than naming specific conditions such as autism or ADHD, which can still carry stigma. Saying “I’m neurodivergent” offered a way to share something about themselves while reducing the risk of a negative reaction. It also helped people who were waiting for a diagnosis or who self-identified as neurodivergent but didn’t yet have formal recognition.

---

Read more:
Why it’s time to rethink the notion of an autism ‘spectrum’

---

But not everyone found the word helpful. Some said it was too broad to mean anything and didn’t communicate their day-to-day challenges or support needs. Others pointed out that many people still don’t understand what “neurodivergent” means, making it ineffective as a way to explain who they are.

There were also concerns that broadening the language could unintentionally increase stigma towards specific conditions, such as ADHD, by lumping everyone together under one label.

Language shapes how we see the world but also how the world sees us. Our research shows that while umbrella terms like neurodivergent can create community and belonging, they shouldn’t replace more specific identities such as autism or ADHD. Both have an important place.

Instead of replacing those words, we should focus on reducing prejudice and discrimination against neurodivergent people, and also on using language that reflects respect and understanding.

Getting it right

As language choices are deeply personal, when you are talking to a neurodivergent person, it may be appropriate to mirror their language choice.

That said, a general rule is if you’re going to use language around neurodiversity, it’s important to use it correctly. Many neurodivergent people find misuse frustrating, especially when it comes from people or organisations who claim to champion inclusion. To keep it simple:

“Neurodiverse” describes groups that include both neurodivergent and neurotypical people – you may find it helpful to think that “neurodiverse” includes everybody in the universe. “Neurodivergent” refers to individuals or groups of people whose brains work differently, for example, autistic people or those with ADHD or dyslexia.

As one participant put it, getting it wrong might just make a neurodivergent person want to hit you with a dictionary.

Aimee Grant receives funding from The Wellcome Trust and UKRI.

Jennifer Leigh is a co-director of LLB Inclusive Employment Ltd. She has received funding from UKRI and The Royal Society of Chemistry Diversity & Inclusion Fund.

Amy Pearson 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.

– ref. What autistic people – and those with ADHD and dyslexia – really think about the word ‘neurodiversity’ – https://theconversation.com/what-autistic-people-and-those-with-adhd-and-dyslexia-really-think-about-the-word-neurodiversity-264920

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Merav Amir, Reader of Human Geography, Queen’s University Belfast

Israel’s top military prosecutor, Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi, was arrested recently in a case which further reveals the extent of mistreatment of Palestinian detainees and the impunity enjoyed by Israeli security forces. The arrest of Tomer-Yerushalmi, who was, until her resignation last week, Israel’s military advocate general, is the latest development in a dramatic scandal that has been unfolding since February 2024.

It started with a complaint filed by a doctor who had served in the medical facility next to the Sde Teiman detention camp in the Negev desert in southern Israel. Professor Yoel Donchin reported that a detainee appeared to have been an victim of a severe assault. The detainee arrived at the hospital showing signs of beating and possible brutal sexual assault.

Following Donchin’s report and a subsequent investigation, a group of reservists from the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were arrested on suspicion of abusing the Palestinian. When Israeli military police arrived at Sde Teiman to detain the soldiers, protesters forced entry into the Sde Teiman camp in an attempt to stop the arrest. When that failed, rioters – including armed soldiers on active duty – attempted to break into the military police headquarters and free the arrested soldiers.

This drew attention to the fact that allegations of torture and abuse of Palestinian prisoners and detainees have become common in Israeli incarceration facilities since the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7 2023. Yet, despite ample evidence against Israeli soldiers, prison warders and interrogators from Israel’s security services (Shabak), there have been few attempts to hold anyone accountable.

In some respects, this lack of accountability is consistent with what has long been Israel’s approach regarding violence towards Palestinians. Despite being a country apparently bound by the rule of law, cases in which Palestinians have been mistreated, abused, tortured and killed have rarely been addressed by the Israeli legal authorities. Soldiers and Shabak interrogators enjoy a de-facto impunity for committing crimes against Palestinians, including torture.

This effective impunity exists despite Israel having robust systems to ensure prosecutions. For example, the Ministry of Justice has a dedicated unit to address complaints against Shabak interrogators pertaining to allegations of torture. Yet, out of more than 1,450 complaints filed against Shabak interrogators between 1992 and early 2023, criminal investigations have been opened in just three cases. None have led to indictments.

We argue that these mechanisms of accountability were never primarily motivated by concerns with the rule of law. Nor were they about holding members of Israel’s security forces accountable for crimes committed against Palestinians. They were always mainly a facade, motivated, to a great extent, by an attempt to protect Israel and its security personnel from prosecutions in international courts.

The jurisdiction of international courts is limited by the principle of complementarity. This means that the International Criminal Court (ICC) can only intervene when complainants cannot get justice in domestic courts. By showing that it has an independent legal system to which Palestinians can turn, and which can potentially hold perpetrators accountable, Israel can protect its security personnel from charges by the ICC.

Nevertheless, our research into the use of torture by Israel has found evidence to suggest that this system – weak as it was in terms of accountability – actually did restrain Israeli interrogators.

The restraining effects of these accountability mechanisms became even clearer when they all but ceased to function after October 7 2023. For example, a study published in September, which examined complaints lodged by Palestinians with Israeli non-governmental organisations, found “diverse forms of reported violence that could potentially constitute torture”. Ample testimonies suggest what Israeli human rights group B’Tselem called a “rushed transformation of more than a dozen Israeli prison facilities, military and civilian, into a network of camps dedicated to the abuse of inmates as a matter of policy”.

The loosening of the reins since October 2023 can be explained, to a large extent, by the Hamas attack itself. The viciousness of the attack was perceived by many in Israel as changing the rules. In the eyes of many Israelis, it legitimised a response which is unconstrained by domestic or international law.

But this process began prior to Hamas’ attack. Israel’s legal mechanisms of accountability had already been weakened on the eve of October of 2023. This is due, in large part, to the judicial overhaul which was launched by the current Israeli government in January of that year.

From the moment the Netanyahu government assumed power at the end of 2022, it has done all it could to dismantle the independence of the Israeli judicial system. Its targeting of the judiciary was driven, in no small part, by the wish to remove anything that could stand in the way of expanding settlements, exercising harsher violence against Palestinians and, ultimately, annexing the West Bank.

The targeting of this system has eroded its ability to withstand pressures. It has effectively left it unable to investigate war crimes and press charges against security personnel. The demise of this system played a central part in unleashing the unprecedented levels of Israeli violence against Palestinians witnessed over the past two years.

Finding a scapegoat

It’s against this backdrop that the resignation and arrest of Tomer-Yerushalmi can be understood as part of the bigger story of the seminal change in Israel’s approach towards accountability.

When word got out in July of last year that she was planning to press charges against those responsible for the assault on the detainee in Sde Teiman, the military lawyer was attacked by the government and its supporters. She was painted as a traitor by ministers and in the right-wing media. Regular demonstrations were held outside her home and, worse, she was assaulted by proponents of the accused soldiers on the streets. Security around her had to be tightened after she started receiving death threats.

Trying to protect herself and her team from these attacks, Tomer-Yerushalmi leaked CCTV footage of the assault in Sde Teiman to the press. In her resignation letter, she wrote that she authorised the leak in an attempt to counter the false propaganda directed against the military law enforcement authorities.

She told a meeting of the Knesset foreign affairs and defense committee that investigating allegations of abuse of this nature was a show of strength rather than of weakness. The independence of the military justice system was, she said, “essential to the state’s arguments in international tribunals”. She added: “There are countries for which the question of whether they sell and supply us with munitions is [determined by] whether we investigate when we receive a complaint.”

She seems to believe that Israel’s legal system must be seen to act when it encounters cases as severe as this. But in Israel after October 7 this appears no longer to be the case. As the response by Netanyahu and other ministers suggest, Israel is no longer interested in maintaining even this facade of accountability.

The leaked video prompted public outrage. But the government has managed to shift the focus away from the alleged atrocities the soldiers committed and onto the leaking of the footage. Netanyahu called this “perhaps the most severe propaganda attack against the State of Israel” in its history”.

---

Read more:
Israeli doctors reveal their conflicted stories of treating Palestinian prisoners held in notorious ‘black site’ Sde Teiman

---

The official allegations against Tomer-Yerushalmi include tempering with the committee set to investigate the link, and providing a false statement to Israel’s High Court of Justice concerning the affair. But even before the video was leaked – and well before Tomer-Yerushalmi was revealed as the leaker – Netanyahu’s far-right government colleagues were attacking the investigation itself.

Minister of national security Itamar Ben Gvir called it “shameful” and demanded “a full backing for our hero soldiers”. Finance minister Bezalel Smotrich called the abuse allegations “blood libels against the State of Israel” – a reference to antisemitic lies told about Jewish practices in medieval Europe.

It seems, then, that Tomer-Yerushalmi is being targeted not for the offences she is now investigated for. She is rather attacked for one of the very few cases in which she decided to act in accordance with her role.

The tribulations of the first woman to ever serve as the military’s most senior lawyer must therefore be understood as part of a broader story. This is about the Netanyahu goverment’s efforts to rid Israel of its mechanisms of accountability while also bringing the judiciary under executive control.

In the meantime, the victim of this gruesome assault is still suffering from its aftermath. His injuries have left him with several medical complications and permanently disabled. He was released back to Gaza in the last hostage deal. He was not asked to provide his testimony prior to his release.

Merav Amir receives funding from the ESRC.

Hagar Kotef receives funding from the ESRC.

– ref. Arrest of top whistleblower shows extent of Israeli impunity over torture of Palestinian detainees – https://theconversation.com/arrest-of-top-whistleblower-shows-extent-of-israeli-impunity-over-torture-of-palestinian-detainees-266489

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Susannah Fisher, Principal Research Fellow, Institute for Risk and Disaster Reduction, UCL

Countries around the world are facing worsening heatwaves, hurricanes, droughts and floods. If current trends continue, governments need to prepare for a much hotter world with a predicted increase in global temperatures of at least 2°C, possibly up to 3°C.

Yet most adaptation action does not go far enough to manage these effects of climate change.

I am a researcher working on tracking progress on adaptation and author of Sink or Swim, a new book that explores the hard choices ahead to adapt to climate change. Adaptation measures aim to reduce the risks from climate change by, for example, building defences to protect from flooding or upgrading road surfaces to manage higher temperatures. These measures differ around the world.

Bangladesh: building early warning systems

With its low-lying coastal land, Bangladesh is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change. It is also a global leader in adaptation. For example, the government set up early warning systems that help it spot cyclones much earlier and communicate this information to local groups.

This has dramatically reduced deaths. However, as the effects of climate change escalate, current approaches to adaptation will probably not be enough, with Bangladesh facing large-scale displacement due to sea-level rise, river flooding and extreme heat.

Tuvalu: reclaiming land and opportunities

Tuvalu, an island nation in the Pacific, faces sea-level rise, increased flooding and the salination of water supplies. The government is investing in land reclamation to keep some of the low-lying land above the water.

They have also signed a migration agreement with neighbouring Australia, although the Tuvaluan government has recently repeated that they do not plan to leave the island. But the slow progress on emission reductions puts them at risk of severe flooding making life increasingly difficult.

UK: independent monitoring but slow progress

The UK has an independent body (the Climate Change Committee) that reports to the government on progress. Its latest report found that implementation of adaptation was inadequate.

One area where this is significant is food security: over half of the UK’s best agricultural land is at risk of flooding and this will increase by 2050. The UK is also vulnerable to climate-related supply chain disruptions on food imports. Although the UK has the institutions in place, the action on adaptation is still far less than is needed.

Kenya: putting people at the centre

Some countries, such as Kenya, have developed channels to devolve decisions to local committees that can allocate money to adaptation projects that meet their priorities. Allowing local people to prioritise what is most important to them is hard to do, but is a key way of making adaptation relevant to people’s lives.

But not all impacts of climate change can be managed through local action alone. To manage impacts past 2 degrees people may need support with new approaches. For example, shifting to new crop varieties or transitioning away from agriculture.

Australia: high costs and military support

Australia is at risk from flooding, extreme heat and bushfires. The Climate Council estimate that one in every 25 properties will be at high risk of disasters and uninsurable by 2030, most of these for flooding of rivers.

As well as the high costs of disasters, Australia has also deployed its defence force to respond. Some argue this spreads them too thin, meaning they can’t focus on their core job of defence. Australia just released a national adaptation plan and this makes clear that the future might involve climate-related relocation and agricultural producers needing to move.

Sink or swim?

Countries are making important progress on adaptation by installing early warning systems and setting up the institutions needed to channel money to local people and to monitor national progress. Bangladesh, Tuvalu and Kenya are leading the way. But even in these places, most adaptation action does not go far enough to manage the escalating impacts coming our way.

The world needs to stop burning fossil fuels. This is the only way to stop further damage and make it possible to adapt. While we are doing what we can to limit any further warming, nations also need to plan for the future we are currently heading towards.

Countries need a new approach to adaptation that goes beyond tweaking current institutions and practices to one that helps people imagine and create new futures where they can thrive, even in 2-3°C warming. This will mean big shifts in how people earn a living, the role of the military, where people live, and where and how we grow food. It is only by facing up to this new reality, that we will find a way to “swim” in the climate-changed world.

This article features a reference to a book that has been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on the link and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Susannah Fisher currently receives funding from UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). She has received grant funding from DFID/FCDO, GIZ and the Mary Robinson Foundation. She has undertaken short-term consultancy for IIED, GGGI, QCF, CIFF, FILE, the Adaptation Fund, the World Bank, the OECD and the CIF Transformative Change Learning Partnership . She is on the Advisory Group of the Zurich Climate Resilience Alliance.

– ref. How five countries are adapting to the climate crisis – https://theconversation.com/how-five-countries-are-adapting-to-the-climate-crisis-266707

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Valdemar Brimnes Ingemann Johansen, PhD Fellow in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen

For decades, we’ve been told that weight loss is a matter of willpower: eat less, move more. But modern science has proven this isn’t actually the case.

More on that in a moment. But first, let’s go back a few hundred thousand years to examine our early human ancestors. Because we can blame a lot of the difficulty we have with weight loss today on our predecessors of the past – maybe the ultimate case of blame the parents.

For our early ancestors, body fat was a lifeline: too little could mean starvation, too much could slow you down. Over time, the human body became remarkably good at guarding its energy reserves through complex biological defences wired into the brain. But in a world where food is everywhere and movement is optional, those same systems that once helped us survive uncertainty now make it difficult to lose weight.

When someone loses weight, the body reacts as if it were a threat to survival. Hunger hormones surge, food cravings intensify and energy expenditure drops. These adaptations evolved to optimise energy storage and usage in environments with fluctuating food availability. But today, with our easy access to cheap, calorie-dense junk food and sedentary routines, those same adaptations that once helped us to survive can cause us a few issues.

As we found in our recent research, our brains also have powerful mechanisms for defending body weight – and can sort of “remember” what that weight used to be. For our ancient ancestors, this meant that if weight was lost in hard times, their bodies would be able to “get back” to their usual weight during better times.

But for us modern humans, it means that our brains and bodies remember any excess weight gain as though our survival and lives depend upon it. So in effect, once the body has been heavier, the brain comes to treat that higher weight as the new normal – a level it feels compelled to defend.

The fact that our bodies have this capacity to “remember” our previous heavier weight helps to explain why so many people regain weight after dieting. But as the science shows, this weight regain is not due to a lack of discipline; rather, our biology is doing exactly what it evolved to do: defend against weight loss.

Hacking biology

This is where weight-loss medications such as Wegovy and Mounjaro have offered fresh hope. They work by mimicking gut hormones that tell the brain to curb appetite.

But not everyone responds well to such drugs. For some, the side effects can make them difficult to stick with, and for others, the drugs don’t seem to lead to weight loss at all. It’s also often the case that once treatment stops, biology reasserts itself – and the lost weight returns.

Advances in obesity and metabolism research may mean that it’s possible for future therapies to be able to turn down these signals that drive the body back to its original weight, even beyond the treatment period.

Research is also showing that good health isn’t the same thing as “a good weight”. As in, exercise, good sleep, balanced nutrition, and mental wellbeing can all improve heart and metabolic health, even if the number on the scales barely moves.

A whole society approach

Of course, obesity isn’t just an individual problem – it takes a society-wide approach to truly tackle the root causes. And research suggests that a number of preventative measures might make a difference – things such as investing in healthier school meals, reducing the marketing of junk food to children, designing neighbourhoods where walking and cycling are prioritised over cars, and restaurants having standardised food portions.

Scientists are also paying close attention to key early-life stages – from pregnancy to around the age of seven – when a child’s weight regulation system is particularly malleable.

Indeed, research has found that things like what parents eat, how infants are fed, and early lifestyle habits can all shape how the brain controls appetite and fat storage for years to come.

If you’re looking to lose weight, there are still things you can do – mainly by focusing less on crash diets and more on sustainable habits that support overall wellbeing. Prioritising sleep helps regulate appetite, for example, while regular activity – even walking – can improve your blood sugar levels and heart health.

The bottom line though is that obesity is not a personal failure, but rather a biological condition shaped by our brains, our genes, and the environments we live in. The good news is that advances in neuroscience and pharmacology are offering new opportunities in terms of treatments, while prevention strategies can shift the landscape for future generations.

So if you’ve struggled to lose weight and keep it off, know that you’re not alone, and it’s not your fault. The brain is a formidable opponent. But with science, medicine and smarter policies, we’re beginning to change the rules of the game.

---

This article was commissioned by Videnskab.dk as part of a partnership collaboration with The Conversation. You can read the Danish version of this article, here.

Valdemar Brimnes Ingemann Johansen’s PhD studies are funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research.

Christoffer Clemmensen is a co-founder of Ousia Pharma, a biotech company developing therapeutics for obesity. He receives funding for his University research from the Novo Nordisk Foundation, the Lundbeck Foundation, Independent Research Fund Denmark, Innovation Fund Denmark. the European Research Council, the BioInnovation Institute.

– ref. The science of weight loss – and why your brain is wired to keep you fat – https://theconversation.com/the-science-of-weight-loss-and-why-your-brain-is-wired-to-keep-you-fat-266808

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Claire Hughes, Professor of Psychology, Deputy Director of the Centre For Family Research, University of Cambridge

Generation Alpha is the largest generation ever. Totalling two billion children, it encompasses anybody currently aged 0-15 years old – those born between 2010 and 2025.

This is the first fully digitally native generation, with many children already achieving unprecedented levels of digital literacy. It is predicted they will become the most educated generation in history: 90% are expected to complete secondary school worldwide, compared with 80% of gen Z.

However, gen Alpha children also inherit an increasingly precarious world, characterised by global uncertainties, housing shortages and climate change. It’s such a radical departure from what came before that this generation takes its name from the first letter of the Greek alphabet – unlike the gen Xs, Ys and Zs, whose letters come from our own (Latin) alphabet.

As developmental psychologists, we might ask what this new world means for gen Alpha’s psychological development. How might it influence their experiences, interests and values?

A good starting point is to look at their parents: the millennials (gen Y). From these 30- and 40-somethings, the gen Alphas are inheriting support for values such as inclusivity, adaptability and digital confidence, but also the tendency in some areas to boycott people whose words or actions are deemed offensive.

Millennials also report poorer mental health than previous generations, and at least in many western countries they are facing in some ways a more challenging financial situation.

Facing this adversity may mean that millennial parents are uniquely well placed to build their children’s resilience. Encouragingly, millennial fathers show unprecedented levels of commitment to being involved in parenting, challenging gender stereotypes.

On the other hand, stressed parents often struggle to cope with everyday tasks, while their children can exhibit behavioural problems such as aggression, and emotional difficulties like social withdrawal and anxiety.

Technology has also introduced challenges as millennials have widely adopted personal devices. Roughly half of parents in the UK say they are addicted to their phones, for example.

The distractions of digital devices can make parenting more difficult. This “technoference” is again associated with child behaviour problems, which could have knock-on effects later in life.

One additional technological challenge that gen Alphas experience is “sharenting”, where parents share photos and videos of them online, sometimes in [excessive or inappropriate ways]. We lack good data on the scale and impact of this trend, so researchers urgently need to map the risks.

Millennials’ own challenges with technology may at least put them in a better position to help their children navigate things like screentime and social media. Today’s digital world also means that gen Alpha’s parents have a huge amount of parenting information at their fingertips, as well as access to parenting forums and digital communities, which may reduce feelings of stress and isolation. Today’s psychologists and health professionals can also provide parents with rigorous evidence-based guidance.

Gen Alpha digital immersion

The digital world has amplified gen Alpha’s exposure to ideas and cultural practices from peers and other adults. So while some are likely to spend longer living at home than previous generations, they may actually be less susceptible to parental influence. This could be liberating, but also introduces new risks.

We’ve seen how social media can exacerbate peer pressure and has introduced cyber-bullying. Influencer trends risk inculcating unrealistic body image ideals, which can contribute to body dysmorphia.

Excessive use of video games can result in sleep deprivation, reduced physical activity and impaired school performance. It may be that the increasing availability of VR games makes these risks more pronounced for gen Alpha.

Gen Alpha also risk being more exposed to potentially harmful content such as pornography or sites promoting self-harm or eating disorders. While they may not be as gullible as is often assumed, young children often lack effective strategies for identifying trustworthy information, putting them at more risk than adults.

In 2010, the cognitive anthropologist Dan Sperber coined the phrase “epistemic trust” to describe the idea that we view others as trustworthy sources of information. Growing up surrounded by misinformation may instead lead gen Alpha to adopt the opposite stance – epistemic mistrust – with potential negative consequences like depression and anxiety, for instance

The digital space isn’t entirely negative for children’s psychological development. It’s much easier for gen Alpha to access information online about mental health, as well as professional psychological support, while also participating in virtual communities.

Technology also offers far greater access to educational resources and tools, something which AI may increase. There’s even emerging evidence that AI may enhance learning outcomes and increase student motivation, for instance. The big challenge will be to democratise learning without succumbing to adverse effects on human cognitive abilities from over-relying on AI for writing and thinking.

A diversity of experiences

Amid all this, it’s important to remember that gen Alpha’s psychological development is not following one monolithic trajectory.

The pandemic both highlighted and exacerbated inequality in many areas of childrens’s lives from education to home stability. For some older gen Alphas, school closures and online teaching left long-term scars – as evidenced by surging school absenteeism in many countries that appears difficult to reverse.

School closures during the pandemic meant the loss of a safe space for children who might be at risk of neglect or maltreatment at home. One consequence was a global rise in violence against children. Even younger Alphas who were not born at the time may be affected indirectly by their older brothers and sisters’ experiences.

More generally, experience will differ greatly depending on where members of gen Alpha live. For example, in east Asia ultra-low fertility has led to emptying classrooms, while children in smaller families endure more academic pressure from parents. Understanding the experiences of children in the global south is particularly important, not least because they represent the majority of gen Alpha.

Gender will also affect in new ways how this generation experience the world. For instance, boys appear more prone to gaming addiction while girls are more likely to become addicted to social media. Girls also report seeing more online content that creates appearance pressure, while boys are more likely to see misinformation – no doubt sometimes promoting potentially harmful views about masculinity and women.

What are gen Alpha’s own views of this new world? Despite adult fears about their exposure to misogyny, xenophobia and polarisation, today’s children are concerned about a wide range of progressive issues. These include resource inequality, sexuality, climate justice and animal rights.

This might be youthful idealism that will be shed in adulthood. Yet we know, for instance, that millennials commonly express values that differ from preceding generations.

Gen Alpha have also already been found to instil pro-environmental attitudes in their parents. So at least some of these progressive values are likely to endure and potentially ripple through to wider society.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The psychology of generation Alpha – https://theconversation.com/the-psychology-of-generation-alpha-268500

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kate Whitman, Research Fellow, Ethical Consumption, Revolution Plastics Institute, University of Portsmouth

Every week, the average UK household throws away dozens of pieces of plastic packaging. When people actually start counting them, they’re often shocked to discover just how much there is. And unfortunately, most of this plastic cannot be reused, refilled or recycled.

That’s one of the main findings from our new research on the Big Plastic Count, a nationwide citizen science campaign organised by social enterprise Everyday Plastic in collaboration with environmental campaign charity Greenpeace. Involving more than 160,000 UK households, it’s one of the largest efforts ever to track household plastic waste in the world.

Our analysis combined the Big Plastic Count data with an attitude survey of more than 8,000 plastic count respondents and an experiment on public engagement. It showed that taking part in “citizen science”, research carried out with the public rather than on the public, can do much more than generate data. It can bring a sense of urgency to an environmental problem, change behaviour, and even mobilise political action.

People tend to overestimate the positive environmental impact of recycling. Many participants began the project confident they were already making environmentally friendly choices, for example buying recyclable packaging. But when they actually counted their weekly plastic waste, the results told a different story.

The typical household generated 20-30 items of plastic in just one week, mostly soft plastics such as film lids, crisp packets and food wrappers. These items, despite often carrying positive environmental messages, are impossible to reuse or refill, and are rarely recycled in practice.

This gap between perception and reality, what we call “plastic blindness”, reveals a crucial barrier to tackling plastic pollution. People simply don’t see how much plastic they use or misunderstand, or perhaps are misled as to what happens to it after disposal.

This blindness was especially pronounced among online shoppers, who tended to underestimate their plastic consumption the most. Having packaging arrive neatly at the door seems to obscure the sheer volume of waste produced in the process. This suggests the need for more visible waste information – and better ways to help consumers choose lower waste options.

When we see it, we care more

The act of counting plastic waste had a powerful psychological effect. Participants who tracked their own waste reported feeling more aware and more concerned about the plastic waste they were generating – and more open to alternatives such as refill and reuse systems.

These models, where customers use their own containers or borrow returnable ones, are widely seen as essential to a circular economy. Yet their success depends, along with supportive policies, on public understanding of why recycling and other waste management strategies are not enough to tackle plastic pollution.

By making the invisible visible, citizen science can help close that understanding gap. Participants who saw their plastic waste laid out in front of them were far more likely to express concern about pollution and to support stronger policies on plastic reduction.

Citizen science can spark action

We found that awareness translated into political engagement. Participation in the Big Plastic Count coincided with a significant increase in signatures on a Greenpeace petition launched at the same time, calling for stronger action in the ongoing global plastics treaty negotiations.

This suggests that citizen science isn’t just a way to collect data. It can also mobilise public support for policy change. When people see clear evidence of a problem that they have limited control over, they’re more motivated to demand systemic solutions.

Our findings add to growing evidence that recycling alone cannot solve the plastic problem. In the UK, the Everyday Plastic study showed that only around 17% of household plastic waste is actually recycled, while most ends up being incinerated, exported or put into landfill.

Policies that focus solely on end-of-life solutions ignore the need to reduce plastic production at its source. That’s why policy must look upstream. The global plastics treaty, a United Nations initiative aiming to reduce plastic pollution worldwide, could commit countries to legally binding limits on virgin plastic production and enforce stronger requirements for reuse and refill systems.

The results of the Big Plastic Count show that when people are given the opportunity to see their own contribution to the plastic problem, they want to see change – and they expect policymakers to lead it.

Quite simply, we can’t fix what we can’t see. Plastic pollution is often hidden in plain sight – behind positive “eco” or “recyclable” labels, messages such as adverts normalising single-use plastic use, within supply chains and under the convenience of online shopping.

Citizen science initiatives such as the Big Plastic Count help to lift that blindfold, empowering citizens not just to count plastic, but to count in the movement for change.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Cressida Bowyer receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the Medical Research Council (MRC), the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the Wellcome Trust, the Sustainable Manufacturing and Environmental Pollution Programme (SMEP) and the Flotilla Foundation. She is a member of the British Plastics Federation Sustainability Committee.

Steve Fletcher receives funding from the World Economic Forum, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Aquapak Ltd, Defra, and the Flotilla Foundation. He is a member of the United Nations International Resource Panel and is the NERC Agenda Setting Fellow for Plastic Pollution.

Kate Whitman 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.

– ref. Huge amounts of plastic waste goes unnoticed – here’s what to do about it – https://theconversation.com/huge-amounts-of-plastic-waste-goes-unnoticed-heres-what-to-do-about-it-268702

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Damian Bailey, Professor of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of South Wales

With each breath, four out of every five molecules we inhale are nitrogen. This colourless, odourless gas makes up nearly 80% of the air that sustains us – yet it plays no direct role in keeping us alive. This same inert gas is now being used to take life.

In the past year, several US states have adopted nitrogen gas as a method for inmate execution, and a nitrogen‑filled “Sarco pod” (short for sarcophagus) euthanasia device has made headlines in Switzerland. While both claim to offer a calm, painless death, the science tells a different story.

Nitrogen asphyxiation kills by replacing breathable air with pure nitrogen, starving the brain and body of oxygen. It is described by some commentators as humane – a supposedly peaceful fading into unconsciousness without pain or panic. But the physiological reality is far more disturbing.

As oxygen levels plummet, the body’s survival systems erupt into panic. People gasp, choke, thrash and experience terrifying air hunger as their cells suffocate. These are not the signs of a gentle passing but of a body desperately fighting for life.

What began as a speculative idea has now become practice. Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Mississippi have approved nitrogen executions, with several already carried out and more planned. Others, including Ohio and Nebraska, are considering legislation.

The shift has been driven by shortages of lethal-injection drugs and a search for seemingly “cleaner” methods. Yet eyewitness accounts from a recent execution reveal visible suffering lasting minutes before death: violent convulsions, heaving, gasping and desperate attempts to breathe.

Advocates claim that removing oxygen while keeping carbon dioxide levels low prevents panic – a claim rooted in misunderstanding. The body is exquisitely sensitive to oxygen deprivation. Tiny sensors in our neck, called carotid bodies, constantly monitor oxygen levels. When levels fall, they trigger powerful signals to breathe harder.

Air hunger

This response, known as air hunger, is one of the most distressing sensations humans can experience. Unlike drifting into unconsciousness under anaesthesia, oxygen starvation brings an overwhelming feeling of suffocation, panic and terror.

Even trained pilots, exposed to sudden oxygen loss at high altitude, describe severe breathlessness and confusion within seconds – that interval before incapacitating confusion constitutes a state known in aviation medicine as the “time of useful consciousness”.

At 50,000 feet, pilots have less than 12 seconds before confusion sets in – and those moments are anything but peaceful, equivalent to breathing almost pure nitrogen at ground level. The experience is so traumatic that military and commercial pilots undergo hypoxia recognition training precisely to avoid confusion and loss of control when oxygen fails.

In nitrogen executions, the situation is far worse. Prisoners are restrained, unable to expand their chest fully against straps that restrict breathing, amplifying the sense of suffocation. Witnesses have reported prolonged movements and vocalisations, consistent with the body’s involuntary struggle to breathe – unmistakable signs of physiological distress, not serene unconsciousness.

A similar claim of a “gentle” death has entered debates over assisted suicide. In Switzerland, the Sarco pod – a 3D‑printed capsule filled with nitrogen – has been marketed as an elegant, pain‑free way to die. Its inventor, Dr Philip Nitschke, has said users “drift off peacefully”. However, there is no substantial evidence to support this.

The first reported use in 2024 triggered a criminal investigation, and the lack of reported eyewitness accounts makes it impossible to know what the person experienced.

The notion that breathing pure nitrogen induces calm probably stems from confusion with nitrogen narcosis – the intoxicating effect deep‑sea divers feel under high pressure. Yet this “martini effect” occurs only when nitrogen is breathed at several times normal atmospheric pressure.

At sea level, nitrogen simply displaces oxygen, causing hypoxia and anoxia without any sedative properties. The result is not a blissful drift into unconsciousness, but a terrifying physiological fight for air.

Breathing pure nitrogen can cause loss of consciousness within about 20 seconds as blood oxygen falls below critical levels. But even in that brief window, there are several agonising seconds of confusion and suffocation. Death soon follows as the brain and heart are starved of oxygen. Far from being humane, this process resembles drowning without water – silent, invisible, yet equally violent.

The ethical implications are profound. In response to concerns, three major suppliers of medical‑grade nitrogen in the US have banned sales for executions. Yet some policymakers present the method as clean and clinical, even though medical evidence suggests the physical experience is far from peaceful. That is both scientifically and morally misleading.

Death by nitrogen is indeed invisible and silent in itself – no blood, no smoke, no residue. But that silence masks a violent physiological response from gasping and retching to brutal respiratory distress and convulsions.

To call this humane is to fundamentally misunderstand how the body works. As policymakers and the public confront these developments, decisions must be guided not by euphemisms or convenience but by evidence.

Science makes one fact clear: nitrogen itself may be quiet, but it most certainly is not kind.

If you’re struggling with suicidal thoughts, call Samaritans UK at 116 123.

Damian Bailey is supported by a Royal Society Wolfson Research Fellowship (Grant No. WM170007).

Damian Bailey is Editor-in-Chief of Experimental Physiology, Chair of the Life Sciences Working Group, member of the Human Spaceflight and Exploration Science Advisory Committee to the European Space Agency and member of the Space Exploration Advisory Committee to the UK and Swedish National Space Agencies. Damian Bailey is also affiliated to Bexorg, Inc. (USA) focused on the technological development of novel biomarkers of cerebral bioenergetic function and structural damage in humans.

David Poole receives funding from the National Institutes of Health and Is the Elizabeth Chapin Burke Chair for the College of Health and Human Sciences.

Vaughan Macefield receives funding fromThe National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) and the National Institutes of Health (USA)

– ref. Silent but not serene: what science says about nitrogen death – https://theconversation.com/silent-but-not-serene-what-science-says-about-nitrogen-death-267692

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Jacobs, Professor of Political Economy, University of Sheffield

It is easy to be cynical about the annual circus of UN climate negotiations that takes place at “Cop” – the Conference of the Parties to the UN’s climate convention.

As delegates gather in the Amazonian port of Belém, Brazil for this year’s Cop30, familiar complaints have returned: the summits are too big and bureaucratic, and aren’t making enough progress. After three decades of annual conferences, global emissions are still rising – and critics say the process is failing.

But that misses the point. Emissions are rising much more slowly now than they would have been without the UN regime. In 2009, climate scientists were warning that, if countries did not curb their emissions, the world would face up to 6°C of warming.

Before the Paris agreement in 2015, the “business as usual” forecast was down to around 4°C. Today, the UN projects that without additional policies, the world will warm by around 2.5°C.

This steady decline has happened because, contrary to popular belief, the world really is acting on climate change.

Over the past 15 years the dramatically falling costs of renewable energy, particularly solar and wind, have led to an astonishing rise in their use. This year or next, renewables will generate more electricity than coal for the first time.

The same rapid transition been happening with electric vehicles, which now represent more than a fifth of global car sales.

Sceptics say this is due to technological innovation, not UN conferences. But innovation doesn’t just “happen”: it is driven by policy which makes it profitable.

Over the past 20 years, governments all over the world have introduced fuel efficiency standards, renewable energy targets and subsidies that have spurred companies to improve the new technologies.

As prices have fallen – particularly since China started mass producing green technologies in the 2010s – the targets could be tightened, leading to still lower costs. It has been a virtuous circle: policy driving innovation and vice versa.

The quiet power of the Paris agreement

This is why the UN climate process matters. The Paris agreement obliges every country to produce ever-stronger climate targets and plans every five years.

Without this coordinated international framework, there would have been little chance that so many countries – with different political cycles and economic circumstances – would move simultaneously in the same direction. It is this global commitment that drives the growth of low-carbon markets.

But, continue the critics, the national plans are not enough. Around 2.5°C of warming may be better than 6°C, but it will still be catastrophic.

It is true that the Paris agreement has a fundamental (though politically necessary) flaw: it sets a global temperature goal, but then leaves it to each country to decide what they will do to meet it. When the new set of national pledges are added up, they don’t yet align with the 1.5°C-2°C target. The resulting “emissions gap” seems to prove the critics correct.

But that conclusion would be too hasty. The national pledges, known as “nationally determined contributions” or NDCs, are not forecasts.

Under a legally binding treaty, countries do not wish to set targets which unforeseen events mean they might not meet. But many, including China, see NDCs as floors not ceilings – a political statement of minimum intent.

China’s new NDC is a case in point. Many commentators described it as “disappointing”. But in announcing it, President Xi Jinping has explicitly said that the country would strive to exceed its targets. Its record over the past 15 years shows it tends to do just that.

---

Read more:
When China makes a climate pledge, the world should listen

---

Another reason for optimism is that developing countries still don’t know how much financial support they will receive. But that will become gradually clearer over the next few years. At Cop30, Brazil and last year’s host Azerbaijan will present the “Baku to Belém Roadmap”, a plan to raise US$1.3 trillion (£1 trillion) a year in international climate finance by 2035.

If even part of this is delivered, many emerging economies will be able to cut emissions faster (and do more to adapt to climate change) than their current plans suggest.

The summits have done their job

Finally, climate action is increasingly taking place outside the formal negotiations. The 2015 Paris agreement already established the architecture. Now, progress depends less on negotiating new rules and more on implementing them.

That’s why Brazil has described Cop30 as the “implementation Cop”, with a focus on the “real world” of economic development, poverty reduction, green technologies and investment finance. The conference is due to see announcements of major new initiatives in – among other areas – tropical rainforest protection, sustainable fuels, regenerative agriculture, carbon markets, methane emissions, combating wildfires, digital public infrastructure, airline ticket taxes and adaptation finance.

When critics attack the large numbers attending the summits, they miss the point that many of these attendees have a practical interest in these and other solutions to climate change.

In the future, Brazil and others hope, these big climate summits will be much more about such sectoral and financial initiatives than about the negotiation of ever-more detailed UN rules. Climate action is moving into a new era. And this is precisely the international regime working as it was designed: a framework to encourage ever-increasing ambition, coordination and accountability.

Of course, we cannot be complacent. As the US withdraws from the Paris agreement, its president is stepping up his counter-measures to boost fossil fuels and undermine renewables. Global climate policy has in this sense become a battle between alternative visions of our energy and industrial future, and it is now being waged in national governments and corporate boardrooms as much as in UN negotiating halls.

There is no doubt that the clean energy transition is happening. But its pace – and therefore how far global warming can be slowed – depends on businesses confidence that it will continue. And that requires governments remaining committed to climate goals so that green investment and innovation will remain profitable.

Undermining that confidence by dismissing UN climate conferences as pointless risks slowing this progress. Cop critics like to think of themselves as brave tellers of truth to power. They may end up merely being Donald Trump’s unwitting accomplices.

---

Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

---

Michael Jacobs is Professor of Political Economy at the University of Sheffield and Visiting Senior Fellow at the thinktank ODI Global.

– ref. The UN climate summits are working – just not in the way their critics think – https://theconversation.com/the-un-climate-summits-are-working-just-not-in-the-way-their-critics-think-268953