Canicule : soulignons, sans état d’âme, nos progrès d’adaptation depuis 2003

Source: The Conversation – in French – By François Lévêque, Professeur d’économie, Mines Paris – PSL

Depuis 2003, l’Europe a réalisé des progrès conséquents dans l’adaptation aux vagues de chaleur : en proportion, on meurt moins, même si les températures sont plus élevées. Et demain ?


La chaleur tue : on a recensé plusieurs centaines de décès à Paris ainsi que dans d’autres grandes capitales européennes lors de la canicule de mi-juin à début juillet 2025. Le nombre de morts aurait triplé par rapport à la normale du fait du changement climatique, selon une estimation réalisée par des chercheurs britanniques.

Ces chiffres font peur. Ils masquent cependant les grands progrès réalisés pour limiter notre vulnérabilité face à la multiplication des vagues de chaleur. La chaleur tue mais de moins en moins, grâce à nos actions individuelles et collectives d’adaptation. Il faut s’en féliciter, et non l’ignorer.

Les données d’observation de mortalité par les agences sanitaires n’étant pas encore disponibles, le calcul qui précède repose sur des modèles et des méthodes, connus des spécialistes. La plupart sont désormais suffisamment au point pour rendre compte en confiance de leurs résultats sur les progrès de l’adaptation.

La canicule de 2003, ou l’Année zéro

Commençons notre examen en prenant pour point de repère la canicule de 2003 en France. Cet été-là le pays a connu une véritable hécatombe : près de 15 000 décès en excès.

En contrecoup, les pouvoirs publics ont décidé toute une série d’actions préventives pour protéger la population des grandes chaleurs : mise en place d’un système d’alerte annonçant les canicules, campagnes d’information auprès du public sur les façons de se protéger, formation du personnel de santé, ouverture d’espaces climatisés dans les maisons de retraite et les services hospitaliers, etc.

Quelques années plus tard, une équipe regroupant des chercheurs de l’Inserm, de Météo France et de Santé publique France s’est demandé si ces mesures avaient bien été suivies d’effet. À partir d’un modèle reliant mortalité et températures observées en France sur vingt-cinq ans, ils ont estimé que la canicule de l’été 2006 s’était traduite par une baisse de plus de moitié du nombre de décès en excès.

Ce progrès ne peut pas, bien sûr, être imputé aux seules actions publiques. La canicule de 2003 a été à l’origine d’une prise de conscience généralisée des méfaits de la chaleur, de changement des comportements individuels et d’achat d’appareils de rafraîchissement, tels que ventilateurs et climatiseurs, mais aussi d’équipements plus innovants apparus plus tard sur le marché, comme les rafraîchisseurs d’air ou les pompes à chaleur réversibles.

Attention, le frigidaire distributeur de glaçons ne fait pas partie de cette panoplie ! En cas de fortes températures, il faut éviter de boire de l’eau glacée pour se rafraîchir. Elle ralentit la sudation, mécanisme fondamental de l’organisme pour lutter contre la chaleur.

Pourquoi il est délicat de comparer 2022 et 2003

L’été 2022 a constitué la seconde saison la plus chaude jamais enregistrée dans l’Hexagone. Le nombre de décès en excès a été toutefois cinq fois moindre que celui de 2003, mais on ne sait pas précisément quelle part de cette baisse est simplement due à des conditions caniculaires un peu moins défavorables.

La comparaison 2003/2022 est tout aussi délicate au niveau européen. On dispose bien, à cette échelle, de travaux d’estimation de la surmortalité en lien avec la chaleur aux deux dates, mais ils reposent sur des méthodes différentes qui rendent leurs résultats peu comparables : 74 483 décès pour la canicule de 2003 en Europe contre 61 672 morts lors de la canicule de 2022.

En effet, le premier chiffre mesure des décès en excès par rapport à une période de référence, tandis que le second découle de l’application d’une méthode épidémiologique. Celle-ci, plus sophistiquée, mais aussi plus rigoureuse, consiste à estimer pour une ville, une région ou un pays, le risque de mortalité relatif en fonction de la température, à tracer une « courbe exposition-réponse », selon le jargon des spécialistes.

Pour l’Europe entière, le risque est le plus faible autour de 17 °C à 19 °C, puis grimpe fortement au-delà. Connaissant les températures journalières atteintes les jours de canicule, on en déduit alors le nombre de décès associés à la chaleur.

Quelles canicules en Europe à l’horizon 2050 ?

Résumé ainsi, le travail paraît facile. Il exige cependant une myriade de données et repose sur de très nombreux calculs et hypothèses.

C’est cette méthode qui est employée pour estimer la surmortalité liée aux températures que l’on rencontrera d’ici le milieu ou la fin de ce siècle, en fonction, bien sûr, de différentes hypothèses de réchauffement de la planète. Elle devrait par exemple être décuplée en Europe à l’horizon 2100 dans le cas d’un réchauffement de 4 °C.

Ce chiffre est effrayant, mais il ne tient pas compte de l’adaptation à venir des hommes et des sociétés face au réchauffement. Une façon de la mesurer, pour ce qui est du passé, consiste à rechercher comment la courbe exposition-réponse à la température se déplace dans le temps. Si adaptation il y a, on doit observer une mortalité qui grimpe moins fortement avec la chaleur qu’auparavant.

C’est ce qui a été observé à Paris en comparant le risque relatif de mortalité à la chaleur entre la période 1996-2002 et la période 2004-2010. Aux températures les plus élevées, celles du quart supérieur de la distribution, le risque a diminué de 15 %.

Ce chiffre ne semble pas très impressionnant, mais il faut savoir qu’il tient uniquement compte de la mortalité le jour même où une température extrême est mesurée. Or, la mort associée à la chaleur peut survenir avec un effet de retard qui s’étend à plusieurs jours voire plusieurs semaines.

La prise en compte de cet effet diminue encore le risque entre les deux périodes : de 15 % à 50 %. Cette baisse de moitié est plus forte que celle observée dans d’autres capitales européennes comme Athènes et Rome. Autrement dit, Paris n’est pas à la traîne de l’adaptation aux canicules.

De façon générale et quelle que soit la méthode utilisée, la tendance à une diminution de la susceptibilité de la population à la chaleur se vérifie dans nombre d’autres villes et pays du monde développé. L’adaptation et la baisse de mortalité qu’elle permet y est la règle.

La baisse de la mortalité en Europe compensera-t-elle l’augmentation des températures ?

C’est une bonne nouvelle, mais cette baisse de la surmortalité reste relative. Si les progrès de l’adaptation sont moins rapides que le réchauffement, il reste possible que le nombre de morts en valeur absolue augmente. En d’autres termes, la mortalité baisse-t-elle plus vite ou moins vite que le réchauffement augmente ?

Plus vite, si l’on s’en tient à l’évolution observée dans dix pays européens entre 1985 et 2012. Comme ces auteurs l’écrivent :

« La réduction de la mortalité attribuable à la chaleur s’est produite malgré le décalage progressif des températures vers des plages de températures plus chaudes observées au cours des dernières décennies. »

En sera-t-il de même demain ? Nous avons mentionné plus haut un décuplement en Europe de la surmortalité de chaleur à l’horizon 2100. Il provient d’un article paru dans Nature Medicine qui estimait qu’elle passerait de 9 à 84 décès attribuables à la chaleur par tranche de 100 000 habitants.

Mais attention : ce nombre s’entend sans adaptation aucune. Pour en tenir compte dans leurs résultats, les auteurs de l’article postulent que son progrès, d’ici 2100, permettra un gain de mortalité de 50 % au maximum.

Au regard des progrès passés examinés dans ce qui précède, accomplis sur une période plus courte, une réduction plus forte ne semble pourtant pas hors de portée.

Surtout si la climatisation continue de se développer. Le taux d’équipement d’air conditionné en Europe s’élève aujourd’hui à seulement 19 %, alors qu’il dépasse 90 % aux États-Unis. Le déploiement qu’il a connu dans ce pays depuis un demi-siècle a conduit à une forte baisse de la mortalité liée à la chaleur.

Une moindre mortalité hivernale à prendre en compte

Derrière la question de savoir si les progrès futurs de l’adaptation permettront de réduire la mortalité liée à la chaleur de plus de 50 % en Europe, d’ici 2100, se joue en réalité une autre question : la surmortalité associée au réchauffement conduira-t-elle à un bilan global positif ou bien négatif ?

En effet, si le changement climatique conduit à des étés plus chauds, il conduit aussi à des hivers moins rudes – et donc, moins mortels. La mortalité associée au froid a été estimée en 2020 à 82 décès par 100 000 habitants. Avec une élévation de température de 4 °C, elle devrait, toujours selon les auteurs de l’article de Nature Medicine, s’établir à la fin du siècle à 39 décès par 100 000 personnes.

Si on rapporte ce chiffre aux 84 décès par tranche de 100 000 habitants liés à la chaleur, cités plus haut, on calcule aisément qu’un progrès de l’adaptation à la chaleur de 55 % suffirait pour que la mortalité liée au froid et à la chaleur s’égalisent. Le réchauffement deviendrait alors neutre pour l’Europe, si l’on examine la seule mortalité humaine liée aux températures extrêmes.

Mais chacun sait que le réchauffement est aussi à l’origine d’incendies, d’inondations et de tempêtes mortelles ainsi que de la destruction d’écosystèmes.

Sous cet angle très réducteur, le réchauffement serait même favorable, dès lors que le progrès de l’adaptation dépasserait ce seuil de 55 %. Si l’on ne considère que le cas de la France, ce seuil est à peine plus élevé : il s’établit à 56 %.

Des conclusions à nuancer

La moindre mortalité hivernale surprendra sans doute le lecteur, plus habitué à être informé et alarmé en période estivale des seuls effets sanitaires négatifs du réchauffement. L’idée déroutante que l’élévation des températures en Europe pourrait finalement être bénéfique est également dérangeante. Ne risque-t-elle pas de réduire les motivations et les incitations des Européens à diminuer leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre ?

C’est peut-être cette crainte qui conduit d’ailleurs les auteurs de l’article de Nature Medicine à conclure que :

« La mortalité nette augmentera substantiellement si l’on considère les scénarios de réchauffement les plus extrêmes et cette tendance ne pourra être inversée qu’en considérant des niveaux non plausibles d’adaptation. »

Notons également que ces perspectives concernent ici l’Europe. Dans les pays situés à basse latitude, la surmortalité liée aux températures est effroyable. Leur population est beaucoup plus exposée que la nôtre au changement climatique ; elle est aussi plus vulnérable avec des capacités d’adaptation qui sont limitées par la pauvreté.

À l’horizon 2100, la mortalité nette liée aux températures est estimée à plus de 200 décès pour 100 000 habitants en Afrique sub-saharienne et à près de 600 décès pour 100 000 habitants au Pakistan.

Concluons qu’il ne faut pas relâcher nos efforts d’adaptation à la chaleur en Europe, quitte à ce qu’ils se soldent par un bénéfice net. Les actions individuelles et collectives d’adaptation à la chaleur sauvent des vies. Poursuivons-les. Et ne relâchons pas pour autant nos efforts de réduction des émissions, qui sauveront des vies ailleurs, en particulier dans les pays pauvres de basses latitudes.


François Lévêque a publié, avec Mathieu Glachant, Survivre à la chaleur. Adaptons-nous, Odile Jacob, 2025.

The Conversation

François Lévêque ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Canicule : soulignons, sans état d’âme, nos progrès d’adaptation depuis 2003 – https://theconversation.com/canicule-soulignons-sans-etat-dame-nos-progres-dadaptation-depuis-2003-262091

This stone tool is over 1 million years old. How did its maker get to Sulawesi without a boat?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adam Brumm, Professor of Archaeology, Griffith University

A stone tool from 1.04 million year ago. M.W. Moore/University of New England

Stone tools dating to at least 1.04 million years ago have been found on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. This means early hominins made a major sea crossing from the Asian mainland much earlier than previously thought – and they likely didn’t have any boats.

This discovery, made by a team of Indonesian archaeologists working in collaboration with Australian researchers, is published today in Nature.

It adds to our understanding of how extinct humans once moved across the Wallace Line – an imaginary boundary that runs through the Lombok Strait in the Indonesian archipelago.

Beyond this line, unique and often peculiar animal species – including hominins – evolved in isolation.

Hominins in Wallacea

The oceanic island zone between the Asian and Australian landmasses is known as Wallacea.

Previously, archaeologists have found hominins lived here from at least 1.02 million years ago, thanks to discoveries of stone tools at Wolo Sege on the island of Flores. Meanwhile, tools dated to around 194,000 years ago have been found at Talepu on Sulawesi.

The human evolutionary story in the islands east of the Asian landmass is strange.

The ancient human species that used to live on the island of Flores were small in stature. We know this thanks to the fossils of Homo floresiensis (popularly known as “hobbits”), as well as the 700,000-year-old fossils of a similar small-bodied hominin.

These discoveries suggest it could have been the extinct Asian hominin Homo erectus that breached the formidable marine barrier between this small Wallacean island and mainland Southeast Asia. Over hundreds of thousands of years, their body size reduced in what’s known as island dwarfism.

To the north of Wallacea, the island of Luzon in the Philippines has also yielded evidence of hominins from around 700,000 years ago. Just recently, fossils of a previously unknown diminutive hominin species, Homo luzonensis, were found here.

So how and when did ancient human species cross the Wallace Line?

The Sulawesi stone tools

Our new study reveals the first evidence a sea crossing to Sulawesi may have happened at least 1 million years ago. That’s much earlier than previously known, and means humans reached here at about the same time as Flores, if not earlier.

A field team led by senior archaeologist Budianto Hakim from the National Research and Innovation Agency of Indonesia (BRIN), excavated a total of seven stone artefacts from the sedimentary layers of a sandstone outcrop in a modern corn field at Calio in southern Sulawesi.

In the Early Pleistocene, there was a river channel nearby. This would have been the site of hominin tool-making and other activities such as hunting.

The Calio artefacts consist of small, sharp-edged fragments of stones (flakes) that the early human tool-makers struck from larger pebbles they most likely found in nearby riverbeds.

To produce these flakes, the hominins hit the edge of one stone with another in a controlled manner. This would fracture the first stone in a predictable way.

This tool-making activity left telltale marks on the stones that can be clearly distinguished from naturally broken rocks. So we can say unequivocally that hominins were living in this landscape, making stone tools, at the time the ancient river sediments that comprise the sandstone rock were accumulating.

And that was a very long time ago. Indeed, the team confirmed an age of at least 1.04 million years for the stone artefacts based on paleomagnetic dating of the sandstone itself, along with direct dating of a pig fossil found alongside the artefacts.

A group of people on an archaeological dig under a blue shade cloth.
Excavations at the Early Pleistocene site of Calio in South Sulawesi, Indonesia.
BRIN

Who were these hominins and how did they get to Sulawesi?

As noted earlier, previous research has shown that archaic, stone tool-making hominins managed to get across from the Asian continental landmass to colonise at least some islands in Wallacea.

The discovery of the extremely old stone tools at Calio is another significant new piece of the puzzle. This site has yet to yield any hominin fossils, however. So while we now know there were tool-makers on Sulawesi 1 million years ago, their identity remains a mystery.

Indeed, there are many fascinating questions that remain unanswered, including how these hominins were able to cross the Wallace Line in the first place.

When sea levels were at their lowest, the shortest possible distance between Sulawesi and the nearest part of the adjacent Asian landmass would have been about 50 kilometres.

This is too far to swim, especially since the ocean currents are far too strong. It’s also unlikely these archaic hominins had the cognitive ability to develop watercraft capable of making sea voyages. Setting sail over the horizon to an unseen land would have required advanced planning to gather resources – something they probably weren’t capable of.

Most likely, then, they crossed to Sulawesi from the Asian mainland in the same way rodents and monkeys are suspected to have done – by accident. Perhaps they were castaways on natural “rafts” of floating vegetation.

Our discovery also leads us to wonder what might have happened to Homo erectus on the world’s 11th largest island. Sulawesi is more than 12 times the size of Flores, and much closer to the adjacent Asian mainland.

In fact, Sulawesi is a bit like a mini-continent in itself, which sets it apart from other Wallacean islands. If hominins were cut off in the ecologically rich habitats of this enormous island for a million years, would they have undergone the same evolutionary changes as the Flores hobbits? Or might something completely different have happened?

To unravel this fascinating story, we will continue to search the islands of Wallacea – especially those close to the Asian mainland – for ancient artefacts, fossils and other clues.

The Conversation

Adam Brumm receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Basran Burhan is a researcher at Pusat Kolaborasi Riset Arkeologi Sulawesi (BRIN-Universitas Hasanuddin).

Gerrit (Gert) van den Bergh has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Maxime Aubert receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Renaud Joannes-Boyau receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. This stone tool is over 1 million years old. How did its maker get to Sulawesi without a boat? – https://theconversation.com/this-stone-tool-is-over-1-million-years-old-how-did-its-maker-get-to-sulawesi-without-a-boat-262337

Is Israel committing genocide in Gaza? We asked 5 legal and genocide experts how to interpret the violence

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Melanie O’Brien, Associate Professor in International Law, The University of Western Australia

In January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a provisional ruling in a case brought by South Africa against Israel, alleging genocide in Gaza. The court found Palestinians have a “plausible” right to protection from genocide in Gaza and that Israel must take all measures to prevent a genocide from occurring.

Since then, United Nations experts and human rights groups have concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. In recent weeks, others have done the same, including leading genocide scholars and two Israeli human rights groups.

While the ICJ case may take years to play out, we asked five Australian experts in international law and genocide studies what constitutes a genocide, what the legal standard is, and whether the evidence, in their view, shows one is occurring.

The Conversation

Melanie O’Brien is the president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS). This piece does not represent the view of IAGS.

Ben Saul is the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and counter-terrorism, an independent expert appointed by consensus of the member states of the United Nations Human Rights Council.

Eyal Mayroz served as a counterterrorism specialist with the Israeli Defence Forces in the 1980s.

Paul James and Shannon Bosch 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. Is Israel committing genocide in Gaza? We asked 5 legal and genocide experts how to interpret the violence – https://theconversation.com/is-israel-committing-genocide-in-gaza-we-asked-5-legal-and-genocide-experts-how-to-interpret-the-violence-262688

Climate-fuelled El Niño events are devastating butterflies, beetles and other tropical insects

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nigel Stork, Emeritus Professor in the Centre for Planetary Health and Food Security, Griffith University

Insects are arguably the most important animals on the planet. Their variety is unparalleled in nature, and they carry out vital tasks such as pollinating plants and providing food for other animals.

But all is not well in the insect world. Research over the last few years has shown sustained declines in insect species and numbers. It appeared Earth was witnessing a global-scale crash in insects – and climate change was partly to blame.

The evidence was mostly confined to temperate regions in the Northern Hemisphere. But our new research – published today in Nature – shows it’s also happening in the tropics, where most of Earth’s species live.

We found significant biodiversity loss in spiders, as well as insects including butterflies and beetles. The likely culprit is long-term changes to the El Niño cycle, caused by climate change. It suggests the life-support system underpinning the tropics is at serious risk in a warmer world.

Uncovering the effects of El Niño

El Niños vary massively across tropical regions, but are often characterised by hot and dry conditions (as opposed to the cool and moist conditions of La Niña).

Alternating El Niño and La Niña events can naturally cause many insects to come and go. That’s due to changes in temperature and moisture levels which can affect insect breeding, life cycles and behaviour.

But as climate change worsens, strong El Niño events are becoming more frequent and intense. We wanted to know how this affected insects in tropical regions.

To find out, we examined 80 existing studies of insects in relatively pristine tropical forests – mostly from the tropical Americas. We linked that data to measures of strength in El Niño and La Niña through time.

We found cause for concern. El Niño events appear to cause a rapid decline in both insect biodiversity, and the ecological tasks they perform. These trends were persistent and highly unnatural.

Several types of insects have become more rare in the tropical Americas over recent decades. These included butterflies, beetles and “true bugs” – insects from the order Hemiptera distinguished by two sets of wings and piercing mouthparts used to feed on plants. Butterflies in tropical Asia were also declining.

The strongest declines were in rare insects that would naturally decrease during El Niño. These insect populations would usually bounce back in a La Niña. But climate-fuelled El Niños are causing many populations to fall so far, they cannot recover.

Drastic changes to forests

Our findings suggest the diversity of tropical insects could be chipped away with every El Niño event. This is not just a problem for the species themselves, but other parts of the ecosystem that depend on them.

Our research also involved modelling the decomposition and consumption of leaves by insects across the tropical Americas, Asia and Africa. Both processes are crucial to the health of tropical forests.

Decomposition fluctuated in line with the abundance of termites, which are probably the most important decomposers in the tropics. And worryingly, the amount of live leaves consumed by insects appears to have crashed in recent decades. This correlated strongly with the crash in butterflies and beetles.

These drastic changes may have implications for food webs and other organisms that rely on insects.

a black beetle
The diversity of tropical insects could be chipped away with every El Niño event.
Li Ajang/Shtterstock

A difficult future ahead

Our research could not take in the huge diversity of tropical insects – most of which have not yet been formally described by scientists. But it points to a difficult future for insects – and their habitats – as climate change worsens.

Little data exists on insect numbers in Australia’s Wet Tropics, in Queensland. However, monitoring work is underway at facilities such as the Daintree Rainforest Observatory. Such projects will help us better understand changes in insect biodiversity under climate change.

More research is also needed at other locations around the world. Given the fundamental role insects play in supporting life on Earth, the urgency of this work cannot be overstated.

The Conversation

Nigel Stork receives funding from Australian Research Council grant DP200103100

Adam Sharp receives funding from Hong Kong University Grants Committee Collaborative Research Fund (C7048-22GF).

– ref. Climate-fuelled El Niño events are devastating butterflies, beetles and other tropical insects – https://theconversation.com/climate-fuelled-el-nino-events-are-devastating-butterflies-beetles-and-other-tropical-insects-262625

Why Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle campaign is part of a wider cultural backlash

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Meaghan Furlano, PhD Student, Sociology, Western University

Actress Sydney Sweeney is once again embroiled in controversy. This time the debate isn’t centred around Sweeney selling soaps infused with her bathwater or posting pictures of MAGA-inspired red caps. Instead, the Euphoria star is making rounds for her role in a contentious ad campaign with American Eagle Outfitters.

While the entire campaign sparked debate online, one particular ad has drawn especially intense criticism.

In it, Sweeney lounges artfully on a chaise while fastening a pair of American Eagle jeans. In a breathy voiceover, she says, “Genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality and even eye colour.”

As the camera slowly pans upward and she turns her eyes toward the viewer, Sweeney concludes, “My jeans are blue.”

Commentators and social media users have argued the campaign serves as a conservative dog whistle, conveying thinly veiled support for white supremacy and eugenics.

Sydney Sweeney in the most controversial American Eagle ad.

American Eagle released a statement defending the ad on August 1, writing “‘Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans’ is and always was about the jeans,” on Instagram.

Innocent marketing or intentional dog whistle?

Eugenics is a discredited ideology rooted in white supremacy and scientific racism. It promotes the false belief that racial groupings are biologically determined, and that some groups are genetically superior to others and should selectively reproduce to preserve their “good genes.”

Historically, the end goal of eugenics has been to eliminate so-called “bad genes” — often associated with non-white, disabled, poor or otherwise marginalized communities — so social elites can maintain their dominance.

Fashion advertising playing on eugenic themes has a long history. Commentators have gestured to similarities between the Sweeney ad and the infamous 1980s campaign for Calvin Klein featuring a then-15-year-old Brooke Shields, who rolls around in her Calvins while talking about genetic codes, evolution and survival of the fittest — language evocative of eugenic thinking.

The American Eagle campaign appears to be a direct homage to the Calvin campaign, but is rhetoric reminiscent of eugenics really something we want to reference in marketing?

The return of ‘traditional’ femininity

The American Eagle campaign is pointedly titled “Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans,” with “jeans” sometimes swapped out for “genes.” It’s clearly meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

But this is not just a harmless ad. If the campaign didn’t reflect broader cultural tensions, neither U.S. President Donald Trump nor Sen. Ted Cruz would have commented on it.

“The crazy Left has come out against beautiful women,” Cruz wrote in a tweet about the controversy. A right-wing media outlet went further, claiming body positivity was bringing “the giggling blonde with an amazing rack … to the brink of extinction.”

With its celebration of Sweeney’s conventionally attractive appearance, American Eagle has reintroduced the “traditional” feminine figure loudly and proudly. In this sense, the campaign symbolizes a changing of the cultural tides: out with body positivity, in with the “amazing rack” and all it signifies.

In our present cultural moment saturated with conservative messaging, Sweeney — a young, thin, white and sexualized Hollywood star — is hardly a surprising figure to hear extolling the quality of her “genes” (sorry, jeans).




Read more:
Trad wives hearken back to an imagined past of white Christian womanhood


From the rise of tradwife influencers and SkinnyTokers to the ritualized feminine performance of “morning shedders,” the campaign lands squarely within a broader revival of regressive feminine ideals wrapped in aspirational, white-washed beauty.

Exorcising self-love from the corporate agenda

As a feminist media scholar interested in the intersection of pop culture and the far right, my ongoing research explores the rise of anti-feminism and right-wing politics. We are no longer in the age of popular feminism, when corporations eagerly appropriated feminist rhetoric to sell their products and services.

In its place, brands are reverting to traditional imagery: thin, white women styled for the male gaze — a term referring to the objectification and sexualization of women in popular media, from film and television to fashion ads. It’s a strategy that has long worked for them, and it’s one they’re glad is back in vogue.

The aesthetic regression encapsulated in the Sweeney American Eagle campaign reveals what many critics suspected all along: the corporate embrace of feminism was never sincere.




Read more:
How neoliberalism colonised feminism – and what you can do about it


Campaigns touting “love your body,” “empowerment,” and “confidence” in the late 2010s and early 2020s were intentionally designed to court progressive consumers and profit from the popularity of feminism. The core business model of these corporations — sell insecurities and reap profits for shareholders — had not fundamentally changed.

If anything, as other scholars argue, self-love marketing encouraged women to not only upgrade their bodies but also their minds. It was no longer culturally acceptable that women look good; they had to also feel good about their bodies. That standard required more work and, of course, products, which brands happily supplied.

Spurred on by an increasingly conservative political climate, many brands are no longer shy about expressing their motives. Thin is back in and whiteness is re-associated with rightness.

Living through the cultural backlash

As I have argued elsewhere, we are currently living in backlash times. In her 1991 book, journalist Susan Faludi wrote that backlash is “a recurring phenomenon” that “returns every time women begin to make some headway toward equality.”

Although many news articles are describing a consumer “backlash” to the Sweeney American Eagle campaign, I’m referring to something different: the rise of a cultural backlash against progressive social movements and politics. This backlash is currently taking shape across political, legal and economic domains, and it goes beyond a single ad.

Today’s current backlash is a reaction to popular feminism, Black Lives Matter, DEI and incisive systemic analyses found in feminist, anti-racist and queer scholarship and activism. The Sweeney campaign is just one expression of this larger pattern.

Faludi shrewdly observed that “images of the restrained women line the walls of the popular culture’s gallery” during periods of backlash. That insight feels newly relevant.

Just days after American Eagle dropped its campaign, Kim Kardashian’s company SKIMS released their “sculpt face wraps” — a product designed to give users a more “sculpted” jawline. On the SKIMS website, product images show women ensnared in products that resemble Hannibal Lecter’s famous mask or a surgical brace. They are disconcerting, to say the least.

If Faludi has taught us anything, it’s that a trend of images showing women restrained — physically or to rigidly defined roles — are not only harbingers of a menacing future, but are indicative of a chilling present that we must recognize to resist.

The Conversation

Meaghan Furlano 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. Why Sydney Sweeney’s American Eagle campaign is part of a wider cultural backlash – https://theconversation.com/why-sydney-sweeneys-american-eagle-campaign-is-part-of-a-wider-cultural-backlash-262417

Wildfire season is starting weeks earlier in California – a new study shows how climate change is driving the expansion

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gavin D. Madakumbura, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of California, Los Angeles

Firefighters battle in Pacific Palisades, Calif., on Jan. 7, 2025 David Swanson/AFP via Getty Images

Fire season is expanding in California, with an earlier start to wildfire activity in most of the state. In parts of the northern mountains, the season is now starting more than 10 weeks earlier than it did in the 1990s, a new study shows.

Atmospheric scientists Gavin Madakumbura and Alex Hall, two authors of the study, explain how climate warming has been driving this trend and why the trend is likely to continue.

What did your study find about how wildfire season is changing?

Over the past three decades, California has seen a trend toward more destructive wildfire seasons, with more land burned, but also an earlier start to fire season. We wanted to find out how much of a role climate change was playing in that shift to an earlier start.

We looked at hundreds of thousands of fire records from 1992 to 2020 and documented when fire season started in each region of the state as temperatures rose and vegetation dried out.

While other research has observed changes in the timing of fire season in the western U.S., we identified the drivers of this trend and quantified their effects.

The typical onset of summer fire season, which is in May or June in many regions, has shifted earlier by at least one month in most of the state since the 1990s, and by about 2½ months in some regions, including the northern mountains. Of that, we found that human-caused climate change was responsible for advancing the season between six and 46 days earlier across most of the state from 1992 to 2020.

Our results suggest that as climate warming trends continue, this pattern will likely persist, with earlier starts to fire season in the coming years. This means longer fire seasons, increasing the potential for more of the state to burn.

California typically leads the nation in the number of wildfires, as well as the cost of wildfire damage. But the results also provide some insight into the risks ahead for other fire-prone parts of North America.

What’s driving the earlier start to fire season?

There are a few big contributors to long-term changes in wildfire activity. One is how much fuel is available to burn, such as grasses and trees. Another is the increase in ignition sources, including power lines, as more people move into wildland areas. A third is how dry the fuel is, or fuel aridity.

We found that fuel aridity, which is controlled by climate conditions, had the strongest influence on year-to-year shifts in the timing of the onset of fire season. The amount of potential fuel and increase in ignition sources, while contributing to fires overall, didn’t drive the trend in earlier fires.

Year-to-year, there will always be some natural fluctuations. Some years are wet, others dry. Some years are hotter than others. In our study, we separated the natural climate variations from changes driven by human-caused climate warming.

We found that increased temperatures and vapor pressure deficit – a measure of how dry the air is – are the primary ways climate warming is shifting the timing of the onset of fire season.

Just as a warmer, drier year can lead to an earlier fire season in a single year, gradual warming and drying caused by climate change are systematically advancing the start of fire seasons. This is happening because it is increasing fuel flammability.

Why has the start to fire season shifted more in some regions than others?

The biggest shifts we’ve seen in fire season timing in California have been in the northern mountains.

In the mountains, the winter snowpack typically keeps the ground and forests wet into summer, making it harder for fires to burn. But in warmer years, when the snowpack melts earlier, the fire potential rises earlier too.

A map of California shows where fires season is starting earlier. Most of the state is starting at least 1 days per year earlier now.

Gavin Madakumbura, et al., Science Advances, 2025

Those warmer years are becoming more common. The reason climate change has a stronger impact in mountain regions is that snowpack is highly sensitive to warming. And when it melts sooner, vegetation dries out sooner.

In contrast, drier regions, such as desert ecoregions, are more sensitive to precipitation changes than to temperature changes. When assessing the influence of climate change in these areas, we mainly look at whether precipitation patterns have shifted due to climate warming. However, there is a lot of natural year-to-year variability in precipitation, and that makes it harder to identify the influence of climate change.

It’s possible that when precipitation changes driven by climate warming become strong enough, we may detect a stronger effect in these regions as well.

The Conversation

Gavin D. Madakumbura receives funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Alex Hall receives funding from the NSF, DOE, NOAA, LADWP, and State of California, among other sources.

– ref. Wildfire season is starting weeks earlier in California – a new study shows how climate change is driving the expansion – https://theconversation.com/wildfire-season-is-starting-weeks-earlier-in-california-a-new-study-shows-how-climate-change-is-driving-the-expansion-262666

How to talk to your friends about climate action

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bella Zanin, Knowledge Exchange Associate, Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations, University of Bath

DimaBerlin/Shutterstock

How often do you chat about climate change? When the weather’s been “a bit crazy”? Maybe with an estranged uncle over Christmas dinner? Recent polling reveals that over half of British adults rarely or never share their opinions about our warming planet.

Why does this matter? Because talking about climate change is one of the most important things we can do to tackle it. Conversations shape social norms, and social norms shape behaviour.

To be clear: it’s not about convincing your friends, family, neighbours or colleagues to care about climate change. Chances are they already do. It’s about letting them know you care too – that it’s normal to care, and typical to take action.

Talking about climate change is how we break the taboo, build a sense of unity, inspire hope and kickstart action. And it’s easier than you might think.

The analysis by insights platform Climate Barometer finds that 56% of Brits say they “rarely” or “never” share their opinions about climate change in day-to-day life. Its survey of 2,796 British adults, conducted in April 2025, revealed that only one in ten regularly express their climate views. This “climate silence” persists even among supporters of environmental policies.

Other studies paint a slightly chattier picture. In Ireland, 33% of people reportedly discuss climate change with family and friends “often”, while 39% of respondents to the Scottish Climate Survey had spoken about climate change at least weekly in the last month.

A similar pattern emerges in sport. Research by my colleagues at the Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformations found one-third of UK football fans speak to their friends, family and colleagues “often” or “very often” about climate change – although they are much less likely to speak to other football fans and strangers about the topic.

While climate chatter varies with things like age, social grade, education and political affiliation, generally people aren’t talking about climate change very often, especially when it involves sharing their opinion.

Yet numerous surveys show that most people are worried about rising global temperatures, willing to make sustainable lifestyle swaps, and support ambitious government climate policy. The problem is, many of us don’t know that others are feeling and behaving this way.

two women chatting outside in park
People care more about climate change than some might think.
Bricolage/Shutterstock

Polling demonstrates that 89% of people globally want stronger political action on climate issues, with eight in ten being in favour of taxing oil and gas corporations to pay for climate damages. In Britain, the public support most net zero policies, despite media reports of a shattered consensus, and want more of their energy produced by renewables.

They are acting, too. Recently, over 5,000 people travelled to Westminster for one of the decade’s largest climate lobbies. And earlier this summer, over 110,000 UK residents urged the government to ban fossil fuel advertising. Heat pump installations, electric car sales and consumption of meat-free meals are all on the rise too.

However, if we don’t talk to each other about climate issues – and climate lobbies don’t make front-page news – it’s easy to mistakenly assume that others aren’t willing to act on climate change.

This cognitive error – repeatedly making incorrect assumptions about other people’s beliefs and behaviour – is called “pluralistic ignorance”. This phenomenon, also known as “perception gaps”, is something that politicians unfortunately fall victim to as well, because they consistently underestimate public support for net zero policies.

Social influence is incredibly powerful. If you’ve ever laughed at a joke that everyone else was laughing at even though you didn’t understand it, you’ll know this to be true. People don’t like deviating from social norms. So, if we think the norm is not to care about climate change, we won’t take collective climate action.

Talking is the antidote to this “spiral of silence” – it makes climate action socially acceptable, sparking change beyond our own lives. Indeed, just knowing someone with a heat pump makes people more likely to consider installing one. So, chatting can be an effective form of climate action.

How to talk about climate change

You might be hesitant to chat about climate change. But luckily, research shows you don’t need to be an expert or get political to have effective climate conversations.

In fact, you could be the best climate messenger for the people in your life. We tend to trust information from our friends and family, and more readily accept advice from those with common interests – as researchers investigating how to encourage meat-eaters to reduce their meat intake discovered.

There’s little to be gained from discussing climate change with climate deniers, because people with strong views tend to dismiss information that challenges their beliefs. Instead, talk to the majority of people who are worried about climate change, but don’t know what to do about it.

Chatting to your mates is a good place to start: you probably already have a trusting relationship and shared interests. You could also approach your MP or local councillor to call for stronger policy action – our academic review and interviews with MPs show that voters’ views influence politicians’ engagement with climate change.

If you’re wondering how to begin a climate conversation, start by finding some common ground. Find a value or interest that you and your conversation partner share and explore how it relates to climate change. It can be as simple as asking a foodie friend: “I’m really enjoying cooking more veggie meals – have you got any good recipes?”

Climate framings that tend to unite rather than divide include improving health, benefiting the local community, protecting future generations, achieving balance with nature and avoiding waste. Your experience of climate impacts (hot days, storms, flooding) can also be a good bridging topic – Brits love talking about the weather.

Chatting about climate change is one of the most powerful (and overlooked) climate solutions. It normalises caring, boosts hope and catalyses action. You’re an expert on your own experience of climate impacts and solutions. So why not share it? Ask a question. Start a conversation. You never know who you might inspire.


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.


The Conversation

Bella Zanin receives funding from The Economic & Social Research Council.

– ref. How to talk to your friends about climate action – https://theconversation.com/how-to-talk-to-your-friends-about-climate-action-261023

Israel’s plans for a full occupation of Gaza would pave the way for Israeli resettlement

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Leonie Fleischmann, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, City St George’s, University of London

Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu is reportedly considering an expansion of fighting and a “full occupation of the Gaza Strip”.

There is strong opposition to the idea from within Israel’s senior military ranks, amid growing international condemnation of Israel for the increasingly dire humanitarian disaster in Gaza. Yet Netanyahu is expected to present the plan to his cabinet to capture the last areas of the strip not held by the Israeli military, including areas where the remaining hostages are believed to be being held.

A majority of Israelis want the war to end and see any remaining live hostages returned safely. But a section of the population are preparing for the very real possibility that their dreams of resettling Gaza will be realised. Netanyahu’s decision is not necessarily driven by the same motives as the would-be settlers, but the consequences on the ground may end up aligning.

This reflects similar dynamics in the history of Israeli settlement building. Based on security rationale, successive Israeli governments have set about controlling the Palestinian population.

In the wake of military conquest, settlers have moved in to establish outposts. Gradually, these outposts have become settlements as families have flooded in, whether driven by secular Zionist ideology, encouraged by cheaper properties, stirred through religious beliefs, or inspired by dreams of a better quality of life.

The Gaza Strip was first occupied by Israel at the beginning of what became known as the “six-day war”. Responding to intelligence reports that its neighbours were mobilising against it, Israel launched a series of pre-emptive strikes against Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

On June 5 1967, Israel Defense Forces (IDF) major general, Yeshayahu Gavish, commanded his troops to occupy the Gaza Strip, which was then under the control of Egypt. He did so in defiance of orders from Israel’s then defence minister, Moshe Dayan, who had warned against being “stuck with a quarter of a million Palestinians” in an area “bristled with problems … a nest of wasps”.

But once it had moved IDF troops into the Strip, the Israeli government followed a policy of breaking up Palestinian-populated areas by establishing military outposts, which then became civilian settlements.

In 1970, Israel’s then Labour government established two “Nahal settlements”. Named after the Nahal brigade, founded by Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, these settlements were agricultural communities established by military force. By 2005, there were 21 civilian settlements in the strip, with a total estimated population of 8,600, living alongside a Palestinian population of around 1.3 million.

Map of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip before disengagement: May 2005.
Map of Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip before disengagement: May 2005.
US Central Intelligence Agency via Wikipedia

The settlers’ ideology at that stage did not include the sort of racist anti-Arab sentiments that have become prolific in the ultranationalist corners of the settler movement. But the disparities between the overpopulated Palestinian refugee camps and the flourishing Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip – protected by IDF troops – led to growing Palestinian resentment.

Disengagement from Gaza

Things began to change with the second intifada (uprising), which erupted in 2000 and led to a reassessment of Israel’s settlement policy. Security considerations and a desire to reduce confrontations between the IDF and Palestinian civilians necessitated a new policy of separation.

The Israeli government also wanted to maintain a majority-Jewish population in areas under its control. So the idea of separating off majority Arab areas under the control of a Palestinian authority was appealing to the government of the then prime minister, Ariel Sharon.

Sharon had previously been known as the father of the settlement project. But in 2004 he ordered the evacuation of all Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip and four settlements in the north of the West Bank, a project which was accomplished in 2005.

Ariel Sharon speaking into microphones.
Former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon.
Jim Wallace/Smithsonian Institution via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

The previously consistent alignment between the settler movement and the state came to an abrupt end. While the majority of Israelis supported the plan, the religious right was violently opposed.

The Jerusalem Post reported: “For Religious Zionists, who link Torah, people, and land, the state’s bulldozers felt like a theological betrayal.”

The “disengagement plan” had significant consequences on the settler movement which then fragmented. A militant racist wing emerged, which has since grown in power and influence.

After the 2022 Israeli national elections, two of the wing’s leaders, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, were included in Netanyahu’s cabinet. The pair have been able to use their leverage over the prime minister to influence the trajectory of the war in Gaza.

The call for renewed Jewish settlement

Since Israel began its onslaught in Gaza, settler groups have been calling for the resettlement of Gaza. These radicals go beyond the families that were evacuated in 2005. They include the Nachala settler organisation whose raison d’etre is establishing Jewish settlements to control the West Bank and Gaza.

The liberal newspaper Haaretz recently reported a Nachala-organised march by thousands of Israelis on July 30 to the borders of Gaza, calling for the settlement of areas of the northern Gaza Strip currently occupied by the IDF. Operational plans to establish settlements have been drawn up and 1,000 families have signed up to reestablish a Jewish community in Gaza.

It’s not yet clear whether Netanyahu will order the full occupation of Gaza – or whether he plans to allow the establishment of civilian settlements there. But historical precedent makes this a very real possibility.

The Conversation

Leonie Fleischmann 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. Israel’s plans for a full occupation of Gaza would pave the way for Israeli resettlement – https://theconversation.com/israels-plans-for-a-full-occupation-of-gaza-would-pave-the-way-for-israeli-resettlement-262723

Animal Farm at 80: George Orwell’s enduring commitment to socialist revolution

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Glenn Burgess, Professor of Early Modern History, University of Hull

During the early years of the second world war, George Orwell believed that England’s revolutionary moment had arrived. The defeat at Dunkirk had discredited the country’s ruling elite. Their bungling had left England on the verge of invasion and defeat.

To win the war and defeat fascism, a social revolution was needed, as Orwell explained in his socialist manifesto, The Lion and the Unicorn (1941). Now was the time, he argued, to turn “this war into a revolutionary war and England into a socialist democracy”.

Orwell believed this revolution, though likely to be violent, would also conserve much, setting free “the native genius of the English people”. England’s long liberal tradition would be retained and enhanced, and the revolution would be more patriotic than class-based:

From the English-speaking culture … a society of free and equal human beings will ultimately arise.

However, while Orwell never overtly abandoned his commitment to socialist revolution, he quickly came to lose heart in its imminence. He came to think that the war would defeat fascism but not totalitarianism, and that real socialism still lay a long way in the future.

In this mood, he wrote Animal Farm in the last months of 1943 and first half of 1944 – with much support and possibly substantial input from his first wife, Eileen O’Shaughnessy. August 17 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of the novel’s publication.


This article is part of Rethinking the Classics. The stories in this series offer insightful new ways to think about and interpret classic books and artworks. This is the canon – with a twist.


In September 1944, just after completing Animal Farm (it wouldn’t be published for another year), Orwell explained some of his wider purposes in a letter to the American intellectual and fellow liberal socialist, Dwight Macdonald.

The Soviet Union, Orwell thought, really did provide people with hope in a socialist future, and for that reason it would not be good to see it destroyed. But at the same time, working people in the west needed “to become disillusioned about it and to realise that they must build their own Socialist movement without Russian interference”. The success of this might then have a “regenerative influence upon Russia” itself.

Orwell, Zamyatin and Animal Farm

It was while writing Animal Farm that Orwell first learned something of substance about the Russian author Yevgeny Zamyatin and his dystopian satire, We, published in 1924.

That book became a significant influence for Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Though Orwell did not read We in full until late 1945, he knew a little about the book from Gleb Struve’s anthology 25 Years of Soviet Russian Literature in early 1944, and wrote to Struve to tell him it had whetted his appetite to know more about Zamyatin.

Struve’s anthology quotes a passage that Orwell would pick out as important. In it, one character declares that “our revolution was the last and there can never be another”. To which his interlocutor responds: “Just like numbers, revolutions are infinite and there can never be a final one.”

black and white photo of Orwell
George Orwell in 1943.
BNUJ

When he adapted Animal Farm for the radio in 1946, Orwell had Napoleon the pig say: “When there has been one rebellion, there can never be another.” But he must surely have had in mind the reply: “There can always be another.”

It was again to Macdonald that Orwell spelled out the implications of Animal Farm in December 1946. Though “primarily” a “satire on the Russian revolution”, Orwell was clear it had “wider application” as a denunciation of “that kind of revolution (violent, conspiratorial) that can only lead to a change of masters”. Revolutions can improve things, he wrote, but only when “the masses … know how to chuck out their leaders as soon as … they have done their job”.

Orwell had earlier written in September 1944 that “all revolutions are failures, but they are not all the same failure”. They all fail because perfection is beyond human grasp – the challenge is to fail better and in ways that improve things, as he told Macdonald:

If people think I am defending the status quo [in Animal Farm], that is … because they have grown pessimistic and assume that there is no alternative except dictatorship and or laissez faire capitalism.

Animal Farm is one of those very short and very accessible books that defy easy interpretation. Classic examples are Niccolo Machiavelli’s The Prince (1532) and Thomas More’s Utopia (1516). Though political, they are not manifestos, unlike Orwell’s The Lion and the Unicorn – that book sought to mobilise people behind a clear vision of an attainable better future.

Animal Farm, in contrast, is a melancholy reflection on the corruption of revolution, and the need to keep looking for a better one.

Beyond the classics

As part of the Rethinking the Classics series, we’re asking our experts to recommend a book or artwork that tackles similar themes to the canonical work in question, but isn’t (yet) considered a classic itself. Here is Glenn Burgess’s suggestion:

Painting of a man in a suit
Yevgeny Zamyatin as painted by Boris Kustodiev (1923).
Wiki Commons

Orwell could not have read anything by Yevgeny Zamyatin other than his dystopian novel, We. It is not much easier for us. Little of Zamyatin’s other fiction is currently in print in English translation, apart from a very recent collection of a few stories from Alma Classics.

His two short satires of middle-class English sanctimonious hypocrisy, which Orwell would have greatly enjoyed, were once available as Islanders and the Fisher of Men. Penguin also used to publish a collection of Zamyatin’s diverse short fiction: The Dragon and Other Stories. This contains, among much else, “two tales for grown-up children” (a description that could apply to Animal Farm). One of them is a two-page story, The Church of God, which tells what happens when violent acts are used to pursue noble (in this case, holy) purposes.

Like Animal Farm, the story is a reflection on the relationship of ends to means. Zamyatin’s stories include more on this theme. He was an early supporter of the Bolsheviks, and an equally early critic of the Bolshevik revolution.


This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.


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.


The Conversation

Glenn Burgess 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. Animal Farm at 80: George Orwell’s enduring commitment to socialist revolution – https://theconversation.com/animal-farm-at-80-george-orwells-enduring-commitment-to-socialist-revolution-251952

By changing our diets now, we can avoid the food chaos that climate change is bringing

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor, Future of Food, Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford

5PH/Shutterstock

Climate change is pushing up the prices of the food that we buy and therefore changing what we eat. One-third of UK food price increases in 2023 resulted from climate change, according to research by agricultural economists. This extra cost contributed to food price inflation and the UK’s cost-of-living crisis.

By ratcheting up food prices and driving food insecurity, the climate crisis already affects the stability of societies around the world. Several studies have found that shocks to the food supply have been increasing and that climate-related losses of food in major breadbasket regions (the areas of the world that produce most food) are likely to increase.

These projections often omit difficult-to-model consequences like the spread of crop pests and damage to infrastructure. Real-world impacts could be worse than those that can be modelled.

Studies predict significant food price increases every year in the coming decade. Food industry professionals are raising the alarm to food vulnerabilities unprecedented in scale and variety. In the long term, climate change could make it impossible to grow food in one-third of current food production areas.

Sustainable food system researchers are now considering scenarios of significant food system stress and even collapse. One study found that 40% of UK food experts think that civil unrest from food supply issues is possible within the next decade. This increases to 80% of experts when asked if it was possible over a 50-year timeline.

Without a rapid response, climate-driven increases in food prices could cause havoc in the global food system. High-income nations are not safe, as grinding inflation can destabilise society, taking down governments and institutions. Given the febrile political atmosphere throughout the 2022-23 cost-of-living crisis, I would argue that some of these dynamics are already playing out.

A fork in the road

This trajectory of climate-driven food price hikes – leading to social unrest and political decay – is not inevitable. The scientific consensus shows that the biggest opportunity we have for reducing food’s environmental impacts across many countries is increasing the amount of plants we eat and reducing meat and dairy intake.

This could help us better deal with shocks. It’s likely such shifts would be better for related climate shocks such as flooding and storm surges.

Plant-rich diets are beneficial because eating plants is a far more efficient way of delivering the calories and nutrients we need for a healthy lifestyle than eating animals that are fed on plants.

My team and I found that a shift to plant-rich diets in the UK would free an area almost the size of Scotland. As climate change hits food production, some land currently producing animal feed could be used for human crops instead. There would still be plenty of land left which could – if sufficient policies are put in place – be used to meet biodiversity targets while improving access to nature for millions and improving mental health.

The plant-rich diet we investigated isn’t vegan. It’s not even vegetarian, although it does include a reasonable (and healthier) amount of meat and dairy. For example, it still includes a hamburger every fortnight.

woman biting into burger with bread bun
A healthy plant-rich diet still includes eating a burger once a fortnight.
oneinchpunch/Shutterstock

This shift to plant-rich diets means the scale of the whole agricultural system becomes much smaller, giving more space to grow crops on saved land and deal with flood waters while saving money (plant-rich diets are generally cheaper to produce and buy than meat-heavy diets in high-income nations).

This shift could trigger a rural renaissance that supports farmers changing to different farming methods, enhances nature restoration and builds flood water protection. But this all needs joined-up action, including support from the government and demand from the public.

Working with nature would become a job many would leap at, including farmers. UK farmers consistently report concerns about mental health due to industry pressures. There is some evidence that livestock farmers face the largest mental health challenges, driven largely by how little time they can take off.

Giving options like more subsidy support for plant agriculture or nature restoration might be just the exit strategy many farmers need.

Green shoots

By transforming how we grow food and what we eat – rather than letting climate change dictate the pace of change – we have so much to gain. If you are a proponent for less but better meat, for increased crop diversity or organic food, then the answer is more plants in our diets. This extends beyond agriculture to anything that requires more land. If you promote timber buildings, biofuels, nature restoration, more housing, bioplastics or anything else that needs land, the answer is, again, more plants.




Read more:
How Denmark’s oysters are transforming foodies into citizen scientists


Some countries have already developed plant-rich action plans. Denmark, a major pig producer, has developed policies to encourage plant-rich diets along the supply chain – from supporting chefs in creating new, environmentally-friendly dishes to driving the government’s procurement of organic food (which will encourage more fruit and veg as organic meat is more expensive).

This is a story of exploration, adaptation and improved health, not one of abstinence. Landscapes, human health and diversity in diets can all be transformed for the better. Once we’ve made the transition we’ll look back and wonder why on Earth we didn’t do it sooner.


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.


The Conversation

Paul Behrens receives funding from the British Academy and the Horizon Europe programme.

– ref. By changing our diets now, we can avoid the food chaos that climate change is bringing – https://theconversation.com/by-changing-our-diets-now-we-can-avoid-the-food-chaos-that-climate-change-is-bringing-256828