Personally I'd prefer a re-branding from 'Climate change' to something else which is more accurate. To take samples of temperature changes over 150 years and extrapolate this to environmental Armageddon is unscientific, and this turns a lot of folk off. Then they don't engage with some of the serious pollution problems that we certainly face.
The planet is supposedly 4.5 billion years old! There have been huge climate changes with long ice ages and long hot ages, all pre-industrialisation. By far the primary driver of climate change is the sun. We could all go back to the Stone Age and if the sun threw one of it's once in 'n' thousand year wobblies we'd still fry or freeze.
That is not to discount the significance of anthropogenic effects on our environment. We do need to cut down on pollution. To be honest, our record on pollution is abysmal, and that needs to change as we begin to understand the seriousness of the consequences of getting it wrong for ourselves. Yet all it took was one pandemic event to increase our plastic pollution massively. Where are all those face masks and other plastic ppe going? I still pay a small fortune for correct disposal with big fines for a single mask in the wrong colour bag, yet the stuff is blowing around on our high streets
I'm a fan of going electric on cars, but I'd like to see some data on the electromagnetic field strengths and long term effects of electropollution of the occupants of these new vehicles.
We need safe nuclear power to handle the gaps caused by no wind or sun in our current roll out of windmills and solar panels and the new 'Green Deal'. But it's not much help if those industries pollute our air and waterways and food crops. Any suggestions for a re-branding that might gain more traction?
