Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To feel really worried about climate change in this heatwave

564 replies

Fulbe · 23/06/2026 22:28

This heatwave has been caused by climate change but there seems to be hardly any discussion about this at all. It seems that people are focused so much on getting air con or massive paddling/ swimming pools without thinking how that might be actually contributing to the problem. People outside the school gates idling their engines to keep their air con turned on whilst creating more pollution.

I think I remember reading somewhere that we've released 6 million years' worth of CO2 in the past 150 years. Something needs to stop but consumption and car use seem to be increasing.

Am I the only one to be concerned about this and that we're just slipping into a future of more dangerous heatwaves?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Whyohwhy1973 · 25/06/2026 17:49

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 17:46

I bet come December and January you'll all be missing the "naice" sunshine and weather

Edited

I can assure you I won't be.

MandingoAteMyBaby · 25/06/2026 17:50

lovecotswoldsliving · 25/06/2026 17:38

Have you lived in West Africa? Visit Lagos and it will horrify you.
China?

Nigeria’s biggest pollution problems are due to fossil fuels.

China is building renewables faster than anyone else.

We have to do this. Or go extinct.

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 17:51

Whyohwhy1973 · 25/06/2026 17:49

I can assure you I won't be.

You'll be delighted to be cold and miserable?

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 17:53

You can build renewables. I'm fine with that. Just don't increase energy costs and prices in the UK. When energy bills rise the poor suffer

Whyohwhy1973 · 25/06/2026 17:54

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 17:51

You'll be delighted to be cold and miserable?

Cold and miserable don't belong in the same sentence for me. Cold to me is fresh and bracing and I can spend my time outdoors. I've barely left the house in the last few days with this heat.

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 17:54

Whyohwhy1973 · 25/06/2026 17:54

Cold and miserable don't belong in the same sentence for me. Cold to me is fresh and bracing and I can spend my time outdoors. I've barely left the house in the last few days with this heat.

All I need is my hat and a bottle of water. Excited to go out for my dinner today. It'll be delicious.

MagnesiumRay · 25/06/2026 17:56

The focus is changing to climate resilience- adapting to our changing world and climate.

www.unep.org/topics/climate-action/adaptation/climate-adaptation-project-list

Wordsmithery · 25/06/2026 17:58

It is terrifying.

We should all watch the emergency briefing on climate change. Then we should lobby our MPs and say we want debate at a national level. And we can make powerful consumer choices too. It's all very well blaming industrial companies for the mess we're in. But not a single one of those companies would exist without us, the consumers, as the end user. We should make conscious consumer choices, buy local, waste less. And challenge our suppliers to examine what actually happens all the way through the supply chain.
Let's not give away our power. We have more influence than we realise. And if everything still turns to shit, at least we can say we did our best. That's the very least we owe our children.

lovecotswoldsliving · 25/06/2026 17:59

MandingoAteMyBaby · 25/06/2026 17:50

Nigeria’s biggest pollution problems are due to fossil fuels.

China is building renewables faster than anyone else.

We have to do this. Or go extinct.

There are over 10 million living in a city. Slums, litter everywhere. The roads are full of cars, big SUVs, old bangers. It is beyond polluted.
The high levels of corruption means you will never change that way of life.
Same for many countries in West and North Africa.
Go and live in these countries. You will realise it’s impossible.

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:02

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 17:53

You can build renewables. I'm fine with that. Just don't increase energy costs and prices in the UK. When energy bills rise the poor suffer

Great. Lets work with that common ground then.

I agree that no-one should suffer financially during the move to sustainable practices.

I envisage a time where all our homes and industries are run with ultra energy efficiency and minimal chemical waste leaving enough leeway for us to hop on a brand new greener type of transport and travel the world.

edited to add: and you can eat your chicken biryani and chicken pots (yum!), just not every day. Once a week to keep it all organic, high welfare and sustainable.

overunderover · 25/06/2026 18:02

The idea is that "what the UK does re net zero etc. will make no difference" is understandable. My view:

There is only one way around that. That is for all the countries that CAN muster a critical mass of popular will to enact climate-saving policies to do so, and then make this the deciding factor for their trade relationships with other countries.

It's the last part that nobody talks about. The USA needs to become an international pariah for its withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement.

Agreements like that can of course take into account the different challenges facing different countries - that poor countries in the global south struggle to provide enough energy to avoid starvation and that this is a qualitatively different issue from richer countries having to suffer a reduction in affordable luxuries. But countries that vote into power an explicitly climate change-denying president need to just be sidelined from the international community.

There are two obvious problems with this: (1) in the case of the USA this can't be done without MASSIVE economic repercussions, reflected in material standard of living, for everyone else. And (2) No country when taking the decision to go down this path, can know in advance how many other countries will do so too. The first movers need to just hold their breath and jump into the abyss.

So fortunately there is one other solution: that we just let the world burn for our children.

MichaelmasDaisiesAndAutumSunset · 25/06/2026 18:06

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 16:52

We understand pregnancy, maternity, birth and infant care better. We are intelligent beings that have learnt these things.

What is your point?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. Infant mortality rates were globally pretty steady until the 1950s, when they dropped significantly, and have continued to drop up to 2020:
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

Mature industrialisation has vastly, vastly decreased the infant mortality rate:
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-global-overview
(initially industrialisation caused an increase in child mortality, but that is far, far outweighed by the long term and sustained reduction).

Without industrialisation, how many incubators do you think there would be? What drugs do you think would have been available? How would general cleaning and hygiene have been without clean, running, hot water (something for which we, you know, use energy)?

We were intelligent beings in 1500 BC, 750 AD, 1066, 1483, 1697, 1800. In fact, we have been Homo sapiens for around three million years. Why did it take us until the 1950s to "learn" all the things you mention? I would make two suggestions: (1) that learning was vastly facilitated and accelerated by industrialisation for a variety of reasons, including that with mechanisation people had more time to learn these things and that it was far less energy intensive/expensive to do things that make a huge difference, like boiling water; and (2) because learning many of the things we have learnt would have been completely useless without industrialisation - like incubation.

Now, if there were fewer humans our current issues would be less urgent. Notwithstanding, I am not advocating for a return to one in every two people born on the planet dying before their 15th birthday. Are you?

Mortality in the past: every second child died

The chances that a newborn survives childhood have increased from 50% to 96% globally. How do we know about the mortality of children in the past? And what can we learn from it for our future?

https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:14

MichaelmasDaisiesAndAutumSunset · 25/06/2026 18:06

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. Infant mortality rates were globally pretty steady until the 1950s, when they dropped significantly, and have continued to drop up to 2020:
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

Mature industrialisation has vastly, vastly decreased the infant mortality rate:
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-global-overview
(initially industrialisation caused an increase in child mortality, but that is far, far outweighed by the long term and sustained reduction).

Without industrialisation, how many incubators do you think there would be? What drugs do you think would have been available? How would general cleaning and hygiene have been without clean, running, hot water (something for which we, you know, use energy)?

We were intelligent beings in 1500 BC, 750 AD, 1066, 1483, 1697, 1800. In fact, we have been Homo sapiens for around three million years. Why did it take us until the 1950s to "learn" all the things you mention? I would make two suggestions: (1) that learning was vastly facilitated and accelerated by industrialisation for a variety of reasons, including that with mechanisation people had more time to learn these things and that it was far less energy intensive/expensive to do things that make a huge difference, like boiling water; and (2) because learning many of the things we have learnt would have been completely useless without industrialisation - like incubation.

Now, if there were fewer humans our current issues would be less urgent. Notwithstanding, I am not advocating for a return to one in every two people born on the planet dying before their 15th birthday. Are you?

You are completely and utterly wrong.

It was the discovery and mass roll out of the use of antibiotics in the 1950's which dramatically reduced infant mortality.

Not incubators 😄

MichaelmasDaisiesAndAutumSunset · 25/06/2026 18:17

Wordsmithery · 25/06/2026 17:58

It is terrifying.

We should all watch the emergency briefing on climate change. Then we should lobby our MPs and say we want debate at a national level. And we can make powerful consumer choices too. It's all very well blaming industrial companies for the mess we're in. But not a single one of those companies would exist without us, the consumers, as the end user. We should make conscious consumer choices, buy local, waste less. And challenge our suppliers to examine what actually happens all the way through the supply chain.
Let's not give away our power. We have more influence than we realise. And if everything still turns to shit, at least we can say we did our best. That's the very least we owe our children.

There is debate at a national level. That's why so many people are aware of the issue. Hell, there's been a debate at an international level since the 1990s (and I can't remember any further back than that).

The NEB video is supposed to terrify you. But terrified isn't exactly the right frame of mind to deal with something that has been caused over 100s of years and can likely not be "fixed" in a time scale of less than millennia. We have no control over the biggest polluters either (as mentioned) and renewables come with their own environmental concerns (many to do with the continued availability of the materials used to make the collection methods, and the longevity/disposal of "decommissioned" plant). "Terrified" is the state of mind in which you are more likely to jump from the frying pan to the fire.

Lobby nationally to develop our climate resilience and for greater cooperation internationally. But there's bugger all point in being terrified and the NEB video is in my view (see also my PP) seriously misguided in its approach.

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 18:27

MichaelmasDaisiesAndAutumSunset · 25/06/2026 18:06

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it. Infant mortality rates were globally pretty steady until the 1950s, when they dropped significantly, and have continued to drop up to 2020:
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality

Mature industrialisation has vastly, vastly decreased the infant mortality rate:
https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-global-overview
(initially industrialisation caused an increase in child mortality, but that is far, far outweighed by the long term and sustained reduction).

Without industrialisation, how many incubators do you think there would be? What drugs do you think would have been available? How would general cleaning and hygiene have been without clean, running, hot water (something for which we, you know, use energy)?

We were intelligent beings in 1500 BC, 750 AD, 1066, 1483, 1697, 1800. In fact, we have been Homo sapiens for around three million years. Why did it take us until the 1950s to "learn" all the things you mention? I would make two suggestions: (1) that learning was vastly facilitated and accelerated by industrialisation for a variety of reasons, including that with mechanisation people had more time to learn these things and that it was far less energy intensive/expensive to do things that make a huge difference, like boiling water; and (2) because learning many of the things we have learnt would have been completely useless without industrialisation - like incubation.

Now, if there were fewer humans our current issues would be less urgent. Notwithstanding, I am not advocating for a return to one in every two people born on the planet dying before their 15th birthday. Are you?

Thank you

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 18:29

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:14

You are completely and utterly wrong.

It was the discovery and mass roll out of the use of antibiotics in the 1950's which dramatically reduced infant mortality.

Not incubators 😄

massive amounts of energy were absolutely required to power the public health, sanitation, and medical infrastructure that saved these infants

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:41

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 18:29

massive amounts of energy were absolutely required to power the public health, sanitation, and medical infrastructure that saved these infants

I still don't really understand your point.

Nobody is refuting that energy has driven huge advancements in development.

Nobody is saying energy is unnecessary, unwanted or pointless.

Nobody is saying the industrial revolution should never have happened.

People are saying that now we know the damage that can be done, is being done, we must support sustainable ways to create or harness energy and better ways to use it as efficiently as possible in order to minimise (or the holy grail - irradicate) harm.

How can anyone possibly disagree with that? and for what possible reason would they disagree?

The ONLY people that are against switching to safe, sustainable and efficient energy sources are the people getting rich on the production and consumption of fossil fuels.

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:43

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 18:27

Thank you

What for? misinformation?

MichaelmasDaisiesAndAutumSunset · 25/06/2026 18:48

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:14

You are completely and utterly wrong.

It was the discovery and mass roll out of the use of antibiotics in the 1950's which dramatically reduced infant mortality.

Not incubators 😄

Yes, my apologies, I didn't think the whole drop in infant mortality was due to incubators. I was referencing the PP, who felt that we had learnt so much stuff over our millennia of being humans. I was pointing out that much of our "learning" would be useless without industrialisation. This, by the way, includes antibiotics; it is materially less likely that antibiotics would have proliferated in such a way without industrialisation for the reasons stated in my previous post: industrialisation was the engine that drove many other discoveries by giving us the time, the manpower, the light, the heat and the machinery to discover such things on a large scale.

Also, I suspect you are wrong about the impact of antibiotics, at least prior to 1950 because it was the case that global infant mortality had already dropped significantly by 1950 - from 1 in 2 to 27% (see links in my PP): nearly halved. It is unlikely that much of that was due to antibiotics. While Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928 it was unstable and unable to be used in a human context. It wasn't until 1939 that a team at Oxford University started working on producing a stable form that could be used as medicine. It wasn't until 1942 that it could be produced reliably and a further two years for its production to be scaled.

I suspect that much of the pre-1950s drop would have been due to the increased understanding of the importance of hygiene, especially in relation to the vulnerable (the very young and the very old). This was made significantly easier on large scale by mechanisation, heated water, better sewerage. All things dependent on the industrial revolution for improvement on a large scale.

Finally, I've found this extract on the history of penicillin from www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/flemingpenicillin.html:

"Pharmaceutical and chemical companies played an especially important role in solving the problems inherent in scaling up submerged fermentation from a pilot plant to a manufacturing scale. As the scale of production increased, the scientists at Merck, Pfizer, Squibb and other companies faced new engineering challenges. Pfizer's John L. Smith captured the complexity and uncertainty facing these companies during the scale-up process: "The mold is as temperamental as an opera singer, the yields are low, the isolation is difficult, the extraction is murder, the purification invites disaster, and the assay is unsatisfactory."

Because penicillin needs air to grow, aerating the fermentation mixture in deep tanks presented a problem. When corn steep liquor was used as the culture medium, bubbling sterile air through the mixture caused severe foaming. Squibb solved this problem by introducing glyceryl monoricinolate as an anti-foaming agent. Submerged fermentation also required the design of new cooling systems for the vats and new mixing technology to stir the penicillin mash efficiently.

Lilly was particularly successful in making the mold synthesize new types of penicillin by feeding precursors of different structure. Once the fermentation was complete, recovery was also difficult; as much as two-thirds of the penicillin present could be lost during purification because of its instability and heat sensitivity. Extraction was done at low temperatures. Methods of freeze-drying under vacuum eventually gave the best results in purifying the penicillin to a stable, sterile, and usable final form.

The steps of fermentation, recovery and purification and packaging quickly yielded to the cooperative efforts of the chemical scientists and engineers working on pilot production of penicillin. On March 1, 1944, Pfizer opened the first commercial plant for large-scale production of penicillin by submerged culture in Brooklyn, New York."

The emboldened portions are my emphasis. Without industrialisation and industrial processes penicillin would never have been available to the masses; it might have become an expensive luxury for the lucky few. In short:

  • it required cooling systems; impossible without widely available electricity;
  • ditto automated mixing;
  • ditto extraction at low temperatures;
  • creating the vacuum for to freeze-dry ditto

So, in short, while penicillin may well have been discovered without industrialisation, it is unlikely that it would have played any significant part in reducing infant mortality after 1944 if it had not been for mechanisation and electrification made available by fossil fuels and the industrial revolution. At best, it might have been a privilege of the wealthy.

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:51

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 18:29

massive amounts of energy were absolutely required to power the public health, sanitation, and medical infrastructure that saved these infants

Why do you keep inferring that someone, somewhere, has suggested we don't need energy? No-one has said this.

The main drivers in reducing infant mortality for the human race were antibiotics, immunisation and specialisation in maternity and paediatric practice.

It was great that wards could be kept warm and things kept clean, but these things alone did not stop babies and children dying.

Sadly babies die from bacterial and viral infections even in warm and squeaky clean homes and wards. It is the antibiotics, the transfusions, the medicines and the expertise of the specialists which save them.

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:56

MichaelmasDaisiesAndAutumSunset · 25/06/2026 18:48

Yes, my apologies, I didn't think the whole drop in infant mortality was due to incubators. I was referencing the PP, who felt that we had learnt so much stuff over our millennia of being humans. I was pointing out that much of our "learning" would be useless without industrialisation. This, by the way, includes antibiotics; it is materially less likely that antibiotics would have proliferated in such a way without industrialisation for the reasons stated in my previous post: industrialisation was the engine that drove many other discoveries by giving us the time, the manpower, the light, the heat and the machinery to discover such things on a large scale.

Also, I suspect you are wrong about the impact of antibiotics, at least prior to 1950 because it was the case that global infant mortality had already dropped significantly by 1950 - from 1 in 2 to 27% (see links in my PP): nearly halved. It is unlikely that much of that was due to antibiotics. While Fleming discovered penicillin in 1928 it was unstable and unable to be used in a human context. It wasn't until 1939 that a team at Oxford University started working on producing a stable form that could be used as medicine. It wasn't until 1942 that it could be produced reliably and a further two years for its production to be scaled.

I suspect that much of the pre-1950s drop would have been due to the increased understanding of the importance of hygiene, especially in relation to the vulnerable (the very young and the very old). This was made significantly easier on large scale by mechanisation, heated water, better sewerage. All things dependent on the industrial revolution for improvement on a large scale.

Finally, I've found this extract on the history of penicillin from www.acs.org/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/flemingpenicillin.html:

"Pharmaceutical and chemical companies played an especially important role in solving the problems inherent in scaling up submerged fermentation from a pilot plant to a manufacturing scale. As the scale of production increased, the scientists at Merck, Pfizer, Squibb and other companies faced new engineering challenges. Pfizer's John L. Smith captured the complexity and uncertainty facing these companies during the scale-up process: "The mold is as temperamental as an opera singer, the yields are low, the isolation is difficult, the extraction is murder, the purification invites disaster, and the assay is unsatisfactory."

Because penicillin needs air to grow, aerating the fermentation mixture in deep tanks presented a problem. When corn steep liquor was used as the culture medium, bubbling sterile air through the mixture caused severe foaming. Squibb solved this problem by introducing glyceryl monoricinolate as an anti-foaming agent. Submerged fermentation also required the design of new cooling systems for the vats and new mixing technology to stir the penicillin mash efficiently.

Lilly was particularly successful in making the mold synthesize new types of penicillin by feeding precursors of different structure. Once the fermentation was complete, recovery was also difficult; as much as two-thirds of the penicillin present could be lost during purification because of its instability and heat sensitivity. Extraction was done at low temperatures. Methods of freeze-drying under vacuum eventually gave the best results in purifying the penicillin to a stable, sterile, and usable final form.

The steps of fermentation, recovery and purification and packaging quickly yielded to the cooperative efforts of the chemical scientists and engineers working on pilot production of penicillin. On March 1, 1944, Pfizer opened the first commercial plant for large-scale production of penicillin by submerged culture in Brooklyn, New York."

The emboldened portions are my emphasis. Without industrialisation and industrial processes penicillin would never have been available to the masses; it might have become an expensive luxury for the lucky few. In short:

  • it required cooling systems; impossible without widely available electricity;
  • ditto automated mixing;
  • ditto extraction at low temperatures;
  • creating the vacuum for to freeze-dry ditto

So, in short, while penicillin may well have been discovered without industrialisation, it is unlikely that it would have played any significant part in reducing infant mortality after 1944 if it had not been for mechanisation and electrification made available by fossil fuels and the industrial revolution. At best, it might have been a privilege of the wealthy.

Nobody is saying, or has said anywhere on this thread, that the industrial revolution was bad, or that it hasn't been massively beneficial in the development of the world we have today.

But it's time for a change now.

We know the catastrophic downside to burning fossil fuels and constantly leaching chemicals into our waters and atmosphere.

We can't keep finding excuses for it, and we can't ignore it.

Thalafor · 25/06/2026 18:57

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:43

What for? misinformation?

Facts. Also some PP was having a hissy fit saying "and this energy use is now destroying civilisation"

MandingoAteMyBaby · 25/06/2026 18:58

lovecotswoldsliving · 25/06/2026 17:59

There are over 10 million living in a city. Slums, litter everywhere. The roads are full of cars, big SUVs, old bangers. It is beyond polluted.
The high levels of corruption means you will never change that way of life.
Same for many countries in West and North Africa.
Go and live in these countries. You will realise it’s impossible.

Nigeria’s emissions per capita put it in 170th position globally. Thirty percent down on their year 2000 measurement.

The UK is ranked 69th globally per capita and achieved a 53% reduction since the year 2000.

For developing economies, transition is harder and they need our support. That’s the whole point of the Just Transition.

Yoga817 · 25/06/2026 19:36

I completely agree. A former colleague has been boasting about going on extreme day trips and they have taken 80 flights in the past 2 years for day trips to places in Europe. Absolutely thick as two short planks. Clueless of their impact and boats about it constantly on social media.

MichaelmasDaisiesAndAutumSunset · 25/06/2026 20:26

ticktickticktickBOOM · 25/06/2026 18:56

Nobody is saying, or has said anywhere on this thread, that the industrial revolution was bad, or that it hasn't been massively beneficial in the development of the world we have today.

But it's time for a change now.

We know the catastrophic downside to burning fossil fuels and constantly leaching chemicals into our waters and atmosphere.

We can't keep finding excuses for it, and we can't ignore it.

Edited

And where have I said differently? You seem to have grabbed on to my posts - which were in response to a different poster - in an extremely simplistic way. I was not saying incubators accounted for an insane drop in infant mortality (though note UNICEF say this: “Nearly half of all under-five deaths in 2023 occurred within the first 28 days of life, underscoring the heightened vulnerability of newborns and the need for greater investment in targeted interventions during this critical period”, so they may in fact be more significant than you or I would have considered). Nor am I saying we should never move forward. We need a new revolution - but that isn’t happening - because the renewables we are heavily into have their own environmental impact and the computer age just relies on fuel, at its base. What that is is probably our most “urgent” problem as things stand.