I’m rarely one for politically charged blog posts but today I can’t resist.

A quick bit of (very basic) background info, feel free to skim over this:

[Carbon emissions cause global warming (thus climate change) by trapping heat from the Sun inside Earth’s atmosphere.

Under the 2015 Paris Agreement, 195 countries set the objective of ensuring the increase in average global temperature does not exceed 2°C – ideally 1.5°C – above pre-industrial levels. Pre-industrial is not defined, but probably refers to the mid-18^th to early-19^th century.

Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported that we are likely to exceed the 1.5° limit within three to ten years, and we’re on track for a 3° increase by 2100. A 1.5° rise would cause devastating extreme weather events, habitat destruction, mass extinctions, food insecurity, poor crop yields, increased poverty levels, slow economic growth, unprecedented refugee crises, etc etc, which would be exponentially worse at 3°.]

That’s the science; now for the politics.

It’s pretty clear that immediate action must be taken to slash our carbon emissions, and even reverse the damage we’ve already caused by pulling carbon out of the atmosphere (which can be done).

Or I thought it was pretty clear. I’ve just watched Donald Trump claw, scrabble and grunt his way through an interview by denying that human activity has impacted on climate change. When challenged about the innumerable scientific reports detailing how we’re devastating the planet, he blamed the “political agenda” of scientists.

I could wear my fingers down to the knuckles writing about that man’s ignorance, incompetence and utter disillusionment. I’d love to know more about what would motivate almost every scientist worldwide to have the same political agenda, and how the correlation between industrialisation and unprecedented global warming is entirely coincidental. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem able to expand on those points.

No more about Trump, or my fingers might punch through the keyboard.

Today I read an article about how UK climate minister Claire Perry is refusing to advocate a lower-meat diet because she likes her steak and chips. Scientific evidence shows that the agricultural industry has an enormous (like really, shockingly big) carbon footprint, and that by reducing our demand for meat we can contribute massively to cutting emissions. (Watch Cowspiracy on Netflix for more info.)

I’ll reiterate – our climate minister – will not encourage people to change a small, inconsequential aspect of their lifestyle because it “is not the government’s job to advise on a climate-friendly diet”.

I mean, it’s not like issuing advice would be an easy and unintrusive way to educate people as to how they can better protect the planet. And as if it would also serve to reduce the number of health complications caused by diets high in saturated fat, thus the strain on the NHS… Ridiculous!

Hope you detected the sarcasm. There is no reason for the government to refuse to advise people to reduce meat consumption; it’s not like they’d be introducing quotas or bans. They seem perfectly happy prescribing advice, restrictions and taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and sugar – so if not the government’s job, whose is it?

I’ve used two examples but I’m certain there are many others, and I won’t keep you all day. The point is, it’s not just Trump; denial, blunt refusal to change, lack of accountability and willingness to turn a blind eye is rife everywhere, and I – along with the unsung heroes of our time, the powerless environment scientists – am tearing my hair out in frustration, despair and incredulity. Al Gore hit the nail on the head when he called his 2006 documentary film An Inconvenient Truth – please, please, please watch it, I think it should be mandatory viewing for everyone.

We’re moving way too slowly. It’s time for politicians to open their ears, take their noses out of their purses and look up at the world, ideally before it’s burnt to a cinder.