Will We Survive Climate Change? – A Question of Science with Brian Cox
Panel with Hayley Fowler, George Monbiot and Kathryn Brown.
In 2019, the UK Government declared a “climate emergency.” Professor Brian Cox begins by asking Hayley Fowler whether using that kind of language is helpful.
Hayley Fowler:
“I actually think it is. We don’t treat the climate emergency as enough of an emergency. At our university in Newcastle, and at the local city council, climate emergencies were declared that year too, and a lot of action has followed.”
“The reason we don’t treat climate change as the emergency it truly is may be because it’s a chronic problem, happening over a long period. We don’t necessarily see the changes in our everyday lives. It’s not like the COVID pandemic, where the crisis appeared suddenly and visibly. But that doesn’t make it less of an emergency. In fact, we are now seeing real, rapid changes—especially in extreme weather. It’s becoming acute and dangerous.”
Professor Cox notes that declaring a climate emergency has a downside: it can imply that government will take care of it. He argues that this isn’t something we can delegate; it requires everyone’s involvement. George Monbiot agrees.
George Monbiot:
“Language is crucial. “Climate change” is a vague and neutral term — it’s like calling an invading army “unexpected visitors.” “Climate emergency” is better, but “climate breakdown” is even more accurate, because it shows a trend in one direction, and it’s not good. Even “global warming” sounds rather pleasant, whereas “global heating” focuses minds more sharply.”
Kathryn Brown:
“At the Wildlife Trust, we’ve done a lot of public engagement around this language. We talk about both the climate and the nature emergency. Since 1970, we’ve lost 70 per cent of our biodiversity. Most people don’t perceive that loss directly, but it’s there. We often use the word “crisis,” because “emergency” feels too short-term—something with a start and a finish. Climate change and nature loss are long-term crises, but they still deserve urgent treatment. We find these terms work with many audiences, but it’s always important to test which language resonates best.”
Brian Cox:
“There’s a tension between convincing people that there’s a problem and persuading them to act. Do you see any conflict between those two goals?”
George Monbiot:
“We do see that tension in the UK. Some political voices are framing climate action as anti-consumer or as something that raises living costs. That message is reaching people and understandably worrying them. There’s also a history of governments declaring emergencies and then using that to justify unrelated actions, so we need to be careful with the language.”
“A big part of the problem is that climate communication has largely been left to individuals, scientists, and campaigners — without state leadership. During World War II, government communication was clear and united. People took it seriously because it came from the top. With climate change, communication often comes from people like me, and it’s easier to dismiss. Honestly, I’d like to be nationalised!” (laughter)
Kathryn Brown:
“In our work, we make climate issues local and tangible. We talk about changing wildlife, local hazards, and interview people living in flood-risk areas. Public support for climate action in the UK is actually very strong, but those voices don’t get enough attention in the media. We need to amplify them.”
Hayley Fowler:
“I also think many people still don’t realise how serious the problem is. When we say “1.5 degrees of warming,” it doesn’t sound terrifying — unless you’re a climate scientist and know the implications: more heatwaves, food insecurity, extreme events. We scientists need to communicate more boldly. We already know enough to act now. We know what’s happening, why it’s happening, and what’s coming next, so we can plan and respond.”