Climate Change Committee

And that really is putting in peril the country's journey, which is already lagging behind, to meeting climate targets.

And we know that actually the Committee on Climate Change's projections for what the pathway should be to meet those kind of net zero goals are... didn't adequately consider the impact of that huge growing demand for electricity from data centers.

Similarly, it's even the water companies that's telling us that actually there is no clear plan for how the water needs of data centers is going to be met.

So we're facing a new thing that's coming along.

And it's kind of the moment for sort of sane, sober heads to say, okay, if we want to build major infrastructure, this huge amount of capital investment that double the amount of electricity we produce, all of these different things, then you have to plan it long-term.

These are long-term pieces of infrastructure that's doing it.

the attempt to rush it feels like it's serving the kind of investment cycle rather than serving actually the kind of sober heads of like is this the infrastructure is this the kind of infrastructure and the digital infrastructure that we'll need long term and is it going to serve society and the planet and that requires having a proper framework in place it means that the climate committee on climate change who produced the kind of plan for the nation about how we're going to meet climate targets across the economy has time to really consider how that can be done it means that We have time for the water planning to catch up to say, are we going to make sure that we're putting in the right conditions so these are built in a way which uses water, there's water available, but doesn't mean we run out later? Are we going to make sure that we're doing it in a way which is fair in terms of who pays for the absolutely huge amount of grid infrastructure that'd be needed? so that it's not accidentally passed on to people who are already struggling to pay their electricity bills.

So the answer is to have a proper framework and use what we know about how you do good infrastructure, which is not to rush it in some ways, it's to make sure you've got a proper framework in place.

Andy Jordan is the Census Director, appointed last year after three decades studying how governments actually design, coordinate and dismantle climate policy.

Earlier this year, he was appointed to the UK Climate Change Committee for a five-year term.

Alistair Ford, a Newcastle University, works on cities and adaptation, building tools that help urban decision makers weigh climate risk, trade-offs and resilience.

His subject could not be more topical.

They're generally consistent.

They don't vary.

They're generally backed by governance systems, you know, bodies like the CCC, Climate Change Committee.

They've got long-term targets.

And John Healy sort of parked it off into the future in terms of dealing with it.

I mean, the other bit, of course, attached to that is, well, where's then the funding for things like climate adaptation, which is, you know, £11 billion a year or thereabouts, says the Committee on Climate Change.

No real sign of this money being brought forward by this government at any point.

Which is interesting because, of course,

UK fire services no longer have the resources to keep the public safe in extreme heat, and as heat waves get longer and hotter, fires will become more common.

The Climate Change Committee's latest assessment is very clear.

The UK is not adapting fast enough to a rapidly changing climate.

The committee highlights three major gaps, weak governance, unclear responsibilities, and insufficient funding.

Under the Communications Act of 2003, all public service broadcasters must inform the public on major national and international issues.

That is the law.

The UK broadcasters have so far failed to meet these obligations despite the Climate Change Committee urging the Government to provide trusted public information.

We therefore ask the Government and all public service broadcasters to hold an urgent televised national emergency briefing.

He was quoted in a comment piece, actually, in The Guardian.

He's the former CEO of the Climate Change Committee.

And he says, alongside the carbon that Jack Daw, quote, alongside the carbon that Jack Daw and Rosebank would release, they've sucked all the oxygen out of the debate about what to do about climate change.

And I think this is a very astute comment in terms of assessing this this story because there's the technical details about the jobs and the carbon and such.

She argues that approving it still matters, because it weakens the UK's credibility on climate goals and shifts attention away from other options.

Citing former Climate Change Committee chief executive Chris Stark, she says the Jackdaw and Rosebank projects have crowded out debate on climate action.

Williams points to a warm homes program as a way to create jobs and reduce bills, and says separating renewable energy prices from fossil fuel prices could reduce reliance on volatile global markets.

She describes the Jackdaw approval as a signal to the fossil fuel industry that the government is not its enemy.