Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
Last month, the United Kingdom issued a warning that global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse could threaten the island nationâs national security, and indeed its very prosperity. According to a national security assessment commissioned by the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, or DEFRA, there is a high likelihood that âevery critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse,â a cascading effect that could have major implications for the nationâs food security.
But the 14-page report, entitled âGlobal Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security,â made headlines, not just for its alarming contents, but for its omissions.
The assessment, which The Times and The Guardianreported was put together with the help of the intelligence coalition that oversees spy agencies MI5 and MI6, was originally slated to be published in the fall of 2025, but was held by Downing Street for being âtoo negative.â It wasnât until Green Alliance, an environmental think tank, filed a Freedom of Information request for the report that DEFRA posted the assessment to its website at all, although notably without the government pomp of a press release or public announcement.
The day after the landmark report hit DEFRAâs website, The Times reported it had seen an internal, unabridged version of the assessment that included warnings much graver than the public-facing report: overwhelming mass migration to Europe, increasingly polarized and populist politics in the UK, NATO conflicts over collapsing food production in Russia and Ukraine, and escalating tensions between China, India, and Pakistan that could potentially lead to nuclear war.
The UK media slammed its government for covering up the existence of the unabridged version, and for delaying the publication of the assessment in the first place. But the government responded to the public criticism with a shrug. âThe assessment was developed through cross-government analytical and clearance processes, including consideration of how and when it should be published,â a DEFRA spokesperson told me over email. âIt is being published now following the completion of those processes in line with the Governmentâs commitment to transparency and informed decision-making.â
Western governments have a track record of suppressing climate change intelligence assessments. Take the US spy community, for example. Despite decades of tracking and analyzing national security risks posed by climate change and making many of those intelligence products publicly available, the Office of the Director of Intelligence insists that it must keep a 2008 National Intelligence Assessment on the âNational Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030â classified. Former intelligence officials have testified publicly about the report, cited the report in literature, and supported calls for the reportâs declassification, to no avail. After almost two decades, the report remains classified to this day at the confidential level, the lowest level of national security secrecy.
More recently, in 2022, Australiaâs Prime Minister Anthony Albanese asked the nationâs most senior intelligence chief Andrew Shearer to personally lead a review of security threats posed by the climate crisis. Months later, Albanese refused to release the report or even say when it had been completed. Defense spokesperson for Australiaâs Green Party David Shoebridge dubbed the Aussie government the âcult of secrecy in Canberra.â Since then, Albanese has continued to reject calls to make âeven a saniti(z)ed version of the assessment public.â (...)
I hadn't heard that the planet is experiencing net greening, but that makes sense: of course plant life will take up more carbon in a warmer world. Check out the Triassic for instance.
However, while this is good news, I'd still be very cautious at this stage. And again, the key factor to be monitoring is environmental stress - of which global warming is just one factor.
i'm not a climate scientist
however, i believe with fairly solid evidence that if the sun were to cease the earth, including the climate would be much colder
i also read that greenhouse gases in our atmoshere prevent "the mystery heat" from radiating back out into space
of course i didn't read the link provided below or much of this thread
"ain't nobody got time for that"
Location: Really deep in the heart of South California Gender:
Posted:
Feb 24, 2026 - 10:38am
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
I've actually got a lot of time for a decent dose of skepticism. Acid rain was a huge thing in the eighties until it turned out that most of the forests that were dying were largely artificial (monoculture) and basically not very resilient compared to a natural healthy mixed forest. However, air pollution is nevertheless still a thing and I'm very glad that we cleaned up our act since the eighties, otherwise we'd still be suffering from smog and bad air. A lot of people still are.
But the thing with climate change that most people don't understand is that it should be seen as part of a complex interaction that includes habitat loss, loss of biodiversity, rising sea levels, etc. all of which are measurably happening at very fast rates of change. Now, we can leave the reasons for these changes out of the argument for the moment. Whether the reasons be natural or man made doesn't really change the conclusion, which is that the natural environment is changing radically and quickly. Some species can adapt quickly to such change. Others can't.
In itself, even this is not necessarily a doomsday scenario. But it does mean that most environments are hugely stressed. And that in itself is a bad thing. It means they are less diverse and less resilient to the next natural catastrophe, such as an eruption or some other trigger. It also makes us more and more dependent on dwindling resources. Rising demand, fewer resources.. you can see where this is headed.
That alone is why we should be pursuing a very conservative approach to nature. Otherwise we are exposing ourselves to wild unexpected volatility as things try to adapt to unforeseen consequences or unexpected events. We don't need to change much in our behaviour to be good stewards so it is just basic risk management.
Yes to common sense.
Which tends to get thrown aside for the sake of generating bigger bucks... from both sides of this discussion.