In a recent House of Lords debate on climate change, Lord Frost ignited a heated discussion by advocating for a different approach to combat the impacts of rising temperatures.
Lord Frost questioned the common argument that not acting on climate change would result in even higher costs. Instead, he urged the consideration of adaptation as a viable alternative to mitigation.
Lord Frost said: “We should dig in deeper and ask: what are the consequences of hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters? At the moment, seven times as many people die from cold as from heat in Britain. Rising temperatures are likely to be beneficial.”
He added: “I am not sceptical about adaptation; I am sceptical about mitigation. I suggest that the rational thing to do is move away from the current high-cost mitigation efforts, which involve massive investment in unproductive renewables, huge changes in lifestyles and the crushing of economic growth and pursue mitigation in a different way.
“We should invest in effective energy production – such as nuclear, gas and other technologies as they emerge. Meanwhile, we should spend the manageable sums that we need to on adaptation so we can adjust to the perfectly manageable consequences of slowly rising temperatures as they emerge.”
In response to Lord Frost’s stance, Lord Whitty disagreed with the idea of choosing between adaptation and mitigation, emphasising that both are essential in combating climate change effectively.
As record-breaking temperatures sweep across Europe, several countries find themselves in the grips of extreme heat.
Greece, in particular, is grappling with a severe forest fire crisis amidst the intensity of the ongoing heatwave.
