banner
logo
black cross ✖



The National Emergency Briefing: Positives, inconsistencies, omissions and corrections needed

The National Emergency Briefing has added to the misinformation that a gradual transition is a sufficient answer to the climate emergency. Instead, immediate radical transformation is needed.

The National Emergency Briefing was an event held in London on 27 November 2025, where a set of climate and nature talks was given to an invited audience including politicians.

There were many good points made in the talks - but there were cucial inconsistencies and omissions.

Good points made
There were some excellent talks from the scientists at the event, explaining the gravity of the climate situation and the urgency of action.

Crucial inconsistencies: radical transformation versus gradual transition
  • Some of the talks pointed out the gross inadequacy of the UK Net Zero 2050 timescale of cuts in CO2 emissions, and the need for radical transformation of society, if temperature targets are to be met.
  • Other talks ignored the science of carbon budgets and endorsed the UK Net Zero 2050 timescale.
This is a major flaw in the process. It means that the talks add to the existing abundant climate misinformation, confusion and complacency - and that critics will be able to say that the policies discussed are not in line with the science, and that the figures don't add up.

Crucial omissions:
  • In discussing the lack of progress in ending fossil fuels
    • there was insufficient emphasis on the inadequacy of the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 timescale of emission cuts
    • there was no mention of the endorsement of this inadequate timescale by most UK climate campaigners, and their failure to face up to the scale of changes needed.
  • There was no discussion of what the aim of UK climate action should be - e.g. is it to keep global warming within a limit such as 1.5°C or 1.6°C, or is it merely to keep to the inadequate Net Zero 2050 timescale of emission cuts.

Action is needed to correct the inconsistencies and omissions in the presentations.
  • There needs to be clarity that it is radical transformation that is needed for the current temperature targets to be met, rather than gradual transition - facing up to the question of whether the situation is an emergency or not.
  • There needs to be recognition of past errors of climate campaigning and advocacy, and a determination not to repeat them.
  • There should be a consensus statement from the speakers - this should explain the science and support the Tyndall Centre climate scientists who are rejecting the UK's Net Zero 2050 strategy as grossly inadequate and carbon colonialism, and advocating a fundamental rethink of UK climate policy based on scientific rigour and international justice.
  • The briefings advocating a gradual transition need to be replaced by ones discussing emergency transformation.

In conclusion, there were many good points made in the briefings about the gravity of the situation, and the extreme urgency of action. The event has great potential, but further publicity should be paused until the inconsistencies and omissions have been corrected.

The National Emergency Briefing

The National Emergency Briefing (NEB) was an event held in Westminster Central Hall, London on 27 November 2025, where a set of climate and nature talks was given to an invited audience of over 1,200 including politicians.

The speakers and talks were as follows (see reference list for links to transcripts and videos).
  • Chris Packham: Opening statement [1]
  • Prof Mike Berners-Lee (Chair): Introduction [2]
  • Prof Nathalie Seddon: Nature [3]
  • Prof Kevin Anderson: Climate [4]
  • Prof Hayley Fowler: Weather Extremes [5]
  • Prof Tim Lenton: Tipping Points [6]
  • Prof Paul Behrens: Food Security [7]
  • Prof Hugh Montgomery: Health [8]
  • Lt General Richard Nugee: National Security [9]
  • Angela Francis: Economics [10]
  • Tessa Khan: Energy Transition [11]

Further details are available on the website for the event: https://www.nebriefing.org.

Good points made

Some of the key points made by the scientist speakers were
Good decision making is essential
  • Decision makers must listen to the science [1]
  • There is much misinfomation [1][2]
  • Nothing can be changed until it is faced [2] (quoting James Baldwin [12])
  • "We have to be straight with people about the choices ahead" [7]
The situation is an emergency
  • The situation is now extremely serious [1][2][8]
  • The situation is extremely urgent [2]
  • At current emissions, the planet will reach 1.5°C of global warming around 2030 [6]
  • Total global emissions are still rising [2]
  • Nature is not a luxury - it is critical infrastructure [3]
  • The UK's food supply is at risk [7]
  • Atlantic Ocean currents are weakening and will change abruptly at some point (possibly at 2°C of warming), resulting in winters of -30°C in Scotland and -20°C in London, and an end to crop growing in the UK [6]
  • There is a risk of Government systems and institutions being overwhelmed [9]
  • Globally, billions of lives are at risk [1]
Action has been inadequate
  • Climate action has been grossly inadequate [1][2]
  • The UK's Net Zero 2050 timescale of emission cuts is not what the UK promised in the Paris Agreement - it would take 3 times the UK's fair share of the 1.5°C carbon budget [4]
Radical change is needed
  • Current affluent, high-carbon lifestyles are unsustainable - and will end one way or another, either voluntarily or by a deteriorating climate with societal collapse [4]
  • Every fraction of a degree matters because the risks of catastrophic tipping points steadily increase [6]
  • We need "full scale action" [2], "transformational change now if we're going to survive" [8]

Crucial inconsistencies: Whether emergency action is needed

There were cucial inconsistencies in the talks.
The science shows transformational change is needed now...
The UK's Net Zero 2050 strategy is not in line with the science of carbon budgets and the Paris Agreement
NEB slide posted on Bluesky by Kevin Anderson
Some of the talks [4][8] pointed out the gross inadequacy of the UK Net Zero 2050 timescale of cuts in CO2 emissions - it would take three times the UK's fair share of the global carbon budget for 1.5°C, and so is not what the UK promised in the Paris Agreement [4].

Instead, there needs to be transformational change starting immediately, if temperature targets are to be met [4][8] - with radical changes in all aspects of society (see box) [13].

UK policies that are aligned with climate science
according to the National Emergency Briefing scientists
  • Transformational change starting immediately
  • End fossil fuel use by 2030 - 2035
  • Over 80% cut in air travel by 2030
  • An immediate end to the manufacture of internal combustion engine cars
  • Most private car journeys in urban areas replaced by a rapid roll-out of public transport or by walking/cycling
  • Some EV's in rural areas
  • Mass retrofitting of proper insulation for homes
  • New homes to be zero carbon, and smaller
  • A diet with far less meat and dairy products
  • A rapid shift to zero carbon electricity
  • Adding up to profound changes in social norms and in the lifestyles of the well-off
  • All justified by a recognition that current affluent, high-carbon lifestyles are unsustainable - and will end one way or another, either voluntarily or by a deteriorating climate with societal collapse.


...But some talks ignored the science and discussed only gradual transition
Other talks, namely the Economics talk [10] and the Energy talk [11] ignored this science of carbon budgets completely, and instead endorsed gradual transition and the UK's Net Zero 2050 timescale.

Problems with the NEB economics and energy talks
  • No mention of ending fossil fuel use by 2030 - 2035.
  • Endorsement of Net Zero 2050 instead.
  • Discussion of just gradual transition, not emergency transformation - in the two talks, there were 26 uses of the word transition, and no uses of emergency or transform(ation).
  • The economics talk discussed only changing Government regulations to encourage businesses to shift - rather than industry transformation such as immediately ending the manufacture of fossil fuel cars.
  • The economics talk contained no discussion of the effects of emergency transformation on key sectors of the economy such as the banking system, pension funds, employment and taxation.
  • The energy talk had a title of Energy Transition as if total energy use will change only slowly, and there will just be a shift from fossil fuels to renewable sources, but ending fossil fuels by 2030 - 2035 means temporarily a large reduction in total energy use until renewable sources are developed.
  • There was no discussion of surviving a period of much lower energy use, and what aspects of living should be prioritized, such as food, water, healthcare and security.
  • Justifications for the changes were non-emergency ones such as cheaper bills, or a more resilient economy, rather than the science of the threats of e.g. mass mortality, mass migration, tipping points, nature loss and a statement that radical change is coming one way or another, whether we like it or not.

Radical reductions in emissions such as a reduction to zero by 2030, or soon after, raises vital questions about the closures of some industries and rapid expansion of others, and the effects on many aspects of the economy - but these were not covered at all in the Economics talk [10].

This failure to face up to the speed of changes needed has been referrred to as mitigation denial by Kevin Anderson [14], as implicatory climate denial by climate psychologists [15], and as "blah blah blah" by Greta Thunberg [16].

Inconsistency leads to confusion, complacency and delay
This inconsistency in the talks is a major problem with the initiative. It means that the talks add to the existing abundant climate misinformation, confusion, complacency and delay.

Zack Polanski, UK Green Party Leader, attended the November 2025 NEB. But in January 2026, he seemed to have no understanding of the urgency of climate action, saying "People can still be environmentalists if they drive, fly and eat meat" [17].

It also means that critics will be able to say that the policies discussed are not in line with the science, and that the figures don't add up.

Crucial omissions

In discussing lack of progress in ending fossil fuels, there was discussion of fossil fuel lobbyists, but
  • there was insufficient emphasis on the inadequacy of the UK Government's Net Zero 2050 timescale of emission cuts
  • there was no mention of the endorsement of this inadequate timescale by the overwhelming majority of UK climate campaigners, and their failure to face up to the scale of changes needed, e.g.

Furthermore, there was no discussion of what the aim of UK climate action sould be - e.g. is it keeping global warming to a target such as 1.5°C or 1.6°C, or is it merely to keep to the inadequate Net Zero 2050 timescale of emission cuts.

Action needed

Action is needed to correct the inconsistencies and omissions in the talks:

1. Clarify the aim of climate action
There needs to be clarity that it is radical transformation not gradual transition that is needed, if temperature targets are to be met - facing up to the question of whether the situation is an emergency or not.

2. Accept past errors
There needs to be recognition of past errors of climate campaigning and advocacy, and a determination not to repeat them.

3. Draw up a consensus statement
The NEB is a new initiative, and it needs to be comprehensive, internally consistent, and consistent with the scientific consensus. Otherwise, it will just add to the abundant climate misinformation, confusion, complacency and delay.

The process of science does not generally make progress by people labelled as "experts" giving their individual views, but by everyone working towards a robust, evidence-based consensus.

The flaws in the NEB initiative seem to have arisen by a lack of coordination of individual presentations, and by a lack of external scrutiny analogous to peer review (or "red-teaming", using the terminology of the Covid Inquiry recommendations [18]).

So the NEB process should be modified. There should be a consensus statement from the speakers that is clearly based on the science of carbon budgets. This statement should support the Tyndall Centre climate scientists who are rejecting the UK's Net Zero 2050 strategy as grossly inadequate and carbon colonialism, and advocating a fundamental rethink of UK climate policy based on scientific rigour and international justice [19].

4. Replace the non-emergency briefings
The briefings advocating a gradual transition need to be replaced by ones discussing emergency transformation.

Conclusion

In summary, the event has great potential, but further publicity should be paused until the inconsistencies and omissions have been corrected.

Update April 2026

The NEB organisers have gone on to produce a film based on the NEB talks. It seems that none of the flaws in the process have been corrected, and the initiative is continuing to add to the climate misinformation, confusion and denial - see Document 199: The People's Emergency Briefing: Positives and flaws.


References and notes

[1]Chris Packham (2025) NEB Opening statement: Video and Transcript (Youtube-generated with some editing)
[2]Mike Berners-Lee (2025) NEB: Introduction: Video and Transcript
[3]Nathalie Seddon (2025) NEB: Nature: Video and Transcript
[4]Kevin Anderson (2025) NEB: Climate: Video and Transcript
[5] Hayley Fowler (2025) NEB: Weather Extremes: Video and Transcript
[6]Tim Lenton (2025) NEB: Tipping Points: Video and Transcript
[7]Paul Behrens (2025) NEB: Food Security: Video and Transcript
[8]Hugh Montgomery (2025) NEB: Health: Video and Transcript
[9]Richard Nugee (2025) NEB: National Security: Video and Transcript
[10]Angela Francis (2025) NEB: Economics: Video and Transcript
[11]Tessa Khan (2025) NEB: Energy Transition: Video and Transcript
[12]The full quote is "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." James Baldwin No Name in the Street https://www.penguin.co.uk/discover/articles/best-james-baldwin-quotes-still-true-relevant-today
[13]The policies listed are taken from the NEB talks by Kevin Anderson [4] and Paul Behrens [7] together with a similar more detailed article by Kevin Anderson [14]
[14]Kevin Anderson (2023) Getting real: what would serious climate action look like? https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/getting-real-what-would-serious-climate-action-look
[15]Wullenkord & Reese (2021) Avoidance, rationalization, and denial: Defensive self-protection in the face of climate change negatively predicts pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494421001365
[16]Greta Thunberg's "blah blah blah" speech, Milan 2021 https://www.carbonindependent.org/119.html
[17]Zack Polanski: You can fly, drive, eat meat and still be green (11 Jan 2026) The Times https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/zack-polanski-interview-environmentalists-green-party-flpkvw790
[18]Editorial (2024) British Medical Journal Covid inquiry: the flaws that led to system failure https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q1865 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1865
[19]Kevin Anderson, Chris Jones and Gaurav Gharde (2025) The UK’s year of climate U-turns exposes a deeper failure https://theconversation.com/the-uks-year-of-climate-u-turns-exposes-a-deeper-failure-254499


Started: 28 Jan 2026
Last updated: 27 Apr 2026     Page No: 198