Greya Jackson

Yeah, it's a great question. So the main difference is we're looking at timescales. So when we're talking about the weather, we're talking about short-term events, maybe days, maybe weeks at most. When we're talking about climate change, we're talking about really long-term studies. We're looking at averages over a year, maybe even a decade.

And the other key difference is that climate change is solely driven by humans' behaviour. When we drive around our petrol cars or burn our coal fires or cook on gas. These are all emitting planet warming gases, which are causing our planet to warm. 1.6 degrees warmer, in fact, than pre-industrial times. That's new data from Copernicus, EU's climate service, just recently.

So two real differences, sort of the length of time we're looking at, but also climate change is solely driven by our actions.

It's not a stupid question at all, Alex. It's a great question, I think. And, you know, we can look at it in lots of different ways depending on what extreme weather we're talking about. But if you take heat as an example, as the daily temperature shifts to warmer levels, hotter days become more likely and more intense. What does that mean for things like fires?

Well, longer-lasting heat waves draw more moisture out of the soils and vegetation. That creates very dry conditions, you know, perfect fuel and tinder for fire that can spread at incredible speeds. I mean, particularly if the winds are really strong, just like we've been seeing in LA. But with all that moisture being drawn out of the ground, out of lakes, rivers, the vegetation...

we get more moisture in the atmosphere. For every one degree of rise in average temperature, we see about 7% more moisture in the atmosphere. And with more vapour in the air, that means rainfall can become even heavier. So there's lots of different ways in which climate change is making weather more extreme.

So we can say broadly that extreme weather is becoming more likely and more extreme in a warmer world. That's according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is where the world's scientists get together and produce gold standard research and publication.

But we did have this major scientific breakthrough two decades ago where scientists began to attribute climate change to a specific weather event. And when you look at it today, they roll out these studies within a few days of a hurricane. I remember Hurricane Beryl, you know, results came out. I think it was just five days after it made landfall about a

how much rainfall was made worse by climate change. And it's really interesting how scientists do this work. There's one particularly prominent group called the World Weather Attribution. They're based at Imperial College London. And I caught up with their lead scientist. She's one of the pioneers of this kind of work, Dr. Freddie Otto, on exactly how they do this.

And that was recently on the Climate Question podcast.

I mean, it's huge. And typically it's felt by the poorest among us. And that's because often poor people don't have the means to evacuate or rebuild after a disaster.

Perhaps they don't have insurance on their home or life savings and they can be left destitute afterwards, especially in places like Bangladesh, where perhaps you can't take your cows or your chickens, your way of life and the way you earn money into a cyclone shelter. But if you want to put a number on it, the International Chamber of Commerce commissioned a report on the cost of weather.

Do you want to have a guess, Alex, at what that figure might be for the last decade?

Yeah, it's two trillion US dollars in the decade leading up to 2024. I mean, the US saw the greatest losses followed by China and India. But I mean, two trillion dollars. Yes, it sounds like a lot. But actually, there are so many things that we cannot quantify, like the loss of entire ecosystems or even loss of life. And that loss of life is going to be big.

I mean, the World Health Organization says that Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause a quarter of a million more deaths per year. And that's purely from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat stress. That's not including people who are dying in floods or fires like we've been seeing in L.A.

Yeah, I mean, really what your listener is asking is, is democracy up to the task, especially if we see governments flip-flopping about when some are seen as very climate progressive and others are seen as less climate progressive? And actually, the best answer I've had to this question comes from an expert I spoke to a few years ago, and he said it has to be.

Democracy has to be up to the task because people want to have a say in how they're Country is governed. There really isn't a good alternative. But the interesting thing about Biden and Trump is that there was still a lot of progress made under Trump's first term, you know, despite the fact that he's said things like drill, baby, drill and call climate change a hoax.

Back in that first term, solar power more than doubled and wind increased by 50%. And the reason that is, is renewables are far cheaper than oil, coal and gas. You know, this is what a lot of economists are talking about now, this Great Green March.

The economics of renewables make so much sense to the market and that maybe they don't need as much investment, as much subsidising as they previously did. So what I'm saying is, yes, Trump may in the short term cause more greenhouse gases to go up into the sky, more climate change. But the trajectory in the US and for many other countries in the world is down.