Actions by our governments are the opposite to what we require from them on climate change

The US is now a rogue state. One example is the conduct of the US Health Secretary who has been working to destroy the scientific basis for health care since his appointment last year but exceeded his own hubris when he told a podcast on February 12, 2026 that “I’m not scared of a germ. I used to snort cocaine off of toilet seats.” This topped his statements about measles vaccination, nutritional design, and vaccination in general. I know it is real and serious but it is so outlandishly ignorant that it seems like a daily parody, as do the statements of the President, the Attorney-General and the rest of the cast. But I know it is serious. The most recent outrage is the decision to reverse the ‘endangerment finding’ that the Obama Administration used to justify its environmental legislation and regulative system. It is hard to understate the vandalism embodied by this decision and the ramifications extend across multiple sectors. The automobile manufacturing industry, for example, will now be free to produce more polluting cars and greenhouse gases. Cheaper, dirtier cars for Americans, and, goodbye to American cars (thank god) for the export market. But it is the rejection of the scientific research knowledge that is most astounding. As part of my degrowth project, I have been reading several recently published scientific reports on the topic of climate change. These are credible contributions to human knowledge, which are significantly at odds with the way in which the US is heading these days. I wonder when the Americans are going to realise their federal government has abandoned reason and is now posing as a terminal threat to their well-being.

Nordic Council report on the AMOC

The first report I studied – A Nordic Perspective on AMOC Tipping – which was released by the Nordic Council of Ministers on February 4, 2026.

The AMOC refers to the – Atlantic meridional overturning circulation – which is the “main ocean current system in the Atlantic Ocean” and is a significant influence on the global climate system.

The circulation of the Atlantic Ocean redistributes heat between latitudes.

The impact of climate change on the AMOC arises in several ways:

1. Increasing ocean temperatures which reduce the circulation.

2. Increasing fresh water from ice sheet melting which reduces the ‘sinking’ effect..

The impact is predicted to reduce temperatures in the Scandinavian countries, the UK, and Ireland, increase sea levels in North America and seriously disrupt agricultural industries in the North Atlantic.

The southern hemisphere will warm and there will be a “southward shift of the tropical rain belt.”

The viability of agriculture in Southern Europe will become questionable.

The Nordic Council Report predict that a collapse in the AMOC would drive:

… large scale disruptions to the global supply of goods and services with adverse impacts in the Nordic region. The Nordics depend on imports of food, goods and agricultural and industrial inputs from other countries, many of which are produced in the Global South. Disruptions to monsoon patterns and agricultural productivity could significantly constrain supply chains beyond what is expected under gradual warming. Consequently, international trade could be heavily affected, increasing prices and reducing availability of critical imports.

The economic consequences are thus significant.

It is the potential for ‘irreversibility’ that requires caution.

The Nordic Council document analyses the risk of a collapse of the AMOC.

While the notion of a ‘tipping point’ (AMOC collapse) carries considerable uncertainty, the Report urges policy makers to take a ‘precautionary approach’ while scientists further refine the specification of the thresholds.

This approach would require further funding for:

… research into climate intervention technologies and their international governance … to sustain and operationalize key observational networks and build an AMOC early warning system that couples Earth observations with model simulations …

The problem for the Nordic countries is that the risk of AMOC collapse will “differ from, and in part oppose, those expected from global climate change, especially atmospheric warming.”

On the one hand, global warming is pushing temperatures in the North up, while the weakening AMOC dynamics have the potential to push them down.

The net cooling effect is still not fully understood.

The problem that the Nordic Council report introduces is that the risk of a collapse in the AMOC “has been underestimated and that the outcomes of an AMOC collapse could bring ‘irreversible impacts, especially for Nordic countries'” (includes a quote from a 2024 study).

The data (available since April 2004) “how a statistically significant weakening trend” but the short time series means that skeptics can easily argue that this is a naturally recurring phenomenon, which will reverse.

The smart researchers show that the weakening trend is consistent with their conjectural models that predict an AMOC shutdown.

I do not intend to summarise all the scientific research findings that are rehearsed in the Report.

The bottom line is that governments should be doing much more to fund and motivate research on this topic, which has global implications.

UK Report

The second report I read recently – Nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security – was issued by the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on January 20, 2026.

The publication was initially resisted by the Starmer Labour government but they were eventually forced to issue a summary declassified document (linked to above) after FOI appeals.

Apparently, there was an internal struggle within the Government between those who didn’t want the public to see the findings because there were significant implications for “international relations and national security” (Source (Paywalled)) and those that considered it important on the grounds of public interest.

As an aside, the Australian Labor government commissioned a similar study on the security implications of “intensifying threats from climate-driven ecosystem collapse” and received the findings more than 3 years ago but refuses to make the findings public, despite claiming that it would lead a new era of transparency in government.

One insider who broke the confidentiality ranks said the findings were “frankly terrifying”.

The UK Report was the product of a national security assessment by the – UK Joint Intelligence Committee – which is a body that coordinates intelligence across different agencies within the British government.

It thus analyses things from a national security perspective and the cited Report attempts to assess the consequences of climate degradation from that angle.

While it is “not a scientific report”, it draws on the research from the scientific community.

The aim of their work was:

… to support UK national security planning by identifying risks to the UK from global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse

It recognises that:

The world is already experiencing the impacts of biodiversity loss, including crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks …

Ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions and ecosystems …

With current trends, global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to continue to 2050 and beyond …

As the global population grows, reaching 9.7 billion by 2050 … the impact of food production on natural systems will intensify and it will become even more challenging to produce sufficient food sustainably

They assign a High confidence rating (there rating of certainty) to the following judgements:

1. “Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity … There is a realistic possibility some ecosystems start to collapse by 2030 or sooner, as a result of biodiversity loss from land use change, pollution, climate change and other drivers.”

2. “Critical ecosystems that support major global food production areas and impact global climate, water and weather cycles are
the most important for UK national security” – so water security is lost, crop yields severely reduced, fisheries collapsing, arable land contracts, new zoonotic diseases emerging, etc.

3. “Ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions. Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse (irreversible loss of function beyond repair)” – once again the irreversibility angle.

The tying together these environmental trends to national security is interesting and understated in the current debate.

The Report says:

Biodiversity loss is putting at risk the ecosystem services on which human societies depend, including water, food, clean air and critical resources. The impacts will range from crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states, political instability, and erosion of global economic prosperity. Increasingly scarce natural resources will become the focus of greater competition between state and non-state actors, exacerbating existing conflicts, starting new ones and threatening global security and prosperity.

So the powerful states will seek to protect themselves from the food shortages and health issues etc by overwhelming the weaker states.

Same old really but with a new terrifying twist.

The emergence of environmental refugees will become an increasing phenomenon that will challenge the population policies of various states.

There is debate about the terminology (refugees or migrants) but the fact is that increasing numbers of people are being forced out of their areas as a result of climate change.

For example, another Report – Global Report on Internal Displacement (Grid 2016) – that I read a while ago that was published by the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre in May 2016, estimated that on average, 21.5 million people were displaced on average by weather-related hazards between 2008 and 2016.

This is in addition to those displaced by conflict and violence.

Their – 2023 Global Report on Internal Displacement – revealed that in 2022, there were 32.6 million people forced to move within borders of their own country as a result of climate disasters (floods, droughts, landslides, storms, wildfires and extreme temperatures).

It was the “highest figure in a decade”.

The projected figure by 2050 is 1.2 billion.

While most of the displacement occurs within national boundaries, it is becoming increasingly obvious that cross-border movements will increase dramatically as nations lose their capacity to produce enough food and shelter.

The UK Report finds that “Food insecurity and lack of economic opportunities are the main drivers of migration in Central America”.

The international security risks include:

1. “Migration will rise …”

2. Serious and Organised Crime will look to exploit and gain control over scarce resources. More people pushed into poverty will mean more opportunities for SOC to exploit (e.g. people trafficking and black markets in scarce food, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals).”

3. “Non-state actors including terrorist groups will have more opportunities resulting from political instability … They may gain control over scarce resources.”

4. “State threats become more severe as some states become more exposed than others to food and water insecurity risks.”

5. “Pandemic risk will increase as biodiversity degrades, people move between countries and transfer of novel diseases between species becomes more likely.”

6. “Economic insecurity becomes more likely”.

7. “Geopolitical competition will increase as countries compete for scarce resources including arable land, productive waters, safe transit routes, critical minerals.”

8. “Political polarisation and instability will grow in food and water insecure areas and as populations become more vulnerable to natural disasters.”

9. “Conflict and military escalation will become more likely, both within and between states, as groups compete for arable land and food and water resources.”

So an all round Clusterf*@#!

The secret Australian report that our government refuses to make public presumably covers similar terrain and is being withheld in the government’s words for “national security reasons” – which is just a dodge to avoid scrutiny as it continues to approve large carbon-intensive fossil fuel projects under the lobbying pressure of the likes that have led Trump to abandon emission controls.

The UK Report, even though a summary has been declassified makes it clear that critical decisions have to be made by governments in the face of the disaster that is upon us.

Democratic legitimacy requires people have an understanding (at least an inkling) of what is at stake.

Merely claiming that new ‘gas’ projects are necessary to keep energy prices down in Australia (a lie in fact), as a way of deflecting political scrutiny, would not be possible if the public had more information about the scale of the national risk that is under threat.

So while the Australian government might see they can retain office through secrecy and short-termism (driven by 3-year political cycles) eventually it catches up with the nation.

The 10 or more years of climate inaction by the previous government has left Australia way behind in our efforts to mitigate the consequences of climate change.

As each year passes, those consequences multiply and then, reports like those published in the UK tell the world how serious the issue has become and in many aspects the irreversibility of the damage (that is, it is already too late).

Conclusion

While mainstream economists regularly appear in the media decrying fiscal deficits as vehicles to undermine the future of our children and grandchildren, which then leads governments to follow austerity paths for political gain, the climate situation will likely ruin the future of the generations to come.

The fiscal lies prevent governments from actually doing what they can (and should) do to reduce the severity of the climate degradation and will make the lives of our children as adults very difficult (in most cases) and impossible (in some cases – particularly the poorer nations).

That is enough for today!

(c) Copyright 2026 William Mitchell. All Rights Reserved.