NEB statement on government petition response
The government has now provided a formal response to our petition, triggered when signatories passed the 10,000 mark. At 100,000 signatories, there will be a parliamentary debate.
Here is our response to the response.
We welcome the government's positive response to Chris Packham’s petition, which can be viewed here, and are encouraged by the clear recognition that climate and nature breakdown pose growing risks to our health, economy, national security and critical services.
However the government's response answers the question: 'Is the government aware of these risks?' It does not answer the question: 'How do we ensure that the public is aware of them?’
In a democracy, people cannot make informed decisions about the future unless they have access to the best available information about major national risks. We strongly believe that the public should be trusted with vital information that affects their lives and future prosperity.
The government points to last year's State of Climate and Nature statement as evidence of public communication. We welcome that statement, but a speech to MPs in Parliament is clearly not a substitute for the prime-time televised emergency briefing now being called for by a growing number of MPs and peers. It is not an effective way to reach the wider public.
Moreover, the State of Climate and Nature statement focused on government policies, programmes and progress. While important, that is very different from the briefing proposed by the NEB.
The NEB’s proposed Covid-style emergency briefing would be introduced by the Prime Minister, broadcast live across primetime television, and delivered by independent experts. Its purpose would be to demonstrate that this issue is being treated with the seriousness it demands, at the highest level of government. It should help the public understand what climate and nature breakdown could mean for life in the UK, and explain the options available to respond. It should be designed to reach everyone with provisions for accessibility and translations into other languages.
One particularly revealing aspect of the government’s response is that it comes from Defra, the department responsible for environment, food and rural affairs. But climate and nature breakdown affects all aspects of society and should be treated as a whole-of-government issue coordinated from the most senior levels including Number 10, the Cabinet Office and Treasury.
The government's response lists a range of reports, plans and strategies. These are valuable documents, but they are not a substitute for clear public communication. The central issue is not whether information exists, but whether it is reaching the public.
There is little evidence that current approaches are succeeding. For example, a Google Trends analysis of search frequency shows that the search term “State of Climate and Nature Statement” does not even register. Neither do other variants of it. If one of the government's flagship communications on these issues leaves almost no trace in public awareness, that should raise serious questions about whether existing methods are sufficient.
We welcome the government's positive response to Chris Packham’s petition, which can be viewed here, and are encouraged by the clear recognition that climate and nature breakdown pose growing risks to our health, economy, national security and critical services.
However the government's response answers the question: 'Is the government aware of these risks?' It does not answer the question: 'How do we ensure that the public is aware of them?’
In a democracy, people cannot make informed decisions about the future unless they have access to the best available information about major national risks. We strongly believe that the public should be trusted with vital information that affects their lives and future prosperity.
The government points to last year's State of Climate and Nature statement as evidence of public communication. We welcome that statement, but a speech to MPs in Parliament is clearly not a substitute for the prime-time televised emergency briefing now being called for by a growing number of MPs and peers. It is not an effective way to reach the wider public.
Moreover, the State of Climate and Nature statement focused on government policies, programmes and progress. While important, that is very different from the briefing proposed by the NEB.
The NEB’s proposed Covid-style emergency briefing would be introduced by the Prime Minister, broadcast live across primetime television, and delivered by independent experts. Its purpose would be to demonstrate that this issue is being treated with the seriousness it demands, at the highest level of government. It should help the public understand what climate and nature breakdown could mean for life in the UK, and explain the options available to respond. It should be designed to reach everyone with provisions for accessibility and translations into other languages.
One particularly revealing aspect of the government’s response is that it comes from Defra, the department responsible for environment, food and rural affairs. But climate and nature breakdown affects all aspects of society and should be treated as a whole-of-government issue coordinated from the most senior levels including Number 10, the Cabinet Office and Treasury.
The government's response lists a range of reports, plans and strategies. These are valuable documents, but they are not a substitute for clear public communication. The central issue is not whether information exists, but whether it is reaching the public.
There is little evidence that current approaches are succeeding. For example, a Google Trends analysis of search frequency shows that the search term “State of Climate and Nature Statement” does not even register. Neither do other variants of it. If one of the government's flagship communications on these issues leaves almost no trace in public awareness, that should raise serious questions about whether existing methods are sufficient.
These concerns are reinforced by the government's handling of a recent intelligence report on climate and nature risks to national security. Earlier this year, The Times reported that a government-commissioned assessment — warning of risks including food system disruption, mass displacement of people and severe geopolitical instability linked to ecosystem collapse — had been withheld from release. An incomplete version of the report was later obtained after an FOI request.
If the public is to understand the scale of the risks we face, assessments of this significance should be actively communicated rather than remaining largely invisible outside specialist circles.
More broadly, there remains a striking gap between the severity of the risks described by the government's own advisers and public awareness of those risks. Most people remain unaware of the risks that climate and nature breakdown pose for food supplies, insurance, infrastructure, public health, economic stability and national security.
We are encouraged that the government welcomes the work of the National Emergency Briefing and recognises the importance of speaking clearly about these risks.
More than 22,000 people have already signed the petition, and there are now over 1,600 screenings of our film on our interactive map as communities step up to fill the communication gap.
The question now is whether the British public should be trusted with the same information that is already being shared between ministers, officials and experts.
We believe they should.
The National Emergency Briefing team
These concerns are reinforced by the government's handling of a recent intelligence report on climate and nature risks to national security. Earlier this year, The Times reported that a government-commissioned assessment — warning of risks including food system disruption, mass displacement of people and severe geopolitical instability linked to ecosystem collapse — had been withheld from release. An incomplete version of the report was later obtained after an FOI request.
If the public is to understand the scale of the risks we face, assessments of this significance should be actively communicated rather than remaining largely invisible outside specialist circles.
More broadly, there remains a striking gap between the severity of the risks described by the government's own advisers and public awareness of those risks. Most people remain unaware of the risks that climate and nature breakdown pose for food supplies, insurance, infrastructure, public health, economic stability and national security.
We are encouraged that the government welcomes the work of the National Emergency Briefing and recognises the importance of speaking clearly about these risks.
More than 22,000 people have already signed the petition, and there are now over 1,600 screenings of our film on our interactive map as communities step up to fill the communication gap.
The question now is whether the British public should be trusted with the same information that is already being shared between ministers, officials and experts.
We believe they should.
The National Emergency Briefing team
There is clear evidence that urgent action will strengthen our economy, resilience, and quality of life.
The National Emergency Briefing exists to help create a societal tipping point towards the action now required. You can help make it happen.
Contact us
Please check in FAQs first to help us. If it's about a screening, please tell us the postcode and date.
There is clear evidence that urgent action will strengthen our economy, resilience, and quality of life.
The National Emergency Briefing exists to help create a societal tipping point towards the action now required. You can help make it happen.
Contact us
Please check in FAQs first to help us. If it's about a screening, please tell us the postcode and date.
There is clear evidence that urgent action will strengthen our economy, resilience, and quality of life.
The National Emergency Briefing exists to help create a societal tipping point towards the action now required. You can help make it happen.
Contact us
Please check in FAQs first to help us. If it's about a screening, please tell us the postcode and date.