Britons Demand Greater Honesty on Climate Crisis

Published: 08 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The British public is not being fully informed about the scale of the climate and nature crisis facing the country, according to researchers behind a national emergency briefing that has prompted strong calls for greater public awareness and government action.

A survey of 13,000 people who watched the People’s Emergency Briefing found that 93% believed the public was not being fully informed about the risks associated with climate change and the loss of nature. At the same time, 87% said watching the briefing made them more motivated to take action, suggesting that providing people with clearer information about the potential consequences of environmental breakdown could significantly influence public attitudes.

The findings have intensified calls for the UK government to communicate more openly about the threats posed by climate change and ecological decline. Researchers involved in the project argue that the consequences extend far beyond rising temperatures and extreme weather, potentially affecting food supplies, public health, national security and the wider economy.

The People’s Emergency Briefing was developed following a national emergency briefing held in Westminster Hall in London last November. Nine experts presented assessments of the scale of change that could be required for Britain to adapt to a rapidly changing climate and increasingly fragile natural environment.

The event was described as a first-of-its-kind national emergency briefing. Its organisers subsequently raised funds from the public to produce a film intended to communicate the risks to a much wider audience.

The resulting film has now been viewed by an estimated 185,000 people through more than 3,400 screenings. Its organisers are calling for the British government to hold a prime-time televised emergency briefing on the climate and nature crisis, involving independent experts and supported by national political leadership.

The survey results have provided the campaign with evidence that audiences respond strongly when the potential consequences are presented in a comprehensive manner. Among those questioned, 89% said the government should respond to the crisis through emergency-level mobilisation comparable in scale with the national response to the Covid-19 pandemic or the Second World War.

The figures indicate that the issue may be understood differently when environmental change is presented as a broad national challenge rather than simply an environmental concern. Climate change is often discussed in terms of emissions targets, temperature increases and renewable energy, but researchers say the indirect consequences could have a much wider impact on everyday life.

Professor Mike Berners-Lee, chair of the National Emergency Briefing, argued that the public had been able to understand the seriousness of the Covid-19 threat because authorities communicated information about it directly. He believes a similarly transparent approach could help people understand the risks associated with climate and nature breakdown.

The campaign is therefore calling for an emergency response that would bring together independent experts and political leaders, with the prime minister playing a prominent role in communicating the scale of the challenge.

Supporters argue that greater public understanding is essential because climate-related risks can develop through interconnected systems. Damage to ecosystems, for example, can affect agricultural production, which can influence food prices and availability. Changes in climate can also place additional pressure on health services, infrastructure and household finances.

Professor Lorraine Whitmarsh of the University of Bath, who led the research, said many people already understood some of the direct risks associated with climate change. However, she suggested that less obvious “second-order risks” were not as widely recognised.

These include potential consequences for national security, food supplies and the National Health Service. Such risks can emerge indirectly and may become increasingly significant as environmental pressures intensify.

The findings suggest that the public’s understanding of climate change may therefore be incomplete rather than simply absent. People may recognise that temperatures are rising or that extreme weather events are becoming more concerning, while having less awareness of how environmental disruption could affect essential systems on which modern society depends.

The distinction is important because public understanding can influence support for policies that require major changes. Measures aimed at reducing emissions, strengthening food resilience, protecting ecosystems or adapting infrastructure can involve significant economic and social decisions. Without a clear understanding of the reasons for those policies, governments may find it harder to secure public support.

The campaign’s organisers believe an independent, nationally broadcast briefing could help address that challenge. Rather than presenting the issue as a political dispute, they want experts to explain the risks and potential responses in a format accessible to the wider public.

The proposal comes amid growing debate over whether governments are communicating the environmental crisis adequately. Critics have accused the UK government of failing to provide the public with sufficient information about some of the potential consequences of ecological collapse.

The government previously faced criticism after declining to publish a report prepared by UK intelligence officials that reportedly warned of severe national security consequences resulting from the collapse of vital ecosystems around the world.

That controversy has contributed to wider concerns among environmental campaigners and researchers about transparency. They argue that information relating to major climate and ecological risks should be made available to the public where possible so that communities can understand the challenges facing them.

The latest survey does not, however, establish that all members of the British public share the same views about the appropriate policy response. The participants were people who had watched the emergency briefing, meaning the findings reflect the reactions of an audience that had already engaged with the campaign’s material.

Researchers have nevertheless described the shift in understanding and concern following the film as substantial. The high proportion of respondents who said they felt more motivated to act indicates that communication itself could be an important element of climate policy.

For many people, environmental issues can appear distant or abstract. Scientific discussions about global temperature targets, carbon budgets and biodiversity loss can be difficult to connect with ordinary experiences. Presenting the potential effects through food security, healthcare, household finances and national resilience can make the issue more immediate.

The briefing campaign is particularly focused on encouraging political leaders to communicate without minimising the scale of the challenge. Berners-Lee has called on Andy Burnham to be honest about the risks posed by climate and nature breakdown, arguing that political leaders should demonstrate a willingness to communicate uncomfortable facts as well as reassuring messages.

The involvement of political figures has already begun. Scotland’s First Minister, John Swinney, recently attended a screening of the film at the Scottish Parliament, providing the campaign with a prominent political audience.

The UK government has not confirmed whether it will screen the film itself. In response to questions, the government said it welcomed campaigns that kept action on climate change and nature loss in the public discussion.

That response leaves open the question of whether ministers will support a nationally televised emergency briefing of the kind proposed by the campaign.

The debate comes at a time when governments are under pressure to balance climate policies with economic concerns. Measures to reduce emissions and protect natural systems can require substantial investment, while households and businesses may be concerned about the immediate cost of transition.

Supporters of stronger action argue that failing to prepare for environmental disruption could ultimately prove more expensive. Damage to food systems, infrastructure, health and ecosystems could impose costs that are considerably harder to manage if governments delay preparations.

The researchers behind the emergency briefing therefore believe that public education should be considered part of national climate resilience. If people understand the risks, they may be better equipped to make decisions and support measures designed to reduce vulnerability.

The survey results also challenge the assumption that communicating the severity of the climate crisis necessarily leads to public disengagement or despair. Instead, most respondents who watched the film reported feeling more motivated to act.

That finding is particularly important for campaigners who want climate communication to combine urgency with practical responses. Providing information about risks without explaining possible solutions can leave audiences feeling powerless, while overly reassuring messages can understate the seriousness of the situation.

The campaign is seeking a middle ground in which the public receives clear information from independent experts while political leaders explain what governments are doing in response.

For Britain, the debate extends beyond environmental policy. Climate and nature breakdown could influence economic stability, public health, food security and national security, making preparedness a matter for a wide range of government departments and institutions.

The latest findings suggest that a large proportion of people believe they deserve clearer information about those risks. Whether the government ultimately agrees to a prime-time emergency briefing remains uncertain, but the response to the film indicates that there is significant public interest in understanding the issue more fully.

As the UK confronts increasingly complex environmental challenges, researchers argue that transparency will be essential. The message from the People’s Emergency Briefing is that citizens should be given the facts necessary to understand what could happen and why major action may be required.

For the campaigners, the goal is not simply to increase concern but to encourage informed preparation and collective action. Their research suggests that when people are given a clearer picture of the potential consequences, many are willing to engage more actively.

The question now is whether Britain’s political leadership will respond to that demand for greater openness and treat climate and nature breakdown with the level of urgency that the campaign believes the risks require.