I'm very suspicious of the scientific validity of this report. You've written " The emergence of Covid-19, and other similar zoonotic diseases (pathogens which jump from animals to humans) such as swine flu, bird flu, or Sars, can be directly traced back to our relationship with nature. Maintaining diverse ecosystems and healthy biodiversity is an important way of preventing this kind of crisis." However, animal to human movement of pathogens is largely unrelated to maintaining a healthy biodiversity - they are mutually exclusive. And the suggestion that the UK's environment is seriously degrading is contrary to everything I've read in numerous science journals over recent years. As we say in Australia, this doesn't pass the pub test.
"This is a gamble: half of Labour voters think that climate change is the most important challenge facing the world, just ahead of the general public." What happens to the Labour plans to "build, build, build" when it becomes clear to climate/carbon literate voters that 1.5m new houses in 5 years would emit more 'upfront' or embodied carbon than budgeted for the whole economy?
I'm very suspicious of the scientific validity of this report. You've written " The emergence of Covid-19, and other similar zoonotic diseases (pathogens which jump from animals to humans) such as swine flu, bird flu, or Sars, can be directly traced back to our relationship with nature. Maintaining diverse ecosystems and healthy biodiversity is an important way of preventing this kind of crisis." However, animal to human movement of pathogens is largely unrelated to maintaining a healthy biodiversity - they are mutually exclusive. And the suggestion that the UK's environment is seriously degrading is contrary to everything I've read in numerous science journals over recent years. As we say in Australia, this doesn't pass the pub test.
"This is a gamble: half of Labour voters think that climate change is the most important challenge facing the world, just ahead of the general public." What happens to the Labour plans to "build, build, build" when it becomes clear to climate/carbon literate voters that 1.5m new houses in 5 years would emit more 'upfront' or embodied carbon than budgeted for the whole economy?