Politics
Polanski slams climate inaction as heatwaves cost us billions
Climate denying politicians love to moan about the cost of ‘Net Zero’; what they hate discussing is the cost of not solving climate change. And as we’re seeing, the costs are in the billions already:
Once again – the cost of inaction.
Investing in tackling the climate crisis is vital for our national security and an important opportunity to invest in our communities.
At the very least, the Government should stop making things worse! https://t.co/Kpe9JEadle — Zack Polanski (@ZackPolanski) July 16, 2026
Heating up
Polanski was drawing attention to a study from the Verdant thinktank, which describes itself as follows:
To address these new times requires new thinking and a new approach. We will work collaboratively, bringing citizens and experts together to design the next chapter of progressive politics in the UK. We will draw on expertise across the environment, social, and economic justice movements, conducting deep, future-facing research to develop practical and ambitious policy proposals. …
Our aim is to make bold, inclusive policy the foundation of a fair, flourishing and sustainable Britain.
The co-directors of Verdant include Deborah Doane and James Meadway, who we’ve interviewed before:
There are plans to build a data centre in Brick Lane, we hear from economist James Meadway
— Canary (@TheCanaryUK) June 4, 2026
The cost
In the intro to their latest report, Verdant write:
June 2026’s record-breaking heatwave, which saw temperatures top 37 degrees in parts of the country, has had an estimated, direct economic cost of at least £2.36bn. This is the result of reduced productivity due to the well-documented effect of all work becoming harder at higher temperatures, and that infrastructure and equipment overheat and fail. For each one degree Celsius temperature increase above 30 degrees in Europe, a 3% reduction in average output per hour has been observed. In a prolonged heatwave, these impacts add up to become significant economic losses. This is only the direct economic cost from productivity losses, and excludes the knock-on effects of increased energy demand, for example.
If heatwaves continue to worsen at the same pace as the previous decade, we should expect cumulative losses from each summers’ heatwaves of at least £25bn by 2030. This is likely to be an underestimate of their true cost, since it is recording only the direct impact on productivity. Further impacts on the costs and supplies of electricity, and the wider macroeconomic effects will add to this baseline cost. We are, in addition, not counting the dreadful human cost in health and mortality.
To reduce the economic losses of heatwaves, and to better protect those in work, we recommend a national maximum working temperature; the introduction of national heat insurance to protect incomes of those unable to work during heatwaves; and investment in active cooling and urban redesign, including greening urban spaces, to reduce the impact of extreme heat itself.
We’ve also reported on the call for the national maximum working temperature; most recently when Green MP Hannah Spencer discussed introducing a bill on the topic in parliament.
"From bus and train drivers sweltering in their cabins to bakers working in over 40 degrees, and builders whose workplaces offer no respite from the heat – the government has a duty to protect all of us."
Today Hannah Spencer is tabling a maximum workplace temperature bill. pic.twitter.com/0ofCXCDx4M
— The Green Party (@TheGreenParty) July 13, 2026
Denial
It’s important to be aware of the costs of not solving climate change — especially because the deniers only focus on the costs of switching to renewables. And this isn’t the only trick they pull.
In a video titled, You’ve been lied to about Net Zero, documentarian Simon Clark explains that deniers create misinformation around Net Zero as follows:
So these are the five steps of the anti-Net Zero playbook. Inflate the costs, ignore the cost of business as usual, ignore the operational savings, ignore the co-benefits, and most egregiously, ignore the costs of inaction. Not getting to Net Zero is going to cost the world much, much more
Clark also highlights that when people target the ‘cost’ of switching to Net Zero, they ignore the costs of not switching.
The second step often is to pretend that we can just carry on with business as usual and it won’t cost us anything. Let’s say we’re talking about decarbonising transport. And then people say, “Oh, but you know, an EV that’s going to cost like £40,000. You know, that’s a huge investment. That’s expensive, right?” You know, and you add that up over all of the cars in the country and you suddenly get a big scary number.
Again, let’s say we just carry on with petrol cars. Petrol cars aren’t free, right? Okay, maybe you own a petrol car now, so you don’t have to buy a new one, but that won’t last forever. So, that’s step two is you basically pretend that the existing system, which we’ve already built and paid for, can just carry on forever and won’t ever need replacing.
Follow the money
It’s obvious why many climate-denying politicians talk down the impacts of climate change; it’s because they’re in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry.
Decades of inaction have already cost us billions, and further dawdling will cost us trillions. In other words, it’s time to treat this issue as the crisis it so obviously is.
Featured image via the Canary
By Willem Moore
You must be logged in to post a comment Login