Climate experts are having a debate: they are asking whether the UK should focus more on adapting to climate change or trying to prevent it.

David Frost holds that preventing climate change is no longer an option, given the extent to which the Earth now appears certain to heat up. Despite the many policies which attempt to stop climate change, it now seems unavoidable that the world will pass the 1.5℃ or 2℃ increases in average global temperature that are likely to induce large changes in the climate.

David Frost is right in that our economies are growing so much slower than we had anticipated. Our emissions can drop if we reduce emissions per unit of GDP we create—but they can also drop if the GDP is lower. Lower growth means it is more feasible (可行的) for us to achieve targets such as Net Zero, but it also makes it less environmentally urgent to achieve those targets so soon, because we are and have been emitting a lot less carbon than we had anticipated.

The UK authority finds the debate about adaptation difficult. Partly, it is because some activists claim that adaptation is not feasible. They say that climate change will end human civilization, potentially leading to the entire extinction of the human race.

However, the mainstream view of many scientists and economists, who work on climate change, is that global warming could lead to large changes in our environment. Significant parts of the world currently heavily populated could become effectively uninhabitable while other parts currently unsuitable for high-density human habitation would become more habitable. Meanwhile, at higher temperatures both climate and weather are likely to become more volatile—including increased frequency of storms, flooding and other weather events.

These would be significant changes, but it would be perfectly feasible for humans to adapt to them. The issue is not whether adapting would be technically feasible, but whether it would be desirable either in ethical or practical terms. Are we willing to accept a materially warmer world, with humans living in different parts of it? Are we willing to accept the possible extinctions of certain species and the greater flourishing of those currently less successful and of new species yet to evolve? Are we willing to accept the consequences of a large shift in the patterns of human habitation across the world?

It is by no means clear on what basis we ought to ethnically privilege the plants and animals that flourish under today’s climate over those that would flourish under a warmer, more volatile climate. However, adaptation will be feasible and is a necessity given the extent to which warming is now unavoidable. Slower GDP growth and thus slower climate change ought to make greater efforts at adaptation more attractive.

Based on new analysis, we are rapidly approaching major climate change and the effects on society and the environment could be quite severe. Geographers predict that within the next eighty years, current world climate zones could shift and some could completely disappear. Polar regions will get colder while tropical regions will get even hotter, forcing animals to migrate (迁徙) north.

Climate changes like these could lead to the spread of diseases. Tropical storms and hurricanes will not only increase but may also become more intense. If the changes come too quickly, animal and plant species may not be able to adapt fast enough and could disappear.

According to Science Daily, a new study predicts that by the year 2100, many of today's familiar climates will be replaced by climates unknown in today's world. It is urgent that we reduce the risks of these far­reaching consequences for the whole world. The planet itself has been showing signs of change. In 2004, a serious tsunami created by a major earthquake killed thousands in Sumatra and in 2008, thousands died in China because of another severe earthquake. Egypt was hit in 2009 with a major earthquake and Haiti was devastated in 2010 by yet another massive earthquake.

Within just the last few months, new reports from around the world have been coming in and most agree that our climate situation is much worse than previously thought. At this point, it doesn't matter what is causing it, but rather, what can be done about it. What's more, our world is getting more and more unstable every year. There is war and threat of war everywhere. Natural disasters are becoming more frequent and serious.

However, other planets are experiencing global warming as well as our own and some scientists believe there may be some connection between this. No one knows anything for sure at this point because there is simply not enough data.

Zologial Sociey of London(ZSL), which runs London Zoo, brought together 16 scientists from different organizations to make a full “heath heck” on 215 miles of the Thames. The results of the first-ever State of the Thames Report have been shown to the public and there’s both good and bad news for London’s main waterway.

First up, since the Thames was pronounced “biologically(生物学地)dead” in1957, the number of animals and plants growing in and around the river has increased greatly. Natural habitats(栖息地)are also on the increase, some of which can help in the fight against climate(气候)change.

It’s not all good news though—like everywhere else, the Thames is influenced by climate change, mainly through changes in water temperature and sea levels. The Thames is increasing in temperature at an average(平均数)of 0. 2℃ each year, changing the natural environment.

Water levels are also rising in the Thames—at Silvertown. There has been an average increase of 4. 26 mm per year since 1990, which makes London more likely to be flooded.

As with pretty much everywhere on Earth, the Thames needs climate change to be stopped in order to make itself a living river in the future.

The Environment Agency has put together the Thames Estuary 2100 Plan which sets out a long-term plan for dealing with the influence of rising sea levels for the rest of this century, in order to protect London from floods.

James Brand, Thames Estuary 2100 Advisor at the Environment Agency said, “We are glad to support the State of the Thames Report. If we are going to stop climate change, nature needs to be at the heart of our activities, both in slowing the pace of future change and dealing with the changes that we are already seeing.”