Valencia Floods: The cost of climate change denialism

Lucy Bysouth on 3 February 2025

Climate change denialism kills… and governments still aren’t listening. The end of October held Spain’s deadliest flash flood, killing hundreds of people particularly within the Valencia region. Scientists have attributed these ‘Monster’ floods once again to man-made climate change. 

Man-made climate change is increasingly talked about with its damaging effects becoming inevitable. While this extreme weather remains unchanged, so does the nation’s preparation for it. Climate change denialism is a stance taken too often by those in power resulting in a lack of funding and focus on defending against this. The recent floods in Valencia are a prime example of the effects it has on the everyday citizen. 

The World Weather Attribution has declared that climate change directly impacted the amount of rain that the clouds carried, pushing it up by 7% for every degree of warming. They have linked this directly to the causes of the Spanish flash floods and their ensuing devastation. This, however, is not a new revelation.

Researchers across the globe have been continuing to expose the life-threatening effects climate change is beginning to create. Their efforts have only increased after the devastating results of storm Helene which tore its way through the U.S only weeks before. We continue to see firsthand the destruction of everyday life as a result of man-made climate change while those in power fail both to aid the climate crisis and prepare the public for what that brings. So, what did the Spanish government do to fail their citizens in the growing climate crisis?

One of the Spanish government’s most crucial errors was the lack of communication with the general public from the very beginning. After over eight hours of continued rainfall, a flood was clearly imminent, however, it was not until houses were knee deep in mud and cars floating down the street that a message alert regarding ‘possible flooding’ was issued. Citizens claimed they were left completely blindsided by the flooding and had no opportunity to prepare or evacuate. 

Those affected have been left divided as to where the blame should fall. Was this a lack of preparedness on the government’s behalf or a denial of impending danger? This need for communication was strengthened through the aid, or lack thereof, given post flood. Those in poverty-stricken areas were left without help or any form of alert for days, knowing their loved ones could be lost and buried under the rubble the rain left behind. Both the community and those following along through the media are looking to the authoritie’s lack of focus on aid in the following days that cost valuable lives. 

The underfunding and lack of prioritisation of water infrastructure and flood defences increased the loss of life in the event of the floods significantly. Throughout the past 20 years there have been several plans drawn to aid defence against extreme weather. Almost 18 years prior, plans for flood works were prepared to be installed at the Poyo ravine. These exact plans however expired in 2017 as ‘no work had been initiated’. If it had been enacted, the damage caused to the surrounding areas would have been considerably minimised. 

Climate change evidently escalated the magnitude of such a disaster, rainfall like this has not been seen since the 1950s. Nevertheless, it appears that the errors of the government who funded poor infrastructure and allowed people to settle in these high-risk areas massively contributed to the traumatic death toll.

The citizens of Spain have come together in protest against the failure of the government, claiming the blood to be on their hands. The authorities accept their role in the flash flooding and discussions are in place on how to handle future events such as these, countries like Germany are also taking note from the failures of Spain. The country aims to make improvements for the future but the climate change denialism which grasps countries across the world was undoubtedly an overarching contributor to the 2024 Valencian floods. 

Words by Lucy Bysouth

Electric Dreams, Carbon Nightmares: The Hidden Environmental Cost of Generative AI

Daisy Morrow on 3 February 2025

AI chatbots are freaky. To someone like me with little knowledge about technology, programming or any other computer science jargon, I find them incomprehensible. 

A strange thing inside my computer, which knows how to simplify my readings, how to solve maths equations, how to quell the torrent of spiteful emails I send to my landlord about the leaky fridge. As it obeys my commands to ‘make this email sound more polite’, I often find myself soothed by its mechanical rearranging of my fiery words into ones which are clinical and assertive. It is probably due to this thing that I have not yet been evicted. Or that I am able to think of my article titles. 

Despite all of its pros, chatbots are very scary. Their not-quite-human responses, as well as the unsettling videos and images they produce, provoke a deep fear of the uncanny for many. It is thought that their reinforcement of instant gratification is making people lazier. 

As well as this,  they are also trained on stolen information from real people, who receive no compensation for their work. Indeed, in 2023 the New York Times sued Microsoft and OpenAI, claiming that their chatbots were trained using articles from journalists at the company without consent, thus violating their copyrights. 

As unethical as this all is, the biggest threat we as a species are facing from generative AI is their huge environmental impact. To explain it in the simplest of terms (for people like me with little knowledge of computers) the most complex Ais require the most power. The more power needed, the more carbon emissions are created in the process. 

Generative AI refers to artificial intelligence which can answer questions, create images and videos, solve problems and provide ideas. In other words, the chatbots we are so familiar with today. These are the said Ais which require the most power, due to their complex and advanced nature. 

These chatbots have not only increased in accessibility, but they are also thrust onto consumers in an attempt for constant innovation. In this case, to ensure search engines keep up to date with the newest technologies and quickest ways to retrieve information. 

This becomes an annoyance for two reasons. The first is that often searchers come across inaccurate and often laughable information, as is seen in the case of the viral ‘first person to backflip’ search. When google users went to search the much-asked question, AI overview confidently stated that it was curated by the medieval trickster ‘John Backflip’. 

As entertaining as it is to play around with AI and its inaccuracies, every futile search takes up 4 to 5 times the amount of energy as typing your query into a regular search engine. With every search engine now being equipped with an AI chatbot, this poses a huge environmental challenge. 

The size of generative AI is measured by parameters, with the larger models being the most advanced, thus taking up the most energy. According to the Scientific American, GPT-3 has a whopping 175 billion parameters. They state that the model went through ‘1287 megawatt hours of electricity and generated 552 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent’. To put this in perspective, this is comparable to the emissions of 123 standard petrol vehicles for a whole year of driving. And with the site reporting approximately 3.1 billion websites in September of 2024, its mind-boggling popularity suggests it will only continue its path of destruction. 

Likewise in 2019 it was found that the generative AI model BERT (which was 110 million parameters) depleted the energy of a ‘round trip transcontinental flight for one person’. The lack of tactility in chatbots often means people are unaware that they have a real physical impact. By comparing them to practices that we have known for years cause huge environmental damage demonstrates just how sinister they are. 

So how exactly do we avoid this? Chatbots are now seemingly ubiquitous and feel impossible to avoid. But, a recent study by google suggested that size matters less than some think when it comes to sustainable AI. 

The research suggested that for the same or similar size, using a ‘more efficient model architecture, processor and greener data centre can reduce the carbon.’ It is clear, then, that change needs to come from those at the top. Companies must invest in more sustainable processes to create generative AI. Public pressure- such as petitions, emails and spreading awareness- can help to achieve this, as well as boycotting sites such as Chat-GPT.

There are also eco-conscious alternatives out there for use, such as the non-profit company ‘Ecosia’, which is equipped with a ‘green filtered’ AI. Promoted by green energy such as solar power, the chatbot also offers sustainable advice and suggestions which are mindful of the planet. Thus, by promoting practices which are environmentally conscious, users are encouraged to incorporate these into their daily lives. As a bonus, Ecosia’s profits are distributed worldwide to support tree-planting initiatives. It is certainly worth switching your browser knowing that each search is not actively aiding the destruction of the planet. 

It is easy to feel despondent about the ways in which small parts of our life have a big environmental impact. It can feel particularly overwhelming when software which is so damaging has seen an exponential rise in popularity, which is only getting larger. 

However, education is crucial. Knowing what happens as a consequence of your small search allows you to make the first small changes and move forwards making environmentally conscious decisions. So, next time you need a twelve-fingered picture of Jesus in a theme park to send to your uncle on Facebook, do your research before turning to Chat-GPT. 

Words by Daisy Morrow

Carbon capture: an answer to net zero pledges or continued fossil fuel usage?

Katy Whelan on 18 October 2024

On the 4th of October, Prime Minister Kier Sarmer announced that £22bn was going towards climate funding, specifically into carbon capture and storage. With the UK closing its last coal power station, making it the first G7 nation to phase out coal completely, the UK is looking to win another race on the energy front. But what is carbon capture? Is it the golden opportunity Kier Starmers Labour Party is making it out to be, or is it simply a scapegoat for oil and gas companies?

In its simplest form, carbon capture and storage is when you take the CO2 emissions directly from a power station or factory and transport them to a unit via pipes or ships to a location where they are typically stored by being injected into porous rocks deep underground. 

The UK government has cited that carbon capture is necessary for Britain to reach its climate targets set by the secretary of state, Ed Milliband. This is because carbon capture will greatly help reduce the CO2 emissions escaping into the atmosphere in heavy industrial operations like cement and glass making. This isn’t even to mention the 2,000 skilled jobs it would create and the foreseeable private investments spoken about by Chancellor Rachel Reeves. In addition, Starmer mentioned that on a large scale, it could create 50,000 jobs in the future.

So, in the government’s eyes, carbon capture is ideal for the UK as it provides more skill-based jobs while helping reach its COP pledges. Furthermore, the UK is at a prime spot geologically to provide storage for carbon as the UK’s continental shelf holds ⅓ of all the exploitable carbon storage space in Europe. Including access to the North, North Atlantic and Irish seas, as well as the English Channel. Insinuating that the UK’s economy could thrive if carbon capture and storage is introduced not just in the UK but globally, as it could become a hub for storage. 

While this sounds promising, there are some large concerns over using carbon capture and storage on a large scale. The general public and climate scientists worry that oil and gas companies recently urged governments to introduce carbon capture. It’s believed that carbon capture will still allow companies to keep using fossil fuels as it doesn’t equate to green or renewable energies. This implies that these large corporations can continue to exploit fossil fuels, depleting the already finite resources and further damaging the planet. Therefore making it harder to reach our net-zero targets. 

Studies into carbon capture have shown that it is not 100% effective at removing all the carbon. While the technology boasts the claim to remove 90% or more, scientists have found that it only removes around 70%. Moreover, climate scientists instead believe that the UK should be introducing cleaner, green, renewable energy sources like solar and wind instead of allowing the continued use of carbon via the vastly more expensive practice of carbon capture.

Overall, carbon capture and storage seems like a good idea on the surface for British people as it will advance the economy, create new jobs and seemingly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Simply looking deeper into the technology shows us that it won’t help the future of our planet, allowing elevated fossil fuel exploitation. Therefore, contributing to our rising sea levels and global temperature by allowing big companies to offset their carbon production without any real sustainable practice taking place.