Could global warming benefit the UK as Lord Frost claims? We check the facts | Climate crisis

As temperatures soared around the world this week, the Conservative peer and former lead Brexit negotiator David Frost was telling the House of Lords that global warming was “likely to be beneficial”.

Attempts to derail climate action often come in the form of “discourses of delay”, where there is no denial of climate breakdown but the impression is given “that solving climate change is not our job, that it will not require substantial changes, that it is too expensive, or that it is pointless to try”. So it is actually quite refreshing to hear one of the UK’s most prominent critics of net zero saying the quiet part out loud: there’s no need to tackle the climate crisis, Frost suggested, because it will be a good thing.

If only he were right. In support of his claim, Frost quoted the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) on the reduction in UK deaths during winter months, partly caused by milder temperatures, which have so far outweighed increased mortality from extreme heat.

But Frost failed to quote the very next line from the GAD report: “However, periods of extreme heat may play a more important role in mortality trends in the future, particularly if temperatures continue to rise.” Moreover, as the GAD notes, the UK faces many other climate risks.

Frost went on to call for a “measured and rational” approach to the climate crisis, adding: “We must put aside the current mood of hysteria and try to assess the choices logically.”

So it is surprising that he did not refer to the UK’s latest climate crisis risk assessment, prepared in a measured, rational, logical – and very lengthy – way.

If Frost had read the report, he may have learned that: “Although climate change for the UK is associated mainly with risks, there may be opportunities, if appropriate adaptation action is taken.” But, the report concludes: “The number of risks with annual impacts costing of the order of £billions per year is likely to triple by the 2080s … Overall, the limited opportunities from climate change in the UK do not offset the substantial and pressing risks.”

Since being appointed as lead Brexit negotiator, and then ennobled by Boris Johnson, Frost has shot to prominence. He writes a heavily promoted regular column for the Daily Telegraph, in which he frequently criticises the government’s approach to the climate emergency.

Moreover, Frost has been mentioned in UK newspaper articles on the climate or net zero more than 100 times in 2023 alone, according to a search of coverage using the information platform Factiva.

Undeterred by these facts, Frost claimed bizarrely in his speech: “Critics of any aspect of this policy [on the climate crisis] find it increasingly difficult to get a hearing in the media. Here in this house, at least, we cannot be censored.”

Frost is also a trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is notoriously sceptical about climate breakdown. He describes the foundation as an “educational charity in this area”.

Having argued that global warming would be beneficial, Frost also felt the need to explain why it would be cheaper to adapt to the impact of climate breakdown than to end it.

Frost said: “When people like me argue about the costs of mitigating climate change, we are often told: ‘There is no choice. Not acting costs even more’. I question that. Of course temperatures are increasing, slowly, and that will have consequences, but there is another choice, and that is what we are debating today – adaptation.”

There are several errors in Frost’s argument, not least the fact that – thanks to the “unequivocal” influence of human activities – Earth is warming faster than at any point since the last ice age, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

On the costs and benefits of climate action, Frost noted estimates that cutting UK emissions to net zero would require significant investment of about 1-2% of GDP a year. Yet he conveniently forgot to mention studies looking at the negative economic effects of unmitigated climate breakdown.

It is more than 16 years since the Stern Review found that “the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting”. Recent reports have reached a similar conclusion.

The Office for Budget Responsibility, for example, concluded recently that: “Unmitigated climate change would ultimately have catastrophic economic and fiscal consequences.”

Frost may feel pretty nonchalant about the “perfectly manageable consequences of slowly rising temperatures”. But, meanwhile, the Earth experiences its hottest month on record and weather extremes hit each of the world’s seven continents.

• Simon Evans is the deputy editor and senior policy editor at Carbon Brief