When London’s hospital systems failed, environmental risks became real

Until now the environmental focus has been predominantly on mitigation cutting emissions to prevent future harm. This remains essential. But as the realities of extreme weather events become more immediate and visible, the debate is shifting. Increasingly, attention is turning to resilience: how we prepare for, withstand and recover from the impacts that are no longer hypothetical.

The reason for this shift is straightforward. Extreme weather events do not unfold gradually or abstractly. They are sudden, disruptive, and tangible. They collapse the distance between future risk and present reality, giving people a visceral understanding of what climate change means in practice.

I saw this first-hand at a Greater London Authority event where I was speaking. In July 2022, as temperatures in the UK exceeded 40°C for the first time on record, critical healthcare infrastructure in London proved alarmingly fragile. IT systems at Barts Health NHS Trust and Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust failed when data centres overheated. Hospitals were forced to cancel appointments and revert to paper records.

This was not a theoretical stress test. It was a real-time systems failure in one of the world’s most advanced cities. And it forced those institutions to confront a new reality: that climate risk is operational risk. Their reassessment of IT strategy now factoring in extreme heat and flooding is a signal of the broader shift that must follow.

The urgency of this issue is no longer confined to environmental circles. It is now firmly on the radar of the national security community. The Joint Intelligence Committee, which provides the UK Government’s most authoritative intelligence assessments, recently examined the implications of “Global Biodiversity Loss, Ecosystem Collapse and National Security.” Its conclusion is stark: ecological breakdown is not linear. It is characterised by tipping points, beyond which systems fail rapidly and unpredictably.

The consequences of such failures are profound, destabilised food and water systems, price shocks, supply chain disruption, and heightened risks of conflict. In other words, environmental breakdown is not simply an ecological issue; it is a systemic threat to economic and geopolitical stability.

Yet policymakers remain behind the curve. The UK’s independent Climate Change Committee has been clear that current adaptation efforts are inadequate, targets are too weak and delivery mechanisms are not fit for purpose. There is a persistent gap between the scale of the risk and the scale of the response.

There are, however, signs of progress. New initiatives are beginning to emerge in recognition of the challenge. The establishment of an independent National Heat Risk Commission reflects growing concern about rising temperatures, particularly following research suggesting that the number of extreme heat days could increase by as much as 150% by the 2050s. The London Resilience Plan is bringing together over 170 organisations, while the UK Government has introduced a National Resilience Framework.

These are important steps. But they are not yet commensurate with the scale or urgency of the threat.

What is becoming clear is that we are no longer preparing for a distant future scenario. We are living through the early stages of what scientists have warned about for decades and we are not ready.

Responding effectively will require a fundamental shift in how we think about resilience.

First, national resilience must be treated as a non-political imperative. The risks we face do not respect ideological boundaries, and neither can the response. This must be an area of sustained, cross-party consensus.

Second, there must be greater honesty about the scale of the challenge. The language of gradual transition no longer reflects the reality of accelerating risk. A stronger sense of urgency is needed—one that is grounded in evidence but communicated with clarity.

Third, this is a systemic crisis. It cannot be addressed by government alone. It requires coordinated action across public institutions, private sector organisations, and civil society.

Fourth, the impacts will not be evenly distributed. The most vulnerable communities will bear the greatest burden, despite having contributed least to the problem. Resilience planning must therefore be inclusive ensuring that those at greatest risk are informed, supported, and actively involved in shaping solutions.

Finally, this is a global challenge with far-reaching consequences. Environmental stress will drive migration, exacerbate instability, and reshape international relations. Governments must recognise this and align resources accordingly.

The shift from mitigation to resilience is not a retreat from climate ambition it is an acknowledgement of reality. The question is no longer whether we can prevent all impacts, but whether we are prepared to live with those we cannot avoid.

The true test of leadership in the coming decade will not be measured solely by emissions targets, but by whether societies can continue to function under stress—whether hospitals stay open, infrastructure holds, supply chains endure, and communities remain cohesive in the face of disruption.

Resilience is no longer a technical add-on to climate policy. It is the foundation of economic stability, national security, and social cohesion in a warming world. The sooner we treat it that way, the better our chances of navigating what lies ahead.