Climate change: the warning was clear; the will was not
Summer heatwave used to mean lightweight clothes, long evenings, open windows. Summer was our favourite season — until it turned into something unrecognisable. We cling to the memory of what it was, even as we dread what it is becoming. The heat isn’t just weather anymore. It’s evidence. Cities are hells of fire, the air is unbreathable.
According to the WHO, the heatwave in Europe caused 1,300 deaths, with Germany hitting a record 41.7 °C.
A scorching heatwave in Europe is not a surprise. It is a confirmation — of every report that was read, every projection that was modelled, and every choice to put money first while the thermometer ran higher. A failure of political will — by leaders who repeatedly chose short-term economic interests over long-term climate action.
To the leaders who signed the Paris Agreement, who stood before cameras and promised to keep 1.5°C alive:
Recently, the Copernicus Climate Change Service released its European State of the Climate 2025 report. You should read it not as a scientific update, but as an indictment.
Europe is the fastest-warming continent on Earth. 2025 saw its second-most severe heatwave, record-high sea surface temperatures, and unprecedented wildfires. The Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as the global average. Greenland is losing ice at rates you were warned about forty years ago.
And where are we on the metrics that matter? Not moving in the right direction.
You celebrate renewables reaching 46.4% of electricity generation. It is genuine progress, but not enough. Markets, technological advances, and public demand have accelerated the transition, often despite hesitant political leadership. At the same time, governments continue to subsidise fossil fuels, approve new extraction projects, and postpone difficult decisions.
The scientists told you. The activists begged you. The youth marched. And you nodded, smiled, and did next to nothing.
The 2025 data is not an anomaly. It is the predictable outcome of your intentional inaction.
Do not ask us to celebrate half-measures. Do not ask us to call stagnation “progress.” The only honest conclusion is this: you knew, you had the power to act, and you chose not to. You leave the burden entirely on the people.
This summer, the headlines are telling us about another heatwave, another broken record, other tragedies. Europe is under the blaze.Widening inequalities. Workers who collapsed. Lives lost.
And as this summer heatwave burns, the silence of inaction is louder than the fire.
On writers, contemporary culture and the eye that judges — still patriarchy
A recent controversyinvolving Michele Mari, writer and Premio Strega finalist, made us reflect on a broader question: what does feminism today actually mean? Is it true liberation, or oftentimes patriarchy repackaged by women — or even fully digested — by women theselves?
The debate began after remarks attributed to Mari about Michela Murgia — the acclaimed Italian writer, Campiello Prize winner, unapologetic feminist, queer icon, and fierce critic of patriarchy.
He reportedly said:
“She was intransigent and violent because she was ugly — that was her way of letting out her rage.” “Through her aggressive behaviour, she made everyone else pay for her ugliness.” “Every woman who is unhappy and unloved turns spiteful.”
Mari has since disputed parts of the reporting, but the controversy itself reveals something worth examining. How quickly we still use a woman’s appearance to explain her ideas, her anger, or her public presence.
Of course, it’s a comment you wouldn’t expect from a writer of his calibre. Let alone a candidate for the prestigious Premio Strega. If culture and literary prestige cannot dismantle patriarchal thinking, then what can?
Our instinctive reaction is this: if the dominant aesthetic appeals to the male eye almost more than to the female one, we wouldn’t call that feminism.
That may sound provocative, but it touches on a central question in contemporary feminist thought. Feminism is not about conforming to patriarchal standards in order to gain visibility, approval, or power. It is about questioning those standards in the first place.
What does feminism today mean?
One of the defining questions of feminism today is whether women are becoming genuinely freer, or simply learning to navigate old power structures more successfully.
When we still discuss a woman’s value through the lens of attractiveness, desirability, or likability, the underlying hierarchy has not disappeared. It has merely changed its language.
Exposing false emancipation
An idea, or aesthetic, or even a form of empowerment, does not become subversive simply because women embrace it. Especially when, oddly enough, it remains more pleasing to the male gaze. That is not liberation; it is repackaging.
There is only a renegotiation of patriarchy.
Some scholars describe this phenomenon as “pop feminism” or commercial “post-feminism”: a version of empowerment that appears liberating while leaving existing power structures largely intact.
It sells — and its commercial success is often mistaken for social progress. We should also question who pulls the threads of that commercial success and market demands.
The theory of the male gaze
The controversy also recalls the work of feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey.
If the ultimate criterion of approval remains the male gaze, then men remain the subjects of the story while women remain its objects. Even when women believe they are acting freely and autonomously.
The question is not whether women make choices. The question is: who taught us what is desirable, acceptable, and worthy of admiration?
Distinguish feminism from performed femininity
Authentic feminism does not ask women to be pleasing to anyone but themselves.
Nor does it require them to conform to a prescribed ideal of beauty in order to be accepted into positions of influence, authority, or cultural legitimacy.
A woman should not need to be attractive in order to be heard, any more than she should need to be agreeable in order to be respected.
Final thoughts
Perhaps the most important distinction is this: feminism is not about giving women the same tools to compete in men’s games. It is about changing the rules of the game altogether.
That is why controversies such as this one matter. They remind us that, despite decades of progress, we still invoke a woman’s appearance to explain her character, her success, her failures, or even her convictions.
When that happens, we are forced to ask what feminism today really means.
If women are still judged through the lens of attractiveness, desirability, or conformity to a dominant aesthetic, then the rules of the game have not changed nearly as much as we like to believe.
The dominant gaze has simply become harder to recognise.
And if the final judgement still rests there, then it is not liberation.
Why one of the world’s most uncompromising climate scientists says our leaders have chosen to fail, and what we can actually do about it
Net zero is a scam. Kevin Anderson goes straight for the truth about climate change. There are plenty of climate scientists who soften the message. They talk about “pathways,” “transitions,” and “cautious optimism.” Kevin Anderson is not one of them.
Professor of Energy and Climate Change, working across the universities of Manchester, Uppsala in Sweden, and Bergen in Norway, he is one of the world’s leading climate scientists.
We refer to him and mention him from time to time. But here’s why we trust him more than almost anyone else: he is brutally direct and honest.
On the Rob Cooper podcast, shared also on Climate Uncensored (source of this post), Anderson laid out the situation in plain language. Here’s what he said.
The 3 numbers you need to understand climate change (straight from Anderson)
1. Temperatures are not small changes. We signed up to stop warming at 1.5°C or 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Those numbers sound tiny. We need to understand they are massive changes to our climate, they happen on a global scale.
2. Carbon budgets are just fossil fuel budgets. If we are not to exceed those temperatures, we know how much carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere. Those come from fossil fuels. We know exactly how many billion tons of CO₂ we can still emit. That tells us exactly how many fossil fuels we can burn – and therefore, how much time we have left.
3. The time frame is already broken. For 1.5°C: zero emissions by the early 2030s. That’s five years from now. For 2°C: zero emissions by 2045–2050. We have more leeway. This will happen only if we bring emissions down. But we’re not following the pathway to 1.5°C. We never were. Emissions are still rising.
We’re not going to achieve the 1.5°C target.
“Our leaders have chosen to fail on climate change; this is nothing new. Every single metric on climate change is pointing in the wrong direction.”
What “progress” actually looks like (spoiler: this isn’t it)
Every year, we add more renewables. Every year, we also add more fossil fuels. The climate does not care about renewables. It cares about the fossil fuel phase-out.
Anderson argues that, to stay within 1.5°C, we need 7–8% emissions cuts every single year, starting yesterday. Even then, he notes, avoiding major tipping points would require an element of luck.
We will move in the right direction when more renewables mean, at the same time, less fossil fuels. 2°C is not safe. We are not in a good place.
Lots of academics point to China as if it is progress. But it is not. Carbon dioxide builds up every year. So every year we fail to reduce emissions, the following year gets harder. The reductions we see in China are far from sufficient to deliver. Next year, the problem will be more challenging than this year.
“If the problem gets harder every single year, I don’t call that progress. Progress is only when you deliver what you need to. Let’s not put that as it is in line with our progress. It is not at all. Until we eliminate fossil fuels and the emissions from them, until we reduce the emissions from agriculture, temperatures will just keep going up. Reducing emissions doesn’t mean temperatures stay stable or go down; it means temperatures rise less quickly.”
Temperatures vs impacts
“We shouldn’t only talk about temperatures, we should talk about impacts because impacts are what impact people.”
1.5°, 2°, what are those? If the impacts come in five years, we’ll not have time to defend ourselves. If it happens in ten, we’ll have more time. But some of the impacts occur faster than we thought. That’s a real issue. Infrastructures were created for a specific climate; changing them is highly costly and time-consuming. But we have to do it.
People think we’re in a new normal. But we’re not, because one day will be new and the next one new again. Temperatures will only start to normalise when we stop emitting fossil fuels. Until that point, the climate will just keep changing.
The lie at the heart: net zero is a scam
The scientists are doing a fantastic job. The oil and gas industries know what is happening. Those at the top of these industries deliberately undermined the climate issue.
There is no climate science as such, he points out. It’s only physics and chemistry that explain the world around us.
Mitigation is about what we do to reduce emissions. There, says Anderson, we have increasingly been overoptimistic, which has started to lie. We have been telling untruths for at least two decades on climate change. And that’s because the analysis that we do doesn’t fit with a particular political framing of the world.
And every year we fail to deliver on climate change, the level of the lies increases. Some say we can’t take away hope or instil fear.
But our job is to say it how it is. There is a global delusion around this. And it goes much deeper than that. If you want to get funding, economic growth, and net-zero 2050, it has to fit a political agenda.
Policymakers put pressure on the chain, on journalists and so on, so the whole system is delusional. People should use common sense. And just do the maths.
Many academics believe in their own delusion, so it is easier to make other people believe in this. We need to start with a sense of integrity.
On climate change, we desperately need new ways of thinking; people of my age have totally failed. We need new perspectives.
Climate change is colonial (and no, we’re not all in this together)
For Anderson, climate change is not only a scientific issue. It is also a question of historical responsibility and global justice. This is one of Anderson’s most uncomfortable – and most important – points.
The UK, US and wealthy nations built their prosperity on slavery, stolen minerals and cheap labour. Now they’re doing the same with the carbon budget.
Today, we are still embedded in the legacy of colonial history. We can’t do anything about the past, but we should at least recognise it. And what we shouldn’t do is perpetuate it. There is a responsibility: our prosperity has been built on the backs of others.
Now, in the UK, people have more per capita carbon budget we can burn compared to other poor countries. There is a disproportionate share.
“We took their labour as slaves, we stole their minerals, and now we’re stealing their carbon budget.”
The UK (all wealthy nations) is perpetuating colonialism. We need to question that. Here’s the connection with climate change.
The second part is that we’re not all in this together. There are people locked in their conditions; there’s nothing they can do.
Poor countries cannot afford to cut further. There are people who need to have higher carbon emissions. The richest 1% of emitters globally produce twice the emissions of the bottom half of humanity combined.
“We need to switch from production to the rich to production for the public infrastructure. We need to move the skills to do good things for society. At the moment, we have private luxury for a minority (a big minority), and public squander for everyone else.”
He is also critical of the “cost-of-living crisis” framing.
“There’s no cost-of-living crisis, it happens for those who benefit from it.”
For high-emitting, high-income households, responding to climate change would mean paying more. So they pretend we’re all in this together. Because they want to put the cost on the average household.
“It’s easy to point to the billionaires, as soon as they go to Mars the better, but it’s actually us as well. If this discussion is not heard, it’s because we are in the group of disproportionate use.”
What actually gives Kevin Anderson hope?
Not techno-optimism. Not net-zero pledges.
Hope, for him, lives in action – specifically, in honest, humble dialogue.
People talking at a bar. Schoolkids discussing worthwhile things. Communities deciding what a good life looks like, not just an efficient economy. Humility, if something is wrong, admit it and go on. He mentions Greta Thunberg explicitly: people of his generation have failed, he says. New perspectives are desperately needed.
“Don’t expect experts to solve this. Change comes bottom-up. Talk with integrity. Leave yourself open to views that feel uncomfortable.”
10 words on a billboard? He said no words.
Impactful images. Local meaning. Tailor the issue to the place and identity.
“Most people are good. Play to shared values, not fear.”
We don’t have to fall into the individualistic model, fighting and competing with each other; we need to value our community. Temperature and metrics are very helpful. To get people on board, we have to go from global to local and see what impacts locally.
What you can actually do (from Anderson’s closing advice)
If net zero is a scam, what can we actually do?
Don’t look for heroes in high places. Policymakers, most academics, and the media are trapped in the same delusion.
Use common sense. And do the maths yourself. The numbers don’t lie.
Have honest conversations. Ask: What is a good world? What is a good life? What is a good community?
Realise you might be the agent of change. Not a politician. Not a celebrity. You, talking to people around you.
A final thought
Net zero is a scam, Kevin Anderson argues. The system is not broken. It is working exactly as designed – for the minority who emit the most.
Change starts when the rest of us stop asking for permission and start talking honestly about what kind of world we actually want.
—
Want to hear it directly? Here is the interview with Kevin Anderson on Climate Uncensored, or on the Rob Cooper podcast.
When institutions turn to social media virality to promote environmental awareness
On June 5, to celebrate World Environment Day, the UN Environment Programme suggested the following:
“Film a short, repeatable dance, post it on social media, and challenge your network. Join the #NowForClimate dance challenge.”
That’s a direct quote from a UNEP newsletter. It’s not a joke. (UNEP’s “Your May Briefing: What to know ahead of World Environment Day, latest on buildings and construction, and more” newsletter, May 25, 2026).
It’s hard to see what dancing has to do with slowing climate change — other than chasing social media virality, that is. Perhaps the UNEP believes people need hope to engage with climate change, which can otherwise feel like a distant, scientific, or political issue that doesn’t invite real personal involvement.
So let’s set aside the dance challenge and unpack the solutions the UNEP actually names as “reasons for hope.”
World Environment Day – the report
According to scientists, the Earth is on track to exceed a critical global warming threshold within the next ten years, pushing the planet closer to a full-scale climate disaster.
But there’s a silver lining.
A recent UNEP report highlights that several low-carbon innovations — such as renewable energy — are nearing their own tipping points, where they could rapidly become the norm. These shifts might help humanity move beyond fossil fuels in certain sectors and significantly cut the greenhouse gas emissions fueling climate change.
The report, titled Cheaper. Cleaner. Unstoppable. Clean technologies that are delivering for the Climate, notes that these tipping points are not a sure thing. They depend on consistent and long-term policies, financial backing, and public buy-in to reach their full potential. Still, their growing momentum offers hope to those on the front lines of the climate fight — because once advancements hit a critical threshold, they can begin to fuel themselves.
UNEP and the five areas to watch
As mentioned in the new UNEP report, five sectors show promising signs of progress:
1. Renewable energy – Now the cheapest option in most places. Solar power costs less than new coal or gas plants, driving over $450 billion in global energy investment in 2024. Renewables have supplied more than 75% of new power capacity since 2020, with solar and wind leading the charge.
2. Electric vehicles (EVs) – accounting for more than a quarter of global new car sales in 2025, up from less than 3% in 2019. Norway, China, and Ethiopia (where EVs make up 60% of new sales) are leading the way. Electric buses, delivery vans, and two- or three-wheelers are also expanding rapidly in low- and middle-income countries, bringing cleaner air, lower fuel costs, and reduced oil dependence.
3. Smarter buildings – A “passive-first” design using shade, insulation, and reflective materials can lower indoor temperatures by up to 9°C, reducing or eliminating the need for air conditioning. Combined with green spaces, this could cut urban emissions by 25% while improving health and air quality.
4. Heat pumps – These energy-efficient systems heat and cool buildings using far less energy than conventional methods. Already popular in Northern Europe, they are critical for fast-growing cities in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, where cooling demand is set to soar.
5. Cutting food waste – Food waste accounts for up to 10% of global emissions. Cities like Bangkok, Rio de Janeiro, and Yokohama are piloting financial incentives, awareness campaigns, and food redistribution programs that could be scaled worldwide. When paired with greater food awareness, more advanced tracking systems, and technologies that link extra food to buyers, these efforts could meaningfully cut food waste and create more sustainable food systems.
Final thoughts
So for World Environment Day, the UN Environment Programme invited people and activists to share a dance on social media. But is this really the strategy we need?
We understand marketing. We understand the need for public engagement. But has any viral dance challenge ever deepened someone’s commitment to climate action? Or did it just grow a few follower counts?
The UNEP’s “reasons for hope” deserve a harder look — the kind climate scientist Kevin Anderson urges. He warns against “hopium“: the belief that tech breakthroughs alone will save us, without hard changes to lifestyles and economic structures.
Yes, renewable energy, electric vehicles, heat pumps, and better buildings are all part of the solution. But the UNEP report still encourages readers to place significant hope in the possibility of technological tipping points. That framing conveniently avoids the harder truths. Here’s what it leaves out:
1. Technology is not a substitute for demand reduction. Renewables are growing, but so is overall energy use.
2. These tipping points depend on political will that is currently absent. Good policies and funding remain the exception, not the rule.
3. Hope without honesty is dangerous. Climate scientists and institutions have a duty to tell the public how bad things really are — not to soften the message with silver linings. The UNEP admits we’ll likely pass 1.5°C this decade — that would be catastrophic. Listing a few optimistic trends does not erase that reality.
The UNEP means well. But meaning well is not the same as leading well. And turning climate action into a viral trend risks reducing the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced to little more than entertainment.
So skip the dance. Let’s talk about what we need to stop doing — not just what we can keep doing, slightly cleaner. Real climate action is not only about cleaner technologies. It is about consumption, growth, and the activities we may need to reduce or abandon altogether.
For designers like Marc Le Bihan, what validates a brand — revival, or understanding of the work?
The 90s are back — it’s official. Slip dresses, shredded hems, dark romance, and liquid fabrics are resurfacing on runways and mood boards. And so, a number of established boutiques are rediscovering names like Marc Le Bihan— as if pulling a forgotten treasure from a time capsule.
We’ve noticed. And we’re glad. But here’s the thing: we carry Marc Le Bihan — like every brand in our selection — not because of the trend.
We carry certain brands because we understand the craft. The good design.
Before the algorithm, there was the work
Long before “quiet luxury” and “dark minimalism” became hashtags, Marc Le Bihan was hand-dyeing cotton and silk, shredding layers of gauze, and stitching dresses that moved like shadows. His work has always existed slightly outside of time — needing no seasonal validation, no viral moment.
We first added his pieces because of the texture, the weight, the way a garment falls. Even after years of wear. Not because a trend forecaster told us to.
There is a sense of timelessness in his designs that almost collides with a sudden hype.
The difference between revival and understanding the craft
Trends rediscover. High-end craft stays.
A revival says: this is interesting again. Understanding the craft says: this has always been good.
When the 90s cycle passes again (and it will), most boutiques will move on to the next decade’s revival. We still appreciate Marc Le Bihan. Not out of stubbornness. Out of respect for work that doesn’t expire.
We’ve argued this before. In 2023, we wrote about the end of trend-based items — how seasonal trends were losing relevance in favour of timeless style. But the fashion industry, which talks so much about change, has never actually distanced itself from its own lexicon, has never truly escaped its own trend cycle.
Perhaps trends might bring attention to beautiful things that deserve a wider audience. If the 90s revival leads more people to discover Marc Le Bihan’s couture, that’s a wonderful thing.
But we don’t wait for permission to love something. And we don’t let a calendar tell us when a designer is “relevant again.”
Final thoughts
The current interest in Marc Le Bihan may be trend-driven for some. But the work itself was never a trend. It is the result of a decades-long commitment to craft.
Yes, the 90s are officially back. So come for the revival if you like. Stay for the hand-frayed edges, the slip dresses that feel like a second skin. For pieces that now might appeal to you because you see them in all the fashion magazines. That’s fine. You’re still welcome.
But know this: the pieces you find here weren’t added because someone declared them relevant again. They were added because they represent something lasting — thoughtful design, exceptional craftsmanship, and a distinct point of view. Timelessness.
And because we don’t need a revival to believe in great work.
