World Cup finalists South Africa have rested all-rounder Marizanne Kapp for their upcoming T20 series with England.
The Proteas are set to host Heather Knight’s side from 24 November for ODI and T20 series, each comprising three matches, followed by a one-off Test match.
Kapp, 34, will return for the 50-over matches, while a squad for the Test will be named at a later date.
The T20 series is South Africa’s first outing since they lost the World Cup final to New Zealand last month, and their selectors have added all-rounders Eliz-Mari Marx and Nondumiso Shangase, and batter Faye Tunnicliffe, to their tournament squad.
Seamer Ayabonga Khaka has also been rested, all-rounder Seshnie Naidu will miss the series for school exams, while wicketkeeper Mieke de Ridder has been omitted.
It will be England’s first series since they were eliminated from the World Cup in the group stage, and the tourists have dropped all-rounder Alice Capsey for the Test and T20 legs of the tour.
She has been replaced by batter Paige Scholfield, who will be in contention for a third T20 cap in the series opener in East London – on the south-eastern coast of South Africa.
Bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice were used to estimate past temperatures
aldiami/Andreas Alexander/Alamy
Humans have already caused approximately 1.5°C of warming since the start of the industrial revolution, according to new estimates based on temperature data gleaned from bubbles of air trapped in ice.
Measurements of human-caused global warming generally use the period from 1850 to 1900 as the pre-industrial baseline, since this is when temperature records began. 2024 is almost certain to be the first year where average temperatures rose more than 1.5°C above this baseline. This data for a single year is influenced by naturally occurring factors such as a strong El Niño event, which pushed up global temperatures.
Once this natural variability is removed, scientists think humanity alone has caused 1.31°C of warming since the industrial revolution. But by 1850, the industrial revolution was already well under way, with fossil fuel-powered engines in use around the world.
Andrew Jarvis at Lancaster University and Piers Forster at the University of Leeds, both in the UK, set out to establish a new pre-industrial baseline using data from Antarctic ice core samples. The duo analysed the composition of air bubbles trapped in ice cores to establish the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere during the period from AD 13 to 1700, before humans had any meaningful impact on atmospheric temperatures. They then used this CO2 data to establish global mean temperatures during the same period, assuming a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature increase.
Using this new pre-1700 baseline, humanity had caused 1.49°C of warming by 2023, meaning the 1.5°C level “has now in effect been reached”, the team write in a paper reporting the findings. “We have provided a new, scientifically defensible way of coming up with a pre-industrial baseline against which we are measuring the warming,” Jarvis told reporters in a press briefing.
Jarvis says the new method can also help reduce uncertainty around temperature estimates based on the current 1850-1900 baseline, which is used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Using ice core data to establish the 1850-1900 baseline, the team says humans have caused 1.31°C of warming. That is in line with existing central estimates, but with a vastly reduced uncertainty range, the team points out.
“The problem with just looking at surface temperature observations is that the further back in time you go, they become more uncertain,” says Forster. “We can be far more certain than before that we are currently at about 1.3°C.”
Jarvis and Forster hope their new method will be adopted by scientists and policy-makers as the main way of judging humanity’s progress against global climate goals. “I do think there is still scope for the policy community and the science community to rethink the pre-industrial baseline,” said Jarvis. “We know that there is warming baked into the 1850-1900 estimate, simply because that is not the beginning of the industrial revolution. We are offering a way out there, to a much more scientifically secure baseline to operate from.”
However, the new method may not be future-proof. The linear relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures may falter as climate change advances, for example if we trigger so-called tipping points in Earth systems that cause a cascade of warming events.
The new method also doesn’t change the climate change effects being felt on the ground, says Forster. “The impacts today we are experiencing – of people being killed in Spain and by these hurricanes – the impacts are exactly the same if you call that 1.3°C above pre-industrial levels or if you call that 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. The impacts are the impacts.”
Richard Betts at the Met Office, the UK’s weather service, says the new method “provides a clear and simple way to give up-to-date estimates of the current level of human-induced global warming”. That is, in part, because it is able to produce a “real time” estimate for human-driven warming rather than relying on a rolling 10-year average like current estimates.
He says the method will be useful to provide a more up-to-date picture of the current level of warming for policy-makers, but warned that changing the baseline used in assessments could be seen as “moving the goalposts” for climate action. “Even without changing the baseline, it’s clear that current warming is much closer to 1.5°C than expected from using an out-of-date, 10-year average,” he says.
Sleightholme, 24, came on as a replacement and scored twice in the second half to register his first two international tries.
Marcus Smith’s touchline conversion from the Northampton wing’s second try put England into a 30-28 lead heading into the final 10 minutes.
However, two Wallaby tries – either side of Itoje’s 78th-minute score – saw Australia register only their second win against England in their past 12 meetings.
The frantic finale also prevented a dream first game at Allianz Stadium for Sleightholme, who won his third cap on Saturday.
“It was nice to score but it doesn’t mean anything if you don’t win,” he added.
It is the fourth game in five matches that Borthwick’s side have fallen on the wrong side of the final play, following two close Tests against the All Blacks in July and a 33-31 defeat by France in their final game of this year’s Six Nations.
On Saturday, England will face world champions South Africa, who defeated Scotland in their opening match of the autumn on Sunday.
“We’re testing fans’ patience, testing our patience,” admitted England number eight Ben Earl. “It feels like we won the game twice against Australia and then managed to lose it. Frustrating.
“Not the same old problems, different problems, but the same overwhelming feeling of another game that we’ve let slip. So food for thought.”
You’re probably used to politicians telling you we’re living in the most dangerous times for decades.
But who’s going to pay for our protection?
Donald Trump is a lot less willing than the current president to pay for other countries’ defence.
As one UK source told me, “it doesn’t make sense for Europe’s defence interests to be dependent on a few thousand votes in Pennsylvania.”
So Trump’s return puts this question right to the top of the list.
The UK government does plan, eventually, to hit the target the Conservatives committed to – of spending 2.5% of the size of the economy on defence, a level last hit back in 2010.
But there’s a defence review underway, and a spending review of every penny spent in Whitehall to get through first.
They’re expected to come one after the other, next spring.
John Healey, the defence secretary, was granted an extra £3bn in the Budget, which is a chunky sum of money – but in terms of defence spending, not a transformative amount of cash.
And it’s only a top-up for a year, with no certainty over long-term funding.
A former minister said: “It’s very hard to order for the years ahead – how long can we be talking, when the need is now?”
Getty Images
Pictured with Defence Secretary John Healey (R), Rachel Reeves pledged nearly £3bn in additional funding for the military
The government will not say when they expect to hit the 2.5% target – and won’t commit to hitting it before the end of the Parliament in 2029 – causing frustration in some quarters.
A senior source said “you either believe it is the most dangerous time in decades and you fund it properly, or you just don’t really believe it, so you don’t.”
And earlier on the Today programme, former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace accused Labour of making an effective “cut in our defence budget” by including £3bn of Ukraine funding in it.
If Labour reach the 2.5% target, he said he’d welcome it, “but it’s got to be real money with a timetable”.
There is little disagreement that more resources are needed.
John Healey himself has acknowledged the military “have not been ready to fight”. A squeeze on funding over many years had made money tight – the forces “hollowed out”, according to Wallace.
The UK’s support for Ukraine, which has almost universal political support at home, has added to pressure.
According to the National Audit Office, the UK has committed nearly £8 billion to Ukraine – air defence missiles, drones, cruise missiles, tanks and ships, as well as clothing and personal equipment.
Another former minister told me that funding “is absolutely urgent – it is urgent to help Ukraine but the most urgent is where our forces are in danger – it’s not hypothetical, in the Red Sea the Houthis are firing at our ships.”
And shortly before the election, the government’s new national security adviser Jonathan Powell wrote that a new administration would need to reinforce the UK’s defence and security “within the bounds allowed by a struggling economy”.
Some insiders argue rising threats around the world mean the UK should spend way more than 2.5% in any case.
Another former minister told me, “by any measure we are underspending – if you don’t buy the insurance policy you end up having to pay yourself and the cost of real conflicts would be immense in comparison”.
A defence source told me, “we are going to have to make a move on spending or we can put our fingers in our ears and hope we get through it – the Treasury has to do the maths on this – the way to stop spending 5 percent of GDP in the future is to spend now.”
Getty Images
Kemi Badenoch criticised Keir Starmer during PMQs for not committing to a defence spending target of 2.5% of GDP by 2030
How it’s spent
But it’s not just about how much money goes to defence – it’s also about how it’s spent.
Recent history is littered with examples of Ministry of Defence projects that overrun and overspend, some in eye-watering proportions.
One insider told me, “the worst thing we could do is spend more and spend it badly … the number needs to go up but we absolutely need to get a proper grip of procurement.”
Several sources mentioned with some pride, and indeed surprise, the way the MoD had worked effectively and quickly with Ukraine to get the right kit into their hands quickly.
One said the MoD had “proved it can spend cash well but it needs to show it can do it consistently”.
Another said the British military had to shed its culture where “only the most exquisitely perfect products may be bought”.
The MoD reckons it can crack down on waste and improve the way things are bought and paid for with new more centralised methods – even hiring a new national armaments director to manage this.
As methods of warfare evolve on the battlefield, so too do the ways militaries respond with kit.
A former minister said: “forget your big new fantasy regiment – we can make what we have more lethal” instead.
The government says it wants to shake up and sort out the mess that defence procurement has become. But there is no doubt that is easier said than done.
Power era
While as a political party, Labour is instinctively uncomfortable with Donald Trump’s re-election, when it comes to defence there is some sympathy with his attitude towards European defence funding.
One insider said, “put on your incontinence pants, don’t listen to the rest of his politics, it’s none of our business.”
Another source told me, “Trump set a challenge to Europe last time and he was in part right to,” pointing out that after his term in office the number of Nato countries which hit the target of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence did go up.
Twenty-three now meet the 2% target, up from just six countries in 2021.
Rather than worrying about what Trump might do in office, they said, “a precondition for Trump to take European defence seriously is for Europe to take its own defence seriously.”
It’s hard to see how that does not mean more countries on the continent spending more of their own cash.
“Let’s not kid ourselves, Nato does deter Russia, and we have to make sure that happens,” said a defence source.
America’s role in our security is vital. But sources in government acknowledge that Europe, with conflict on its fringes, must play a vigorous financial part.
Eager to be seen as the leader in Nato, the UK is taking steps to boost defence cooperation across the continent – leaders recently signed a “landmark defence agreement” with Germany.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House sets nerves jangling across the Atlantic about what it will mean for Nato, what it will mean for the US committment to support for Ukraine in terms of diplomacy and cold hard cash.
There is instinctive political unease here with his behaviour, his attitude to the law, convention, and the truth. But perhaps in the words of one source “it’s not a rule of law era, it’s a power era”.
Before the Trump victory, there were already profound questions for our politicians about how they protect our interests.
The imperative to answer them is stronger now the unpredictable president is on his way back.
Perhaps the UK and the rest of Europe may need to display and pay for more of its own power to have a chance of getting the Trump White House on board.
BBC InDepth is the new home on the website and app for the best analysis and expertise from our top journalists. Under a distinctive new brand, we’ll bring you fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions, and deep reporting on the biggest issues to help you make sense of a complex world. And we’ll be showcasing thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. We’re starting small but thinking big, and we want to know what you think – you can send us your feedback by clicking on the button below.
This request seems a bit unusual, so we need to confirm that you’re human. Please press and hold the button until it turns completely green. Thank you for your cooperation!
Press and hold the button
If you believe this is an error, please contact our support team.
