<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Lawson, Euan</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Climate Change Action and Individual Responsibility</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">British Journal of General Practice</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021-10-01 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">435-435</style></pages><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.3399/bjgp21X717377</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">71</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">711</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Euan LawsonThis month’s editorial on climate change, which is being published simultaneously in over 200 health journals, calls for emergency action to limit global temperature increases. As the editorial states, there seems to be a growing resignation in some quarters that a rise of 1.5°C is ‘inevitable, or even acceptable, to powerful members of the global community’. There is no ‘safe’ rise in temperature and there will be serious global health impacts with the most vulnerable experiencing disproportionate harm. This dull resignation, this ‘doomism’ is blunting the response needed, risking much greater temperature rises, and the spectre of tipping points …</style></abstract></record></records></xml>