Insurance, property and coastal planning collide with injustice as climate risk rises in Australia - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Insurance premiums are rising across many regions in Australia.[8] Affordability and availability of home insurance has become a national concern.[4] Government measures such as reinsurance pools have helped but limits remain.[3] Coastal planning faces growing pressure from sea level rise and legacy decisions.[10] Vulnerable and low income communities bear a disproportionate share of risk.[2] Regulators and insurers are expanding climate risk analysis to 2050 and beyond.[1]

Australia faces a fast growing convergence of insurance stress, property risk and constrained coastal planning as climate hazards intensify.

Increasing premiums and the emergence of uninsurable areas are driving some households to self-insure or leave the market, creating cascading financial risks.

Governments and regulators acknowledge the problem and are expanding climate vulnerability assessments to project affordability and risk through to 2050.

At the same time, planning systems and legacy development on the coast are exposing communities to sea level rise and compounding hazards, while reform efforts collide with political and economic pressures.

Evidence shows that socio-economically disadvantaged communities and renters suffer a disproportionate share of flood, heat and insurance harm.

Insurers, industry groups and consumer regulators say interventions such as reinsurance pools and clearer disclosure have eased some immediate pressure, but structural challenges remain.

The unfolding policy choice is stark: accept concentrated social harm and declining coverage, or use targeted public policy and planning to spread risk and protect the most vulnerable.

Rising premiums and shrinking cover

Insurers and industry observers report a steady increase in household premiums in many parts of the country as extreme weather events become more frequent and severe.^[8]

Independent monitoring by the ACCC found that policy interventions such as a cyclone reinsurance pool have moderated some price pressure, but premiums remain elevated in high exposure areas.^[3]

Industry data show that catastrophic events and rising claims costs are the principal drivers of higher prices rather than isolated market failure.^[7]

Affordability and availability as social risks

Research and reporting indicate that a growing number of households face insurance stress, with some regions recording significantly higher average premiums than the national mean.^[4]

Where premiums become unaffordable, households either reduce cover, delay repairs or gamble on self insurance, amplifying long term financial vulnerability.

Analyses by the Insurance Council and others have flagged a correlation between flood risk and socioeconomic disadvantage, meaning those with the least resources are often most exposed.^[2]

Regulation, disclosure and forward modelling

Prudential regulators have broadened their expectations for climate risk analysis, asking insurers and financial institutions to disclose and stress test exposures over multi-decadal horizons.^[1]

The Insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment and related programs aim to make future affordability scenarios visible to policymakers and the public.

Those assessments inform whether market interventions, targeted subsidies or changes to building and land-use rules are required to prevent market withdrawal in high risk zones.^[3]

Coastal planning and legacy development

National risk work and state planning reviews warn that legacy development in low lying coastal areas increases exposure to future sea level rise and storm surge hazards.^[10]

Planning reform proposals seek to balance property rights, economic growth and risk reduction, but reform paths often face resistance from landowners and local politics.^[5]

Engineering and adaptation guidance has highlighted the need for integrated coastal risk management, rather than ad hoc decision making in the aftermath of disasters.^[17]

Compounding disasters and inequality

Reports from insurers and hazard agencies show that repeated and compounding disasters leave communities in fragile recovery cycles, deepening disadvantage for those with few reserves.^[6]

First Nations, renters and low income households often have less capacity to relocate, adapt or access credit, making social justice a central issue in climate adaptation policy.

Advocates call for policies that prioritise equity, such as targeted financial support, social housing upgrades and location-specific mitigation investments.^[2]

Market responses and policy options

Industry and consumer bodies propose a mix of options including clearer risk disclosure at point of sale, incentives for risk reduction, and targeted public reinsurance where private markets retreat.^[7]

Some investor and civil society groups also press insurers to phase out underwriting of high emissions projects that deepen systemic risk, arguing that underwriting policy must align with long term climate objectives.^[41]

Policymakers must weigh the fiscal cost of subsidising coverage against the social cost of concentrated, uninsured losses.

What vulnerable communities need

Evidence supports a targeted strategy: strengthen local adaptation, improve building standards, provide short term financial relief after disasters and create managed retreat options where risks are unacceptable.^[16]

Transparent planning, equitable funding and long horizon modelling are essential to prevent the social harms of unmanaged insurance withdrawal.

Conclusion

Australia stands at the intersection of insurance market pressure, exposed property and contested coastal planning, with the poorest households at greatest risk.

Regulators, insurers and governments are beginning to align analysis and policy, but the scale of the problem requires decisive, equity centred choices now.

References

1. Insurance climate vulnerability assessment — Australian Prudential Regulation Authority
2. Insurance Catastrophe Resilience Report 2024–25 — Insurance Council of Australia
3. Insurance monitoring report July 2025 — Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
4. Australian homeowners struggling to afford insurance as climate risks grow, report says — Reuters
5. 2024 Annual Progress Report — Climate Change Authority
6. Annual Progress Report 2024–25 — Natural Hazards Research
7. Australia's insurance industry snapshot 2025 — Insurance Council of Australia
8. Climate change increasingly contributing to home insurance pressure, IAG warns — ABC News
9. Escalating climate risks for Aussie homes — Climate Council / Climate Valuation 2025
10. Australia's National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan — Grant Thornton summary
11. Sea level rise science for adaptation and engineering needs — Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
12. Ethical super fund says QBE 'not joining the dots' between fossil fuel projects and rising premiums — The Guardian

Back to Top

Climate Change: The Defining Issue of our Time - The United Nations

United Nations

A view of the high Norwegian Arctic in 2015. There is alarming evidence that important tipping points, leading to irreversible changes in major ecosystems and the planetary climate system, may already have been reached or passed. UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

Climate Change is the defining issue of our time and we are at a defining moment. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food production, to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and unprecedented in scale. Without drastic action today, adapting to these impacts in the future will be more difficult and costly.

 

The Human Fingerprint on Greenhouse Gases

Climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. Such shifts can be natural, due to changes in the sun’s activity or large volcanic eruptions. But since the 1800s, human activities have been the main driver of climate change, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.

Burning fossil fuels generates greenhouse gas emissions that act like a blanket wrapped around the Earth, trapping the sun’s heat and raising temperatures.

There are some basic well-established scientific links:

• The concentration of GHGs in the earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the average global temperature on Earth;
• The concentration has been rising steadily, and mean global temperatures along with it, since the time of the Industrial Revolution;
• The most abundant GHG, accounting for about two-thirds of GHGs, carbon dioxide (CO₂), is largely the product of burning fossil fuels.

The new Emissions Gas Report by the UN Environment Programme finds that there has been progress since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. Greenhouse gas emissions in 2030, based on policies in place, were projected to increase by 16 percent at the time of the agreement’s adoption. Today, the projected increase is 3 per cent. However, predicted 2030 greenhouse gas emissions still must fall by 28 per cent for the Paris Agreement 2°C pathway and 42 per cent for the 1.5°C pathway.

Climate-driven food and water insecurity is expected to grow

Global warming of 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels has been caused by over a century of burning fossil fuels and unequal, unsustainable energy and land use. This has led to an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, which have caused dangerous impacts on nature and people worldwide.

Each increment of warming results in rapidly escalating hazards, such as more intense heatwaves, heavier rainfall, and other weather extremes that increase risks for human health and ecosystems. Climate-driven food and water insecurity is expected to increase with increased warming. When these risks combine with other adverse events, such as pandemics or conflicts, they become even more difficult to manage.

To close the gap between existing adaptation and what is needed, accelerated action to adapt to climate change is essential in this decade. Keeping warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels requires deep, rapid, and sustained greenhouse gas emissions reductions in all sectors. Emissions should be decreasing by now and will need to be cut by almost half by 2030 if warming is to be limited to 1.5°C

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and United Nations Environment to provide an objective source of scientific information.

Sixth Assessment Report

According to the Synthesis Report of the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, there are multiple, feasible, and effective options to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to human-caused climate change, and they are available now. The IPCC proposes adopting a “climate-resilient development” that involves integrating measures to adapt to climate change with actions to reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions in ways that provide wider benefits.

For instance, access to clean energy and technologies can improve health, especially for women and children. Low-carbon electrification, walking, cycling, and public transport can enhance air quality, improve health, employment opportunities, and deliver equity. Economic benefits for people’s health from air quality improvements alone would be roughly the same, or possibly even larger than the costs of reducing or avoiding emissions. 

Climate-resilient development becomes progressively more challenging with every increment of warming. Therefore, the choices made in the next few years will play a critical role in deciding the future of our planet and the generations to come.

To be effective, these choices need to be rooted in our diverse values, worldviews, and knowledges, including scientific knowledge, Indigenous Knowledge, and local knowledge. This approach will facilitate climate-resilient development and allow locally appropriate, socially acceptable solutions.

What we know based on the IPCC reports:

• It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.
• The scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole – and the present state of many aspects of the climate system – are unprecedented over many centuries to many thousands of years.
• Approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change.
• Vulnerability of ecosystems and people to climate change differs substantially among and within regions.
• If global warming transiently exceeds 1.5°C in the coming decades or later, then many human and natural systems will face additional severe risks, compared to remaining below 1.5°C.

Global Warming of 1.5°C

In October 2018 the IPCC issued a special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C, finding that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society. With clear benefits to people and natural ecosystems, the report found that limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society. While previous estimates focused on estimating the damage if average temperatures were to rise by 2°C, this report shows that many of the adverse impacts of climate change will come at the 1.5°C mark.

The report also highlights a number of climate change impacts that could be avoided by limiting global warming to 1.5ºC compared to 2ºC, or more. For instance, by 2100, global sea level rise would be 10 cm lower with global warming of 1.5°C compared with 2°C. The likelihood of an Arctic Ocean free of sea ice in summer would be once per century with global warming of 1.5°C, compared with at least once per decade with 2°C. Coral reefs would decline by 70-90 percent with global warming of 1.5°C, whereas virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with 2ºC.

The report finds that limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities. Global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050. This means that any remaining emissions would need to be balanced by removing CO2 from the air.

United Nations legal instruments:

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

The UN family is at the forefront of the effort to save our planet. In 1992, its “Earth Summit” produced the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as a first step in addressing the climate change problem. Today, it has near-universal membership. The 197 countries that have ratified the Convention are Parties to the Convention. The ultimate aim of the Convention is to prevent “dangerous” human interference with the climate system.

Kyoto Protocol

By 1995, countries launched negotiations to strengthen the global response to climate change, and, two years later, adopted the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol legally binds developed country Parties to emission reduction targets. The Protocol’s first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. The second commitment period began on 1 January 2013 and ended in 2020. There are now 198 Parties to the Convention and 192 Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

Paris Agreement

At the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris in 2015, Parties to the UNFCCC reached a landmark agreement to combat climate change and to accelerate and intensify the actions and investments needed for a sustainable low carbon future. The Paris Agreement builds upon the Convention and – for the first time – brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects, with enhanced support to assist developing countries to do so. As such, it charts a new course in the global climate effort.

The Paris Agreement’s central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping the global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

On Earth Day, 22 April 2016, 175 world leaders signed the Paris Agreement at United Nations Headquarters in New York. This was by far the largest number of countries ever to sign an international agreement on a single day. There are now 194 countries that have ratified the Paris Agreement.

Nobel Peace Prize

In 2007, the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to former United States Vice-President Al Gore and the IPCC "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

Resources

• UN Climate Action
• IPCC Sixth Assessment Report
• COP28
• Climate Ambition Summit 2023
• Sustainable Development Goal 13: Climate Action

Welcome to BunkerWorld: Home of the rich and fearful - Julian Cribb

Surviving the 21st Century - Julian Cribb 

 Welcome to BunkerWorld, the new planetary order of the terrified rich.

AUTHOR

Julian Cribb AM is an Australian science writer and author of seven books on the human existential emergency. His latest book is How to Fix a Broken Planet (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

As a seven-year-old, I snapped this shot of Hitler’s ruined bunker with my old Kodak Box Brownie. 

My father who, as an RAF Pathfinder, had devoted much of his young manhood to reducing Hitler’s dreams to rubble (including bombing his home at Berchtesgaden), took me into East Berlin (the ‘Soviet Sector’) to see what became of tyrants. 

This was three years before the Wall went up. It was an instructive trip.

Now, as I gaze about me from the tower of my 75 years, I see that bunkermania is alive and kicking, worldwide, as the world’s super wealthy tremble at the cataclysm they foresee all too clearly, lying ahead for all of us. The collapse of modern civilization.

Bunkers are hardly a novel idea. Farmers began fortifying their homesteads at least 5000+ years ago, when the Bronze Age afforded them good reason. And the world is littered with the decayed grandeur of a hundred thousand ancient fortresses, castles that could sometimes withstand armies - but not the siege of time or the march of history.

Yet the spirit that animated that age-old spate of fort-building – a potent amalgam of greed and fear – is alive and thriving in the new world dis-order that is emerging today.

In their polished arrogance and self-confidence, today’s billionaires and corporate oligarchs exhibit the entitlement of the born-to-rule. Inside, however, they are quaking. Viewing the world – as they tend to – through a narcissistic prism, they assume the rest of society is motivated by the same ugly impulses as themselves – greed, envy, pride, selfishness, aggression. And they are petrified that some may want to plunder their wealth or status, just as they plundered it from others.

So being very rich also means being very scared. It is a psychotic couplet. It is the cornerstone of BunkerWorld. Interviews with the super-rich reveal them to have three primary fears: health failure, family conflict and loss of wealth. The explosion in opulent fortification seeks to defy all three.

The Oppidum is a luxurious doomsday bunker in the Czech Republic mountains. Sprawling over 323,000 sq ft and it has 7 apartments, a golf course, helipad, a spa, swimming pool, underground garden, cinema, library, billiards room, conference and communication rooms, gym, a bar and wine cellar, hospital with dental surgery besides the necessary water, air, power and food. It features blast doors, layered defences and automated weapon systems.

Carved into a mountain in Rothenstein, Germany, Vivos Europa One covers 76 acres above and below ground. A repurposed Soviet nuclear bunker, it has 34 private suites each of 2,500 sq ft. These include kitchens, bedrooms, deluxe bathrooms, living and dining areas, swimming pool, theatre, gym, bar and wine cellar. Vivos is built to withstand nuclear, biological, and chemical threats to protect its privileged occupants.

The builder, Vivos, claims to have created 575 private bunkers in the US plus more in Germany and Asia. These “are engineered to withstand or mitigate just about everything from a pole shift, to super volcano eruptions, solar flares, earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, asteroid strikes, and manmade threats including nuclear explosions, a reactor meltdown, biological or chemical disasters, terrorism and even widespread anarchy,” it asserts.

The Survival Condo in Kansas, USA, is an underground bunker that was built from a repurposed Cold War missile silo. It has fifteen stories accommodating penthouses, an indoor dog walk, a shooting range, a rock-climbing wall, a swimming beach, a water park, a library, a theatre, a bar, a fitness centre, a first aid facility and a command centre. It is built to withstand a nuclear strike of more than 2 megatons.

Aerie bunker. Picture credit SAFE

Construction company SAFE (Strategically Armoured and Fortified Environments) is said to be completing a US$300 million luxury bunker, ‘Aerie’, where 625 elite members will pay $20 million each and up. Features include robot medical suites, AI wellness programs, a lavish swimming pool and fine dining – all designed to extend the life sentences of the inmates...

The island state of New Zealand has lately acquired notoriety as the ‘billionaire’s bolthole’ due to an alleged spate of bunker building by mainly foreign magnates attracted by easy investment and citizenship rules - but presumably unaware of the country’s cannibal history... Hawaii, likewise, is a magnet for the quailing plutocracy.

There are two devilish ironies to the terror of the rich. First, the fact that some of the very people who pioneered AI also fear it could replace humans or even end civilisation. Next, many of those who grew fat on fossil fuels knew, as far back as the 1970s, of the risks of climate catastrophe. So, the super-rich have long known they are digging their own graves with golden shovels. Today, they excavate bunkers to try to evade the consequences.

The second irony is that many Tech Bros, in particular, loathe government – and will undermine or destroy it where and when they can. This appeared in plain sight with the Trump regime’s plan to sabotage US governance. Also in the global effort to spread misinformation and lies using AI and social media, in order to disable democracy in general. So the bunkers are also being dug against the day when most of the world’s states fail, and anarchy rules.

If you are curious about what BunkerWorld might look like, ask the Chinese. For 4000 years their history has been punctuated by periods of violence, anarchy and rapacious warlordism, following the collapse of successive ruling dynasties from the legendary Xia and to the Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, Tang, Yuan, Ming and Qing. Throughout these

turbulent periods fortification was common, and not just by warlords.

BunkerWorld is the New World dis-Order. Its outward face will probably be a ghastly mêlée of famine, mass migration, warfare, climate shocks, acute scarcity of water and soil, toxic pollution, technocracy, eco-collapse, extinction and pandemics. As governance decays and nation states fall into ruin, the ability of humanity to respond effectively and co-operatively to these threats will diminish.

Such is the array of megathreats confronting modern humanity, no-one can predict with certainty how or when collapse will occur. Only that overpowering evidence suggests it will. The rich, from their varied perspectives, can read the signs – and are digging in preparation. They may hold out in their burrows for a time... but time will ensure it is not for long.

Just as a tumour is a symptom of the cancerous process at work, so too is BunkerWorld a symptom of the economic machine which is devouring Planet Earth and a safe future for humanity and our grandchildren. It is this economic device which has spawned the super-rich and the universal vitiation of atmosphere, land, freshwater, oceans and life. These impacts have been magnified by the explosion in human numbers since the mid-C20th.

It is irrational to expect the same economic machinery which ruins the habitability of the Earth to be the one to repair it. It is purpose-built for exploitation, greed and inequity. This has been noted by many expert commentators.

One solution is to redesign the present world economy so that:

• It integrates new wellbeing and equity metrics into economic planning
• It attributes real value to nature and the Earth system that keeps us alive
• All economic policies accelerate action to counter each of the ten megathreats.

However, one essential task is to create a world currency that is beyond the grasp of wealthy speculators, money marketeers and national banks (who all manipulate currencies for their own ends). This is the Earth Standard Currency, and it is based on the real life-giving assets of the planet – not on greed and manipulation by the rich and powerful. This will place a trustworthy, stable currency in the hands of all Earth citizens, not just the mega-rich.

In truth, the only way to end the headlong charge into BunkerWorld is to make the Earth a safer place for all future generations. This will entail abating the fear of collapse which currently powers it. And the only way to do that is to abate the mega-threats themselves. All of them.

Links

• Air Commodore Peter Cribb
• Inside Oppidum’s Luxury Underground Residences Where the Ultra-Wealthy Plan On Living Out The End Of The World
• Inside the World’s Largest Private Apocalypse Shelter — The Oppidum
• Inside the $478 million luxury bunker only the rich can seek shelter from apocalypse
• Inside $300 M members-only luxury doomsday bunker with AI-powered medical suites and indoor pools
• Survival Condo

Australia's New National Environment Law - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Federal overhaul reached agreement with the Greens on 27 November 2025[2] New national environmental standards and an agency, NEPA, are central features[1] Exemptions for native forest logging and some land clearing will be removed within 18 months[3] Coal and gas projects will not be fast-tracked under the deal with the Greens[2] Business groups warn of costs and uncertainty for major projects[6] Conservation lawyers and scientists remain cautious about loopholes and enforcement[5]

The Federal Government and the Greens have agreed on major amendments to Australia’s environment law after months of negotiations.^[2]

The agreement delivers new national environmental standards and creates a National Environmental Protection Agency, known as NEPA, to oversee implementation.^[2]

The package is built on recommendations from the 2020 independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Samuel review, and has been presented by the government as a long overdue modernisation of the EPBC Act.^[1]

Under the deal, native forest logging that was previously exempt under regional forest agreements will be subject to federal standards within 18 months of the bill’s passage.^[3]

The government also accepted a Greens push to prevent fast-tracking of coal and gas projects through the new approvals route, while retaining a federal role on water-related approvals.^[2]

Labor ministers described the reforms as balancing nature protection with streamlined approvals intended to reduce duplication between Canberra and the states.^[4]

Business groups and industry bodies warned the package, as negotiated with the Greens, would introduce new costs and uncertainty for resource, infrastructure, and housing projects.^[6]

Environmental lawyers, scientists and some conservation organisations welcomed parts of the bill, but warned the reforms contain potential loopholes that could weaken protections unless the rules and enforcement are robust.^[5]

What the reform does

The reform replaces the current EPBC Act decision framework with national environmental standards that will set binding thresholds for unacceptable impacts and for protection of key matters of national environmental significance.^[1]

The package also establishes NEPA, a new independent agency to make decisions, publish information and drive compliance across jurisdictions.^[1]

Bioregional planning, strategic assessments and a requirement for public environmental information are central elements designed to shift from project-by-project decisions to more strategic, regional approaches.^[4]

The bills include measures intended to speed approvals for projects deemed to meet the new standards while maintaining criminal penalties and higher fines for deliberate breaches.^[4]

Transitional arrangements are proposed so that existing class approvals continue to operate while the new system is bedded in.^[9]

Political manoeuvring and the parliamentary deal

The government negotiated with the Greens in late November 2025 to secure votes needed to pass the reform package through the Senate on the final sitting day of Parliament.^[2]

The Greens secured explicit commitments on native forest logging and the removal of some exemptions, in exchange for agreeing not to press immediately for stronger climate-related assessment triggers.^[3]

The Coalition opposed the final deal, arguing the changes would increase energy and project costs and reduce investor certainty.^[11]

Labor argued the deal was necessary to end two decades of legal uncertainty and to deliver a single national framework that listens to science and business alike.^[4]

Business and industry reaction

Major industry groups urged bipartisan clarity and warned that certain drafting and administrative arrangements could delay major projects unless clarified quickly.^[7]

The mining and resources sector said the bill as negotiated failed to strike the right balance between environmental protection and responsible development, and called for clearer definitions and faster administrative processes.^[6]

The Business Council and other peak business bodies urged federal and state governments to finalise rules that avoid duplicative approvals and unnecessary costs for large infrastructure and energy projects.^[7]

Environmental and legal responses

Conservation organisations welcomed creation of national standards and an independent agency, while warning that the detail of standards and enforcement will determine outcomes for species and ecosystems.^[10]

Environmental law centres advised that although the reforms include promising tools such as unacceptable impact tests, the draft laws still permit pathways that may undermine biodiversity outcomes if not tightly defined.^[5]

Universities and expert groups called for stronger transparency and clear metrics for measuring net gain and biodiversity recovery under the new framework.^[8]

Practical implications on the ground

For native forests in parts of New South Wales and Tasmania, the change means projects previously exempt from federal scrutiny will become subject to national standards and potential legal challenge under federal law.^[3]

Developers of renewable energy, housing and mining projects will face a new approvals architecture that aims to speed decisions where standards are met, but will also encounter more stringent data and reporting obligations.^[9]

Indigenous groups and state governments will continue to play crucial roles in regional planning and approvals, with the commonwealth able to enter new federal-state agreements under the reformed system.^[1]

Analysis and remaining questions

Legal analysts say the success of reform rests on how NEPA exercises its powers, how “unacceptable impacts” are defined, and how bioregional plans are developed and resourced.^[9]

Economists and industry advisers note that certainty for investment will depend on operational detail, timelines for agency decisions, and clarity on transitional arrangements for existing approvals.^[7]

Conservation scientists warn that national standards must be robust, enforceable and underpinned by strong monitoring if the reforms are to reverse species decline and habitat loss.^[10]

Next steps

The reform bills will proceed through legislative stages, with public consultations and committee consideration scheduled, and the government signalling a staged rollout for NEPA and standards implementation over the next two years.^[4]

Ministers have said additional funding and administrative resources will be needed to support the agency and to develop bioregional plans that meet statutory timeframes.^[1]

Stakeholders from business, environment and Indigenous organisations have been invited to make formal submissions during the consultation window and to engage with agencies drafting the standards and guidance.^[4]

Bottom line

The EPBC reform deal struck in late November 2025 represents a significant rewrite of Australia’s national environmental law, pairing new national standards and an independent agency with compromises aimed at securing Senate passage.^[2]

How well the reforms protect nature while supporting responsible development will depend on the precise legal drafting, agency resourcing, and ongoing political will to enforce the new rules.^[5]

References

1. EPBC Act reform — Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
2. Labor strikes deal with Greens to pass long-awaited overhaul of nature protection laws — The Guardian, 27 Nov 2025
3. Labor concedes native forest protections, fossil fuel carveout on EPBC reforms — The Australian, 27 Nov 2025
4. Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 — Parliamentary Library Bills Digest
5. EPBC Act reforms make it to parliament — EDO, 31 Oct 2025
6. EPBC Bill fails to strike right balance — Minerals Council statement, 27 Nov 2025
7. Nation’s prosperity hinges on crucial EPBC reforms — Business Council of Australia
8. Expert reaction: new environmental laws to pass Senate — Scimex, 27 Nov 2025
9. Understanding the EPBC Act reforms: A practical guide — Norton Rose Fulbright
10. Environmental law reforms unlikely to deliver for biodiversity without major strengthening — Biodiversity Council
11. Albo strikes historic deal with the Greens — Yahoo News / AFP, 27 Nov 2025
12. Nature laws agreement delivers big forests outcome — MediaNet / NewsHub, 27 Nov 2025

Back to Top

Has the World Crossed Climate Tipping Points? The New Global Tipping Points Report and What Comes Next - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Warm-water coral reefs have passed a central thermal tipping threshold at about 1.2°C.[1] Global average warming is now near or above the reef threshold, around 1.3–1.4°C.[2] The report flags growing risks to ice sheets, the Amazon, and the Atlantic circulation.[2] Cascading tipping events would amplify damage beyond isolated systems.[3] Australia’s reefs and coastal communities face immediate and near-term risks from heat and bleaching.[4] Some interventions still reduce risks, but rapid global mitigation is essential.[1]

A major new scientific assessment finds that warm-water coral reefs have passed a global thermal tipping threshold and are experiencing widespread dieback.^[1]

The Global Tipping Points Report places the central estimate for reef thermal tipping at about 1.2°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a plausible range of about 1.0°C to 1.5°C.^[1]

Independent media and science outlets note that global mean temperatures are now roughly 1.3 to 1.4°C above pre-industrial baselines, pushing reefs into the danger zone identified by the report.^[2]

The report was prepared by a broad international team and highlights that other planetary subsystems, including Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, the Amazon rainforest, and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, are close to thresholds where change could become abrupt and long lasting.^[1]

Scientists warn the primary concern is not only individual tipping points but the risk of cascades, where one system’s collapse raises the odds of another failing, producing larger and faster climate shifts.^[3]

For Australia the report sharpens a near-term threat to the Great Barrier Reef and to communities dependent on fisheries and tourism, and it calls for urgent mitigation and local management to limit losses.^[4]

Crucially, the report stresses that “irreversible” does not always mean instantaneous annihilation and that some forms of recovery or adaptation remain possible, even if the shape of ecosystems or societies changes for generations.^[1]

What the Global Tipping Points Report actually says

The Global Tipping Points Report synthesises the latest empirical data and expert judgement on 25 vulnerable Earth systems and their thresholds.^[1]

The report identifies warm-water coral reefs as the first system for which the central estimate of a thermal tipping threshold has been exceeded by current global temperatures.^[1]

The report’s reef assessment combines observed mass bleaching and mortality from successive marine heatwaves with modelling of thermal tolerance and recovery, producing a median threshold near 1.2°C and a quantified probability that repeated bleaching events will prevent recovery of extensive reef structures.^[5]

The document also maps plausible thresholds and timeframes for other systems, and it emphasises where uncertainty remains large but risks are non-trivial, notably for ice sheets and tropical forests.^[1]

Why coral reefs matter and what crossing their threshold means

Warm-water coral reefs support a quarter of marine biodiversity and provide food, coastal protection and income to hundreds of millions of people worldwide, meaning their loss has immediate human consequences.^[5]

Crossing a reef thermal threshold means that repeated mass bleaching events become the norm, and that large, complex reef structures are unlikely to recover on human timescales without dramatic reductions in global heat stress and aggressive local management.^[1]

That outcome does not preclude pockets of reef persistence or recovery under exceptional local conditions, but it does imply the loss of reefs as a widespread global feature and the services they provide.^[1]

Cascades and the most worrying linked risks

The report highlights that tipping elements are connected, and that a shock in one region or system can change the probability of shifts elsewhere through physical and ecological feedbacks.^[3]

Major concerns flagged include accelerated ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, which would raise global sea levels and could alter ocean circulation patterns that regulate regional climates.^[2]

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, is listed as vulnerable to freshening and warming that could slow or reconfigure large-scale ocean flows and rapidly shift climates in Europe and parts of the Atlantic basin.^[2]

The Amazon is also described as edging toward a tipping regime where drought, fire and human pressure could convert rainforest to savannah in places, which would release carbon and further reinforce warming pressures.^[1]

How likely are cascading failures

The report does not assert inevitability for major cascades but quantifies increased probabilities as global temperatures rise and as stressors accumulate, and it highlights nonlinear thresholds that make timing and scale hard to predict.^[1]

A separate assessment of systemic risk notes that economic, social and ecological feedbacks can amplify physical tipping points, meaning cascade pathways are plausibly faster and more disruptive than simple isolated models indicate.^[3]

What this means for Australia

Australia is already seeing the practical consequences of reef heat stress, with repeated bleaching events along the Great Barrier Reef and along Western Australian coasts undermining coral resilience and tourism revenue.^[4]

The report elevates the immediate risk profile for the Great Barrier Reef and for northern and western coastal communities that rely on reef fisheries and coastal protection from storms.^[5]

Australia’s national exposure depends on both global emissions pathways and domestic actions on water quality, fishing, and local restoration that can buy time for reefs while global temperatures are reduced.^[1]

What “irreversible” actually means

The report and allied analyses explain that irreversible often refers to changes that cannot be undone on human timescales rather than literal permanence, for example sea level rise that persists for centuries or ecosystems that will not reassemble to prior states within centuries.^[1]

Irreversibility can also mean committed losses of function, such as the structural collapse of reefs, long-term declines in carbon sink capacity in forests, or committed sea level rise that locks in migration and land loss for coastal societies.^[3]

What interventions remain possible

The report emphasises that aggressive emissions reductions remain the single most powerful intervention to reduce the probability of further tipping events and cascades, and that near-term cuts reduce long-term committed impacts.^[1]

Complementary measures include large-scale expansion of protected areas, improved land and water management, restoration of degraded ecosystems, targeted removal of local stressors such as pollution and overfishing, and investment in adaptation for affected communities.^[5]

The report also notes the potential for positive societal tipping points, such as rapid clean energy uptake, which can reduce emissions trajectories if policy and finance accelerate deployment at scale.^[1]

Conclusion — a tighter window, not a closed door

The Global Tipping Points Report presents a stark message: one of the planet’s major ecosystems has already moved into a higher risk regime, and other systems are poised where modest additional warming could push them over local thresholds.^[1]

The practical implication is that societies face higher probabilities of rapid and hard-to-reverse change, but that timely, deep emissions cuts combined with targeted local measures can still reduce risks and preserve options for adaptation and recovery.^[3]

For Australia the immediate task is to combine national mitigation with intensive reef management and community planning, recognising that some losses are now probable while others are still avoidable.

References

1. Global Tipping Points Report 2025 (full report)
2. Planet's first catastrophic climate tipping point reached, report says, with coral reefs facing 'widespread dieback' — The Guardian
3. Climate tipping points are being crossed, scientists warn ahead of COP30 — Reuters
4. 'Tipping point' threshold reached for world's coral reefs, report says — ABC News
5. Global Tipping Points Report 2025 — ZSL news
6. Global Tipping Points Report 2025 — Summary (WWF hosted PDF)
7. Tipping points in the earth system — NGFS report
8. Living Planet Report 2024 — WWF
9. Earth enters 'new reality' as coral reefs reach first climate tipping point — Phys.org

Back to Top

Are people fed up with the climate debate or are they still listening? - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Many people still see climate change as a major threat.[2] Large polls show many think about climate change regularly.[1] Interest can fall when immediate crises hit the headlines.[3] In some rich countries concern has softened since 2022.[2] People express frustration at slow government delivery.[4] Scientific milestones keep the risk current and urgent.[5]

The global conversation about climate change is shifting rather than ending.

Some surveys show high and persistent concern about climate risks across many countries, even as priorities vary by place and moment.

At the same time pockets of fatigue and frustration have grown where people see talk without clear government action.

That combination—continued worry paired with impatience—drives much of how the public now responds to climate news.

Understanding whether people are “tuning out” requires looking at multiple recent, reputable polls and the contexts that shape attention.

This article compares major public opinion studies and explains what they say about concern, fatigue, and political trust.

The aim is to describe what the evidence supports, and where public feeling is less certain or changing rapidly.

What the big surveys actually say

Large international surveys show that climate remains a major public concern in many countries, with majorities calling it a serious threat in most places surveyed by Pew Research Center in 2025.^[2]

The UNDP global survey found more than half of people report thinking about climate change daily or weekly, indicating ongoing salience rather than universal disengagement.^[1]

Ipsos’s People and Climate Change 2025 report documents widespread concern about impacts, but also finds that economic pressures and geopolitical crises can push climate down citizens’ immediate priority lists.^[3]

In countries such as Australia and the United States surveys show significant majorities still back stronger climate action, while a smaller but vocal minority expresses scepticism or fatigue.^[6]

Is “talk and no action” driving people away?

Public impatience is real where promises from governments are repeatedly delayed or weakened, and those perceptions erode trust in political leadership on climate issues.^[4]

Polling shows that citizens who rate government performance poorly on climate are more likely to express frustration and disengage from advocacy or news about the subject.^[4]

That disengagement tends to be selective: many frustrated citizens still support specific local or tangible measures such as renewable energy or flood protection.

In short, anger at political delay often coexists with continued support for practical solutions rather than a blanket “tuning out.”

News cycles, crises and attention

Attention to climate fluctuates in response to the news agenda, with wars, inflation, or energy shocks sometimes crowding out coverage of long-term risks.

When immediate crises dominate, public concern measured in polls can fall or be reprioritised without implying people deny the science.^[3]

Yet scientific developments and extreme-weather events often revive attention because they create direct, observable impacts for people and communities.

For example the scientific confirmation that global temperatures breached 1.5°C in 2024 created renewed public discussion about near-term risks and policy urgency.^[5]

Who is most likely to tune out

Evidence suggests tuning out is most common among people who feel policy makers are not responsive and among those facing immediate economic hardship.

Political identity and media ecosystems also shape whether citizens see climate as a priority or as overhyped news.

Younger people often express strong concern but also higher levels of climate anxiety, which can paradoxically lead some to withdraw from constant coverage.

Conversely older cohorts may deprioritise climate when other issues like cost of living or health take precedence.

What this means for advocates and politicians

Simple messaging about doom encourages fatigue, while clear offers of concrete policy outcomes and local benefits are more likely to sustain engagement.

Polling evidence shows people respond to tangible measures such as clean energy jobs, disaster preparation, and household cost-reducing technologies more than abstract long-term targets.^[3]

Transparency about trade-offs and incremental wins helps rebuild trust where disappointment in “talk” has set in.

Framing action around immediate benefits and protections, rather than only distant targets, reduces the sense that climate policy is endless rhetoric.

Bottom line

The public is not uniformly “sick” of the climate debate, but fatigue and frustration are rising where political delivery lags and competing crises dominate attention.

Robust, repeated surveys show continued concern and substantial public support for concrete climate measures, even as priorities shift between countries and over time.^[2]

The challenge for democracies is to convert broad concern into visible local benefits to keep people engaged and to avoid polarising the debate into permanent cynicism.

That is a political and communications task, not a signal that the public has abandoned climate action as a goal.

References

1. World’s largest survey on climate change shows what results reveal, UNDP, 27 June 2024
2. Global views: climate change as a threat, Pew Research Center, 19 August 2025
3. People and Climate Change 2025, Ipsos, April 2025
4. Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Fall 2024, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
5. 2024 was the first year above 1.5°C, scientists say, Reuters, 10 January 2025
6. Majority of Australians believe urgent action is needed, Ipsos Australia, 16 April 2025

Back to Top

Solar and home batteries surge as Australians chase bill savings and energy independence - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

More than 4 million Australian rooftops now host solar panels, after about 300,000 new systems were installed in 2024.1 Rooftop solar supplied 12.4 per cent of Australia’s electricity in 2024, up from 11.2 per cent in 2023.2 An estimated 32,000 new solar systems paired with batteries were installed in 2024, a one third rise on 2023.3 New South Wales now leads home battery sales, ahead of Victoria and Queensland.4 One in three households already has rooftop solar, and planners expect that share to pass half of detached homes by the mid‑2030s.5 Analysts expect distributed solar capacity to climb from about 21 GW today to 36 GW by 2030 and 86 GW by 2050, with strong growth in batteries alongside it.6

Australians are installing rooftop solar and home batteries at record pace, as households and small businesses look to cut soaring power bills and gain more control over when they use electricity.¹

More than 300,000 rooftop solar systems were added in 2024 alone, pushing the national total past 4 million installations and cementing consumer-owned solar as a major part of the grid.¹

Rooftop solar supplied 12.4 per cent of Australia’s electricity in 2024, up from 11.2 per cent the year before, and continues to outpace large-scale solar as a share of generation.²

Analysts estimate roughly 32,000 new solar and battery systems were registered in 2024, as more customers choose to store daytime solar for use in the evening peak.³

New South Wales leads the country on home battery sales, with Victoria and Queensland close behind, revealing that uptake is strongest in the eastern states’ sprawling suburbs.⁴

Energy planners expect rooftop solar on homes and businesses to keep growing rapidly, with distributed solar capacity projected to rise from about 21 gigawatts now to around 36 gigawatts by 2030 and 86 gigawatts by mid‑century.⁵

They also forecast a rapid expansion of small-scale batteries, which can act together as virtual power plants and help keep the grid stable as coal plants retire.⁶

Cost-of-living pressures, falling technology costs and the promise of greater energy independence are driving this shift, while generous sunshine across much of the continent makes rooftop solar an obvious choice for many Australians.¹

How fast solar use is growing

Clean Energy Council data show that 300,375 rooftop solar systems were installed across Australia in 2024, lifting the total number of systems on homes and small businesses above 4 million for the first time.¹

Those small-scale systems generated 12.4 per cent of Australia’s electricity in 2024, up from 11.2 per cent in 2023 and nearly double their contribution in 2020.²

The Australian Energy Market Operator reports that distributed solar hit record output in late 2024, helping renewables reach more than three quarters of generation at times in the National Electricity Market and pushing minimum grid demand to new lows in several states.⁷

Rooftop systems already supply about 13 per cent of generation in the National Electricity Market in some quarters, exceeding the output of utility-scale solar and matching or beating other renewable sources in the daytime mix.⁵

Energy planners expect that, on sunny days this decade, rooftop solar alone could meet more than half of underlying demand across the eastern grid during midday hours.⁵

Projections from the latest Integrated System Plan suggest that by 2034 more than half of detached homes in the National Electricity Market will have rooftop solar, rising to almost four in five homes by 2050 under the central transition scenario.⁵

Who is installing solar and batteries

Most rooftop solar systems sit on detached houses and small business premises, reflecting the fact that owners of stand‑alone buildings can more easily decide to invest in panels on their own roofs.¹

One in three Australian households already has rooftop solar, and uptake tends to be highest in outer suburbs and regional towns where roofs are larger and electricity bills for heating and cooling can be substantial.⁵

Apartment dwellers and renters face more barriers because they often cannot make decisions about shared roofs or long-term investments, which leaves them more dependent on the main grid and retail tariffs.⁸

Battery systems are spreading fastest among solar owners with higher daytime production and evening consumption, such as families with electric vehicles or electric heating, who can shift more of their use to stored solar rather than grid power.³

Industry data indicate that around 32,000 new solar and battery combinations were registered with the national regulator in 2024, following a more than 50 per cent surge in such installations in 2023 and a further one third increase in 2024.³

Clean Energy Council reporting shows that New South Wales now records the highest number of home battery sales, with more than 14,000 systems in the second half of 2024 alone, followed by about 11,000 in Victoria and 8,500 in Queensland over the same period.⁴

Why households and businesses are investing

Households primarily install solar to cut electricity bills, with industry analysis estimating typical annual savings of up to about $1,500, which can almost double when a battery is added and used well.⁶

Many consumers also seek more energy independence, wanting to rely less on grid prices and to keep essential appliances running during blackouts when their systems allow limited backup from batteries.⁶

Environmental concerns remain a strong secondary driver, as small-scale solar and batteries give households a visible way to cut their emissions and support the national goal of reaching about 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030.⁶

Government rebates and feed-in tariffs, which pay households for surplus solar sent to the grid, continue to support uptake, although incentives and tariff levels vary between states and have generally declined as systems have become cheaper and more common.¹

Home batteries still have a relatively high upfront cost, typically in the order of $12,000 to $15,000 for a common system size, which industry groups flag as a major barrier to wider adoption without broader rebate schemes.⁴

Energy organisations are calling for a national battery rebate program to complement existing state schemes, arguing that coordinated support would speed uptake, ease evening peak demand and lower overall system costs for all consumers.⁴

Where solar and batteries are being used

Solar and batteries are widespread in every state and territory, but the highest volumes of new rooftop systems and storage are in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, which together dominate national home battery sales and a large share of solar installations.¹

AEMO’s market reports show record distributed solar output in all National Electricity Market regions in late 2024, with Queensland and Victoria in particular seeing strong midday solar generation that pushes grid demand to record lows.⁷

Western Australia, which operates its own wholesale market, has also recorded sharp growth in rooftop solar, with distributed systems steadily lowering operational demand in the middle of the day and prompting new rules to manage minimum demand events.⁷

Regional and rural communities often rely heavily on solar and, increasingly, batteries because long feeder lines and exposure to extreme weather can make grid power less reliable, so local generation and storage can help maintain essential services.⁸

In cities, suburban streets lined with panels now contribute a significant share of local daytime demand, which is reshaping how distribution networks plan upgrades and manage voltage on low-voltage feeders.¹

Commercial and industrial rooftop systems are also expanding, as supermarkets, warehouses and light manufacturers seek to shield their operations from volatile wholesale prices by generating and, in some cases, storing more of their own power on site.⁸

What comes next for solar and batteries

Projections prepared for AEMO by the national science agency indicate that distributed solar capacity, including residential and business rooftops as well as larger commercial systems, is expected to climb from about 21 gigawatts today to roughly 36 gigawatts by 2030 and 86 gigawatts by 2050, with rooftop systems accounting for most of that growth.⁶

Under AEMO’s central transition scenario, rooftop solar capacity could reach around 72 gigawatts by mid‑century, driven by further cost reductions and ongoing consumer demand for behind‑the‑meter generation.⁵

The same planning documents highlight that small-scale batteries, electric vehicles and controllable loads will become critical parts of the future grid, acting together as flexible “consumer energy resources” that can provide services once supplied mainly by large power stations.⁵

If enough owners allow their batteries to be coordinated through virtual power plants, these fleets can support frequency control, supply capacity during peaks and reduce the amount of utility‑scale generation and network investment needed to keep the system reliable.⁴

Energy market bodies warn that stronger standards, smarter inverters and better incentives will be essential to integrate millions of solar and battery systems safely, while ensuring benefits flow not only to early adopters but also to renters, apartment residents and low‑income households.⁸

For now, the trend is clear, with every new panel and battery pushing Australia further along the path to a grid dominated by renewable energy owned not just by utilities, but by households and businesses across the country.¹

References

1. Clean Energy Council, Rooftop solar and storage biannual report July–December 2024
2. Clean Energy Council, Rooftop solar and storage report January–June 2024
3. Australian Energy Council, Solar Report: Year of 2024
4. Clean Energy Council, Rooftop solar uptake booms in 2024 as call grows for national home battery rebate
5. PV Magazine Australia, AEMO reinforces role of rooftop solar in energy transition
6. CSIRO for AEMO, Small-scale solar PV and battery projections 2024
7. AEMO, Quarterly Energy Dynamics Q4 2024
8. Clean Energy Council, Rooftop solar and storage biannual report January–June 2025

Back to Top