Recovery Assistance Photos Ops Aren't Climate Leadership - Gregory Andrews

Lyrebird Dreaming - Gregory Andrews

Photo from PM Albo's Twitter feed.

Author Gregory Andrews is: Founder and Managing Director of Lyrebird Dreaming A former Australian Ambassador and High Commissioner in West Africa Australia’s first Threatened Species Commissioner A leader in Indigenous policy

It’s the first week of summer (December 2025) and we’re already living the script: dangerous heat, fires ripping through communities, homes destroyed, evacuations, and governments activating disaster assistance.

PM Anthony Albanese is already out there posting photos spruiking government support.

Yes, recovery support matters. People need immediate help, and they deserve it.

But here’s the brutal truth: recovery cheques won't stop the next fire. Prevention will. And that means cutting emissions fast, not expanding the very industries that load the atmosphere with more heat.

The carbon ledger Labor doesn’t want on the evening news

Since forming government in 2022, the Albanese Government has approved 32 coal and gas projects. The Climate Council estimates the combined lifetime pollution from these projects — counting both the emissions produced on-site and those released when the exported coal and gas are burned — will exceed 6.5 billion tonnes of CO₂-e.

That number isn’t a rounding error. It’s a deliberate choice: to keep expanding fossil fuels while our continent burns. And yes, it includes exports. The atmosphere doesn’t care where the coal is burned. Heat is heat whether it’s emitted in Newcastle, Osaka or Shanghai.

6.5 billion tonnes is equivalent to the total emissions of all Australian families for over 30 years. That’s the scale we're talking about — while Albo gets a chance to spruik disaster payments after the fact.

Moral responsibility sits at the top

No one is claiming the PM personally signs off on every approval. But the responsibility is still his. Because this is the government he leads, the priorities he sets, and the political cover that makes the approvals “normal”. When a government chooses to expand fossil fuels, it’s also choosing:

• More heat in the system
• More extreme fire weather
• More pressure on emergency services
• More trauma for families
• More risk pushed onto our children

That isn’t just hypocrisy. It’s a failure of duty.

And the defence you hear — “don’t worry, the Safeguard Mechanism will handle it” — doesn’t cut it. The Climate Council’s analysis is blunt: no federal law currently allows a coal or gas project to be stopped because of its climate harm. So we end up with governments funding recovery with one hand while locking in damage with the other.

What leadership should look like (starting now)

If the PM really wants Australians to believe his recovery rhetoric, he needs to match it with prevention:

1. Stop approving new coal and gas projects — not “offset”, not “abate later”, just stop.
2. Add climate impacts to national environment laws so projects can be refused on genuine climate grounds.
3. Put kids and Country above fossil fuel donors and exporters — because what we’re living through this week isn’t an anomaly. It’s the bill arriving. And it’s going to get much worse.

Further Climate Change Articles by Gregory Andrews

• Fixing Corporate Capture and Climate Change
• Climate Change Through Aboriginal Eyes
• Debunking 'division' on climate change
• What! Culling Koalas in Response to Climate Change?
• More Scientific Evidence that Climate Change is Accelerating
• Tree planting not a panacea on climate change
• Climate change denial and toxic masculinity
• Climate change denial: Lies work!
• Planting Trees Won’t Save Us from Climate Change
• Challenging Climate Change Denialists on Isolated Events
• Environment Laws Must Address Climate Change
• Climate Change Hurts Everyone, Everywhere - And Nature Bears The Biggest Bruises

Australia’s Net-Zero Crossroads: Big Targets, Unanswered Questions - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Net zero by 2050 is locked in by law, but the pathway across sectors remains contested.1 Modelling shows multiple feasible transition pathways with very different infrastructure and land-use footprints.2 Reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism tighten emissions limits for big polluters yet lean heavily on carbon credits.3 Equity concerns are growing as households, regions and workers face overlapping climate and cost-of-living pressures.4 Carbon farming and land sector offsets are expanding, while experts warn on integrity, permanence and scale limits.5 The OECD and domestic advisers urge a clearer mix of carbon pricing, regulation and public investment to steer the transition.6

Australia has a legislated net-zero target and a suite of new climate policies, yet fundamental questions still hang over how the country will actually make the transition. ¹

Behind the headline goal, officials, analysts and communities are wrestling with the best economic pathway to cut emissions while protecting living standards and competitiveness. ⁴

Independent modelling reveals that different combinations of renewables, transmission, electrification and clean fuels can all deliver net zero, but they carry sharply different costs, land demands and regional impacts. ²

The federal government has retooled the Safeguard Mechanism to force down emissions from more than 200 of the nation’s heaviest industrial polluters, yet the reforms still permit extensive use of carbon credits in place of on-site cuts. ³

At the same time, community concern about fairness is mounting, as climate-driven disasters and rising energy and housing costs collide with uneven access to clean technologies. ⁴

Carbon farming and other land-based offset projects are promoted as a critical part of the solution, though expert reviews highlight unresolved questions about the integrity, permanence and appropriate scale of such schemes. ⁵

International bodies and domestic advisory agencies now argue that Australia needs a more coherent mix of carbon pricing, regulation and public investment to guide industry and households through the transition, rather than relying on piecemeal measures and opaque markets. ⁶

As Canberra prepares updated sector-by-sector plans, the hard choices over who pays, who benefits and how much can be left to markets are moving from modelling reports into live political terrain. ⁶

The pathway puzzle

Australia’s Climate Change Act now locks in an economy-wide target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions to 43 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030, and reaching net zero by 2050, but the law does not prescribe a single route for getting there. ¹

Large-scale modelling by the Net Zero Australia project, led by the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland and Princeton University, finds that several distinct combinations of technologies can achieve net zero, ranging from a domestically focused transition to scenarios where Australia becomes a vast exporter of hydrogen and other clean energy products. ²

Those scenarios differ sharply in required investment, with the most export-intensive pathways demanding many trillions of dollars in new generation, transmission and processing infrastructure across remote regions. ²

The OECD’s 2024 economic survey of Australia warns that transforming an electricity system still dominated by coal while decarbonising emissions-intensive mining, industry and agriculture will be challenging, and stresses that clear long-term signals and credible sectoral plans are vital to mobilise private capital at scale. ⁶

The federal government has committed to update its Net Zero 2050 plan with detailed pathways for electricity, transport, industry, resources, agriculture, land and the built environment, but those sectoral blueprints are still under development. ⁶

Cutting fossil fuel use across sectors

The electricity sector is moving fastest, with state and territory commitments to retire government-owned coal plants and build out renewables and storage, yet coal and gas still supply a large share of generation and backup, leaving consumers exposed to volatile fossil fuel prices. ⁶

Transport emissions have risen over recent years, as growing vehicle use has offset efficiency gains, and Australia remains behind comparable economies on electric vehicle uptake despite new fuel efficiency standards and incentives starting to narrow the gap. ⁶

Industrial sites covered by the Safeguard Mechanism, including LNG facilities, steelworks, refineries and large mines, account for almost a third of national emissions, making their decarbonisation central to any credible net-zero strategy. ³

A reformed Safeguard scheme now sets declining emissions baselines for roughly 215 large facilities, with default reductions of 4.9 per cent per year to 2030, and allows firms to trade Safeguard Mechanism Credits if they cut emissions below their baseline. ³

While these changes are expected to drive material cuts, legal and policy experts note that there is no hard cap on the use of external offsets, raising concerns that some operators may delay investment in deep on-site abatement. ³

Equity and the cost of transition

As the net-zero agenda collides with a cost-of-living crunch, distributional questions are moving to the centre of the debate over how fast to phase out fossil fuels and who should bear the adjustment burden. ⁴

Research by the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council shows that many households are already trading off other essential spending, living further from jobs or putting up with substandard housing as rents and energy costs rise, with low-income and First Nations households facing the most acute pressures. ⁴

The council warns that failing to integrate climate resilience and energy performance into new and existing housing will impose higher long-run costs on vulnerable groups, who are more likely to live in dwellings with poor heating, cooling and weather protection. ⁴

The 2024 State of Australia’s Regions report highlights that regional economies built around coal, gas and emissions-intensive industries face layered risks from global decarbonisation, and stresses the need for coordinated federal, state and local investment in skills, infrastructure and services to support a just transition. ⁷

Surveys by think tanks such as The Australia Institute indicate that most Australians want stronger climate action, but also expect governments to ensure that large corporations, rather than households alone, shoulder a fair share of the costs. ⁸

Carbon farming’s contested role

Land-use change and agriculture together generate a significant slice of Australia’s emissions, yet the land sector also provides some of the country’s most prominent options for removing or offsetting carbon. ⁶

Over the past decade, the government has used the Emissions Reduction Fund and its successor, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit framework, to pay for projects such as reforestation, avoided deforestation, improved savanna fire management and changes to farming practices, often described under the broad banner of carbon farming. ⁵

An independent review of Australia’s carbon credit system, led by former chief scientist Ian Chubb, concluded in 2023 that the scheme was fundamentally sound but recommended tighter methods, more transparency and stronger governance to ensure credits reflect real and additional emissions reductions. ⁵

The OECD notes that achieving net zero will likely require a combination of steep cuts in fossil fuel use and significant “negative emissions” from land-based activities, but cautions that relying too heavily on offsets could delay necessary structural change in high-polluting sectors. ⁶

Critics from academia and civil society argue that carbon farming projects can clash with biodiversity goals, cultural values and local land rights if poorly designed, underscoring the need to embed integrity safeguards and community participation as the market expands. ⁵

Markets, mandates and the role of government

Australia’s current policy mix leans on a blend of market-based instruments, such as tradable carbon credits under the Safeguard Mechanism and the Australian Carbon Credit Unit scheme, combined with targeted regulation and public funding. ³

The government has established a national Net Zero Authority to coordinate support for workers and communities through the energy transition, recognising that market forces alone will not manage regional dislocation or deliver timely investment in enabling infrastructure. ⁷

International institutions including the OECD urge Australia to strengthen carbon price signals across the economy, for example through more consistent emissions pricing and fuel taxation, while using complementary standards and subsidies to accelerate low-carbon innovation and protect vulnerable groups. ⁶

Domestic advisory bodies such as the Climate Change Authority are developing sectoral pathways that combine regulatory standards, planning reforms, market tools and direct public investment, reflecting a shift away from the idea that markets alone can deliver an efficient and equitable transition. ⁹

The unresolved question is how far elected governments are willing to go in reshaping markets, setting hard limits on fossil fuel expansion and underwriting large-scale public works, as global competition for clean energy industries intensifies. ⁶

What remains unclear

Despite a clearer national target and an expanding policy toolkit, there is still no settled consensus on how quickly Australia should scale back its role as a major exporter of coal and gas, or how the risks of stranded assets and lost revenue should be shared. ⁶

Key design questions around the Safeguard Mechanism, including the future trajectory of baselines and the appropriate balance between on-site abatement and offsets, will determine whether the scheme locks in steady decarbonisation or delays it. ³

Similarly, while modelling shows that multiple net-zero pathways are technically feasible, choices about the scale of new export industries, the pace of electrification and the location of infrastructure will shape whether regional communities see opportunity or upheaval. ²

For households, the intersection of climate policy with housing, transport and energy markets will decide whether the transition eases or deepens existing inequalities, especially for renters, low-income families and First Nations communities. ⁴

With updated sector plans due and international partners tightening their own climate rules, Australia’s unresolved debates over policy design, equity and the role of carbon farming are set to define the next phase of its net-zero journey. ⁶

References

1. Climate Change Act 2022 (Cth), Australian Government
2. Net Zero Australia Modelling Summary Report, 2023
3. Australian Safeguard Mechanism, International Carbon Action Partnership
4. State of the Housing System 2024, National Housing Supply and Affordability Council
5. Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units (Chubb Review), 2023
6. Achieving the Transition to Net Zero in Australia, OECD Economic Surveys 2024
7. State of Australia’s Regions 2024, Australian Government
8. Climate of the Nation 2024, The Australia Institute
9. Sectoral Pathways Review, Climate Change Authority, 2024

Back to Top

Finding Moral Ground in a Warming World - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Environmental ethics asks whether nature has value only for humans or an intrinsic worth of its own.1 The climate justice debate turns on who caused the problem, who benefited from it, and who can best afford to fix it.2 Polluter pays and beneficiary pays principles both seek to link responsibility to past emissions and their rewards.3 Equal per capita emission ideas treat the atmosphere as a shared global commons for all people.4 Intergenerational equity holds that each generation should meet its needs without undermining the life chances of those to come.5 The precautionary principle urges early climate action even when some impacts remain uncertain.6

Climate change is forcing a profound moral reckoning about how humans relate to the rest of the living world and to each other across borders and generations.¹

Beyond graphs of warming trends and economic models, environmental philosophy asks who and what matters morally when the planet heats up, and why.¹⁰

At the centre of this debate is a clash between anthropocentric views that value nature mainly for its usefulness to people and ecocentric perspectives that see ecosystems as having worth in their own right.¹

Climate justice principles then ask how to share the costs of cutting emissions and coping with damage, weighing historic pollution, the benefits of fossil fuel growth, and the unequal wealth of countries.²

Ideas such as polluter pays, beneficiary pays, ability to pay and equal per capita emission rights offer competing answers to who owes what to whom in a warming world.³

Intergenerational ethics extends this debate forward in time, arguing that today’s decisions lock in risks and opportunities for people who are not yet born.⁵

For many, these questions also carry an existential weight, as communities confront eco-anxiety and search for meaning and responsibility in the Anthropocene.⁷

Together, these philosophical lenses do not replace science and policy but shape what counts as a fair and decent response to the climate crisis.¹⁰

Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism

Environmental ethics often starts by asking whether humans sit at the moral centre of the world or whether whole ecosystems deserve direct moral concern.¹

Anthropocentrism treats humans as the primary bearers of moral value and tends to see non‑human nature in terms of the benefits it provides to people, from food and water to cultural meaning.¹

In climate policy, an anthropocentric approach often frames action as necessary to protect human health, livelihoods and security, including avoiding extreme heat, sea‑level rise and disrupted food systems.¹⁰

Ecocentrism, by contrast, assigns intrinsic value to ecosystems, species and even non‑living elements, arguing that they matter morally whether or not they are useful to humans.⁷

Ecocentric thinkers stress the interdependence of living systems and urge limits on human activity that degrades ecological integrity, even when such activity delivers clear short‑term economic gains.¹

Debates between these camps influence whether policies focus on managing nature as a resource or on restoring and protecting ecosystems as communities of life in their own right.⁴

Climate justice and fair shares

Climate justice asks how to share the burdens and benefits of climate action among states, communities and individuals in ways that respect basic fairness.²

The polluter pays principle holds that those most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions should bear a larger share of the costs of cutting pollution and dealing with the damage it causes.³

Supporters argue that making major emitters pay internalises the costs of pollution and discourages further harm, but critics note that many past emissions occurred before the science of climate change was widely understood.⁵

The beneficiary pays principle shifts focus from blame to benefit, suggesting that those who have gained most from carbon‑intensive development should help cover the resulting losses and adaptation needs, even if they did not knowingly cause the harm.⁸

Some theorists also defend an ability to pay principle, which assigns greater financial obligations to richer states and actors on the grounds that they can cut emissions and fund adaptation with less hardship.²

In practice, climate agreements often blend these ideas, recognising both different contributions to the problem and different capacities to respond.⁵

Equity, egalitarianism and the global commons

Equity in climate ethics also raises questions about how to divide the limited remaining carbon budget consistent with keeping warming within agreed thresholds.¹⁰

One influential proposal treats the atmosphere as a global commons and argues for equal per capita emission rights, giving each person an identical claim to the capacity of the air to absorb greenhouse gases.⁴

Supporters see this as a straightforward application of human equality, while critics point to practical obstacles in tracking and enforcing individual emission shares across borders and sectors.⁴

Others argue for priority to the basic needs of poorer populations, even if this means allowing higher per capita emissions in low‑income countries for a time while wealthier states decarbonise more steeply.²

These disputes feed into negotiations over carbon budgets, climate finance and the pace at which different economies are expected to phase out fossil fuels.⁵

Intergenerational ethics

Intergenerational ethics brings future people into the circle of moral concern, stressing that climate decisions today will shape conditions for many decades and centuries.⁵

The idea of intergenerational equity holds that each generation should meet its own needs while maintaining at least comparable options and environmental quality for those who follow.⁹

Legal and philosophical accounts often distinguish between fairness within a single generation and fairness between generations, noting that climate change intensifies both sets of tensions.³

Some frameworks identify duties to conserve critical natural capital, limit long‑lasting pollution and preserve cultural and ecological heritage so that future communities can pursue their own values and goals.⁹

In policy, this shows up in debates about discounting future harms, long‑term infrastructure planning and the design of institutions that can look beyond electoral cycles.¹⁰

Existential questions and eco-anxiety

For many people, climate change is not only a technical policy problem but an existential shock that challenges assumptions about progress, security and human dominance over nature.⁷

Psychologists and philosophers describe rising levels of eco‑anxiety and climate distress, particularly among young people who fear inheriting a more unstable and less predictable world.⁷

Some thinkers in existential philosophy suggest that acknowledging the scale of human influence in the Anthropocene can prompt a deeper sense of responsibility, rather than paralysis, if it is linked to collective action and solidarity.⁷

Ethical responses here include creating social spaces to talk honestly about climate fears, supporting communities directly affected by impacts, and framing climate work as a shared project that can give meaning and direction.⁶

The precautionary principle

The precautionary principle offers a guide for decision‑making under uncertainty, arguing that lack of full scientific certainty is not a reason to delay measures that could prevent serious or irreversible harm.⁶

In the climate context, this principle supports early and strong emissions cuts, as well as investment in adaptation, on the grounds that many tipping points and feedbacks are difficult to predict precisely in advance.⁶

International environmental agreements have incorporated precautionary language, reflecting a broad recognition that waiting for complete certainty about all climate impacts would risk locking in far more dangerous outcomes.¹⁰

Combined with justice‑based principles, precaution suggests that the most vulnerable communities and future generations should not be forced to shoulder the risks of continued high emissions and delayed action.⁵

Bringing the perspectives together

In practice, climate ethics rarely chooses a single principle but instead draws on several, balancing human‑centred concerns, ecological integrity, historic responsibility and future‑focused duties.¹⁰

Anthropocentric and ecocentric views may converge on strong climate action, even if they differ on whether the ultimate goal is protecting human wellbeing or safeguarding the living systems that make that wellbeing possible.¹

Climate justice frameworks push high‑emitting and wealthy actors to take the lead, while intergenerational ethics and precautionary reasoning argue against postponing decisions that would narrow the options of those who come next.²

These philosophical debates do not dictate one single policy path, but they clarify the values at stake and give citizens and governments a richer language for arguing about what counts as a fair response to a rapidly warming world.¹⁰

References

1. Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism in environmental ethics

2. Climate justice principles and fair burden sharing

3. Polluter pays and beneficiary pays in climate justice

4. Anthropocentric vs ecocentric values and global commons ideas

5. Intergenerational responsibility and climate change

6. Intergenerational equity, precaution and climate risk

7. Ecocentrism, anthropocentrism and meaning in the Anthropocene

8. The beneficiary pays principle in climate justice

9. The intergenerational equity principle in the fight against climate change

10. Environmental ethics and climate change overview

Back to Top

World on the brink: can leaders finally kick the fossil fuel habit? - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Current national pledges leave the world far off a 1.5°C pathway, locking in more dangerous warming.1 Governments still plan to produce more than twice the fossil fuels consistent with 1.5°C this century.2 Most 1.5°C pathways now rely on temporary overshoot, raising the risk of irreversible tipping points.3 The COP28 deal to “transition away” from fossil fuels has not yet translated into concrete phase-out plans.4 COP29 is billed as a finance summit, yet its action agenda omits any explicit fossil fuel phase-out signal.5 Scientists stress that rapid, sustained emission cuts this decade are still able to reduce long-term risks, if political will materialises.6

Global climate diplomacy sits at a knife edge, as leaders promise transformation yet continue to bankroll a fossil fuel system that pushes the planet closer to dangerous tipping points.

Scientific assessments indicate that current national pledges will leave the world heading for warming well above 1.5°C, significantly increasing the risks of irreversible damage to ice sheets, forests, and coral reefs.¹

Governments have agreed in principle to move away from coal, oil and gas, but they still plan to produce more than twice the fossil fuels consistent with limiting heating to 1.5°C this century.²

Most modelled pathways that now keep 1.5°C in play assume a period where temperatures overshoot that limit before falling back, a strategy that scientists warn will magnify the risk of crossing climate tipping points and suffering more severe extremes.³

At the same time, fossil fuels still account for the majority of global greenhouse gas emissions, and recent data show that sector shifts towards renewables and electrification are not yet fast enough to displace them decisively.⁷

Diplomats left last year’s COP28 summit in Dubai with an unprecedented pledge to “transition away” from fossil fuels, yet the follow-up agenda for this year’s COP29 in Baku contains no explicit plan to phase them out.⁴

The gulf between scientific warnings and political action has turned climate policy into a test of whether governments, markets and societies are willing to confront entrenched interests, redirect trillions in capital and deliver a just transition at the speed the physics demands.⁶

The next few years will reveal whether the world breaks its fossil fuel habit through deliberate policy or is forced off it by escalating climate shocks and economic disruption.³

Science’s countdown on tipping points

The science of climate tipping points has shifted from a distant concern to a near-term risk, as global heating edges closer to levels where ice sheets, rainforests and ocean currents may change abruptly.³

Researchers describe tipping points as thresholds where gradual warming triggers large, self-reinforcing changes, such as the collapse of major ice sheets or the dieback of the Amazon rainforest, that are difficult or impossible to reverse on human timescales.³

Recent analyses highlight that even temporary overshoot of 1.5°C to levels approaching 2°C would increase the likelihood of triggering such thresholds and would intensify heatwaves, droughts and floods in many regions.³

Scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have emphasised that there is no fully safe level of warming, noting that damaging impacts are already occurring at about 1.3°C above pre-industrial levels.⁶

They stress that the difference between 1.5°C and higher levels is measured not only in fractions of a degree but in the scale of human suffering, biodiversity loss and economic disruption that societies will face.⁶

The emissions gap that will not close

The latest Emissions Gap Report from the United Nations Environment Programme finds that current policies and pledges leave the world far off track for limiting warming to 1.5°C, or even well below 2°C, this century.¹

Global greenhouse gas emissions reached a new high in 2023, and the report concludes that they must fall rapidly this decade, with annual reductions of several per cent, if 1.5°C is to remain a realistic goal.¹

Even under an optimistic scenario where all current national climate pledges and net zero targets are fully implemented, the report estimates that limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100 has become extremely unlikely.³

Instead, the world is heading towards a temperature rise of well over 2°C, a level associated with far more severe climate impacts and a higher chance of crossing multiple tipping points.¹

UN climate officials frame this gap as a political failure, not a technological one, as cost-effective options now exist to cut emissions across energy, transport, buildings and industry if they are deployed at scale and speed.⁶

The stubborn power of fossil fuel production

Behind the emissions gap sits a production gap: the chasm between what governments say about climate ambition and what they plan to extract from coal, oil and gas fields.²

The most recent Production Gap analysis, summarised by independent researchers, finds that governments still intend to produce more than double the amount of fossil fuels that would be compatible with a 1.5°C pathway this century.²

This planned expansion persists despite the COP28 decision calling for a transition away from fossil fuels in the energy system and despite growing recognition that new long-lived fossil infrastructure may lock in future emissions or strand assets.⁴

Data presented alongside the Emissions Gap findings show that fossil fuels still account for around two thirds of global greenhouse gas emissions, underlining how central they remain to the problem.⁷

While renewable energy, batteries and energy efficiency have become cheaper and more widespread, their growth so far has added clean capacity faster than it has displaced fossil fuels, rather than driving an absolute decline in fossil use.⁷

Summits that signal, but do not yet deliver

On paper, the diplomatic landscape has shifted significantly since the Paris Agreement, with countries repeatedly affirming the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C and recognising the need to cut emissions rapidly.⁶

COP28 in Dubai produced the first global agreement that explicitly called for a transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems, to reach net zero by mid-century in line with climate science.⁴

However, that text stopped short of demanding an outright phase-out of coal, oil and gas, and it left ample scope for continued investment in fossil fuels, including through language on transitional fuels and abatement technologies.⁴

As governments prepare for COP29 in Baku, billed as a “finance COP”, the presidency’s action agenda highlights climate finance, energy storage, grids and methane, but contains no explicit initiative on fossil fuel phase-out.⁵

This absence has drawn criticism from civil society groups and experts who argue that climate finance and fossil fuel phase-out are inseparable, because continued investment in extraction undermines the impact of any funding for clean solutions.⁸

The fight over “false solutions”

A growing rift has opened between those who argue for a rapid, managed decline of fossil fuels and those who back continued extraction buffered by carbon capture or future carbon removal.⁹

Many civil society organisations warn that heavy reliance on carbon capture and storage, or speculative carbon dioxide removal technologies, risks delaying the real cuts in fossil fuel use that are needed this decade.⁹

They argue that large offsets and trading schemes can create the illusion of progress while allowing emissions to rise, especially if credits do not represent real, additional and permanent reductions.⁹

Health and development advocates add that a fast, fair and fully funded phase-out of fossil fuels would bring immediate benefits for air quality and public health, especially in communities exposed to pollution from coal plants, refineries and traffic.¹⁰

They call on wealthy countries and major fossil fuel producers to stop expanding extraction and to provide far more finance and technology support so that lower-income nations can leapfrog to clean energy instead of locking in new fossil infrastructure.¹⁰

Finance, justice and trust

The question of who pays for the transition, and on what terms, lies at the heart of whether political will can be sustained to end dependence on fossil fuels.¹¹

At COP29, governments are expected to agree a new collective climate finance goal to replace the earlier pledge by rich countries to mobilise 100 billion US dollars a year, a promise that took years to meet and dented trust in the process.¹¹

Analysts and campaigners argue that the next goal needs to reach into the trillions of dollars over the coming decade, reflecting the scale of investment needed for clean energy, adaptation and loss and damage in vulnerable countries.¹¹

They emphasise that finance must be accessible, predictable and largely grant-based rather than adding to debt burdens, and that it must prioritise communities on the front lines of climate impacts.¹¹

Without such support, leaders in many lower-income countries face a stark political choice between exploiting fossil reserves for short-term revenue and keeping them in the ground for a shared global climate goal.¹¹

Will and action in the decisive years

The core question now is whether governments and societies will move from incremental change to a rapid, sustained transformation that matches the urgency set out by climate science.⁶

The IPCC’s most recent assessments state that the tools, knowledge and financial resources exist to reduce emissions deeply across all sectors, but that doing so requires immediate and far-reaching transitions in energy systems, cities, land use and industry.⁶

They underscore that every fraction of a degree matters, and that early and decisive cuts in emissions reduce long-term risks, even if some level of overshoot now appears difficult to avoid.⁶

For political leaders, this means confronting the power of fossil fuel interests, redirecting subsidies and investment towards clean infrastructure, and embedding climate justice into national plans so that workers and communities are not left behind.⁹

For societies, it demands sustained public pressure, electoral choices and civic action that reward long-term climate responsibility rather than short-term promises, turning the abstract idea of political will into concrete policy shifts.⁸

The window to avoid the most catastrophic tipping points is narrowing, yet scientists insist it has not closed, leaving the coming decade as a decisive test of whether humanity can finally break its addiction to fossil fuels.³

References

1. United Nations Environment Programme, Emissions Gap Report 2024
2. Climate Analytics, Production Gap findings linked to 1.5°C pathways
3. Zero Carbon Analytics, Temperature overshoot and tipping points
4. UNFCCC, UAE Consensus outcome from COP28
5. Earth.org, No mention of fossil fuel phaseout in COP29 agenda
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sixth Assessment findings
7. UNEP & UNFCCC, Insights from the latest Emissions Gap Report
8. Center for International Environmental Law, COP29: Time for real climate finance and fossil fuel phase-out
9. Climate Action Network, ECO briefing on COP29 and fossil fuels
10. Climate and Health Alliance, COP29: Governments must commit trillions in climate finance
11. Center for International Environmental Law, Finance and fossil fuels at COP29

Back to Top

Heat, Fire, Flood: Climate Change Drives a New Australian Summer - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Australia has already warmed by about 1.5 degrees above pre‑industrial levels, driving harsher heat, fire weather and ocean extremes.1 The Bureau of Meteorology expects warmer than average days and nights across most of Australia this summer, with an elevated risk of extreme heat.2 Climate change is altering rainfall patterns, amplifying both long dry spells and short, intense downpours that heighten flood risk.3 Longer fire seasons and higher bushfire risk are emerging across large areas of southern and eastern Australia as conditions become hotter and drier.4 Hotter oceans and more frequent marine heatwaves are reshaping Australia’s weather patterns and putting additional stress on coasts and reefs.5 Scientists say the fingerprint of human‑driven climate change can now be seen in many of Australia’s recent extreme weather events.6

Australia’s Summer Turns Up the Heat as Climate Shift Bites

Australia is heading into another hotter than average summer, as a rapidly warming climate reshapes the nation’s weather and raises the stakes for heatwaves, bushfires and floods.¹

New assessments from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO show Australia has already warmed by about 1.5 degrees above pre‑industrial levels, a threshold many global agreements framed as a line not to be crossed.¹

This extra heat is loading the dice towards longer and more intense heatwaves, longer fire seasons, and heavier bursts of rain when storms do break through.³

The Bureau’s latest long‑range outlook points strongly to warmer than average days and nights across most of the continent this summer. 

There is an increased risk of extreme heat and elevated bushfire danger in parts of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia.²

Rainfall is likely to be below average in western and inland eastern regions.

Much of the east coast and southern states face a coin toss between drier or wetter than normal conditions, complicating preparation for heat, fire and flood risks.²

Scientists say these patterns are not random swings of natural variability but consistent with a climate pushed into new territory by decades of greenhouse gas emissions.¹

From the Black Summer fires to recent coastal flooding and marine heatwaves, many of Australia’s most damaging recent events now carry a clear climate change fingerprint, even as year‑to‑year drivers like El Niño and La Niña still shape each season’s flavour.⁶

The result is a summer outlook where old rules of thumb no longer hold, and the line between ordinary bad weather and climate‑charged extremes is rapidly eroding.³

Climate change and a hotter Australia

The latest State of the Climate report from CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology finds Australia’s land area has warmed by 1.51 degrees since 1910, with the most rapid warming occurring since 1950.¹

This warming has already led to more extreme heat events, fewer cold extremes, and a marked increase in the number of days with dangerous fire weather in many regions.¹

Heatwaves are becoming longer, hotter and more frequent, and health data show that extreme heat remains Australia’s deadliest natural hazard, exceeding deaths from floods, storms and bushfires over recent decades.⁶

The report also concludes that these trends will continue as long as greenhouse gas concentrations rise, locking in more years where record‑breaking heat is more likely than cool relief.¹

Changing rainfall and storm patterns

Climate change is not only raising temperatures, it is altering the way rain falls across the continent, deepening some drought risks while intensifying downpours when moisture does arrive.³

Since the 1970s, cool‑season rainfall has dropped by around 16 per cent in south‑west Western Australia and about 9 per cent in parts of south‑east and eastern Australia, trends that have reduced streamflows and stressed water supplies.³

At the same time, northern Australia has seen roughly a 20 per cent increase in wet‑season rainfall compared with 30 years ago, contributing to more frequent and severe flooding in some tropical catchments.³

Across many regions, more of the rain is falling in short, intense bursts, increasing the risk that urban drains and river systems will be overwhelmed and that flash flooding will hit with little warning.³

Fire seasons stretched by heat and fuel

Warmer temperatures, shifting rainfall and lower humidity are combining to lengthen Australia’s fire seasons and increase the frequency of days with dangerous fire weather, particularly in southern and eastern states.⁴

Recent assessments show that large areas of eastern Australia are now experiencing more high fire danger days than in the late 20th century, with climate change a major driver of this trend.⁴

In grassland and savanna regions, periods of heavy rain can produce explosive fuel growth that later dries out in hot conditions, priming the landscape for fast‑moving grassfires and broad‑scale burns.⁴

The harsh Black Summer fires of 2019–20 have been linked by multiple studies to the background warming trend and record‑dry conditions, showing how climate change can amplify natural drivers like drought and modes of ocean variability.⁶

Oceans, marine heatwaves and coastal risks

Australia’s surrounding oceans are warming fast, with the State of the Climate report noting that most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases is being absorbed by the seas.⁵

Marine heatwaves, periods when sea temperatures remain unusually high for days to months, are becoming more frequent and intense, stressing coral reefs, kelp forests and fisheries from the Great Barrier Reef to southern coasts.⁵

Sea levels around Australia are rising in line with the global trend, increasing the likelihood that storm surges and high tides will combine with heavy rain to cause damaging coastal flooding in low‑lying suburbs and towns.⁵

These changing ocean conditions also feed back into weather patterns by influencing moisture availability, storm formation and the behaviour of large‑scale climate drivers that help set up Australia’s wet and dry cycles.⁵

Summer 2025–26 outlook: hotter, drier in many regions

The Bureau of Meteorology’s long‑range forecast for December 2025 to February 2026 shows a strong likelihood of above‑average temperatures across almost the entire continent, for both daytime maxima and night‑time minima.²

Forecasters flag an increased risk of extreme heat during the summer, meaning more days and nights where high temperatures persist and limit the chance for people, infrastructure and ecosystems to cool down.²

Rainfall is likely to be below average for parts of western Australia and inland eastern districts, while much of the east coast and southern states show no strong signal either way, leaving communities to prepare for both dry and stormy spells.²

The Bureau notes that its outlook explicitly incorporates both short‑term climate drivers and the long‑term warming trend, underscoring how climate change is now baked into every seasonal forecast rather than sitting in the background.²

These projections translate into heightened bushfire risk for parts of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia, particularly where heavy vegetation growth in recent years has left high fuel loads that will dry out rapidly in heat.²

Are recent extremes linked to climate change?

Attribution studies, which investigate how much climate change influences specific events, now conclude that many recent Australian heatwaves and fire seasons would have been far less likely without human‑driven warming.⁶

Scientists highlight that while natural patterns such as El Niño, La Niña and the Indian Ocean Dipole still shape year‑to‑year variability, climate change is effectively shifting the baseline so that these patterns play out on a hotter, more energy‑loaded planet.⁶

The State of the Climate report states that harsher fire weather, more marine heatwaves, longer fire seasons and more intense downpours are all consistent with what climate models have long projected for a warming Australia.¹

This means that the question for many recent extremes is no longer whether climate change played a role, but how much it increased their likelihood and severity compared with a world without elevated greenhouse gas levels.⁶

What this means for an Australian summer

For households, the evolving climate means preparing for longer stretches of heat, paying closer attention to heat health advice, and treating bushfire warnings and flood alerts as signals that can no longer be safely ignored.⁶

For emergency services and planners, it means that summer is increasingly a season of overlapping risks, with hot, dry weeks that elevate fire danger punctuated by sudden storm outbreaks that can unleash flash floods on saturated or fire‑scarred catchments.³

For governments, the scientific advice is that cutting emissions sharply remains essential to limit further warming, while investment in adaptation, from heat‑ready housing to resilient infrastructure and early warning systems, has become an urgent necessity rather than a distant goal.¹

References

1. Australia’s changing climate – State of the Climate 2024, Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO
2. Long‑range forecast: Summer – December 2025 to February 2026, Bureau of Meteorology
3. Australia’s changing rainfall, State of the Climate 2024 – Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO
4. Bushfires and fire weather in a changing climate, State of the Climate 2024
5. State of the Climate 2024: Australia is enduring harsher fire seasons, more ocean heatwaves and sea‑level rise, CSIRO
6. State of the Climate 2024: Australia is enduring harsher fire seasons, more ocean heatwaves and sea‑level rise, The Conversation

Back to Top

‘Alarming’: Bureau confirms La Nina as new forecast warns of hotter, drier Aussie summer - NEWS.com.au

NEWS.com.au - Alexandra Feiam and Andrew Hedgman

 

Australia is heading into a volatile summer, with the Bureau of Meteorology confirming a La Nina and warning of hotter, drier months ahead.

 

It’s going to be a scorcher this summer. Picture: Bom

Key Points

The Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed a new La Niña forming ahead of 2025-26 summer. Forecast indicates a hotter and drier summer than usual for many parts of Australia. Elevated risk of extreme heat across Queensland, Tasmania, and the south-east. Below-average rainfall expected in inland NSW and Queensland, raising drought concerns. Increased danger of bushfires, particularly in Victoria, central northern NSW and Western Australia. More severe storms, tropical cyclones and weather instability likely due to warmer sea-surface temperatures.

Australians have been told to brace for another season of dangerous weather, with the Bureau of Meteorology confirming a La Nina is now underway.

The Bureau’s 2025–26 outlook shows below-average rainfall is likely for parts of Western Australia and inland areas of the east, while much of the east coast and southern Australia currently show “near-equal chances” of wetter or drier conditions.

There is an increased chance of unusually hot daytime and overnight temperatures across large areas of Queensland, the north-west, Tasmania and the south-east, with the Indian Ocean Dipole expected to return to neutral in December.

Summer days and nights are also likely to be warmer than average across most of the country.

The update comes as Australia enters its peak stretch for severe thunderstorms, tropical cyclones, flooding, heatwaves and bushfires, a period that runs from October to April.

The heat will suffocate much of Australia this summer. Picture: NewsWire / Diego Fedele

Conditions will be prime for dangerous and potentially deadly bushfires. Picture: Supplied

Hot Summer Ahead

The new seasonal forecast highlights hot, dry conditions with temperatures higher than average between December and February, lower rainfall across inland Queensland and NSW, and increased fire danger for parts of Victoria, Western Australia, and central northern NSW.

“As we approach summer, the days and nights are getting warmer and heatwaves can become more frequent,” senior climatologist Lynette Bettio said.

“Summer is the peak season for bushfires across much of southern Australia.”

There’s not a lot of rain on the radar this summer. Picture: Bureau of Meteorology

There isn’t a lot of rain on the radar this summer and Ms Ford urged Aussies to make sure their homes were prepared for anything.

Destructive storms

The heat isn’t only bringing an increased risk of bushfires but also plenty of thunderstorms and tropical cyclones.

“During this time of year, we see that enhanced instability due to sort of cooler upper-level air masses and warmer at the surface,” senior climatologist Felicity Gamble told NewsWire.

“We see that great sort of overturning of the atmosphere and that leads to increased instability and supports the development of these severe thunderstorms.”

Australia has entered tropical cyclone season early. Picture: NewsWire/Tertius Pickard

Extreme weather has already smashed the east coast and Top End this year.

Combined with warmer water temperatures off the Queensland coast that are 1C to 2C warmer than average, there is a higher chance that storms and tropical cyclones will develop.

Tropical cyclones typically develop between November and April, though cyclones usually don’t start until much later in the season.

However, the increasing sea temperatures are creating ideal conditions for more tropical cyclones to form.

“Warm oceans can provide increased moisture and energy and that can enhance the severity of storms,” Ms Gamble said.

“That can feed into the storms getting into that severe thunderstorm category. It also can feed into cyclones and other rain systems as well.”

Warm sea temperatures are the perfect primer for more cyclones. Picture: Bom

Unprepared for extreme weather

Aussies are no stranger to extreme weather, be it an oppressive heatwave or devastating winds and giant hail.

However, Allianz Insurance data found that nearly half of Aussies were underprepared for extreme weather.

“Our consumer insights show that 42 per cent of Australians haven’t done any home maintenance ahead of summer,” Allianz general chief manager Shez Ford told NewsWire.

“This is despite more than a quarter of Australians being concerned about the state of their home and its resilience to seasonal weather this summer.”

Warmer ocean temperatures can spark severe thunderstorms during summer. Picture: NewsWire/ Gaye Gerard

In the lead-up to blistering winds and extreme heat, Ms Ford urged Aussies to make sure their homes were prepared for anything.

“If there is a storm forecast, we advise homeowners to clear gutters and drains and secure loose outdoor items,” she said.

“If you are in an area with bushfire warnings, clear leaf litter and debris from gutters and around structures and fit ember guards where appropriate.”

Unprotected Aussies

Insurance is also a factor that the majority of Australians often forget until it’s too late.

iSelect research found that 75 per cent of Aussies failed to review their home and contents insurance, only to be left picking up the pieces.

The majority of Aussies fail to review their insurance until it’s too late. Picture: NewsWire/Tertius Pickard

She urged residents to ensure they were not “underinsured” and had a clear understanding of what was in their insurance policy.

“Know what your policy covers,” she told NewsWire.

“Storm, flood and fire are often ‘defined events’, but details and exclusions vary between providers, so read the product disclosure statement and check for any gaps.”

Ms Ryan said it was imperative to buy or review what cover was available before disaster struck.

“Insurers can put temporary embargoes in place when a disaster is imminent, which can delay new cover and leave you out of pocket,” she said.

“Tell your insurer if your place will be empty for an extended period. Many policies treat a home as ‘unoccupied’ after around 60 days, which can change your cover or excess.”

References

1. Australia summer outlook: La Niña expected amid extreme weather
2. What La Niña update means for Aussie weather over spring and summer
3. 2024 Australia heat wave

Back to top

Many Fighting Climate Change Worry They Are Losing the Information War - New YorkTimes

New YorkTimes - Lisa Friedman Steven Lee Myers

Shifting politics, intensive lobbying and surging disinformation online have undermined international efforts to respond to the threat.

Oil-rich countries, including the U.S., are downplaying scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating the planet. Credit...Andre Penner/Associated Press

When nearly 200 nations signed the 2015 Paris agreement, acknowledging the threat of rising global temperatures and vowing action, many hoped that the era of climate denial was finally over.

Ten years later it has roared back, arguably stronger than ever.

As delegates wrapped the annual United Nations climate talks last Saturday, those who have campaigned to reduce the use of fossil fuels expressed growing alarm that forces arrayed against them are gaining ground in the information war.

The oil, gas and coal industries continue to downplay the scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels is dangerously heating the planet. It’s a strategy that has been echoed by oil-rich countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and — under the Trump administration — the United States.

President Trump mocks global warming as a hoax, cheered on by a chorus of influencers online who regularly promote disinformation on social media platforms that once tried to curtail it. While such views have long been dismissed as conspiracy theories, their influence on the global policy debates has clearly grown.

The final statement of the U.N. talks, which were held in Belém, Brazil, did not even use the words “fossil fuels.”

“We thought that good ideas would get people to act,” J. Timmons Roberts, a researcher at Brown University and executive director of its Climate Social Science Network, lamented in a briefing on the eve of the talks.

“In fact there’s been a quite systematic campaign that’s been sophisticated and extremely well funded,” he said. “They have succeeded at undermining climate action globally.”

This year’s climate summit took place against a backdrop of increased drilling and mining — in Brazil, the host government recently granted a license to the state oil company to explore new sources of oil near the mouth of the Amazon River.

Just weeks before the summit came the news that Brazil’s state-run oil company, Petrobras, will be allowed to drill near the mouth of the Amazon River for the first time. Credit...Andre Penner/Associated Press

Even so, Brazil’s leader, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, opened the talks by denouncing obstructionists who “reject scientific evidence and attack institutions.”

“They manipulate algorithms, sow hatred and spread fear,” he said, describing a surge in disinformation and propaganda aimed at blocking action to slow climate change.

The problem has become so acute that the summit, for the first time, put the issue on the agenda. A coalition of countries and international agencies issued a separate “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change,” calling on governments to address climate disinformation, promote transparency and protect journalists, scientists and environmentalists.

The initiative is light, however, on details about how governments should go about it. By Friday, only 21 of the nearly 200 countries that signed the Paris agreement had also signed the disinformation declaration.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who was in Belém and has attended several climate summits, said the global embrace of the Paris agreement by most governments and major corporations for a time obscured the still-fierce opposition to ending fossil fuels.

“I think there was some confidence at the time that when governments got together, and everyone put forward their national commitments, everybody felt we were just going to sort of breeze past that,” Mr. Whitehouse said. “Now, I think, there is a better understanding of the true nature of the fossil fuel disinformation and corruption campaign.”

Mr. Lula said that this year’s summit would “deliver yet another defeat to denialism.” Instead, it struggled to build consensus.

The final conference statement did endorse the call to promote “information integrity” and provided more money for vulnerable countries hit by climate catastrophes. But it included only a voluntary agreement among nations to begin discussions on a “road map” to an eventual phaseout of fossil fuels. The modest outcome was only achieved after a bitter standoff with oil-producing countries from the Persian Gulf.

Critics blamed the meager results on oil, gas and coal interests that have been increasingly present at U.N. summits in recent years. One review of delegates by a group called the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition found 1,600 fossil fuel representatives participated in the Belém talks, a number that includes diplomats from countries with state-run oil companies.

“Once again, fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered many delegations from the countries most affected by the climate crisis,” Brice Böhmer, climate and environment director for Transparency International, a Berlin-based nonprofit group, said in a statement.

1,600 fossil fuel representatives, including diplomats from countries with state-run oil companies, participated in COP30, according to a review by the Kick Big Polluters Out coalition. Credit...Jared Hamilton for The New York Times

For critics of the environmental movement, the shifting sentiment on display in Brazil was a victory after years of pressure on energy industries.

“There’s a lot of reality that has hit,” said Steven J. Milloy, the founder of JunkScience.com, a website that has disputed the scientific consensus on climate change. “People are realizing now that we need fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are here to stay.”

Polls consistently show that a majority of adults globally and in the United States consider climate change to be a serious threat.

At the same time, a growing body of research is warning that climate misinformation — from misleading claims from Mr. Trump that wind turbines “kill all the birds” to viral hashtags proclaiming clean energy is a scam — is steadily growing, amplified by social media.

The strategy is not subtle, a recent study found. Climate skeptics present their position as “projecting rationality, authority, and masculine self-control” while those who acknowledge global warming “are depicted through emotionally charged, feminized, and irrational imagery,” and labeled “alarmists” who propose radical solutions.

Political campaigns deploy the same playbook. Republicans frequently claimed the Biden administration was trying to “emasculate” American drivers by forcing them into electric vehicles. Lee Zeldin, Mr. Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator, has labeled climate change a “religion” instead of what it is: a matter of physics.

Taylor Rogers, a White House spokeswoman, said that Mr. Trump was pursuing “energy addition, not energy transition.”

“The President has set a strong example for the rest of the world by reversing course on the Green Energy Scam and unleashing our natural resources, like beautiful, clean coal and natural gas, to strengthen our grid stability and lower energy costs,” she said, citing arguments that many economists dispute.

Still, Mr. Trump’s policies threaten more than 500 solar and energy storage projects in the U.S. that were set to provide 116 gigawatts of capacity. His administration also terminated a $4.9 billion loan guarantee for an 800-mile transmission line that would have carried mostly wind power from the Great Plains to some of the most strained parts of the nation’s power grid.

Social media platforms, podcasts and other forms of media regularly amplify climate misinformation.

A recent example: When delegates were evacuated after a fire broke out at a pavilion during COP30, a blog that promotes climate denial suggested — with no evidence — that a battery “touted as clean tech” was the cause. The item was shared dozens of times including by prominent opponents of climate science, though Brazil’s tourism minister said the fire was believed to have been caused by a short circuit in electrical wiring.

A fire broke out at the Pavilion of Countries at COP30. Credit...Douglas Pingituro/Reuters

While critics have called on social media platforms to do more, they have instead retreated from efforts to fight climate disinformation. “It’s easier now for climate skeptics to get their message out,” said Mr. Milloy, who previously served as an adviser on Mr. Trump’s transition team for the Environmental Protection Agency.

On the eve of Trump’s inauguration in January, Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook’s parent company, Meta, announced fewer restrictions on political topics, ending a fact-checking program in the United States that routinely called out those who disputed climate science.

YouTube prohibits promoters of climate disinformation from monetizing their accounts or buying ads, but a number of studies have argued that it does not enforce its rules vigorously.

“A lot of people are making a lot of money off this clickbait stuff,” said Rachel Cleetus, a senior policy director for climate and energy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, which advised on the information integrity declaration. “This is not just some neutral space where information is flowing.”

Mr. Whitehouse said profits will always be the bottom line for the fossil fuel industry and others opposed to meaningful efforts to fight climate change.

“At one level we’ve been losing the climate disinformation war all along,” Mr. Whitehouse said. “We are where we are because we were completely ineffectual in fending off a decades-long disinformation bombardment.”

Planet’s Climate Tipping Points?
Earth’s warming could trigger sweeping changes in the
natural world that would be hard, if not impossible, to reverse.