Indigenous Fire Wisdom Lights Australia's Climate Path - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Cultural burning reduces wildfire intensity in Northern Territory savannas1 Indigenous rangers restore 1.5 million hectares of Country2 Traditional knowledge improves biodiversity outcomes3 Co-management strengthens land rights and adaptation4 Funding gaps undermine Indigenous climate leadership5 COP31 elevates First Nations voices globally6

In the vast savannas of northern Australia, smoke rises in deliberate curls from controlled burns set by Yolngu rangers.

These fires, guided by millennia-old knowledge, tame the landscape before extreme heat ignites uncontrollable blazes.

Traditional Owners across the continent deploy similar practices to confront a warming world.

From Western Desert water soaks to Cape York sea restoration, Indigenous leadership offers proven solutions.

Government policies increasingly recognise this wisdom, yet structural barriers persist.

Australia's path to climate resilience hinges on empowering these knowledge keepers.

With COP31 on the horizon, the nation faces a defining moment.

Indigenous voices demand co-management and consent in land decisions.

Their approaches not only mitigate risks, but restore Country for future generations.

This is leadership forged in fire, water, and unyielding connection to place.

Ancient Knowledge Meets Modern Crisis

Indigenous Australians have managed Country for over 65,000 years through sophisticated ecological systems.¹

These practices evolved through observation of seasonal cycles, animal behaviours, and spiritual connections to land.

Western science now validates their effectiveness, particularly in fire-prone ecosystems.

In Northern Territory savanna country, Yolngu people practise 'firestick farming' — strategic mosaic burning that prevents megafires.²

This contrasts with suppression-only approaches that build fuel loads until catastrophic events erupt.

Similar knowledge guides Martu people in Western Australia's deserts, where they monitor groundwater through cultural indicators.

On-Country Practices in Action

In Arnhem Land, the Bawinanga Aboriginal Corporation employs 200 Indigenous rangers for cultural burning programs.

These burns create diverse fire ages across landscapes, boosting biodiversity and reducing greenhouse emissions by 40 percent compared to wildfires.³

"We read the Country like a book," says ranger Djawakan Marika.

"Wind direction, grass cure, animal signs — all tell us when to burn cool and safe."

Across the continent in Cape York, Kuku Yalanji Traditional Owners restore reef-adjacent wetlands using traditional weed management.

They deploy 'smoking out' techniques to control invasive species while protecting turtle nesting sites.

In south-eastern forests, Yorta Yorta Nation leads river restoration, drawing on oral histories of pre-colonial hydrology.⁴

These efforts restore fish populations and cultural food systems suppressed by colonial dams.

Case Study: Martu Desert Water Stewards

In the Western Desert, Martu rangers patrol 100,000 square kilometres of remote Country.

They maintain soak systems — vital groundwater sources — through ceremonial cleaning and monitoring.

"Our Elders taught us each soak has its own songline and protocol," explains ranger Puturnu.

Climate models predict 20 percent rainfall decline here, yet Martu knowledge identifies resilient water sources overlooked by satellites.

Their patrols also deter feral camels that trample vegetation and pollute springs.⁵

This community-led adaptation sustains bilbies, marsupials, and human inhabitants alike.

Policy Barriers and Breakthroughs

Indigenous Protected Areas cover 18 percent of Australia — larger than the global average for protected lands.²

Yet chronic underfunding hampers operations; ranger numbers grew just three percent annually against 10 percent need.⁶

Land rights victories like the 1998 Blue Mud Bay case affirm sea Country ownership, enabling customary management.⁷

Co-management agreements, such as Kakadu National Park, demonstrate success when consent drives decisions.

Governments increasingly integrate Indigenous knowledge into national strategies, including the 2024 Climate Solutions Package.

Still, veto powers over mining on native title lands undermine authority.⁸

Justice, Governance, and Global Stage

True climate equity requires recognising Indigenous governance structures over bureaucratic overlays.

The upcoming COP31 co-hosting elevates First Nations leadership internationally.⁹

Pacific and Australian Indigenous advocates demand fossil fuel phase-out alongside cultural burning scaled nationally.

"We contribute least to emissions but suffer first," notes Kimberley leader Eduardo Maher.

Funding must flow directly to ranger groups, bypassing intermediaries that dilute impact.

Legal recognition of Indigenous ecological knowledge as 'living evidence' in courts strengthens claims.

Pathways to National Resilience

Scaling Indigenous leadership demands policy pivots within five years.

• First, double Indigenous ranger funding to 2,000 positions nationwide.
• Second, mandate Traditional Owner consent for all climate adaptation projects on Country.
• Third, establish national cultural burning standards blending Indigenous and fire agency expertise.

These steps build fire-resilient landscapes ahead of predicted 2°C warming.

Regional planners must prioritise water soaks and wetland restoration in drought-vulnerable zones.

Success stories from Arnhem Land prove scalability when authority aligns with knowledge.

Australia's climate future belongs to those who truly know the land.

References

1. AIATSIS: Indigenous Australians - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People
2. DCCEEW: Indigenous Protected Areas
3. CSIRO: Indigenous fire management reduces emissions
4. Yorta Yorta Nation: River restoration projects
5. Martu Living: Desert ranger water stewardship
6. Australian Government: Indigenous Ranger Program review
7. High Court: Blue Mud Bay native title decision
8. National Indigenous Times: Native title mining veto issues
9. DFAT: Australia COP31 Presidency

Back to Top

Australia's Climate Reckoning: 2026 Challenges and the Path Ahead - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Australia's climate has warmed by 1.51°C since 19101 Extreme fire weather and longer seasons across southern regions10 Sea levels rising, increasing coastal inundation risks14 Policies rated "Insufficient" for 1.5°C pathway1 Renewables target at risk, needing extra 8 GW (gigawatt) capacity1 Southern rainfall down 16-20% since 19705

Australia enters 2026 confronting a climate reality shaped by decades of warming.

The nation's average surface temperature has risen 1.51 ± 0.23 °C since 1910 records began.¹

Seven of the ten warmest years have occurred since 2005.

Sea levels around the continent continue to climb, with global mean rise exceeding 22 cm since 1900.

Extreme weather now strikes with greater frequency and ferocity.

Bushfire seasons lengthen, heavy rains intensify, and droughts grip southern farmlands.

Government targets promise 43% emissions cuts below 2005 levels by 2030, yet policies fall short of 1.5°C alignment.²

Exported fossil fuels amplify the damage, doubling from 2010 to 2022.

As La Niña patterns fade into neutral by early 2026, dry conditions may persist in key regions.³

This year demands scrutiny of trends, risks, responses, and what lies ahead if action lags.

The stakes for communities, economies, and ecosystems have never been higher.

Time: A Decade of Accelerating Change

Australia's climate indicators reveal stark shifts since 2005.

National greenhouse gas emissions, excluding land use, hover at levels requiring 15-23% reductions below 2005 by 2030 under current policies.²

Average temperatures track 1.51°C warming since 1910, with sea surface temperatures up 1.08°C since 1900.¹

Extreme heat days multiply, while southern cool-season rainfall drops 16% from April to October since 1970.¹

Streamflows decline at most gauges post-1970, even as northern rains rise.

Projections for 2026 signal no respite.

Air temperatures will keep climbing, heavy rainfall events intensify, and fire weather days extend.¹

Ocean acidification accelerates, marine heatwaves lengthen, and sea levels rise further.

These trends, drawn from Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO analyses, underscore a system under strain.¹

Location: Regional Divides in Vulnerability

Climate threats vary sharply across Australia's vast landscape.

Coastal communities face inundation as sea levels rise, with extreme high tides now routine.

Fire-prone southeast and southwest see seasons stretch, extreme weather days up since the 1950s.¹

The 2023 bushfire season ranked among the largest, fuelled by drier fuels post-record rains.¹⁰

Inland drought corridors, like the Murray-Darling Basin, endure 20% yield drops from past dry spells.¹¹

Major cities such as Sydney and Melbourne grapple with urban heat islands atop national warming.

Northern tropics record wetter decades since the 1970s, yet intense cyclones pack higher rain.

Bushfire risk quantifies starkly: southern fire seasons now longer by weeks.¹

Water scarcity bites hardest in southwest, where May-July rains fell 20% since 1970.¹

Type: Quantifying the Threats

Heat extremes define the primary hazard.

Australia logs more hot days, fewer cold snaps, with 2023 among the hottest years.¹

Drought and water insecurity halve irrigated output in basins by 2050 projections.¹¹

Coastal erosion accelerates with 19 cm sea rise since 1901, Australian trends mirroring global.¹⁴

Biodiversity suffers as oceans acidify faster recently, kelp forests and reefs bleach repeatedly.¹

Economics face $211 billion damages by 2050 from lost productivity and land.¹¹

Health burdens rise with heatwaves, floods displacing thousands annually.

These categories compound, turning single events into cascading crises.

Action: Targets, Gaps, and Efforts

Governments pursue an 82% on-grid renewables target by 2030.

Yet the Climate Change Authority flags an 8 GW (gigawatt) shortfall in projects.²

Safeguard Mechanism aims for 28.1% industrial cuts by 2030, but offsets dominate two-thirds.²

Emissions projections hit 42.6% below 2005 including land sinks, excluding them, just 4.5% above.²

Adaptation includes Victoria's plans for bushfire and drought resilience.¹⁶

Communities deploy solar, businesses chase hydrogen, but fossil approvals persist.

New Vehicle Efficiency Standard cuts transport by 11% by 2030.²

Gaps loom: fossil exports double domestic emissions, policies rated "Insufficient".²

Assessment: Trajectory and Consequences

Australia's record shows repeated target weakening and fossil reliance.

Current path yields 2-3°C warming if globalised, far from 1.5°C.²

No coal phase-out plan exists, gas endorsed to 2050.

Land sink revisions mask stagnant fossil cuts.

Without acceleration, extremes intensify: longer droughts, deadlier fires, submerged coasts.

Projections warn of halved agriculture, trillions in losses by 2100.¹¹

Social fallout hits vulnerable hardest, migration pressures build.

Evidence demands an urgent pivot to genuine decarbonisation.

Global cities learn from urban farming adopters like Melbourne's community plots, slashing emissions while boosting resilience through localised food amid supply shocks.

Regional planners and policymakers must prioritise 8 GW more renewables, end fossil approvals, enforce gross emissions cuts sans offsets, and scale adaptation funding fivefold in the next five years to avert locked-in risks. 

References

1. State of the Climate 2024: Bureau of Meteorology
2. Australia - Climate Action Tracker
3. Southern Hemisphere Monitoring - Climate, Bureau of Meteorology
4. Climate Change in Australia
5. Adaptation Data Highlight Australia's Climate Change Response
6. How Climate Change is Damaging Australia's Economy, Climate Council
7. Climate Change and Sea-Level Rise Based on Observed Data, CoastAdapt
8. Built Environment Climate Adaptation Plan 2022-2026, Victoria Government

Back to Top

When the Safety Net Frays: Climate Change, Insurance and a Looming Protection Crisis - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key points

Climate change is driving more extreme fires, floods and storms, pushing up premiums fastest in already disadvantaged regions.1 Northern Australia now pays far higher home insurance premiums than the rest of the country, with climate risk the main driver.3 Some households and small businesses are underinsuring or cancelling cover altogether as costs rise.9 Regulators and the industry are developing new climate risk tools, but large protection gaps remain.5 Public reinsurance pools and stronger building and land use rules are emerging as key policy levers.4 Without faster emissions cuts and adaptation, entire communities risk becoming effectively uninsurable.2

On a warming continent defined by fire, flood and drought, the price of protection is rising fastest where Australians can least afford it.1

As climate change drives more intense bushfires, heavier downpours and higher seas, the country’s once-stable insurance safety net is beginning to fray.1

From northern Queensland cyclone zones to floodplains in New South Wales, households, farmers and small businesses are confronting premiums that outstrip their incomes, or policies that exclude the very perils they fear most.3

Regulators warn that without rapid changes in planning laws, building standards and climate policy, growing pockets of “insurance stress” could harden into de facto redlining, where banks and insurers quietly retreat from high-risk postcodes.5

At stake is not only who pays when disasters strike, but whether vulnerable communities can remain on the land, rebuild after shocks and plan for the next generation.8

Australian climate science agencies report that extreme heat, dangerous fire weather and intense rainfall events have all increased in recent decades, stacking the odds towards more frequent catastrophes.1

At the same time, consumer watchdogs find premiums in northern Australia are now more than double those paid elsewhere for similar home cover, largely because of cyclone and flood exposure.3

Community surveys show rising numbers of Australians cancelling or downgrading cover due to cost, creating a growing protection gap that shifts risk back onto families and governments.9

This is the new politics of insurance in a heating climate, where data models, reinsurance markets and planning schemes quietly decide which towns can thrive, and which may be left to manage retreat on their own.5

How regulators, insurers and governments respond in the next decade will help determine whether Australia can keep insurance affordable and available, or whether climate change turns protection itself into a luxury good.8

Climate risk and shifting hazard maps

The Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO report that Australia has warmed by around 1.5 degrees since 1910, with more frequent extreme heat, longer fire seasons and more intense downpours.1

The latest State of the Climate assessment notes a continued increase in dangerous fire weather days, a shift towards drier conditions in the south, and heavier short-duration rainfall that drives flash flooding.20

Emergency management agencies warn that climate change is lengthening and intensifying the bushfire season, particularly in southern and eastern Australia, while also amplifying extreme rainfall and coastal storm surge risk.17

For insurers, these trends translate into more frequent and severe losses from bushfires, riverine and flash floods, coastal inundation, cyclones, hail and heat-related damage such as infrastructure buckling or crop failure.16

Home policies are most exposed to flood, bushfire, storm and coastal risks, business policies add supply chain disruption and business interruption, and farm insurance layers in drought, heat stress, pests and market volatility as climate pressures compound.19

How insurers are repricing climate risk

Australian insurers are quietly redrawing their risk maps, using more granular, property-level modelling to price in climate-driven hazards for homes, businesses and farms.13

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has found that home, contents and strata premiums in northern Australia are considerably higher than elsewhere, with average combined building and contents premiums around $2,370 in 2021–22 compared with much lower averages in the rest of the country.3

The ACCC concluded that higher and more volatile claims costs in cyclone and flood-prone regions, rather than excessive profits, are the main driver of these steep premiums, and that increasingly sophisticated pricing is exacerbating affordability problems for some consumers.3

In response to repeated large losses, insurers are also adjusting policy terms, increasing excesses for flood and cyclone cover, tightening definitions, and in some cases imposing coverage limits or exclusions for high-risk properties.19

Regulators and consumer advocates report instances where insurers have declined to renew cover or withdrawn certain products in the most exposed postcodes, effectively signalling that risk has moved beyond what private markets can comfortably carry.3

Affordability, accessibility and the rise of the “uninsurable”

New research commissioned by the New South Wales Government on home insurance affordability in a changing climate found that households already paying more than $2,000 a year for home insurance are disproportionately on incomes below $65,000.12

Under a high emissions scenario, the study projected that affordability pressure on vulnerable households could increase by 20 per cent as climate hazards intensify and risk-based pricing becomes more precise.12

The report warned of a “wicked problem”, where the places facing the greatest climate risk are also those with the lowest incomes and least capacity to pay for rising premiums or invest in resilience upgrades.12

The Climate Council’s recent survey on climate disasters and mental health found that one in 12 respondents said an extreme weather event had severely impacted them, and one in 20 had cancelled insurance because premiums had risen.9

Researchers noted that rising premiums are making it harder for Australians to protect themselves against worsening extreme weather events, and that cancelling cover shifts the risk of loss back onto households and governments.9

These dynamics are most acute for low-income households, older Australians, renters and regional communities already grappling with drought, coastal erosion or recurring flood, who may face homes that are effectively uninsurable or only insurable on terms they cannot meet.12

Vulnerability, mental health and economic resilience

Climate-related insurance stress is not only a balance sheet issue, it is a social one, with growing evidence of psychological strain in communities facing repeated disasters and financial insecurity.6

Australian research on drought-affected regions has linked reduced income security to increased stress, social isolation, relationship strain and higher suicide risk among farming communities, highlighting how climate shocks ripple through mental health and social cohesion.6

The Climate Council’s work on “climate trauma” documents how worries about climate disasters, rising insurance costs and the prospect of being unable to rebuild after the next event compound anxiety, particularly for young people and those with limited savings.9

Loss of insurance, or the knowledge that cover is partial or precarious, can undermine economic resilience by deterring investment, depressing property values and constraining small business lending in at-risk towns.3

For farmers, more frequent droughts, heatwaves and floods erode productivity and food security, and when insurance becomes unaffordable or unavailable, they face a harsher choice between self-insuring, over-leveraging or exiting the industry altogether.11

Tools, innovation and the reinsurance squeeze

Behind the scenes, insurers are investing heavily in climate risk modelling, drawing on data and scenarios from CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and universities through initiatives such as the Climate Measurement Standards Initiative.12

These tools allow companies to map projected changes in floods, cyclones and bushfire weather at the suburb or even street level, feeding into pricing and portfolio decisions for home, business and farm policies.5

The Insurance Council of Australia’s Climate Change Roadmap sets out how the industry plans to reach net zero emissions and support climate resilience, including exploring parametric insurance products that pay out automatically when a hazard threshold is reached rather than after a traditional loss assessment.19

Global reinsurers, which provide a backstop for Australian insurers, are also tightening their appetites and raising prices in response to rising catastrophe losses worldwide, pushing costs back through to primary insurers and, ultimately, consumers.1

Internationally, public reinsurance and catastrophe schemes such as the United States’ National Flood Insurance Program and New Zealand’s Earthquake Commission illustrate how governments step in when private markets alone cannot provide affordable coverage for extreme perils, a model increasingly relevant to Australia’s climate exposures.4

Regulation, disclosure and the policy gap

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has launched an Insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment with the five largest general insurers, designed to map how climate change could affect the affordability of general insurance and widen the protection gap.5

APRA’s framework asks insurers to model how many weeks of household income are required to pay premiums under different climate scenarios, linking physical risk, transition risk and customer capacity to pay.5

Alongside this, moves to strengthen climate-related financial disclosure are pushing insurers to spell out their exposure to climate risks and their plans to manage them, aligning with international standards that now expect large financial institutions to treat climate as a core prudential issue.15

Yet regulators have limited direct control over pricing, and affordability problems are often rooted in planning decisions that have allowed dense development in floodplains, bushfire-prone fringes and eroding coasts.8

The Productivity Commission has argued for a major shift in disaster funding, recommending that the Commonwealth reduce post-disaster recovery payments to states and increase mitigation funding, so that more public money is spent on avoiding future losses rather than rebuilding after they occur.8

Government interventions and international lessons

In 2022 the Australian Government established the cyclone and related flood damage reinsurance pool for northern Australia, operated by the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation, to reduce premiums for households and small businesses in high-risk regions.3

ACCC analysis suggests that, for policyholders in northern Australia, the pool is expected to cut average premiums by around 13 per cent for residential home insurance and 10 per cent for small business policies with building cover, with even greater savings for those currently paying the highest premiums.3

These moves echo international approaches where governments sponsor natural disaster insurance pools to share extreme risk, such as New Zealand’s Earthquake Commission and the United States’ public flood insurance scheme, which provide baseline cover while encouraging risk reduction over time.7

The Productivity Commission has warned that current disaster arrangements, where the Commonwealth often pays a large share of recovery costs, can blunt incentives for states and councils to invest in mitigation or to restrict risky development, and has called for disaster mitigation funding to be lifted to around $200 million a year and matched by states.8

Policy experts argue that modernising land use planning, upgrading building codes for future climate conditions, and investing in levees, firebreaks and nature-based defences can reduce both insured and uninsured losses, and ultimately stabilise insurance markets.5

The cost of gaps and the stakes for the economy

The Productivity Commission’s inquiry into natural disaster funding estimated that governments, insurers and households collectively face rising disaster costs, and that uninsured losses in particular flow back to taxpayers through relief payments and infrastructure repairs.2

A report for the Insurance Council of Australia has put annual average disaster costs, including insured and uninsured damage and government expenses, on a steep upward trajectory as extreme weather becomes more severe and widespread, warning that every taxpayer will contribute to the billions spent on recovery and higher insurance costs.5

When insurance becomes unaffordable or unavailable in key sectors, the macroeconomic implications extend from housing markets and mortgage lending to agricultural output and regional investment, as capital becomes wary of stranded or uninsurable assets.3

International analyses of regions facing partial or full insurance withdrawal note that loss of cover impairs community resilience by limiting resources for rebuilding and adaptation, and can entrench inequality as wealthier households shift to safer ground while others are left with devalued, risky properties.3

Future pathways and the politics of protection

Under lower warming pathways close to 1.5 degrees, climate scenarios used by regulators and insurers suggest that risk can still grow significantly, but remains more manageable if emissions fall rapidly and adaptation investment accelerates.20

At 2 degrees and beyond, physical risks escalate sharply, with more intense fire weather, heavier rainfall and higher sea levels, raising the likelihood that insurance in some locations will become either prohibitively expensive or conditional on major upgrades or relocation.1

APRA’s climate assessment work, while still in early stages, is designed to give policymakers a clearer view of how different emissions trajectories and adaptation choices could affect insurance affordability by 2030, 2040 and 2050.5

Community groups and social researchers emphasise that any move towards “managed retreat” from the riskiest areas must be carefully planned and supported, to avoid deepening trauma and disadvantage in communities already battered by disasters.6

For many stakeholders, from insurers and banks to local councils and farmers, the biggest opportunities lie in aligning climate policy, planning, infrastructure and financial regulation so that risk is reduced at its source, rather than simply repriced onto those least able to bear it.19

What other countries reveal

Australia is not alone in grappling with climate-driven insurance crises, and international experience offers both cautionary tales and models for reform.4

Government-sponsored schemes in places like New Zealand and the United States show that public reinsurance pools can maintain basic coverage for catastrophic risks, but also highlight the challenges of balancing affordability, fiscal exposure and incentives for risk reduction.7

Global market analyses note that climate risk insurance is growing fastest in Asia–Pacific as governments and insurers develop parametric and microinsurance products for farmers and low-income households, pointing to the potential for more innovative risk-sharing mechanisms in Australia’s own high-risk regions.1

Five-year priorities for regional planners and policymakers

Over the next five years, regional planners and policymakers face a narrow window to reduce long-term insurance risk by tightening land use planning in floodplains and fire-prone fringes, directing new development to safer ground and embedding future climate projections into zoning decisions.8

They will need to accelerate upgrades to building codes and retrofits, invest in protective infrastructure and nature-based defences, expand targeted support for vulnerable households and small businesses, and ensure that emissions reduction and adaptation strategies work together to keep communities both insurable and safe as the climate continues to change.5

References

1. CSIRO & Bureau of Meteorology, “State of the Climate”

2. Productivity Commission, “Natural Disaster Funding: Inquiry Report”

3. ACCC, “Insurance Monitoring Report 2022”

4. OECD, “The Role of Catastrophe Risk Insurance Programmes”

5. McKell Institute & Insurance Council of Australia, “Building resilience in the face of disaster”

6. Fritze et al., “Climate change and the promotion of mental health and wellbeing”

7. McAneney et al., “Government-sponsored natural disaster insurance pools”

8. Productivity Commission, “Natural Disaster Funding: Draft Report”

9. Climate Council, “Climate Trauma: The Growing Toll of Climate Change on Mental Health in Australia”

10. CSIRO, “Australia’s changing climate”

11. NSW Government, “Rising climate risks: Why accessible, affordable home insurance is under threat”

12. Insurance Council of Australia, “Climate Action: A Roadmap for a Sustainable Future”

13. APRA, “APRA releases details on insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment”

14. AFAC, “Climate Change and Disasters: Key Messages and Resources”

15. APRA, “Insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment”

16. Insurance Council of Australia, “Climate Change Roadmap: Towards a Net-Zero and Resilient Future”

17. Bureau of Meteorology, “State of the Climate 2024: At a glance”

18. Future Proof, “Insurance in an age of climate chaos: When entire regions become uninsurable”

19. Intel Market Research, “Climate Risk Insurance Market Outlook 2025–2032”

Inside Australia’s Climate Migration: Communities on the Move - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Climate change is reshaping Australia’s housing map as floods, fires and heat make some regions harder to insure and live in.1 Insurance premiums in high‑risk areas are rising faster than incomes, pushing some households to consider relocation.2 New state and federal disaster adaptation funds exist, but many regional communities still face gaps in planning and infrastructure support.3 Managed retreat and land‑use planning are emerging as major tools for dealing with repeated flooding and coastal erosion.1 Climate risk is now a focus for financial regulators, with new assessments of how insurance affordability may change to 2050.4 Urban agriculture and local food systems are being explored as resilience strategies in Australian cities.5

Across Australia, climate change is beginning to redraw the map of where people feel safe to live, work and invest.1

Flooded river towns, fire‑scarred fringes and heat‑stressed inland suburbs are confronting a future in which repeated disasters, higher insurance costs and fragile infrastructure make staying put a harder choice.

While most Australians remain in place after floods or fires, a growing number of communities are weighing up whether rebuilding on the same block is wise, or even financially possible, as climate risks rise.1

This is not yet a mass exodus, but early signs of internal climate migration are emerging in government inquiries, insurance data and local planning debates.

Financial regulators warn that more frequent and severe disasters will push up insurance premiums and strain household budgets, especially in already vulnerable regions.1

Advocacy groups report that lower‑income Australians, who are more likely to live in high‑risk areas and in less resilient housing, face some of the steepest increases in premiums.6

As insurance becomes harder to afford in exposed coastal and river communities, some households are dropping cover altogether or quietly planning to move to less risky areas.1

Governments are starting to respond with disaster adaptation plans and new resilience funds, yet the policy framework for managing long‑term climate displacement within Australia remains patchy.

How these choices are handled over the next decade will shape local economies, food prices, social cohesion and the basic geography of who carries the burden of climate risk.

Climate pressures on where people live

Australia’s exposure to climate‑fuelled extremes is already high, with more intense rainfall, longer heatwaves and heightened bushfire risk projected under ongoing warming.1

In practice, that means repeated flooding in river valleys, coastal erosion in low‑lying suburbs and dangerous heat in some inland towns, all of which shape decisions about whether to stay, rebuild or relocate.

Research by the Reserve Bank of Australia notes that more frequent or severe weather events are expected to increase insurance claims on damaged property and other assets, raising premiums and affecting the price and availability of cover in high‑risk areas.1

The same analysis highlights managed retreat – moving people and assets away from high‑risk zones – as one of the tools governments may use as climate risks escalate.1

Alongside coastal and river flooding, extreme heat is becoming a defining pressure in some inland communities, raising health risks, undermining outdoor work and placing extra demand on ageing power and water systems.

Planning decisions made over past decades, including building in floodplains or expanding suburbs without robust heat and water strategies, are now colliding with a more volatile climate.

Human stories behind the shift

The human face of climate migration in Australia is most visible in regions hit by repeated disasters, where the choice to rebuild is no longer straightforward.

In New South Wales’ Northern Rivers, for example, whole neighbourhoods were inundated in the 2022 floods, prompting state buy‑back schemes and debates over which areas should be permanently relocated to higher ground.3

The NSW Reconstruction Authority is now leading Disaster Adaptation Plans for high‑risk regions like the Northern Rivers and the Hawkesbury‑Nepean Valley, explicitly considering where future homes, roads and services should be placed to reduce exposure.3

For many residents, the move away from a long‑standing home is driven less by abstract climate projections and more by repeated evacuations, mounting repair bills and the fear that the next flood or fire could be worse.

Community advocates warn that people with the least financial buffer – renters, casual workers, pensioners – are often least able to relocate safely, even when they want to leave high‑risk areas.6

Without targeted support, the risk is that climate migration becomes uneven, with better‑off households able to move early to safer, better‑serviced regions, while others remain in increasingly fragile locations.

Insurance, finance and forced moves

Insurance is emerging as one of the clearest channels through which climate risk is translated into pressure to move.

The Australia Institute reports that between 2022 and 2023, the average home insurance premium rose by 14 per cent, the biggest rise in a decade, with particularly steep increases in some high‑risk regions.2

The Reserve Bank has warned that as insurance costs rise and availability declines in exposed areas, more households may reduce their coverage or become uninsured, leaving them vulnerable to financial ruin after a major disaster.1

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority has launched an Insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment to explore how general insurance affordability may change to 2050 as physical and transition climate risks evolve across regions and sectors.4

Consumer advocates note that lower income Australians are more likely to live in higher risk areas and in less resilient housing, and they already pay higher premiums and additional charges when they cannot pay annually in one lump sum.6

In practice, this means climate risk is layered on top of existing inequality, with some households effectively priced out of insurance and nudged towards selling up or abandoning damaged homes after repeated events.

Planning responses and policy gaps

Governments are beginning to acknowledge that climate risk requires more than emergency clean‑ups, with new funds and planning frameworks aimed at long‑term adaptation.

At the federal level, the Disaster Ready Fund is providing up to one billion dollars over five years from July 2023 for projects that reduce disaster risk and build resilience, including levees, drainage and evacuation routes.7

New South Wales has introduced Disaster Adaptation Plan Guidelines that set out a four‑stage process for regional adaptation, from readiness and governance through to understanding regional risk and implementing early actions.3

The NSW Reconstruction Authority is developing Disaster Adaptation Plans for two high‑risk regions, the Northern Rivers and the Hawkesbury‑Nepean Valley, and has started early planning with regional organisations in areas such as the Central West, Illawarra Shoalhaven and Riverina Murray.3

These efforts signal a shift towards multi‑hazard regional planning, yet significant gaps remain in how internal climate displacement is identified, monitored and supported across states and territories.

There is, for example, no single national framework that defines when managed retreat should be used, how buy‑backs are funded over the long term, and how relocated communities will access housing, health care, schools and jobs.

Water security and infrastructure planning are also uneven, with some regional towns facing tighter water constraints as heat and drought intensify, while still promoting new housing estates without clear long‑term supply strategies.

Economic impacts on regions

Climate‑driven shifts in where people live have major implications for regional economies, from employment patterns to local government finances.

When repeated flooding or fire makes parts of a town less attractive to live and invest in, property values and rate bases can fall, limiting councils’ ability to fund essential upgrades and resilience projects.

Businesses in high‑risk regions may struggle with higher insurance and repair costs, as well as interruptions to trading, which can push jobs towards less exposed urban centres over time.1

In agriculture, shifting rainfall patterns and more extreme heat are already affecting yields and production risks in some areas, which can flow through to food prices and the stability of regional employment.

Urban agriculture and local food production are being explored as part of the response, with planning reforms in several Australian cities allowing underused land to be turned into community gardens and small urban farms.5

These initiatives aim to strengthen local food security, create new jobs and reduce the distance food travels, all of which can help buffer communities against supply disruptions linked to climate impacts on traditional farming regions.5

Social cohesion, inequality and displacement

Climate migration is not only about geography and economics, it is also about who is able to move early and who is left behind.

Consumer and legal advocacy groups warn that people on low incomes, including many in public or insecure housing, face limited options when insurance becomes unaffordable or when homes are repeatedly damaged.6

Without affordable relocation pathways, these households may experience deepening financial stress, mental health impacts and social dislocation, especially if local services and jobs decline in high‑risk areas.

Well‑designed disaster adaptation plans can help by involving communities in decisions about where new housing, transport and services will be located, and by ensuring that social cohesion and community networks are explicitly considered alongside physical infrastructure.3

However, experts emphasise that adaptation spending must be targeted to avoid entrenching disadvantage, ensuring that support for buy‑backs, retrofits and relocations is accessible to renters and low‑income homeowners, not only to those with significant assets.

What governments can do now

The emerging reality of internal climate displacement in Australia demands practical, near‑term measures rather than distant aspirations.

First, federal and state governments can expand and coordinate buy‑back and land‑swap programs in the most exposed flood and fire zones, using clear criteria and long‑term funding so communities know what support is available before the next disaster.3

Second, planning systems can be strengthened to prevent new development in high‑risk areas, and to integrate updated climate risk information into zoning, building codes and infrastructure decisions across states and territories.1

Third, targeted investment through mechanisms like the Disaster Ready Fund can prioritise projects that protect critical routes, utilities and community hubs, allowing people to stay safely where possible and to move in an orderly way where necessary.7

Fourth, regulators and treasuries can work with insurers, lenders and consumer advocates to monitor insurance retreat, identify hotspots where affordability is collapsing and design interventions that avoid sudden shocks to households and local economies.4

Finally, all levels of government can support regional economic diversification, including urban agriculture, renewable energy and care and services sectors, to provide new employment pathways in safer locations for those who need to move.5

Lessons from urban farming for global cities

Urban farming offers one lens on how cities can adapt to climate pressures while supporting communities that may be affected by displacement.

Case studies from Australian cities show that when councils update zoning to recognise urban agriculture as a legitimate land use, underused spaces can be turned into productive gardens and farms that strengthen local food systems and create jobs.5

Research on urban food security and climate resilience has highlighted the role of community gardens, rooftop farms and small‑scale commercial growing in improving access to fresh food and building local capacity to respond to shocks.8

For global cities, the lesson is that integrating food production into planning – through supportive zoning, water‑sensitive design and community‑led projects – can make neighbourhoods more resilient, especially when traditional supply chains are disrupted by climate impacts.

What must happen in the next five years

Over the next five years, regional planners and policymakers in Australia will need to embed climate risk into every major land‑use, infrastructure and housing decision, treating internal climate displacement as a real and growing challenge rather than a distant possibility.3

That means scaling up regional disaster adaptation plans, aligning them with federal resilience funding, tightening controls on development in high‑risk areas and establishing fair, long‑term arrangements for buy‑backs, relocation support and economic transition in affected communities.7

References

1. Reserve Bank of Australia, “Climate Change and Financial Risk”, Bulletin, June 2023
2. The Australia Institute, “Premium Price: The impact of climate change on insurance costs”, 2024
3. NSW Reconstruction Authority, “Disaster Adaptation Plan Guidelines”, 2025
4. Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, “Insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment”, 2024
5. Biomass Producer, “How Urban Agriculture Zoning Is Transforming Australian Cities into Food Gardens”, 2025
6. Financial Rights Legal Centre, “Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Premiums and Affordability”, 2024
7. National Emergency Management Agency, “Disaster Ready Fund”
8. P. Burton, “Urban food security, urban resilience and climate change”, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, 2013

Back to Top

Homes, Water and the New Australian Climate Reckoning - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Climate damage is projected to impose very large annual costs on Australia without stronger adaptation and emissions reduction.1 A national climate resilience star rating for housing could change how homes are built, bought and insured.2 More than A$23 billion in desalination projects are expected over the next decade as water demand rises and rainfall declines.3 Prevention and adaptation measures are consistently cheaper over time than repeated disaster recovery and emergency responses.4 Rising climate risks are colliding with a housing crisis, exposing more homes to flood, fire and insurance pressures.5 Global cities using urban farming and green infrastructure show how cooling, food security and resilience can be combined.6

Australia is entering a decisive decade in which climate change will test its disaster response systems, home safety, and water supply security.

From Lismore’s flooded streets to the blackened fringes of Perth and Melbourne, climate‑fuelled disasters are colliding with a housing crisis, pushing more people into exposed suburbs on floodplains, fire‑prone hillsides and eroding coasts.⁵

At the same time, the world’s driest inhabited continent is preparing for a new wave of desalination plants, as a growing population and a booming data centre and resources sector drive up demand for water while rainfall becomes less reliable.³

Policy advisers warn that without faster investment in prevention and adaptation, climate damage will drag on productivity, deepen inequality and force governments into ever more expensive rebuilding efforts after each disaster.¹

The Productivity Commission has called for a public database of climate hazards and a national climate resilience star rating for homes, making risks more visible to buyers, builders and insurers, and guiding upgrades to older housing in danger zones.²

Research on housing recovery shows that, in high‑risk regions, reinforcing homes and updating planning rules before the next flood or fire generally costs less than rebuilding suburbs again and again after disasters.⁴

On the water front, analysts estimate that Australia is on track to build or expand 11 desalination plants worth more than A$23 billion over the next ten years, reshaping coastal landscapes and energy demand in the name of water security.³

These choices are not purely technical: they go to the heart of the Australian dream of a detached house on the fringe, a backyard and a reliable tap, challenging governments to balance economic growth, housing security and environmental resilience under a rapidly changing climate.

How Canberra, states and local councils respond over the next five years will influence not only insurance bills and water prices, but where millions of Australians can safely live, and how cities adapt to a hotter, drier future.¹

Prevention versus the cost of doing nothing

For decades, Australia has spent far more on cleaning up after disasters than on preventing damage in the first place, a pattern that economists increasingly argue is unsustainable in a warming climate.⁴

State and federal budgets support emergency services, recovery grants and rebuilding of public infrastructure, yet relatively modest sums have gone into relocating the most exposed homes, strengthening building standards or restoring natural buffers such as wetlands.⁴

The Productivity Commission’s work on climate and productivity highlights that climate damage, including from more intense heat, floods and storms, poses “substantial risks” to future economic growth, and argues that well‑designed adaptation can reduce these losses while unlocking new opportunities.¹

Parallel research on housing recovery notes that post‑disaster rebuilding is slow, complex and often more expensive than anticipated, citing the 2022 Lismore floods where reconstruction costs were estimated at around A$1 billion for a single regional city.⁵

Analysts at AHURI and other institutions argue that, in high‑risk areas, stronger planning controls, buy‑backs and resilient construction are more cost‑effective over time than repeatedly repairing damaged homes, especially as insurance premiums rise or cover is withdrawn.⁵

Insurance and actuarial assessments suggest that, without large‑scale adaptation, hundreds of thousands of Australian properties could face sharply higher premiums by 2030, or become effectively uninsurable, with obvious implications for household finances and mortgage markets.⁵

These findings strengthen the case for shifting more public and private finance upstream, from disaster recovery to prevention, by funding buy‑backs, retrofits, early‑warning systems and nature‑based solutions that reduce the impact of extreme events before they strike.⁴

Population growth, housing demand and risky land

Australia’s housing pressures are colliding with climate risk in ways that make planning decisions more consequential than ever.

Population growth and years of undersupply have pushed up prices and rents, encouraging development on cheaper land at the edges of cities, which is often more exposed to bushfire, flood or extreme heat.⁵

Research on climate risk to housing warns that millions of homes are already exposed to riverine flooding, coastal inundation or bushfire, with concentrations of vulnerable properties in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria where rapid growth has pushed suburbs into hazard zones.⁵

In this context, planning rules that still allow new estates on floodplains or in heavily forested, hard‑to‑defend landscapes lock in future disaster costs, and can leave first‑home buyers and low‑income renters shouldering the highest risks.

The Productivity Commission has recommended that governments agree on clear goals for improving the resilience of housing, backed by a national climate hazard database so that councils, developers and households can see the risks before new suburbs are zoned or approved.²

This approach would support more stringent planning controls in high‑risk areas, including steering new housing towards safer sites, lifting the minimum height of floor levels in flood‑prone districts and requiring evacuation routes that remain passable in disasters.²

It also raises challenging equity questions, because restricting development in dangerous locations can reduce land supply and push up prices unless governments are prepared to invest in well‑planned, safer infill and medium‑density housing near jobs, services and transport.

Can a climate resilience star rating change the market?

One of the Commission’s most striking proposals is a nationally consistent, outcome‑based climate resilience star rating for housing, similar in concept to the energy star labels on appliances or the NatHERS energy ratings used for homes.²

The idea is that star ratings would reflect a home’s ability to withstand climate hazards in its location, taking into account factors such as elevation above flood levels, construction materials, roof design, shutters and the presence of ember‑proofing and other protections.²

ACOSS and other social and environmental groups have backed the concept, and have called for a major program of federal investment to retrofit public, community and First Nations housing for climate resilience and energy efficiency, arguing that safer homes can reduce poverty, improve health and cut disaster costs.⁷

If such a rating became visible in listings, conveyancing documents and insurance assessments, it could start to shift the “Australian dream” away from size and location alone, towards a more nuanced picture of safety, liveability and long‑term cost.

In practice, a climate resilience star rating could affect valuations, as high‑rated homes attract better insurance terms or higher buyer demand, while low‑rated properties in exposed areas face pressure to upgrade or accept lower prices.

Banks and regulators would likely take an interest, because climate resilience affects the security of mortgage collateral, and a transparent rating system could help them manage portfolio‑wide risks.²

For households, especially in older suburbs, the key will be coupling ratings with clear guidance and finance options for improvements, so owners know which changes, from raising floor levels to installing shutters, deliver the greatest risk reduction for the money.

The politics and economics of desalination

On the other side of the climate ledger, Australia is preparing for a “big build” in urban water infrastructure, centred on desalination and, in some states, large‑scale recycling.

Bloomberg reporting, drawing on Oxford Economics analysis, indicates that Australia is projected to build or expand 11 desalination plants worth more than A$23 billion over the next decade, as demand from households, industry and data centres rises and rainfall in major catchments becomes less reliable.³

Perth, which already relies heavily on desalination, is constructing the Alkimos Seawater Desalination Plant, a multibillion‑dollar project expected to supply around 50 billion litres of drinking water annually from 2028, highlighting how coastal cities are turning to the ocean to secure supplies.⁸

Desalination offers a rainfall‑independent source of water, but it is energy‑intensive, which means its climate benefits depend heavily on how quickly the electricity grid decarbonises and whether plants are paired with renewables or contracts for clean power.

Economically, large‑scale plants create construction and supply‑chain jobs and can underpin regional industrial growth, yet they involve long‑term contracts that commit governments and water users to paying for capacity even in wet years.⁸

The politics of desalination has often been turbulent, with criticism over “white elephant” projects built at the end of droughts, but recent dry periods and climate projections have shifted the debate towards seeing diversified water portfolios, including desalination, as a form of insurance against system failure.⁹

To keep public trust, governments will need to demonstrate that these investments are integrated with demand management, leakage reduction and recycling, and that long‑term costs are fairly shared between households, businesses and heavy water users.

Urban farming and lessons from global cities

As Australian cities grapple with heat, water stress and food security concerns, some of the most interesting examples of integrated solutions come from global experiments in urban agriculture and green infrastructure.

Singapore’s “Cooling Singapore” initiative, along with building rules that mandate greenery on roofs and upper levels, has helped create layered green spaces that moderate temperatures, support biodiversity and host community urban farms.¹⁰

New York, Paris and Singapore have seen the spread of rooftop farms and community gardens that not only produce food close to consumers, but also insulate buildings, reduce stormwater runoff and contribute to reducing urban heat island effects.⁶

Scenario work on urban agriculture suggests that, when cities mainstream green roofs, vertical farms and community gardens, they can cut peak temperatures, ease pressure on drainage systems and improve resilience to supply chain disruptions, while using recycled water and organic waste to close resource loops.⁶

For Australian planners, these examples point to a broader vision of climate adaptation in which housing, water and food systems are considered together, rather than as separate silos.

Embedding urban farming and green corridors into densifying suburbs can complement hard infrastructure like desalination, reduce localised flood and heat risks, and strengthen social cohesion, which is critical during and after disasters.¹⁰

What global cities can learn from urban farming pioneers

Cities that have embraced urban farming show that resilience is not only about engineering, but about using every available surface and space to cool streets, manage water and grow food closer to where people live.

By integrating rooftop farms, community gardens and vertical agriculture into planning rules and incentives, global cities can reduce heat stress, cut stormwater runoff and improve local food security, while giving residents a direct stake in climate adaptation.⁶

What planners must do in the next five years

The next five years will be critical for regional planners and policymakers seeking to reduce long‑term climate risk for Australian communities.

First, governments need to deliver a national, public climate hazard database, embed it in planning schemes and introduce a climate resilience star rating for housing, so that risk information is visible and drives safer land‑use and construction decisions.¹

Second, planning systems must restrict new development in high‑risk locations while enabling well‑designed, climate‑resilient infill and medium‑density housing in safer areas, backed by funding to retrofit and, where necessary, relocate the most exposed homes.²

Third, water authorities and governments should lock in staged investment in diversified, low‑carbon water sources, including desalination, recycling and demand‑side measures, to meet rising demand without over‑reliance on rainfall or last‑minute, high‑cost projects.³

Finally, planners can integrate green infrastructure and urban agriculture into growth strategies, using vegetation, permeable surfaces and local food systems to cool neighbourhoods, manage stormwater and strengthen community resilience as the climate continues to warm.⁶

References

1. Productivity Commission report highlights climate action as crucial for Australia’s productivity
2. Interim report: Investing in cheaper, cleaner energy and climate‑resilient housing
3. Australia poised for desalination boom as water shortages loom
4. An indicative assessment of four key areas of climate risk for NSW
5. Enhancing housing recovery policy and practice for improving community resilience to future disaster
6. The role of urban agriculture in mitigating heat islands
7. Submission to the Productivity Commission on climate resilience and social housing (ACOSS and partners)
8. Quenching growth: How new desalination plants could boost ASX stocks
9. What Australia can learn from Singapore about designing our cities to reduce urban heat
10. Why we need to invest in water security, even when the dams are full

Back to Top