The black work of Big Oil - Julian Cribb

Surviving the 21st Century - Julian Cribb

AUTHOR

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

Now is the sinister time of year when the Barons of Big Oil gather together, under the auspices of the United Nations and with the blessing of most world leaders, to celebrate the 350 million needless deaths they will cause between now and 2050 in the name of profit.

Yes, it’s the Conference of the Parties on Climate Change, also known as COP30, the event where the fossil oligarchs toast their victory over humanity and its future - and the fact they have successfully played the entire world for mugs, hypnotising us into climate paralysis. This time the ‘Conclave of the Pernicious’ was hosted by Brazil.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what UN chief Antonio Guterres had to say: “Too many corporations are making record profits from climate devastation, with billions spent on lobbying, deceiving the public and obstructing progress”

And in a sideswipe at the politicians in countries like the USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, China, India and Australia who are the chief enablers of the death and destruction, he said: “Too many leaders remain captive to these entrenched interests. Too many countries are starved of the resources to adapt – and locked out of the clean energy transition. And too many people are losing hope that their leaders will act.” Fair enough.

Absent from the talks was Trump’s USA, per capita the world’s worst climate vandal and champion backslider. It was too busy, allegedly, trying to stitch up a new offshore natural gas deal for its chief predator, Exxon. Missing too were China, Russia and India.

However, this didn’t stop Colombian president Gustavo Petro declaring Trump a foe of humanity, and Chilean president Gabriel Boric from branding him a liar for his fatuous claim that climate change was a ‘con job’. As Lincoln might have said: you can fool most Americans most of the time - but the rest of the world sees Trump pretty clearly.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva stated bluntly that Earth ‘can no longer sustain humanity’s dependence on fossil fuels’.

The death toll from the use of fossil fuels is not confined to climate change – far from it. The bulk of it is down to air pollution, toxic food, water and homes, plastic pollution of our bodies, pesticides, drugs and other petrochemical byproducts. These claim the lion’s share of the 14 million deaths per year which the World Health Organisation says are attributable to the human living environment. But the climate toll is large and mounting, already in the millions.

Here’s what The Lancet said in its 2025 summary of health impacts, prepared for COP30: “Driven by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is increasingly claiming lives and harming people’s health worldwide.

“Of the 20 indicators tracking the health risks and impacts of climate change in this report, 12 have set concerning new records in the latest year for which indicator data are available.”

Heat deaths are the most publicly visible marker of climate impact. In recent years they have grown to around 546,000 per year, says The Lancet, up 63% since 1990. As to the cause “On average, 16 (84%) of the 19 life-threatening heatwave days that people were exposed to annually in 2020–24 would not have occurred without climate change.” So there’s not much doubt who those deaths are down to – the fossil barons and their political bootlickers.

Flood, storm, tidal surge, famine and other climate deaths are harder to attribute, but rising in lockstep with the planet’s temperature nonetheless. “The incidence of extreme (rainfall) days (which affect health and can trigger flash floods and landslides), increased in 64% of the world’s land surface between 1961–90 and 2015–24,” states The Lancet.

Meanwhile, it adds. a record-breaking 61% of the global land area was affected by extreme drought in 2024, which is 299% above the 1950s average, further threatening food and water security, health and safety, and inflicting heavy economic losses. So if you notice food prices going up at the supermarket, you know who (among others) to thank: the fossil barons and their political bootlickers.

Additionally, hotter and drier weather is increasing the incidence of wildfires. 2024 recorded a record-high 154 000 deaths from wildfire smoke inhalation. So you know who to thank when you start coughing up your lungs: the fossil barons and their political bootlickers.

Meantime, ticks and mosquitoes are on the rampage in our hotter, wetter world: the dengue transmission potential of mossies went up 49% in 2024, leading to 7.6 million cases in the first few months, while 364 million more folk were at risk of tick fever, according to The Lancet’s experts. So you know who to thank for your next bite: those ticks in the fossil fuel corporations and their political bootlickers.

Some may regard this analogy as a tad harsh but, seriously, that’s what ticks do – spread death and disease (like the delightful Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever) while busily sucking your blood.

And, with an argument even economists - the high priests of capitalism - might understand, The Lancet states the world lost $1.1 trillion last year, about 1% of its GDP, thanks to climate-driven declines in productivity, rising absenteeism and overstressed healthcare systems. Added to which is another third of a trillion in direct climate damage like big floods, storms, fires etc. As private insurance is increasingly refusing to pay for such losses, this cost is falling more heavily on the state and taxpayer. Again, thanks to those who sold an extra 1.6 per cent of carbon in the first place.

In the eyes of The Lancet, world leaders have basically turned their backs and blocked their ears to half a century of climate and health warnings: emissions are rising faster, forests are falling, more people are dying, adaptation and carbon cuts are on indefinite hold. Political agendas in leading countries have downgraded the priority of climate action by a half or more.

The “fossil fuel giants (including Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron) have paused, delayed, or retracted their climate commitments, increasingly pushing the world towards a dangerous future,” The Lancet added. Meanwhile the big banks contributed $611 billion to expanding oil, gas and coal output in 2024. And governments added a further three quarters of a trillion dollars a year in subsidies to fossil fuel corporates, despite many promising to cease the practice.

The ultimate price for all this, warns The Lancet, will be paid for in millions of human lives.

Meanwhile the Conclave of the Pernicious rumbles on, uselessly, with Turkey and Australia vying for the shame of hosting the next memento mori event, COP31 in 2026.

Links

• Fossil fuel companies attending recent U.N. climate talks responsible for nearly 60% of global oil and gas production 
• This COP must ignite a decade of acceleration and delivery: UN Secretary-General address to Belém Leaders Summit 
• World leaders punch back at US climate denial ahead of Brazil's COP30 negotiations 
• Earth cannot 'sustain' intensive fossil fuel use, Lula tells COP30 
• Public health and environment 
• The 2025 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change 
• Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever 
• Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Tracking the impact of government support 

Back to Top

2050 Net Zero: Liberals Ditch Long-Term Climate Target Amid Party Split - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

The federal parliamentary Liberal Party has formally abandoned a net zero by 2050 commitment.[1] The decision follows a marathon party-room debate and aligns the Liberals with the Nationals.[2] Leader Sussan Ley framed the change as prioritising affordable energy while remaining in the Paris Agreement.[3] Critics say abandoning formal targets risks diplomatic and legal problems under the Paris framework.[2] Moderate Liberals warned the move could cost urban seats and business support.[5] The Coalition will now negotiate a joint Liberal–National position before presenting it to the joint party room.[4]

The federal parliamentary Liberal Party has formally decided to abandon its long-standing commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley announced the change after a protracted internal debate and a shadow ministry meeting.

The party said it will prioritise policies intended to lower energy costs and emphasise technology and voluntary markets instead of legislated long-term targets.

The decision brings the Liberals into line with the Nationals, which already removed net-zero language from its platform this month.

Party officials say Australia will remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement while not setting domestic long-range targets before an election.

Critics including legal academics and climate groups say the move risks international backlash and could amount to backsliding under the Paris framework.

Moderates warned the strategy may cost the Coalition metropolitan voters and damage business confidence in energy policy.

The Liberals have appointed representatives to negotiate a common Coalition position with the Nationals ahead of a joint meeting later this week.

What happened

A party-room meeting lasting several hours produced a majority mood in favour of removing a firm net-zero by 2050 commitment from Liberal policy. ^[1]

The shadow ministry then met and resolved to formally abandon the 2050 target while saying emissions would fall year-on-year in line with comparable countries. ^[1]

The Liberals announced they would also repeal parts of Labor’s 2030 emissions legislation and reconsider renewable energy targets if elected. ^[3]

Leader Sussan Ley framed the change as a shift to “energy abundance”, listing nuclear, gas and keeping coal plants operating longer as policy options. ^[3]

Why the party changed course

Internal pressure from conservative and regional MPs who view net-zero targets as a threat to traditional industries helped drive the shift. ^[4]

The Nationals’ earlier abandonment of net-zero language accelerated the Liberals’ move by making Coalition unity harder to sustain if the Liberals retained the target. ^[4]

Party strategists argue that promises to limit energy costs and resist mandated closures will play to concerns among regional voters and some working-class electorates. ^[2]

How the leadership explained the decision

Sussan Ley told reporters the party would not pursue a policy of net zero while stressing Australia would remain in the Paris Agreement. ^[3]

Shadow ministers said emissions would be reduced “as fast as technology allows” and by benchmarking “comparable countries”, but they did not publish binding interim targets. ^[1]

Dan Tehan, the opposition energy spokesperson, said the Liberals would “throw all technologies” at emissions reduction and create market mechanisms rather than legislated mandates. ^[1]

Immediate reactions

The prime minister and Labor described the decision as walking away from climate responsibility and said it would undermine investment certainty. ^[1]

Environmental organisations warned the move risks higher future costs from worsening climate impacts and slower clean-energy investment. ^[1]

Some moderate Liberals publicly warned they might resign frontbench positions or quit if the party fully abandoned net-zero language. ^[5]

Legal and diplomatic implications

Experts have flagged that unpicking domestic targets while remaining a Paris signatory could raise questions about whether Australia is backsliding on its nationally determined contributions. ^[2]

Observers note the Paris framework expects progression in climate commitments and that abrupt reversals can damage international credibility. ^[3]

Electoral and economic consequences

Political analysts say abandoning net-zero risks alienating metropolitan and business voters who have increasingly treated climate policy as a deciding issue. ^[5]

Industry groups seeking policy certainty have warned that changing long-term targets creates investment uncertainty for renewables, storage and heavy-industry decarbonisation. ^[2]

What happens next

The Liberal and National parties have appointed three representatives each to negotiate a joint Coalition climate and energy position ahead of a full joint party room meeting. ^[4]

If the Coalition hopes to present a single platform at the next election, it will need to reconcile competing priorities on affordability, security, and emissions reduction. ^[1]

Bottom line

The Liberal Party’s decision to abandon a net-zero by 2050 commitment is a deliberate political repositioning that prioritises energy affordability and Coalition unity over settled long-term climate targets. ^[3]

The choice narrows policy differences with the Nationals but raises questions about international obligations, investor confidence and the Coalition’s appeal in urban electorates. ^[2]

References

1. Liberal Party formally abandons net zero by 2050 climate target — ABC News
2. Australia's conservative Liberal Party abandons net zero policy — Reuters
3. Liberals formally abandon net zero by 2050 but Ley says reaching target would still be ‘welcome outcome’ — The Guardian
4. The Liberal Party has dumped net zero — but the Coalition's real battle lies ahead — SBS News
5. Ley's net zero decision may bring her extra time as leader, but at what cost? — ABC Analysis

Back to Top

Mending the Planet: The Power of Wind, Sun, and Nature’s Networks - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Rapidly decarbonise global electricity systems[2] Phase out coal, oil, and unabated gas completely[1] Electrify transport, heating, and industry while improving efficiency[2] Slash methane and other short-lived pollutants[4] Protect and restore forests, soils, and blue carbon ecosystems[5] Invest in carbon removal and end fossil fuel subsidies[6]

Stopping global warming demands swift, systemic change across energy, transport, land, and industrial systems.

Scientists agree that deep, rapid cuts to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the only way to avoid catastrophic climate disruption. ^[1]

The five most critical steps are decarbonising electricity, phasing out fossil fuels, electrifying demand, reducing methane, and protecting natural carbon sinks. ^[2]

These measures must work together, since partial action leaves major sources of emissions unchecked and global temperatures rising. ^[1]

Governments, industries, and citizens all have clear, immediate roles to play in reshaping economies and energy use within this decade. ^[2]

Fast, collective action not only cuts emissions, but also improves air quality, public health, and economic stability. ^[2]

This article explains the five highest-impact strategies to halt global warming, backed by the best available evidence. ^[1]

1. Decarbonise electricity at scale

Electricity generation produces about one-third of global carbon emissions, making it the first sector that must reach net zero. ^[2]

Replacing coal and gas with renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower delivers the fastest and most reliable emissions cuts. ^[2]

Countries that invest heavily in renewable capacity and grid upgrades achieve both cleaner power and cheaper electricity. ^[2]

Governments can accelerate progress through stable policies, long-term investment incentives, and fair access to clean energy technologies. ^[2]

2. End unabated fossil fuel combustion

The burning of coal, oil, and gas without carbon capture remains the single largest source of global warming. ^[3]

Phasing out coal power, restricting new oil and gas developments, and capping existing production are vital steps to stay within carbon limits. ^[1]

Every year of delay increases the need for costly and uncertain carbon removal technologies later this century. ^[1]

Ending fossil fuel subsidies and implementing transparent carbon pricing would shift investment decisively toward clean alternatives. ^[6]

3. Electrify demand and boost efficiency

Transport, heating, and industrial processes that currently rely on fossil fuels can run on clean electricity, sharply cutting emissions. ^[2]

Energy efficiency—through better building design, advanced appliances, and modern manufacturing—reduces waste and demand simultaneously. ^[2]

Electric vehicles, heat pumps, and industrial electrification together can remove billions of tonnes of CO₂ each year when powered by renewables. ^[2]

Strong standards, rebates, and infrastructure investment make electrification accessible and affordable for households and businesses alike. ^[2]

4. Cut methane and other short-lived pollutants

Methane traps far more heat than carbon dioxide, but it breaks down within decades, so reducing it offers rapid climate benefits. ^[4]

Most methane emissions come from fossil fuel leaks, agriculture, and waste—sectors where solutions already exist and are relatively inexpensive. ^[4]

The Global Methane Pledge aims to cut emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, a step that could slow near-term warming measurably. ^[4]

Modern monitoring and regulations can identify leaks, enforce reductions, and deliver one of the quickest wins in climate policy. ^[4]

5. Protect and restore natural carbon sinks

Forests, soils, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems absorb huge amounts of carbon and shield humanity from extreme weather. ^[5]

Stopping deforestation, restoring damaged landscapes, and expanding blue carbon habitats offer cost-effective, nature-based mitigation. ^[5]

These ecosystems also protect biodiversity and support local communities, making climate and conservation goals mutually reinforcing. ^[5]

Strong land rights, transparent governance, and long-term finance are essential to safeguard nature’s role in climate stability. ^[5]

Beyond the five steps

Even with full implementation of these measures, residual industrial emissions will require carbon capture or removal technologies. ^[1]

Such technologies must complement, not replace, deep emission cuts and responsible resource management. ^[1]

Rapid decarbonisation also brings cleaner air, new industries, and enhanced energy security—benefits that extend far beyond climate goals. ^[2]

What remains essential is coordinated global action that turns pledges into measurable progress. ^[6]

Conclusion

To stop global warming, the world must act simultaneously on power, pollution, and protection of natural systems. ^[1]

No single technology or country can achieve this alone, but collective resolve can still steer humanity toward safety. ^[2]

The decisive years are now, not later—what nations do this decade will define the planet’s trajectory for centuries. ^[6]

Implementing these five proven actions gives the world its best and last realistic chance to stop global warming. ^[1]

References

1. IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — Summary for Policymakers.
2. International Energy Agency, Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.
3. Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget (latest assessment and data).
4. Climate and Clean Air Coalition and UNEP, Global Methane Assessment (2021).
5. Global Forest Watch, Global forest change and primary forest loss data.
6. World Meteorological Organization data reported by Reuters, CO₂ levels hit highest ever recorded (2025).

Back to Top

Forty per cent of Australian women without kids hesitant to have children because of climate change, survey finds - The Guardian

 The Guardian - Donna Lu

More than a third of Coalition voters
believe temperatures will not rise at all, poll shows

The survey has found that while 40.4% of women said they were hesitant about having children due to the changing climate, only 17% of men shared that opinion. Photograph: abriendomundo/Getty Images

About 40% of Australian women without kids say they are hesitant to have children because of climate change, a new survey suggests.

The survey, on attitudes about the impacts of global heating, also found that half of Australians were very or extremely concerned about climate change and two in five believed the climate would be “much hotter” in 2050.

Commissioned by Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, and carried out by Roy Morgan Research, the survey also found that more than a third of Coalition voters believed the climate would not change at all.

The survey – which involved a nationally representative sample of 2,000 people – found Labor, Greens and independent voters were three times more likely to express high levels of concern about climate change compared with conservative voters.

Concern about climate change was also much more strongly correlated with education level than with age.

Among parents, three in five Labor voters expressed high concern about their children’s future in a changing climate, compared with one in five Coalition voters.

“Compared to men, women expect it to become hotter, are more anxious, and feel more insecure due to the changing climate, suggesting values of care make them more open to the scientific warnings of danger,” Hamilton wrote in a research paper on the survey findings.

Among non-parents, 40.4% of women said they were moderately or very hesitant about having children because of the changing climate, but only 17% of men (one in six) reported the same.

Hamilton suggests that greater hesitancy among women points to a “gendered calculus of risk”.

“Evidence we do have suggests that values of care make women much more open to the alarming nature of the scientific evidence and the visceral impact that weather events have on people,” he said.

Rising levels of climate concern could result in a decline in Australia’s birthrate, Hamilton added.

“There’s a massive disconnect between the conversations that are being had among young people about having children, and government and policy discussions about Australia’s demographic future,” he said. “This survey shows that this is an issue that can’t be ignored.”

The findings roughly align with those of a 2019 Australian Conservation Foundation survey, which found that one in three Australian women under 30 said they were reconsidering having children because of concerns about “an unsafe future from climate change”.

The Roy Morgan survey also involved respondents in areas affected by floods and fires since 2019. Living through extreme weather events had only a small effect on concern about climate change, it found.

“People have ways of explaining it away, or attributing it to natural factors, or are … unwilling to blame climate change for their misfortune,” Hamilton said.

Prof Iain Walker, a social psychologist at the University of Melbourne who was not involved in the survey, said that finding was consistent with other research both from Australia and internationally, which suggested that “experiencing extreme weather events makes little difference, and what difference it does make is likely short-lived”.

“I think the explanation to the counterintuitive effect lies in how people interpret the weather event,” Walker said. “People who already accept anthropogenic climate change will accept a flood or heatwave as more evidence that climate change is happening; those who already reject climate change will explain away the extreme weather events.”

Though the areas the survey identified as affected by extreme weather events were outside capital cities, it found that concern about the climate crisis was somewhat higher in cities than regional areas.

Links

• Recent Australian survey by Clive Hamilton / Roy Morgan Research
• Australia’s horrifying climate future in four charts – and how we can avoid the worst 
• The women choosing the climate over having a baby
• What do Australians think about climate change?
• Women’s Environmental Leadership Australia Report: Gender, Climate and Environmental Justice in Australia
• New survey shows women will change their lives – and votes – for climate action
• Climate change, mental health, and reproductive decision‑making: A systematic review
• The Climate Load (Australia)

COP30: A Test for Global Climate Action - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

COP30 is the next major test of the Paris process and global climate cooperation.[1] Delivery on finance, especially loss, damage, and adaptation, will shape outcomes.[5] Renewable energy and sustainable biofuels will be highlighted as implementation pathways.[8] Geopolitics and uneven national commitments threaten collective progress.[3] Operationalising previous decisions, not only new pledges, is a central test.[0] Civil society and Indigenous voices will press for equitable, transparent finance, and protection of forests.[5]

COP30 in Belém will test whether past summit promises become measurable action.

The summit’s outcome will hinge on finance, implementation, adaptation, and political will.

Countries must show updated national commitments, and measurable progress toward the 1.5°C goal.

If finance pledges for loss, damage, and adaptation remain vague, the summit will have limited impact.

Renewable energy scale-up, and sustainable biofuels are practical pathways that delegations will promote.

Geopolitical tensions and uneven ambition among major emitters pose the summit’s greatest constraint.

Civil society and Indigenous groups will watch closely for commitments that protect forests and frontline communities.

Why COP30 matters

COP30 is the main annual multilateral forum where nearly all countries negotiate collective climate action under the UNFCCC framework.^[1]

The conference comes after COP29, which focused attention on a new collective quantified finance goal and revealed deep divides on resource allocation.^[3]

COP30 in Belém offers an opportunity to move from broad commitments to operational detail on finance, adaptation, and implementation of the UAE consensus, and other prior decisions.^[0]

The selection of Belém and the Amazon setting places forests and land use on the agenda in a symbolic and practical way for global mitigation and biodiversity links.^[9]

Key agenda items

Countries will present updated nationally determined contributions or explain why updates are delayed, which affects credibility and aggregated ambition.^[6]

Operationalising finance flows to support mitigation, adaptation, and the Loss and Damage Fund will be a central negotiating thread.^[5]

The UAE Consensus goals on tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency remain implementation priorities and will be reviewed for progress and concrete pledges.^[4]

Sustainable biofuels and sustainable aviation fuel targets are expected to feature as specific sectoral measures to reduce emissions in hard-to-abate transport sectors.^[8]

Main obstacles

The single largest obstacle is the political gap between wealthy and developing countries over who pays for historical and ongoing losses caused by climate change.^[5]

Another obstacle is the uneven updating of pledges, with only a minority of countries submitting robust new NDCs on the timetable many analysts expected.^[6]

Geopolitical strain, including reduced engagement by some major powers, complicates consensus building and reduces pressure for strong outcomes.^[11]

Technical and institutional hurdles remain in converting high-level finance pledges into accessible, on-the-ground funding for adaptation and loss and damage.

Finance and loss and damage

Progress on the Loss and Damage Fund’s mobilisation and disbursement mechanisms will determine whether vulnerable states see material relief this decade.^[5]

Donor pledges must be paired with transparent rules that reduce bureaucratic barriers and ensure funds reach communities rather than being delayed by administrative complexity.^[9]

Discussions about a new collective quantified finance goal aim to set a clear numeric target for climate finance flows to 2035 and beyond, but details remain contentious.^[3]

Politics, implementation, and credibility

Delivering measurable implementation of existing agreements will matter more than symbolic language in the final COP texts.^[0]

Host country priorities shape agenda weight and Brazil’s choice of Belém highlights land use, forest protection, and the Amazon’s role in climate stability.^[9]

Civil society scrutiny and Indigenous advocacy will be crucial in holding negotiators to commitments and making the process more accountable.^[5]

Outcomes to watch

Successful COP30 outcomes would include clear operational rules for loss and damage disbursement and a timetable for increased adaptation finance.^[5]

Concrete sectoral pledges, such as biofuel production targets or renewable deployment roadmaps, will show implementation focus beyond abstract language.^[8]

A failure to define financing mechanisms, or to secure stronger NDCs, would leave the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal increasingly out of reach.

Conclusion

COP30 is less a single decisive moment than a step in a long sequence, where implementation and finance must finally catch up to rhetoric.

The summit’s true measure will be whether negotiators turn prior commitments into clear funds, programs, and verifiable national actions.

For citizens and vulnerable communities, the most important outcome will be material support for adaptation and loss recovery, rather than new promises alone.^[5]

References

1. Why COP30 matters & how it can succeed (C2ES PDF)
2. About COP30 - UNFCCC
3. COP29: Progresses and challenges to global efforts on the climate
4. Delivering on the UAE Consensus: Tracking progress toward tripling renewable energy capacity (IRENA)
5. Loss and Damage: a people’s priority to be upheld at COP30 (Amnesty)
6. About COP30 (COP30 official site)
7. IRENA chief expects sustainable biofuels to feature as key COP30 theme (Reuters)
8. COP30: Optimistic Brazil seeks to secure concrete progress on climate action (Le Monde)
9. COP 29: Progress, pitfalls, and the road ahead for climate action (Hogan Lovells)

Back to Top

Stealing the Breath of Life - Julian Cribb

 Surviving the 21st Century - Julian Cribb

I was much further out than you thought. 
And not waving but drowning – Stevie Smith, 1957 

AUTHOR

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

When you suffocate or drown, every fibre of your being cries out for the breath of life, oxygen. It is the body’s ungovernable response to the extinguishing of your flame.

Could that really be the fate that today’s humans, knowingly or not, are engineering for their children and grandchildren? To choke out on a planet whose atmosphere can no longer support our kind?

The scientifically attested facts make unpleasant, but necessary reading. Oxygen levels in the air and seas of our frail blue Planet have been going down slowly for eons. Then, suddenly, in a rush.

Just over ten years ago two scientists, Ralph Keeling and Andrew Manning, who had been carefully observing the sharp rise in the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 due to human burning of fossil fuels and felling of forests noticed something else: it was parallelled by a fall in oxygen levels.

Figure 1. Decline in Earth’s atmospheric oxygen levels, 
measured over the Southern Ocean at Cape Grim, Australia 1990-2024.
 Source: Scripps Institute.

 Back when the dinosaurs reigned, Earth’s atmosphere contained 23-28% oxygen, which was probably needful to support their massive frames. Today the number is just under 21%, and falling by about 4 parts per million (ppm) a year. 

A steady decline over the last million years has accelerated sharply in the last 150, with 12% of the loss occurring on modern society’s brief watch (just 0.015% of the elapsed time).

The explanation is not far to seek: every CO2 molecule we create when we start a car, burn coal or light a barbecue sucks two molecules of breathable oxygen out of the air. 

In a typical year our carbon emissions alone remove around 100 billion tonnes of oxygen from the atmosphere. And that does not include the CO2 or methane emitted by 8.2 billion humans and their 100 billion livestock.

But there is an added twist to the story which makes it far more scary. The world’s oceans and forests, the planet’s primary oxygen pumps, are dying – and the reason is us.

Atmosphere

Human activities and climate change are increasingly disrupting the natural oxygen cycle, which has maintained Earth’s atmosphere for hundreds of millions of years. 

Deforestation, land clearing, the spread of deserts, industrial pollution and urban sprawl are reducing the number of trees and plants, which are the source of photosynthesis, the sun-powered process that produces the oxygen we breathe.

Earth’s air is not naturally rich in oxygen. It has probably only been ‘breathable’ for about 20-30% of the planet’s existence. For the first two or three billion years since life appeared there was almost no O2, much like Mars today. 

The life that existed then did not need it – indeed, oxygen was the waste that they excreted – and the gas did not begin to rise sharply until the ‘Oxygen Catastrophe’ which almost obliterated life between 2400 million and 2000 million years ago. 

The air itself did not become rich in oxygen until around 850 million years ago. Thereafter some living organisms adapted to using oxygen and, around 700 million years ago this gave rise to explosion of different species we know as the ‘Tree of Life’, including ourselves.

Hereafter atmospheric oxygen levels are expected to continue a slow, steady decline - unless humans do something particularly stupid to speed it up.

Oceans

Globally, the ocean has lost around 2% of its dissolved oxygen since the 1950s and is predicted to lose a further 1–7% by 2100.

Although oxygen levels vary by region, most parts of the ocean are experiencing loss. This is chiefly due to ocean warming, as warmer water holds less dissolved oxygen. 

Warming also causes the oceans to stratify or form layers, meaning that oxygen is less well mixed into the deeper waters which then become hostile to life.

More than 500 ‘ocean dead zones’ have been detected around the world, generally in coastal regions close to heavy human populations or farming areas. Their numbers are increasing as humanity proliferates.

The zones are largely driven by eutrophication – the over-enrichment of sea water by fertiliser, eroded topsoil, human sewage and industrial wastes. This causes algal blooms which then die and are devoured by bacterial blooms. These bacteria then strip the oxygen out of the water, producing a ‘dead’ layer than cannot support normal sea life.

The oceans are the main source of oxygen in the air we breathe, their plankton producing more than half of what currently keeps us alive.

It should therefore come as a profound concern that Chinese scientists have recently reported that the oceans are becoming less green. The decline in greenness is due to a loss of chlorophyll, which is the chemical in plants that enables them to absorb sunlight and use it to convert CO2 to oxygen. And the chlorophyll is declining due to ocean warming.

Overall, this indicates that the major Earth process which forms a breathable atmosphere may be breaking down - and humans are to blame.

The picture is far from uniform, but as the scientists caution “Our analysis suggests widespread decline in ocean greenness”. And that spells trouble for folk who wish to breathe, not just now maybe – but certainly later.

Coupled with the decline in ocean greenness is the equally disturbing rise in ocean acidity – a factor that has now breached planetary safety limits, according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).

Ocean acidification is caused by CO₂ from the burning of fossil fuels dissolving into seawater, which forms carbonic acid, turning the ocean slightly more acidic. Since the 1850s, the acidity of the oceans has increased by around 30–40%. 

The implications for sea life are immense: it directly affects organisms with calcium carbonate shells and skeletons, like corals, shellfish and many kinds of plankton, disrupting food webs that stretch all the way from microscopic sea life to fish, whales and, ultimately, humans. This affects the total productivity of the oceans and, ultimately, their ability to yield oxygen.

Failing forests

On land, the picture is, if anything, more disturbing. Prior to humans, 57 per cent of the Earth’s land area was cloaking in forest. Today that number is 31 per cent and falling, meaning we have nearly halved the original area of forest. 

What remains is far from healthy, having been logged, thinned, fragmented and altered vastly from its natural state by human activities including roads, farms and towns. This greatly reduces its ability to generate fresh oxygen and, to make matters worse, some forests have become net emitters of CO2.

Recently some people have taken comfort in the fact that the Earth overall is becoming greener, incorrectly believing it is due to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In fact, it is due to the spread of grasses in the form of crops and pastures, as humans replace forests with agriculture. And grasses produce nothing like the amount of oxygen that forests do. By feeding our vast numbers we are building a planet on which it will be harder to breathe.

Like global warming, the new ‘Oxygen Holocaust’ is starting slowly and many may pretend it is of small concern. But the power of humans to engineer vast change in the Earth has always been underestimated. Our ability to disable the oxygen machine is just the latest twist in the saga of our planetary mismanagement.

For instance, most people assume we will manage to halt global heating at +2 or at most +4 degrees. In fact, at present rates of fossil fuel use, the planet will hit +8 degrees within a century or two. The misunderstanding arises from the fact that 2100 (+4) is the furthest ahead that current IPCC forecasts look, whereas actual heating continues long after.

Coupled with reducing the Earth to a charred cinder is the fact that we are, by the same mechanisms, building a planet with an unbreathable atmosphere – one with less than 19.5 per cent of free oxygen.

Human impacts

The potential consequences of decreased oxygen levels are vast, affecting both individual health and society’s ability to function. Low oxygen availability causes lung problems, especially for the old, the very young and those with respiratory conditions.

Crucially – as any diver or mountaineer can tell you - low oxygen levels impair your ability to think, to reason, to make good decisions. This damages productivity and quality of life for the whole of a more thoughtless society.

As resources become scarcer, competition for access to clean air and water will exacerbate existing inequalities. This may heighten social unrest, geopolitical tensions and conflict, as nations struggle to exist in a disintegrating world. Two industries particularly vulnerable to lower oxygen levels are animal agriculture and fish aquaculture, our main sources of protein.

At present the decline in global oxygen is small, and no cause for panic. But the human ability to geoengineer catastrophe is large – and growing every day.

Unless we grasp the mistakes we are making with a clear mind and reverse them, we may steal the very breath of life from our grandchildren.

What kind of a parent does that? 

Links

• Studies of recent changes in atmospheric O2 content
• Earth’s Atmospheric Oxygen Decline: Causes, Consequences, and Projections
• Great Oxidation Event
• The future lifespan of Earth’s oxygenated atmosphere
• What Are Ocean Dead Zones?
• How much oxygen comes from the ocean?
• Declining ocean greenness and phytoplankton blooms in low to mid-latitudes under a warming climate
• Seven of nine planetary boundaries now breached – ocean acidification joins the danger zone
• The Effects of Ocean Acidification on Phytoplankton Communities
• The Earth Uncloaked - a catastrophe in slow motion
• Vegetation greenness in 2024
• Past and future warming – direct comparison on multi-century timescales
• Minimum Oxygen Concentration For Human Breathing

Unanswered Questions: Australia’s Uncertain Future in a Warming World - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Regional rainfall shifts remain uncertain and matter for water security.[1] Sea level rise will vary locally and threatens low coastal infrastructure.[2] Marine heatwaves are driving repeated coral bleaching events.[3] Heat, drought, and pests complicate future crop yields and livestock health.[4] Longer fire seasons change risk management needs for communities.[1] Gaps in health, insurance, and social planning leave the vulnerable exposed.[5]

Australia is heating up.

The science on that point is no longer in dispute.

Yet as the continent bakes, vital details about what happens next remain elusive.

Scientists can trace unmistakable trends in rising temperatures, shifting sea levels, and intensifying extremes. 

But the precise fallout — how these forces will collide in a particular valley, city, or reef — is harder to predict.

That uncertainty leaves governments and communities staring at an incomplete map. 

The missing pieces matter profoundly: water reliability, food security, coastal resilience, and public health all depend on knowing what lies ahead.

Across Australia, planners and researchers are confronting questions that remain open-ended: questions about timing, scale, and the interactions shaping a hotter, more volatile climate.

This article outlines the central scientific gaps still confronting Australia’s response to climate change and draws on authoritative research to illuminate what is known, and what is not. ^[2]

For those charged with preparing the nation for the century’s defining test, acknowledging those uncertainties may be the surest way to act before it is too late.

Regional climate and extremes

Key uncertainties remain about how rainfall patterns will change across Australia’s diverse climate zones. ^[1]

Climate models consistently project hotter average temperatures, but disagree on magnitude and seasonality of rainfall shifts in northern and central Australia. ^[1]

Scientists also cannot yet say precisely how the frequency, intensity, and duration of heatwaves will change in all coastal cities. ^[2]

Interactions among large scale modes such as ENSO, the Indian Ocean Dipole, and the Southern Annular Mode, add uncertainty to extreme-season forecasts. ^[2]

Sea level rise and coasts

Global sea level projections provide a range, but local rise around Australia will vary because of ocean dynamics and land movement. ^[2]

That spatial variability makes it hard to set uniform standards for coastal planning and insurance pricing. ^[6]

Uncertainty about extreme sea level events combined with storm surge and rainfall driven flooding complicates evacuation and infrastructure design. ^[2]

Oceans reefs and marine ecosystems

Marine heatwaves are increasing and are a major driver of repeated mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef. ^[3]

Researchers still lack precise thresholds for when reefs shift from recovery to long term decline under recurring heat stress. ^[3]

Questions also remain about the speed at which kelp forests, seagrass, and commercially important fish, will move or collapse. ^[7]

Terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity

Many Australian species are range restricted, and scientists are uncertain whether migration corridors or microrefugia (small, local areas with stable microclimates that allow species to survive during regional environmental changes) will be sufficient. ^[9]

There is also limited empirical evidence about ecosystem tipping points where repeated disturbances prevent recovery. ^[11]

Understanding evolutionary adaptation rates for key species remains an open research priority. ^[9]

Agriculture water and food systems

Projected changes in rainfall evaporation and frost alter crop suitability, but the net effect on yields varies by crop technology and location. ^[4]

Scientists still need better integrated models that combine pests, diseases, soil change, and social adaptation at farm scale. ^[4]

Water allocation rules and groundwater responses to climate extremes are another domain with substantial practical uncertainty. ^[1]

Bushfires compound events and long term landscape change

Fire seasons are lengthening in many parts of Australia, but the compound effect of repeated fires, drought, and subsequent floods is not well quantified. ^[2]

There is uncertainty about how vegetation types will convert permanently after successive high severity fires. ^[13]

Human health social systems and inequality

Heat related illness and mental health impacts are rising, but long term burden estimates depend on adaptation capacity and public health responses. ^[5]

Questions remain about internal migration patterns from high risk regions and how cities will absorb displaced people. ^[11]

Economy insurance and governance

The economic tipping points where assets become effectively uninsurable or abandoned are not fully modelled for many communities. ^[6]

Policymakers also lack integrated costed pathways that combine mitigation adaptation and social protection at the national scale. ^[11]

Research gaps and how science can help

Closing these gaps requires better regional projections, long term ecological monitoring, and cross-disciplinary modelling. ^[1]

It also requires open data, local engagement, and investments in health infrastructure, emergency services, and natural systems monitoring. ^[5]

Finally, workers and communities need relevant information, not just global averages, so adaptation can be targeted. ^[11]

Conclusion

Australia faces known risks and clear unknowns that matter directly to water, food, health, and heritage. ^[2]

Addressing unanswered questions will require sustained funding, transdisciplinary teams, and stronger links between science and policy. ^[1]

Transparent sharing of projections and assumptions will help communities make informed choices about adaptation and risk. ^[11]

References

1. Climate Change in Australia — Climate Projections for global warming levels
2. CSIRO State of the Climate
3. AIMS — Coral bleaching events
4. CSIRO — Climate mitigation and adaptation in agriculture
5. MJA–Lancet Countdown on health and climate change in Australia 2024
6. CSIRO — Climate projections and regional information for Australia
7. Australian Academy of Science — The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world
8. IPCC AR6 Working Group I — The Physical Science Basis
9. CSIRO — Australia’s changing climate and fire weather
10. AIMS — World’s biggest coral survey confirms sharp decline
11. Australian Academy of Science — Climate change reports and policy analysis
12. Bureau of Meteorology — State of the Climate
13. CSIRO — Fire science and land management

Back to Top