Australia's Pacific Climate Test Is Becoming Harder to Ignore - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Pacific leaders have challenged Australia's climate credibility
as the region confronts escalating climate risks

Key Points

Vanuatu's Ralph Regenvanu urged Australia to stop expanding fossil fuel production and accelerate its transition away from coal oil and gas.[1] The Climate Council says the Albanese government had approved 36 new expanded or extended fossil fuel projects by March 2026.[2] Fiji and Tuvalu will co-host Australia's Pacific pre-COP process with leaders from five non-Pacific nations confirmed so far.[3] Australia's domestic electricity grid recently exceeded 50 per cent renewable supply during a quarter highlighted by Anthony Albanese.[4] Australia is financing Palau's first utility-scale solar and battery facility which will raise renewable electricity generation to 25 per cent.[5] The Forum exposed a central contradiction between Australia's regional climate assistance and continuing fossil fuel expansion.[6]

In Melekeok on Palau's largest island, storm-driven seawater reaches homes along a low-lying coastline.^[6]

Residents seeking higher ground face slow infrastructure funding while climate impacts advance faster than relocation plans.^[6]

Fossil Fuel Policy Draws Pacific Criticism

The 55th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting brought the argument into sharp focus in Koror from 30 August to 4 September.^[7]

Vanuatu Climate Change Adaptation and Energy Minister Ralph Regenvanu said Australia should stop future fossil fuel expansion.^[1]

He called for rapid transition away from fossil fuels and fossil fuel subsidies while pointing to Australia's major producer status.^[1]

Regional criticism focused on Australia's coal mining gas production oil extraction and large-scale fossil fuel exports.^[1]

The Climate Council counted 36 new expanded or extended coal oil and gas developments approved under the Albanese government by March 2026.^[2]

The approvals include coal mines gas extraction projects and major gas export infrastructure with operations extending for decades.^[2]

Greenpeace activists reinforced the criticism through public campaigning that described Australia's fossil fuel role as climate vandalism.^[8]

The Pre-COP Attendance Problem

Australia's Pacific climate diplomacy also faces scrutiny over an October pre-COP process hosted jointly with Fiji and Tuvalu.^[3]

Fiji will host formal pre-COP meetings while Tuvalu will host a leaders' component from 5 to 8 October.^[3]

Five non-Pacific leaders have confirmed attendance from Antigua and Barbuda Cabo Verde Thailand Maldives and Timor-Leste.^[3]

Germany Mexico and South Korea are expected to provide ministerial representation rather than national leaders.^[3]

Critics argue the limited attendance weakens the event's international weight especially without major emitters such as China and the United States.^[9]

The attendance controversy has prompted Australian commentary describing the gathering as a potential “COP-out”.^[9]

Albanese rejected that interpretation and argued that pre-COP meetings traditionally attract fewer leaders than the main United Nations climate conference.^[3]

Albanese Defends Australia's Transition

Albanese defended Australia's record by pointing to rapid renewable growth within the national electricity system.^[4]

He said more than 50 per cent of Australia's energy supply came from renewables during the December quarter.^[4]

He also argued Pacific partners understand that Australia's energy transition requires time and firming capacity.^[1]

Firming capacity means dependable electricity supply that supports variable generation when wind and solar output falls.^[1]

Albanese said gas still has a role in that transition while renewable generation and supporting infrastructure expand.^[1]

That position sits uneasily beside Pacific demands for faster fossil fuel phase-out and stronger action from major exporters.^[6]

The dispute therefore concerns both Australia's domestic transition and the climate consequences of fuels exported beyond its borders.^[2]

Palau Offers a Practical Alternative

The contrast was visible in Palau where Australia is financing renewable infrastructure alongside its fossil fuel economy.^[5]

Australia provided a $31.4 million financing package for Palau's first utility-scale solar and battery energy storage facility.^[5]

The Ngatpang facility combines 15.28 megawatts of solar photovoltaic capacity with 12.9 megawatt-hours of battery storage.^[5]

Additional Australian financing will upgrade Palau's electricity grid and double energy storage capacity at the facility.^[4]

The project will lift renewable electricity generation to 25 per cent and displace more than one million litres of diesel annually.^[4]

Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr welcomed Australia's practical support despite the wider disagreement over fossil fuel policy.^[6]

Whipps argued countries producing oil and gas should instead reduce the demand that keeps those fuels central to energy systems.^[6]

A Regional Partnership Under Strain

The Forum's debate reveals a Pacific relationship built around both cooperation and profound climate disagreement.^[6]

Australia remains the region's largest development partner while also ranking among the world's major fossil fuel exporters.^[6]

Pacific governments increasingly frame climate change as a security issue involving land livelihoods food systems oceans and cultural survival.^[6]

The United Nations Environment Programme has warned current policies point towards warming beyond the Paris Agreement's 1.5°C threshold.^[6]

For low-lying states the consequences extend beyond damaged infrastructure because ancestral land and cultural identity can also face irreversible loss.^[6]

Greenpeace has therefore urged Australia to support Pacific energy sovereignty and a just transition away from fossil fuels.^[8]

The organisation says Australia's regional credibility ultimately depends upon aligning climate diplomacy with domestic energy decisions.^[8]

The Palau meeting exposed two versions of Australia's Pacific climate role. One provides renewable infrastructure while the other continues approving fossil fuel developments.

Pacific governments increasingly judge climate leadership through outcomes affecting communities facing rising seas extreme weather and disrupted livelihoods.

Australia's challenge is therefore one of policy coherence. Regional trust will depend upon whether its energy transition increasingly matches the urgency expressed by its Pacific neighbours.

References

1. 1.5C global warming breach likely as Australia defends Pacific climate talks. ABC News reports Ralph Regenvanu's demand for Australia to halt fossil fuel expansion and accelerate its transition.

2. The Albanese Government's fossil fuel approvals. Climate Council analysis records 36 new expanded or extended coal oil and gas developments approved since 2022.

3. COP31 Australia-Pacific. The Australian Government outlines the Fiji pre-COP and Tuvalu leaders' event planned for October 2026.

4. Pacific collaboration on climate and renewable energy powers ahead. The Prime Minister's Office details Australia's Palau renewable energy partnership and grid upgrades.

5. Building Palau's first utility-scale solar power plant. The Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific provides technical and financial details of Palau's solar and battery project.

6. Pacific island nations seek to turn geopolitics into funding to offset climate change harm. Associated Press reports Pacific climate concerns and differing views over Australia's climate performance.

7. 55th Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting: a backgrounder. The Parliamentary Library records the Forum's dates location and major regional priorities.

8. Pacific Islands Forum leaders, Albanese must not lose focus on Pacific priorities of climate and ocean. Greenpeace Australia Pacific outlines its criticism of fossil fuel expansion and its call for a Pacific-led transition.

9. Fiji COP-out has a serious side. The Australian reports criticism surrounding international attendance at the Pacific pre-COP event.

Back to top ↑

The Evolution of Climate Denial: And Where Australia Sits - Gregory Andrews

Lyrebird Dreaming  –  Gregory Andrews

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

Climate denial used to be easy to recognise. 

It told us global warming was a hoax, scientists were conspiring for grant money and a day of snow disproved decades of evidence. It sounds just like Donald Trump or Pauline Hanson. 

Of course that kind of denial remains alive and dangerous. But it's no longer the only - or even the most politically effective - way to obstruct climate action.

Climate denial has evolved. It's learned to accept the science while denying what the science requires.

Four ways to deny a crisis

A recent Forbes article just described four forms of modern climate denial:

1. Deny the diagnosis: climate change is not happening, or humans are not causing it.
2. Deny the cause: the fire, flood or heatwave was caused by arson, cloud seeding or ordinary weather - not a destabilised climate.
3. Deny the treatment: climate change is real, but every serious response is too expensive, too fast, unfair or impractical.
4. Deny responsibility: action is necessary, but China, consumers, or another industry or group are to blame.

All of these overlap. As one becomes socially unacceptable, another takes its place. Each concedes a little more reality while protecting the same outcome: continuing emissions.

Of course, that doesn't mean anyone who questions a particular climate policy is a denier. Policies should be scrutinised. But genuine disagreement rejects one policy and offers another capable of achieving a comparable or better result. Treatment denial rejects every proportionate response and substitutes delay, wishful thinking or nothing. Sound familiar? Read on.

Retreating as the danger grows

You'd expect worsening disasters to produce stronger action. Instead, many governments and corporations that accept the science are increasingly making climate policy reversals. Canada has abandoned or weakened measures covering oil and gas, methane, electricity and electric vehicles. European governments have diluted carbon-market, heating, transport, corporate-accountability and deforestation policies. New Zealand has reopened offshore petroleum exploration and weakened its methane target.

These u-turns are rarely sold as pro-pollution. They arrive dressed as cost-of-living, energy and strategic security, consumer choice and "pragmatism". But the reality is that by weakening effective action without replacing it, they're actually instruments of denial.

Where Australia sits

Australia contains all four forms of denialism, but under the Albanese Government we've got really good at the last two - treatment denial and responsibility denial. They accept climate science and have undertaken action on renewable energy, batteries, vehicle efficiency and some industrial emissions. Those differences matter. But so does the contradiction - accepting the renewable-energy half of the treatment while refusing the fossil-fuel phase-out half.

Australia's Future Gas Strategy says new gas supplies are needed and commits us to continuing and even expanding our massive gas exports. The Albanese Government approved Woodside's North West Shelf gas project to operate until 2070 - 20 years beyond our net-zero deadline.

Then comes responsibility denial. We are told emissions from Australian coal and gas belong to the countries that import and burn them. Under international rules, those emissions are indeed counted in the importing country, avoiding double counting. But an accounting convention is not an ethics system. It doesn't absolve the country that approves, digs up, exports and profits from the fossil fuels. 

Climate Analytics has calculated that burning Australia's exported coal and gas produces over 1.1 billion tonnes of CO2 each year. That puts our global carbon footprint at around three times our domestic one. We're outsourcing the smoke and the warming.

What can we do?

First, broaden our understanding of climate denial. Challenge it when it comes from respectable governments and institutions, not only conspiracy theorists. Name treatment denial and responsibility denial when they appear in conversations, media coverage and political debate. Accepting the science is only the first step - not the test of climate credibility.

Second, ask the treatment question: If you oppose this policy, what equally effective alternative do you support? "Not this" is not a climate plan.

Third, challenge the exported-emissions alibi. Australia can't claim global credit for exporting renewable energy while denying global responsibility for exporting fossil fuels.

Finally, demand specific commitments from our elected representatives: no new coal and gas; a just, and urgent phase-out; consideration of exported emissions in project approvals; an end to fossil-fuel subsidies; and serious transition plans for workers and communities.

Climate denial no longer always arrives shouting that climate change is a hoax. Sometimes it acknowledges the science, announces a distant target - and approves fossil-fuel expansionism until 2070.

Australia may accept the science, but that doesn’t mean it’s not still in climate denial.

Gregory Andrews Climate Change Articles

• Climate Warming Faster Than We Planned For?
• Weather Whiplash: Fasten Your Seatbelts
• Australia’s Flagship Climate Policy Is Failing to Cut Emissions
• Winter's Here, The Snowfields Are Open, But There's No Snow
• Worried About Climate Collapse? Here's Ten Things You Can Actually Do
• Fossil Fuel Fascism: When a Dying Industry Tries to Take Democracy With It
• Climate Policy Counts Dollars and Tonnes. What if We Counted the Dead?
• The Climate Crisis is a Health Crisis
• The Science Is In: Global Warming Is Accelerating
• While We Watch Iran, the Planet Keeps Burning
• Have your say on Canberra's next Climate Strategy: It will be make or break
• Science Warns of Future Where Billions Bake
• Two Years to 1.7°C: the “Prediction Game” We Can't Afford to Lose
• Emergency Photo Ops Aren't Climate Leadership
• Why Fascists Reject Climate Science
• Don't Be Distracted: Earth's Life Support Systems Are Collapsing
• Diesel rebates for miners and a new EV tax? Australia's climate policy double-think
• What Gas is That? Get to Know Your Climate Pollutants

The Wettest Drought: How a Record El Niño Rewrote Australia's Climate Story - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Australia's strongest El Niño on record is bringing rain
instead of the drought scientists feared

Key Points

A landmark Science study found El Niño events nearly 40 per cent stronger than pre-industrial levels.[1] Researchers used 1,000 years of Galápagos coral data to isolate the human-warming signal.[2] Australia's current El Niño ranks among the strongest since formal records began in 1950.[4] Despite drought forecasts, Australia is tracking toward its wettest El Niño year on record.[5] Scientists say rising emissions are sharpening the swings between El Niño and La Niña.[3] Intensifying cycles threaten coral reefs, insurance markets and disaster planning across Australia.[7]

Farmers across Western Australia's wheatbelt watched rain fall through winter, defying months of stark drought warnings from national forecasters. 

Meteorologists had forecast drought, citing a record-strength El Niño, the periodic warming of the central Pacific Ocean. Instead, paddocks turned green as an unprecedented climate anomaly delivered rain nobody predicted.

The paradox traces back to new research on El Niño's long-term intensity. 

A landmark study published in the journal Science analysed 1,000 years of coral data. Findings showed El Niño events have grown nearly 40 per cent stronger since the pre-industrial era.^[1]

Study Findings and Statistical Discoveries

The research appeared in Science, widely regarded as one of the world's most rigorous peer-reviewed journals. Lead author Julia Cole, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Michigan, headed the international team. Her team examined whether rising global temperatures were reshaping El Niño's long-term intensity.^[1]

Coral-based measurements revealed a 36 per cent jump in El Niño strength since large-scale industrialisation began. Compared with the twentieth century alone, the increase measured roughly 16 per cent. Combined, these shifts pushed recent El Niño intensity nearly 40 per cent above pre-industrial levels.^[3]

Corals record ocean chemistry much the way tree rings record successive growing seasons over centuries. Strontium-to-calcium ratios and oxygen isotopes preserve centuries of sea-surface temperature data. Scientists sampled these layers a millimetre at a time to reconstruct the record.^[2]

The study spanned roughly 1,000 years, reaching back through medieval times to before 1850. That predates large-scale human greenhouse gas emissions by more than a century. Researchers therefore had a genuine pre-industrial baseline for comparison.^[1]

Historical Data and Methodology

Researchers sampled 13 coral colonies from the remote Galápagos Islands, including both living and long-dead fossil specimens. The Galápagos sits at the heart of El Niño's strongest ocean-temperature swings. That location made the corals an unusually sensitive natural recorder of the phenomenon.^[6]

Each individual core provided a continuous chemical record spanning at least two decades of growth. By stacking overlapping cores, scientists reconstructed a near-continuous millennium-long timeline. This approach let them compare eras separated by hundreds of years directly.^[2]

The pre-industrial baseline came from ancient corals predating widespread fossil fuel combustion and industrial emissions. Modern El Niño events consistently exceeded that historical range in strength. No period before 1850 matched the intensity recorded across the last four decades.^[1]

The long baseline let scientists methodically rule out ordinary natural variability as the underlying cause. Volcanic activity and solar cycles failed to explain the scale of change. That left human-driven warming as the most plausible remaining explanation.^[2]

Current Meteorological Context

Meanwhile, a separate but closely related event has gripped the tropical Pacific throughout this year. The Bureau of Meteorology declared El Niño active in mid-June, part of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO, cycle. Forecasters flagged it as among the strongest events since formal records began in 1950.^[4]

Standard seasonal outlooks predicted a hot, dry spring across most of the eastern and southern country. Historically, moderate to strong El Niño events cut Australia's winter rainfall by roughly a third. Spring rainfall typically falls by a fifth, with summer effects far smaller.^[8]

Instead, Australia is tracking toward its wettest El Niño year on record. National rainfall had already passed 400 millimetres by late winter, well above historical El Niño averages. Western Australia and the Northern Territory face a wet spring rather than the forecast drought.^[5]

This mismatch raises hard questions for drought, water security and bushfire planning agencies nationwide. Water authorities, farm lenders and emergency services calibrated preparations around a dry-season forecast. Officials now face pressure to explain how confident outlooks diverged so sharply from outcomes.^[5]

Human-Driven Impacts and Climate Cycles

Scientists identify rising greenhouse gas concentrations as the primary driver behind this long-term shift. Fossil fuel emissions have warmed the tropical Pacific Ocean's surface layer for over a century. That warming appears to be sharpening the natural swings between El Niño and La Niña.^[2]

The link troubles scientists because ENSO drives weather patterns far beyond the Pacific basin alone. Stronger El Niño events amplify droughts, floods, wildfires and food insecurity worldwide. A more volatile cycle therefore threatens communities with little direct connection to the ocean itself.^[1]

Human activity appears to skew the ENSO cycle toward more frequent, more extreme El Niño phases. The cycle still swings toward La Niña, its cooler counterpart, but the amplitude has grown. Researchers describe a natural system now behaving well outside its historical range.^[3]

The sudden jump in intensity signals a climate system still responding to decades of past emissions. Global greenhouse gas output remains far above levels compatible with a stable climate. Continued warming risks pushing El Niño intensity beyond even this year's extremes.^[2]

Broader Environmental Implications

A stronger ENSO cycle now threatens the very coral reefs that provided this historical record. Repeated marine heatwaves have already pushed global coral cover down to about a quarter of reef area. Scientists warn recovery windows between heat events keep shrinking.^[7]

For Australian communities, an intensifying cycle complicates disaster preparedness and economic planning. Insurers already price flood and bushfire risk using historical El Niño patterns that are becoming outdated. Farmers, regional lenders and emergency planners now face growing uncertainty over which scenario to prepare for.^[8]

First Nations land and fire managers face similar uncertainty across vast stretches of country. Cultural burning programs and seasonal calendars rely on predictable wet and dry patterns. An increasingly erratic cycle complicates decisions once guided by generations of observation.

The combined findings place fresh urgency on Australia's national climate policy and emissions reduction targets. Every fraction of a degree of warming appears to compound El Niño's extremes. Scientists say the current event offers a preview of a hotter, more volatile future.^[6]

Two exceptional events now sit side by side. A 1,000-year coral record shows El Niño growing far stronger since industrialisation began. Australia's unpredictable rainfall this year shows what that intensified cycle looks like in practice.

Forecasting agencies got the direction of Australia's season wrong despite record confidence. That gap between forecast and outcome deserves closer scrutiny from policymakers and regulators. Communities cannot plan effectively around outlooks that diverge so sharply from reality.

The underlying science remains clear regardless of any single season's surprises. Warming oceans are reshaping one of Earth's most influential climate cycles. Governments and industries now carry the responsibility of preparing for greater volatility ahead.

References

1. El Niños More Intense Over Last 40 Years Than Previous 1,000 Years. University of Michigan announcement summarising the Science study's key findings.

2. Climate Change Is Strengthening El Niño, Coral Records Suggest. Peer-reviewed coverage detailing the study's methodology and intensification figures.

3. El Niño Events Are Becoming Stronger as the World Warms. News analysis comparing El Niño intensity across different historical baselines.

4. El Niño: What It Means for Australia's Climate. Official Bureau of Meteorology guidance on the current event's likely impacts.

5. Why Australia's Weather Is Seeing a Soaking While a Record El Niño Is Forming. Investigation into why rainfall diverged from seasonal drought forecasts.

6. Climate Change Is Supercharging El Niños, Coral Records Show. Science journalism explaining why the Galápagos coral record carries particular weight.

7. Heat Stress Is Harming Coral Reefs, Global Data Shows. Reporting on shrinking recovery windows for coral reefs amid repeated heat events.

8. El Niño in 2026 Could Be One of the Strongest on Record. Analysis of the historical relationship between El Niño strength and Australian rainfall decline.

Back to top ↑

Here comes the Human Tsunami - Julian Cribb

 Surviving the 21st Century - Julian Cribb

Unleashing a migratory crisis on the Planet

AUTHOR Julian Cribb AM ATSE is an Australian science writer and author of seven books on the human existential emergency.  He is Co-founder, Council for the Human Future.  Julian Cribb's latest book is How to Fix a Broken Planet (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

The human tsunami is building irresistibly, with one person in every 20 worldwide now seeking to relocate from their home country to another.

In 2026 there are over 420 million people on the move, seeking new homes in places not torn by war, famine, climate disruption, resource scarcity or political, religious and economic savagery.

Migrants now comprise the world’s third largest population, behind that of India and China, but significantly outnumbering the USA, Indonesia, Pakistan and Nigeria.

At its root the building migrant tsunami is fed by overpopulation, but also by the forces accompanying it – scarcity of key resources like water, land or food, conditions progressively more hostile and more toxic to family life, and a plague of bad governments bent on war, repression and autocracy.

Humans and our ancestral species have been natural migrants for going on 2 million years, as revealed by a trail of prehuman remains stretching from Ethiopia to China and Indonesia – so there is nothing surprising about our endless quest for new opportunities and horizons. It’s what we do naturally when local resources no longer appear sufficient.

But there is something exceptional about this building tsunami of migration, especially if it results from the abandonment of large areas of the Earth or its megacities as they become uninhabitable. It will be the greatest upheaval in all human history.

The movement has two main components – refugees and voluntary migrants. At last count there were a record 124 million refugees and stateless people adrift, up by over 300% since 2000 (38m). Just above half of these were displaced within their home countries but looking to move. Presently, 1 person of every 67 on Earth has been forced to flee.

There were also 304 million voluntary migrants worldwide in 2024 – a doubling in numbers since 1990 and a tripling since 1975. A Canadian study shows the primary reasons to leave home include education, career, concern about overpopulation and the environment, providing for family, politics, religion, culture, healthcare and poverty. Those, however, are what the migrants state on their applications. There is growing evidence a great many people are relocating ahead of disasters – climatic, environmental or political – which they foresee in their homeland.

The 2026 World Migration Report speaks of “a time of profound global disruption…. Conflicts and violence continue to displace millions, while environmental degradation and climate change are transforming mobility patterns across regions. Rapid technological transformation is altering labour markets and governance systems, creating new opportunities alongside new risks,” it warns. “The scale of current developments is striking. By the end of 2024, more than 83 million people were internally displaced – the highest number recorded in the modern era.”

Resisting the trend towards migration is a global wave of anti-migrant sentiment, notably in countries that have traditionally welcomed new settlers and refugees. Whipped up by right-wing politicians in the North America, Europe, Oceania and parts of Asia “far-right political actors strategically manufacture anti-immigrant sentiment to garner electoral support through systematic fearmongering and racialization of migrants,” says Olivia Weninger of the Human Rights Research Center. In other words, the protests are less about immigration than about the flexing of raw political power by neofascist minorities.

Nevertheless, immigration was a hot-button issue in the two elections that delivered Trump to power in the US, leading to his unleashing of paramilitaries on the populace and the building of concentration camps, evoking ugly echoes of the 1930s.

The question remains: Is the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment real – or an artefact of the global fascist movement? And the answer, probably, is: both. People are often xenophobic, for no other reasons than fear and ignorance of new arrivals. On the other hand, new arrivals may sometimes come in the form of a Mongol Horde, Vandal or Axis army of settler movement and prove less than friendly to the indigenes. So fear of foreigners has sound basis in the human experience, which is being exploited by local right-wing elements in their quest for personal power.

However, fear and resentment of immigrants will do nothing to stem the tidal surge of migration that is coming. In 2019 the Climate Foresight Report estimated there could be as many as 1 billion migrants moving worldwide by 2050. Five years late Swiss insurance giant Zurich put the estimate of the displaced as high as 1.2 billion – one human in every 8.

Largely dismissed by politicians and media at the time as alarmist, these predictions have acquired far more substance in view of the fact that the Earth’s migrant population has more than doubled since 2000 – and, on a linear projection alone, is likely to more than double again by 2050. If one adds progressive breakdown of global food and water systems, overheating of the climate, state failures, the global rise in authoritarian governments and spontaneous wars (possibly nuclear), the projection of 1.2 billion migrants in 2050 is starting to look very conservative. If the forecast by British actuaries is borne out, of 2-4 billion dead, then the mass migration preceding it will involve more than half the world’s population.

“Humanity’s current path will push societies into deeper crises unless we make major changes,” warns Professor of Ecology Corey Bradshaw. “The planet’s life support systems are already under strain and, without rapid shifts in how we use energy, land, and food, billions of people will face increasing instability. Our study shows these limits are unfolding right now.”

The region worst affected by the burgeoning crisis – and the likely source of most of the outmigration – is the tropics which, by 2050, will contain over 4.5 billion people including two thirds of the world’s children. Tropical Africa, especially, is at risk, but equally so are South Asia and Central America. The tropics will shed their human populations first – and the wave will break over the temperate regions.

In such a scenario, regions such as Europe will face a floodtide of hundreds of millions of African migrants, who will sweep away the nations of south Europe, displacing their existing populations into the countries to their north. Those who know their history will recall the Moors once ruled Spain – and may well do so again. Indeed, if allowed to build to its full force the main impact of the human tsunami will be to largely eradicate the nation state as the principal mode of self-governance.

The human tsunami undeniably represents the principal security threat to all countries and people going forward – not the petty nationalistic rivalries and military chest-thumping that have disgraced human history hitherto. It arises directly from the heart of the Planetary Emergency.

Many countries will resort to military means before they are overthrown and their armies dissolved. But despite all the fear and angst, the human tsunami is not to be halted or even stemmed by force, or the violent prescriptions invoked by xenophobes. Because their own actions are feeding it.

For example, the USA whilst waging an internal pogrom against “illegal immigration” is also doing all in its power to manufacture more migrants globally. By promoting the burning of fossil fuels, the US generates overpressures that increase the probability of famines, searing heatwaves, sea level rise and acute water shortages. Thus, America’s policy solution to the migrant ‘threat’ is to multiply the number of migrants!

Russia and Saudi Arabia, and others, are also doing their best to exacerbate the global migrant flood by mining oil. China, while still adding greatly to climate disruption through its fossil fuel emissions, seems at the same time to partly grasp the suicidal implications and is taking new steps as the world leader in renewable, green energy, while at the same time encouraging its own population to shrink.

The human tsunami can only be contained by finding ways to keep people happily settled in their own homelands. This will involve:

1. An accelerated program to deliver family planning to every woman on Earth and so slow population growth.
2. Urgent worldwide adoption of both renewable food and renewable energy, to overcome hunger, replace fossil fuels and cool the climate as fast as possible.
3. A global program to put back the forests, grasslands and wetlands ruined by human ‘development’ over the past century and repair the Earth’s life support system everywhere.
4. Adoption of a circular global economy, especially for key resources such as water and nutrients, but also for building materials, metals, timber, fibre etc.
5. Redoubling world aid efforts, to assist those regions most likely to collapse to become self-sufficient in food, water and energy.
6. Agreement to ban all nuclear weapons and scale back world military spending, redirecting resources to food, health, education and environmental repair.

All of these measures are readily affordable – by the simple expedient of cutting the world arms budget of $2.7 trillion by 25-30% or so and re-directing the funds to repair of the planet and its ability to sustain human life. Such a cut was accomplished back in the 1990s, so don’t believe anyone who tells you it can’t be done. One trillion dollars would go a long way towards rescuing a habitable planet and forestalling the human tsunami. That should be the budget.

There are many other scientifically-based methods needed to head off global mass migration and most of them can be found in How to Fix a Broken Planet. However those listed above are among the largest and most pressing.

Inaction, apathy and disinterest will allow the human wave to engulf us all.

Julian Cribb Articles

• Sounding the Earth Emergency
• Hothouse Earth: arriving sooner than you think…
• Turning Waste Into Wealth
• Up to our eyeballs in 💩💩💩
• Plasticide: a crime against humanity Our Rising Oceans
• Will climate change put women in the ascendant?
• When the water runs out...
• The great dying
• Australia issues ‘terrifying’ climate warning
• 'Died of a delusion': the fate of modern civilisation?
• Collapse is near, scientists warn
• De-icing the Earth: a fatal human choice. 
• Rivers of Death
• Unlike politicians, thermometers do not lie
• Welcome to BunkerWorld: Home of the rich and fearful
• Wisdom of the elders
• The black work of Big Oil
• Stealing the Breath of Life
• The Earth Uncloaked - a catastrophe in slow motion 
  
• Military experts warn of climate wars
• Tackling the Earth Emergency
• A distracted world marches steadily towards catastrophe

Australia’s Marine Parks Protect Vast Oceans While Vulnerable Coasts Remain Exposed - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Australia’s vast marine parks conceal major protection gaps
along biologically rich and increasingly threatened coastlines

Key Points

Australia protects about 24% of its waters through highly protected no-take areas. Mainland Commonwealth waters receive far lower coverage.[1] Current protection statistics are heavily influenced by remote territorial waters where industrial conflict remains comparatively limited.[2] Research associates fully protected reserves with stronger ecosystem stability and faster recovery after major disturbances.[3] Scientists warn that productive coastal ecosystems and climate-exposed marine regions remain inadequately represented within strict sanctuary networks.[4] More than 270 marine scientists have called for at least 30% high protection across every Australian marine bioregion.[5] Proposed expansions around Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands would add 671,500 square kilometres of highly protected ocean.[6]

At Georges Head in Sydney Harbour the Pacific stretched beyond the sandstone cliffs beneath a pale winter sky.

Days earlier scientists had warned that Australia’s ocean protection system favours distance over ecological urgency.^[5]

A National Figure With a Coastal Blind Spot

Australia’s marine protected estate now covers about 52% of Australian waters under the national accounting system.^[1]

About 24% receives highly protected no-take status where extractive activities face the strongest restrictions.^[1]

Those national totals mask a striking geographic imbalance across Commonwealth marine regions surrounding mainland Australia.^[2]

Analysis by the Marine Futures Lab estimates only 9.6% of mainland Commonwealth waters receive high protection.^[2]

Why Sanctuary Zones Matter

No-take sanctuary zones remove extractive pressure and allow marine populations to rebuild natural age structures and abundance.^[3]

Long-term Great Barrier Reef monitoring found protected reef communities remained more stable during major disturbances.^[3]

Protected reefs also recovered faster after bleaching disease storms and crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks.^[3]

Larger fish can produce more larvae creating recruitment benefits that extend beyond reserve boundaries into neighbouring reefs.^[7]

Protection Where Pressure Is Lowest

Scientists describe this pattern as protection biased towards places where human activity creates fewer political and economic conflicts.^[4]

Remote territorial waters therefore lift national percentages while productive mainland ecosystems retain comparatively weaker protection.^[2]

The affected environments include temperate reefs continental shelf ecosystems and coastal habitats supporting fisheries and biodiversity.^[4]

A representative network distributes protection across ecological regions rather than concentrating coverage within politically convenient waters.^[4]

The Scientists’ Demands

More than 270 scientists from 84 institutions have urged stronger protection during Australia’s once-in-a-decade marine park review.^[5]

Their consensus statement calls for at least 30% high protection within every Australian marine bioregion.^[5]

The scientists also seek the removal of industrial trawling long-lining and mining from marine parks.^[5]

They argue effective parks require strong management enforcement and durable protection against future downgrading or shrinking.^[4]

Climate Pressure Along the Temperate East

The temperate east stretches from the southern Great Barrier Reef towards New South Wales coastal waters.^[5]

Scientists identify the region as a climate hot spot facing warming seas urban pressure fishing and biodiversity decline.^[5]

Broader assessments link Australian marine declines with climate change pollution fisheries policy and weak protection placement.^[4]

Declining biodiversity threatens fisheries tourism cultural values and coastal livelihoods dependent upon functioning marine ecosystems.^[4]

Australia can claim enormous protected ocean coverage while leaving substantial ecological gaps near its most heavily used coastlines. Area alone therefore provides an incomplete measure of conservation success.

The proposed Norfolk and Lord Howe expansions would add 671,500 square kilometres of highly protected water. They would also help Australia reach its national 30% target ahead of schedule.

Yet the central governance challenge remains representation. The marine park review offers ministers an opportunity to direct protection towards ecological need while strengthening accountability for management enforcement and long-term conservation outcomes.

References

1. Achieving 30 by 30. Australian Government information outlining national marine protection coverage and the 2030 highly protected target.

2. CMPR GAP. Marine Futures Lab analysis comparing highly protected coverage across mainland and territorial Commonwealth marine regions.

3. Great Barrier Reef no-take marine reserves protect more than just fish. Australian Institute of Marine Science summary of long-term evidence on reserve resilience.

4. The Society for Conservation Biology. Carissa Klein and colleagues assess failures in Australian marine protection placement and management.

5. Australia's marine parks protect places no one goes. The Guardian Australia reports the scientists’ consensus statement and marine park review demands.

6. More protection for Australia's precious ocean. Australian Government announcement detailing proposed expansions around Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands.

7. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority report. Evidence describing recruitment and resilience benefits associated with connected reserve networks.

Back to top ↑

The Himalayas Are Entering a New Era of Climate Instability - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

The August 2026 Nepal-Tibet disaster began with a massive ice-rock collapse rather than a conventional rainstorm.[1] Hindu Kush Himalayan glaciers are losing ice at accelerating rates as regional warming intensifies.[2] Snow persistence across the region has reached record lows for four consecutive years.[3] Warmer conditions can increase liquid precipitation and accelerate snow and ice melt at vulnerable elevations.[4] Climate change amplifies hazards while steep terrain and infrastructure can greatly increase flood damage.[5] Australia's climate agencies face a parallel lesson in strengthening hazard monitoring and adaptation planning.[6]

The Himalayas are entering a more unstable climate regime as warming reshapes snow ice rainfall and mountain hazards.^[2]

On 26 August 2026 an ice and rock collapse struck the Nepal-Tibet border with extraordinary speed. The resulting flood swept through the Lhende Khola valley and destroyed homes roads bridges and power infrastructure.^[1]

The disaster has exposed a difficult climate question because several hazards converged within a single mountain system. Rising temperatures are altering glaciers snow cover and frozen ground while development places more people and infrastructure inside exposed valleys.^[2]

Rainfall Is Becoming One Part of a Larger Hazard System

The South Asian monsoon supplies much of the Himalayas' annual precipitation between June and September. Changes in precipitation intensity can therefore influence landslides floods erosion and river discharge across steep catchments.^[7]

Climate physics provides a clear mechanism for heavier rainfall because warmer air can carry more atmospheric moisture. Australia's Bureau of Meteorology uses about seven per cent additional moisture per degree as a useful physical benchmark.^[6]

That mechanism raises the potential for intense downpours but individual Himalayan cloudbursts require event-specific attribution. Researchers must separate greenhouse warming from monsoon variability local circulation and terrain-driven rainfall.^[6]

The August disaster demonstrates why rainfall alone provides an incomplete explanation. The initiating failure involved collapsing ice and rock followed by rapidly moving water sediment and debris.^[1]

Glaciers and Frozen Ground Are Losing Stability

ICIMOD reported in March 2026 that Himalayan glacier ice loss rates have doubled since 2000. Its assessment found ice thickness losses reaching 27 metres since 1975 across monitored areas.^[2]

Warming also changes the physical structure surrounding glaciers. Thawing permafrost can weaken previously frozen rock and sediment while retreating ice can leave unstable slopes and expanding lakes.^[5]

The central Himalaya is showing especially strong changes above about 4,500 metres. Research links shrinking snow and ice cover with rising temperatures and expanding glacial lakes at those elevations.^[8]

The region's recent snow drought adds another layer of instability. ICIMOD recorded four consecutive years of below-normal snow persistence by 2026 with the latest deficit reaching 27.8 per cent below average.^[3]

Water Can Arrive as Rain Instead of Snow

Snow acts as a temporary water store by holding precipitation above the valleys. When temperatures rise snow can melt earlier and precipitation can increasingly fall as rain at elevations that previously received snow.^[4]

Studies from the Himalayan region have identified shifts in snowfall towards higher elevations. Such changes can increase liquid precipitation at lower elevations and alter seasonal runoff patterns.^[4]

The Tibetan Plateau is also experiencing substantial cryospheric change. Research shows increasing glacier melt alongside warming and changing precipitation patterns across central and western parts of the plateau.^[9]

These changes can create competing risks across the same river basin. Earlier melt and reduced snow storage can contribute to seasonal water shortages while intense rainfall and sudden ice failures can produce destructive floods.^[3]

Terrain and Infrastructure Turn Hazards Into Disasters

Mountain valleys concentrate water and debris into narrow channels. An avalanche entering a river can temporarily block flow before releasing a sudden surge carrying enormous quantities of sediment downstream.^[1]

The July 2025 Rasuwa flood demonstrated the same transboundary vulnerability. Nepal's disaster authority recorded a sudden discharge from a supraglacial lake in Tibet that devastated the Lhende River corridor.^[10]

Hydropower stations roads bridges and settlements have expanded along many Himalayan valleys. Their location can increase exposure when steep channels carry fast-moving water sediment and rock.^[5]

The governance challenge therefore extends beyond emissions. Hazard mapping infrastructure standards early-warning systems and transboundary data sharing determine how much physical climate risk becomes human loss.^[5]

Attribution Has Limits But the Climate Signal Is Clear

Scientists can attribute climate influence through observations models and statistical comparisons between present and counterfactual climates. Event attribution then estimates how warming changes probability or intensity.^[6]

For individual Himalayan floods the evidence remains complicated by sparse observations and extreme terrain. Western Nepal and the Tibetan border region have limited high-elevation monitoring compared with lower populated areas.^[5]

Local observations nevertheless provide valuable evidence of changing seasons snow conditions water availability and hazard behaviour. Long-running Himalayan monitoring increasingly allows those observations to be tested against instrumental records.^[11]

The broader attribution is stronger than any single-event claim. Warming is accelerating glacier loss reducing snow persistence and increasing cryospheric instability across the Hindu Kush Himalaya.^[2]

The Nepal-Tibet catastrophe exposes a mountain system under increasing physical stress. Climate change has intensified the background conditions surrounding glaciers snow and frozen terrain.

Yet warming alone cannot explain every collapse. Geological instability monsoon variability steep terrain development and infrastructure decisions can determine the scale of destruction.

That distinction matters for accountability. Governments require stronger monitoring shared warnings safer infrastructure and rigorous land-use planning while emissions reductions address the underlying climatic pressure.

References

1. Rescuers Scour Nepal Flood Debris as Risk of Fresh Flooding Grows. Reuters reports the August 2026 disaster and the glacier-collapse mechanism affecting Nepal and Tibet.

2. Hindu Kush Himalaya Glaciers Losing Ice at Double the Rate Since 2000. ICIMOD documents accelerating glacier loss across the region.

3. Hindu Kush Himalaya Snowpack Crashes to Record Low. ICIMOD reports four consecutive years of below-normal snow persistence.

4. Snowfall Shift and Precipitation Variability Over Sikkim Himalaya. The study examines elevation-dependent warming and shifts between snowfall and rainfall.

5. Everest Region a Hotspot of Cryosphere-Linked Hazards. ICIMOD assesses increasing cryosphere-related hazards and adaptation requirements.

6. Australia's Changing Climate. The Bureau of Meteorology explains the relationship between warming atmospheric moisture and heavy rainfall.

7. Hindu Kush Himalaya Monsoon Outlook 2025. ICIMOD describes monsoon importance and increasing climate-related water hazards.

8. Pattern and Imprints of Elevation-Dependent Warming on Central Himalayan Cryosphere. The study identifies stronger cryospheric changes at higher elevations.

9. Observed Changes in the Climate and Snow Dynamics of the Third Pole. Nature research documents changes in precipitation snowmelt and glacier melt across the Tibetan Plateau.

10. Rasuwa Glacial Flood Situation Report. Nepal's disaster authority documents the July 2025 supraglacial-lake flood along the Lhende River.

11. What Is Climate Change Doing in the Himalaya?. Earth System Science Data presents three decades of observations from Nepal's Pyramid Meteorological Network.

Back to top ↑