Neither major party wants to talk about climate. It might still be a major election issue

Crikey - Cam Wilson

In the lead-up to the election, digital advertising has been dominated by climate and energy groups, suggesting a concerted push to force the issue into the spotlight.

Peter Dutton in Thargomindah, Queensland following major flooding in the region, March 31, 2025 (Image: AAP/James Brickwood)

The 2022 federal election was dubbed the “climate election”.

The two major parties clashed on climate policy. The country swung toward parties and candidates who pledged to do more about climate change. The teals burst onto the scene and the Greens had their best electoral showing ever. 

In 2025, both major parties seem to be doing everything they can to avoid mentioning climate at all.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the word “climate” three times in his press conference on the day he called the election: once to promote his record of “meeting the challenge of climate change” and twice to criticise the Liberal Party (and only one of those times in prepared remarks). Opposition Leader Peter Dutton didn’t mention it at all. 

One of the early election battlegrounds has been over energy policy — but entirely divorced from the context of climate change. Dutton’s nuclear policy, on which the Liberal Party has gone completely silent, and his promise to force gas giants to reserve supply for domestic use, are both being framed and now analysed through the lens of costs, not climate, in the media. 

The issue has slid in the minds of voters, too. It was ranked seventh in the Australian Financial Review’s Freshwater poll of voters’ top concerns. Other polls have found the issue has slid back since last election (although The Conversation’s Michelle Grattan notes some polling suggesting that voters connect cost of living — the top issue according to polling — and climate change). 

Whether the major parties’ decision to ignore climate change is the cause, the effect or some combination of the two, it’s clear that voters are less interested in this issue this election so far. 

But no matter what some want, there’s no ignoring the issue. Protesters have interrupted speeches by Albanese, Dutton and Treasurer Jim Chalmers in the past few weeks. Albanese’s election call was delayed by Cyclone Alfred, and now outback Queensland is experiencing the worst flooding in 50 years. 

You can also look at which groups are spending money to promote which issues. A quick glance at political digital advertising reveals that, outside of the parties, climate and energy groups have dominated spending in the lead-up to the election. 

In the month to March 25, advertisers grouped as specifically “pro-climate” by digital advertising analysis group Who Targets Me were the fourth largest spenders, spending $671,493 on Meta advertising on platforms like Facebook and Instagram during that period. This came after the Liberal Party, “others” and independents.

But even this understates the issue: “others” spending — which was second with $972,751 — was led by pages Climate 200, pro-climate “news organisation” Hothouse Magazine, and Nuclear for Australia. Third was independents, whose top spenders included Kate Chaney, Monique Ryan and Ben Smith, all candidates supported by Climate 200. 

Are these groups picking up that the electorate cares more about climate than the major political parties and, to an extent, the media do? Or is this an attempt to force the issue when climate policy is otherwise being shut out of the mainstream political discourse? 

It’s still early days and many voters are only starting to pay attention. Perhaps we’ll look back and realise that climate change is already changing our world so much that every election from now on will be a “climate election”.

Links

• Election diary: Energy is in the foreground – but climate change is ‘in the shadows’
• Environment the big loser in this year's Federal Election
• Australia decides: Cost of living, climate change and healthcare to dominate election campaign
• This election, here’s what Australians across age groups and postcodes want from the next government
• 2025 Climate Policy Tracker
• Take the pledge: I’m voting climate
• The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment

Global warming doesn’t mean everywhere is warming at the same rate, here’s why

Science Feedback

Credit: NOAA

ReviewerS Adam Scaife Professor Exeter University Editor Darrik Burns Climate editor Science Feedback

Global warming has been occurring for decades.

This is not a subject of debate, but rather a conclusion overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence. That being said, there are still misconceptions about what global warming actually means. Link

One misconception is that global warming means everywhere on Earth warms at the same rate. Although average global temperatures have been rising for decades, not every location on Earth experiences the same temperature rise over a certain period. Link

However, this misconception is perpetuated by climate misinformers who claim that temperature data from one region can overwrite well-established conclusions from climate scientists – like the connection between atmospheric CO₂ and global temperature rise – that scientists have identified in data from around the world. Link

To clear these misconceptions, below we will explore what ‘global warming’ really means at a regional vs. global scale. 

Main Takeaways: What global warming does mean: global warming occurs when the average global temperature increases over long time periods of decades or more.  What global warming does not mean: global warming is not a ‘uniform’ warming across every region on Earth – instead, for a given time period of overall warming, some places will be colder or warmer than the global average. The role of carbon dioxide (CO2) in global warming: Scientific evidence clearly shows that rising CO2 levels in Earth’s atmosphere have been the driving force behind recent global warming, trapping excess heat through the greenhouse effect.

Global warming does not mean that everywhere warms at the same pace

When scientific terms are adopted by the general public, misunderstandings are inevitable and can lead to confusion about what’s happening on our planet. This is worsened by climate misinformation, which relies on these misunderstandings to push climate denialism. 

In the past, we addressed misconceptions about the term ‘climate change’ by highlighting the differences between climate and weather – climate change occurs over decades, while weather fluctuates over days to weeks. And recently we covered why cold snaps and cold weather can persist during global warming. But another interesting question is how does global warming affect different locations on Earth?

At face value, the term ‘global warming’ may sound like every location on Earth is warming at the same rate. But this is not the case. Although most places on Earth are currently warming Link, certain locations are warming faster than others.

To learn more about this, Science Feedback reached out to an expert in climate variability, Dr. Adam Scaife. Scaife, who is a Professor at the University of Exeter and Head of Monthly to Decadal Prediction at the UK Met Office, explained the following in email to Science Feedback:

Professor Adam Scaife University of Exeter “While they are related, we don’t expect a perfect one-to-one relationship between regional temperatures and global temperatures.  Neither would we expect there to be, given that local weather patterns, sea surface conditions and the variation of warming rates geographically all affect local temperatures.”

Scaife points out that just because the global average temperature goes up a certain amount, that does not mean every region will warm by that amount. Some regions will warm more slowly or even cool in that same time period. Simply put, that’s how averages work: if most temperatures are going up, that will bring your average, even if some places remain somewhat stable or, in a rare few places, become colder. 

But the patterns are not completely random. Most land regions are warming faster than the global average, while oceans are warming more slowly, for example. However, warming rates can also vary within land and ocean regions themselves. 

As shown in Figure 1, the temperature changes on Earth over roughly a century (1900-2012) were different from region to region. In fact, some places (south of Greenland, for example) show little change over that time period, despite an overall increase in global average temperature. 

Figure 1 – Temperature changes (in degrees Fahrenheit) in different regions across the world from 1900-2012. Shades of yellow to red show a warming trend, shades of blue (which are notably scarce on this map) show a cooling trend, and gray areas have insufficient data. Source: NOAA

This variability shows why it can be problematic to arbitrarily choose one location on Earth to assess how the planet as a whole has warmed. Choosing an area that has remained cooler than average would produce an underestimate of global warming, and vice versa for an area that has warmed more quickly. 

The Arctic is a great example, as research has shown that it has been warming four times faster than the global average since 1979. As the UK Met Office explained in an email to Science Feedback:

“Some parts of the planet, such as the Arctic, warm more quickly than other places. At the poles, glaciers and ice sheets reflect energy from the sun into space. So, when there is less ice, less energy from the sun is reflected away. The area then heats even more quickly, causing even more ice to melt. This is known as a positive feedback loop.”

The variability of warming between different regions is why climate scientists assess global warming by looking at average temperature changes from around the planet – not just those from one region. This allows scientists to see through the variability and identify a global trend. In doing so, they have found unequivocally that the Earth is warming Link. 

How earth warms through the greenhouse effect

Recent global warming has mainly been driven by greenhouse gas emissions from human activities which, through the greenhouse effect, trap excess energy in Earth’s climate system and raise global temperatures. Link (See figure below). 

Figure: Illustration of the incoming and outgoing energy as affected by the natural greenhouse effect (left) and the enhanced greenhouse effect (right). Water vapor (H₂O) plays an important role in maintaining the natural greenhouse effect, while rising CO₂ is driving the human-enhanced greenhouse effect. After incoming solar radiation (shortwave radiation) – shown as yellow arrows – is absorbed by Earth’s surface, it is re-emitted as longwave radiation – shown as orange arrows. This longwave radiation can then be absorbed and re-emitted by CO₂ in Earth’s atmosphere, trapping heat in Earth’s climate system. Source: Climate change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation

Despite robust evidence of global warming, climate misinformers continue to cherry-pick data from single locations or regions – often misinterpreting what the data shows – to claim that climate scientist’s conclusions about global warming are wrong. 

A recent example of this came from a group called ‘CO₂ Coalition’, who have long spread climate misinformation (as we’ve shown several times in the past). 

The ‘CO₂ Coalition’ shared a video on Facebook on 18 March 2025 that gained 39,000 views in one day and claimed that ‘CO₂ is not correlated with temperature’ relying on temperature data from only one region (Central England). This claim is far from the first of its kind, and undoubtedly will not be the last. 

We explained above why it can be misleading to choose one location on Earth to represent global change. In addition, the CO₂ coalition misleads the viewers in another way by comparing that data to annual CO₂ emissions, as we explain below.

Total CO₂ concentration in Earth’s atmosphere drives temperature increases – looking at annual emissions alone can be misleading

Increases in annual emissions of CO₂ can lead to a faster buildup of CO₂ in Earth’s atmosphere. However, the most important relationship between global temperature and CO₂ is the actual amount of CO₂ in Earth’s atmosphere. As Scaife explained to Science Feedback:

Professor Adam Scaife University of Exeter “It is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and the integrated [i.e., added up] emissions over time) rather than annual emissions that relates most closely to global warming.  "Even then, events like El Nino or episodic volcanoes mean it is not a perfect relationship and again, for local temperatures, while there is a relationship between temperature and CO2, it will be mixed with fluctuations due to local weather patterns.”

The UK Met Office echoed this idea, explaining:

“they [CO₂ coalition] are using CO₂ emissions in their graph, rather than atmospheric CO₂ concentration […] concentration is what drives global warming, so the plot in the video is misleading from that point of view too”

Although this may seem like a subtle distinction, it is important because not all CO₂ that is emitted stays in Earth’s atmosphere. There are processes on Earth that store CO₂ in other places, such as in Earth’s oceans and forests. 

So correlating annual CO₂ emissions – rather than the actual buildup of atmospheric CO₂ – to temperature changes is misleading. In addition, the UK Met Office explained to Science Feedback that the UK’s temperatures can naturally vary on yearly and decadal scales (see squiggly nature of the blue line in Figure 2). 

As explained in a 2024 paper published in the International Journal of Climatology, the UK’s temperatures vary more at yearly scales than global temperatures because “the UK covers only a small fraction (~1/2000) of the Earth’s surface.” Link

These local variations can make the connection between atmospheric CO₂ concentrations and local temperature change seem a bit hazier. As Scaife explained to Science Feedback:

Professor Adam Scaife University of Exeter   “for local temperatures, while there is a relationship between temperature and CO2, it will be mixed with fluctuations due to local weather patterns.”

Figure 2 – Annual mean temperature in the UK (blue line) and its trend (dashed blue line) compared to global temperature changes (HadCRUT5; red line) and its trend (dashed red line). Note that despite short-term temperature fluctuations, all data sets above show upward trends in mean (i.e., average) temperatures. Source: Kendon et al. (2024)

However, as we noted earlier, it is already well-established that rising atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are driving global temperature rise. There is no reason to cherry-pick one location or region – introducing more variability and thus less clarity in trends – when far more robust and scientifically rigorous studies have shown a clear connection. 

As shown in Figure 3 below, scientists found that in modern times, greenhouse gases overall cause the most global warming of all the climate change drivers, and CO₂ causes the most global warming of all the greenhouse gases. 

Figure 3 – The contributions of different drivers to global warming from the present time period (2010-2019) relative to the time period of 1850-1900. The estimates of warming (red) and cooling (blue) from radiative forcing studies (panel (c)) are based on both direct emissions into the atmosphere and their effect, if any, on other climate drivers. Source: IPCC (2021)

Scientists’ Feedback

Questions from Science Feedback:

1. If global warming does not heat the Earth at the same rate everywhere, what are some of the factors that contribute to variable warming rates?
2. Do anthropogenic CO₂ emissions correlate well with temperature data for single locations (rather than global average temperature data)? 

Professor Adam Scaife University of Exeter “1. While they are related, we don’t expect a perfect one-to-one relationship between regional temperatures and global temperatures. Neither would we expect there to be, given that local weather patterns, sea surface conditions and the variation of warming rates geographically all affect local temperatures. Having said this, the CET (Central England Temperature) and the globe average have both warmed by about 1 degree in the last century, so to this extent, the records do tally. "2. It is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and the integrated emissions over time) rather than annual emissions that relates most closely to global warming. Even then, events like El Nino or episodic volcanoes mean it is not a perfect relationship and again, for local temperatures, while there is a relationship between temperature and CO2, it will be mixed with fluctuations due to local weather patterns.”

UK Met Office: “1. One example of why regions are warming at different rates is that water warms more slowly than land. This means that on average central land masses are expected to warm more than regions close to oceans. Other factors such as topography and latitude also have a role. Some parts of the planet, such as the Arctic, warm more quickly than other places. At the poles, glaciers and ice sheets reflect energy from the sun into space. So, when there is less ice, less energy from the sun is reflected away. The area then heats even more quickly, causing even more ice to melt. This is known as a positive feedback loop. These changes in temperature also have an impact on rainfall distribution and rates of change around the globe." 2. The following pages will provide some information for this question. One thing to note is the way the CET data is displayed in the video. If the data is displayed as an anomaly you can see the correlation between CO2 and CET temperature. Information about CO2 and climate change Information about CET including graph showing closer alignment to CO2 concentrations  Met Office Climate Dashboard with lots of data and graphics that show the relationship between CO2 and temperature  This video on the basics of climate change has an experiment showing the impact of CO2 on temperature

Additional question to the UK Met Office:

1. Science Feedback: Is it appropriate to use temperature data from one location (e.g., the HadCET dataset from Central England) to draw conclusions about overall global warming? If not, why?

UK Met Office:  “Global warming is by its very nature a global issue and while we can observe our changing climate at regional levels, taking a global view is a more robust way to look at overall trends. Some regions such as the arctic are warming much faster than other regions of the world for example. "From a UK perspective though, there’s a plot in the UK State of the Climate 2023 report that is relevant, comparing UK to global land and combined land-ocean temperatures over a more recent period than CET. For the HadCRUT5 global dataset mentioned below, almost 8,000 land-based weather stations contribute to this data set.”

“Globally, warming is greater across high latitudes compared with the equator, and over land compared with the ocean (IPCC, 2021, Blunden and Boyer, 2022). The most recent decade 2014–2023 has been 1.25°C warmer than 1961–1990 for the UK, compared with 0.85°C for global mean surface temperature and 1.15°C for global land only. The UK’s climate is subject to natural multi-annual to multi-decadal modes of variability which will super-impose on any longer-term trend. Taking this factor into consideration, the underlying warming observed for the UK is consistent with that observed globally over land.” Link

Links

• IPCC (2021) Sixth Assessment Report.
• IPCC (2018) Global Warming of 1.5°C.
• State of the UK Climate 2023
• Royal Meteorological Society The greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide
• The Innovation Geoscience Climate change: Strategies for mitigation and adaptation
• Nature Communications Earth & Environment: The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979

Your house is becoming uninsurable due to climate risks. Albo and Dutton won’t mention it

Crikey - Nick Feik

Premiums in disaster-prone regions have increased by up to 400%, posing a systemic financial risk. Don’t expect it to be an election issue. 

Flooded houses are seen in Oxley, in Brisbane, after Cyclone Alfred, March 10 (Image: AAP/Jono Searle)

On the day Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered his budget, an Austrian insurance executive, Dr. Günther Thallinger, published a short essay on LinkedIn that made a mockery of the government’s long-term plans and projections. 

The board member at Allianz SE was writing about a fast-approaching and existential financial risk — one that appeared nowhere in the treasurer’s speech and will barely rate a mention in the election campaign.

Thallinger’s succinct warning regards climate-related weather events and the global insurance industry. “Heat and water destroy capital,” he writes. “Flooded homes lose value.” They don’t just lose value, though; houses can become uninsurable. This has far-reaching consequences. “A house that cannot be insured cannot be mortgaged. No bank will issue loans for uninsurable property. Credit markets freeze.”

The insurance industry has historically managed its own disaster-related exposure, but insurers will very soon no longer be able to offer coverage for many of these risks. “The math breaks down: the premiums required exceed what people or companies can pay,” Thallinger writes. 

The insurance industry is already shifting its business model in response to this risk by lifting premiums and declaring entire regions uninsurable. Large US home insurers, to ensure their survival, are simply exiting California over its risk of bushfires, and many companies have stopped offering new policies in Florida due to ongoing storm risk. (Five hurricanes in America last year alone caused hundreds of billions of dollars in damage.) 

Climate determined the date of the
election, yet remains utterly absent
from it.

This is only the start of insurers “adapting” as they struggle to cover growing disaster bills. Extreme weather phenomena are driving direct physical risks not just to homes but also to land, roads, power lines, railways, ports and factories globally.

In Australia, the McKell Institute estimated the direct cost of natural disasters could reach $35 billion per year by mid-century, an average of more than $2,500 per household per year. These costs are already rising rapidly: in Australia, every year since 2013 has seen more annual insured losses than the combined losses of between 2000 and 2004.

Insurance premiums are spiking globally, which means non-renewals (people cancelling their insurance) are also increasing. The rate of home insurance non-renewals has risen across the US, at least tripling since 2018 in more than 200 countries. In Australia, home insurance premiums rose an accumulative 56% between 2020-23. 

In some cases, according to the Insurance Council of Australia, insurance premiums in disaster-prone regions have increased by up to 400% in recent years. Research from the Actuaries Institute last year showed that nearly one in eight Australian households — 1.25 million people — now pay more than four weeks gross income on home insurance premiums. One in 20 are paying almost two months gross income on home insurance.

A swimming pool is surrounded by burnt remains of homes in Southern California on January 10, 2025. The damages from the California wildfires were projected to exceed $135 billion (Image: Sahab Zaribaf/Middle East Images)

With vulnerable regions growing inexorably, this situation is set to worsen. 

More people exiting the insurance market means more people unable to afford to rebuild their disaster-hit homes: families who ditch their home and contents insurance would lose three-quarters of their wealth if their home was destroyed, according to research by The Australia Institute. 

Disaster-hit areas, which are already the most vulnerable, will remain unreconstructed after disasters, not just because of rising building costs but also because insurance and finance are simply not available. The World Economic Forum Global Risk Report 2024 predicts that more than half a million Australian homes will be uninsurable due to extreme weather risks by 2030.

Whole areas in northern Australia and down the east coast (starting with Lismore) are already under irreversible threat as a result. And as temperatures rise and storms spread, the financial risks will mutate and multiply.

“Entire asset classes are degrading in real time,” Thallinger writes, “which translates to loss of value, business interruption, and market devaluation … This is a systemic risk that threatens the very foundation of the financial sector. If insurance is no longer available, other financial services become unavailable too.”

Real estate is the largest investment class of all, but these same pressures apply to infrastructure, transportation, agriculture and industry. Without the ability to price and manage climate risk, basic investments are impossible. “The economic value of entire regions — coastal, arid, wildfire-prone — will begin to vanish from financial ledgers. Markets will reprice, rapidly and brutally. This is what a climate-driven market failure looks like.” 

Governments may try to address this disparity between haves and have-nothings, but amid further disasters and adaptation costs, there is a limit to what stretched budgets will cover. 

At the terrifying point where enough risk cannot be transferred (no insurance), or absorbed (no state capacity to cover losses), and risk cannot be adapted to (physical limits exceeded), there is existential financial risk. “That means no more mortgages, no new real estate development, no long-term investment, no financial stability,” writes Thallinger. “The financial sector as we know it ceases to function.”

The only escape from this fate is to keep emissions out of the atmosphere, switching from fossil fuels. Somewhat optimistically, Thallinger states, “The only thing missing is speed and scale.” And as if to remind us he’s an insurance executive rather than a climate activist, he adds, “This is not about saving the planet. This is about saving the conditions under which markets, finance, and civilization itself can continue to operate.”

The impacts of climate-driven extreme weather events are already an ongoing item (albeit unspoken) in Australian federal budgets, whether through increased disaster relief or emergency services funding, or the rising cost of adaptation, or rebuilding and insuring infrastructure, or a growing list of other related expenses. However, this liability hasn’t translated into real action to reduce global emissions. 

Australia’s domestic emissions have barely budged since 2005, while emissions from its fossil fuel exports, already the third-highest in the world, are set to rise. Even a moderately responsible budget would begin by taxing fossil fuel companies properly and stopping subsidies altogether, using these funds to supercharge mitigation and adaptation measures (including to mitigate against insurance market failures). None of this is even the subject of discussion.

Well, that’s not quite true. A parliamentary select committee was established last year to assess the impact of climate risk on insurance premiums and availability. Driven and led by the Greens and chaired by Senator Mehreen Faruqi, the committee issued its final report in November, 99 pages of which comprehensively discuss many of the threats raised above.

It made eight recommendations, including: a national disaster risk map and database; that insurance companies explain premium costs to policyholders; that the consumer regulator monitors premiums; reformed taxes on insurance; an expanded reinsurance pool for natural disasters and more disaster funds; and a review of planning laws especially on development in high-risk areas.

Finally, it recommended government explore a levy on coal and gas companies to offset insurance costs and fund disaster mitigation measures. Labor and the Coalition, while noting many of the report’s recommendations, both refused to support the key recommendation on the polluter-pays model. 

Four months later, Senator Faruqi continues to advocate for this idea. “We know that one-in-two coal and gas companies pay zero tax,” she says. “We need to bring them to the table to pay their fair share, so communities don’t have to pay for how they are damaging the globe.”

She draws attention to the recent budget as a reflection of the Albanese government’s ongoing intransigence on this issue: “It was really telling that the budget overview has an entire section on disaster recovery and rebuild which does not mention climate at all. In fact the whole 64-page budget overview does not mention the word climate.”

Labor’s budget also promised no new money for climate action but more money for fossil fuel subsidies — even while draining the public purse for more disaster relief. With the future of capitalism itself relying on climate mitigation, this is the opposite of responsible financial management.

Links

• Premium price: The impact of climate change on insurance costs
• Insurers Are Deserting Homeowners as Climate Shocks Worsen
• Climate, Risk, Insurance: The Future of Capitalism
• Climate change vs insurance
• Home insurance premiums are up 56pc, but insurers are making a loss
• A climate ‘news organisation’ is paying to show anti-Peter Dutton ads to millions of Australians

Climate change and feedback loops: Have we reached the point of no return?

Author Acharya Prashant, a modern Vedanta exegete and philosopher, is an author, columnist and founder of the PrashantAdvait Foundation. An IIT-IIM alumnus, he has several national bestsellers to his name.

The Sunday Guardian (India) - Acharya Prashant

 

Where do we currently stand on climate change?

We are seeing catastrophic long-term shifts in temperature and weather patterns, driven by human activities such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrialization. 

 

These activities release greenhouse gases, trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and leading to a rise in global temperatures. Stronger hurricanes, longer droughts, more intense heatwaves, and unpredictable rainfall patterns have become the new normal.

Our planet is heating up faster than ever, and 2024 made that clearer than any year before. According to NASA, 2024 was officially the hottest year on record, with global temperatures soaring 1.3°C above the 20th-century average. 

Greenhouse gases reached record levels this year, with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increasing from 278 ppm in 1750 to more than 420 ppm in 2024. Ocean heat last year was the highest ever recorded. Given the trends, ocean warming will continue, and what’s even more scary is that it is irreversible. With greenhouse gas concentrations reaching new highs, the world felt the impact of extreme weather, rising seas, and shrinking ice caps.

The oceans absorbed more heat than ever, expanding and pushing sea levels even higher. Antarctica’s sea ice shrank to near-record lows, and glaciers continued to melt at alarming rates. UNESCO estimates that since 1975, the world’s glaciers have lost around 9,000 gigatons of ice—enough to already seriously raise sea levels and disrupt freshwater supplies.

What are feedback loops?

The discourse on climate change highlights pronounced symptoms—rising temperatures, melting glaciers, and severe weather. However, beneath these symptoms lie complex natural processes that drive and reinforce these outcomes. 

 

Enter climate feedback loops, which quietly but powerfully shape the trajectory of global warming. To understand the underlying dynamics of global warming, we must first investigate these self-reinforcing feedback loops.

Feedback loops are natural processes that, once started, reinforce the phenomenon that caused them. They amplify warming by furthering the changes that initiated them. Unfortunately, strong feedback loops are propelling climate systems toward more instability. Once started, they’re almost impossible to reverse, much like a boulder gaining momentum as it rolls down a slope.

Some of the most significant feedback loops include:

1. Ice-Albedo Feedback: As ice and snow melt, darker land or ocean water surfaces absorb more solar radiation, further warming the Earth. In the Arctic, this has accelerated ice loss, with the potential for ice-free summers by 2030—a consequence that would notably reduce Earth’s albedo and exacerbate warming.
2. Permafrost Thawing: Thawing permafrost releases methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, which in turn raises temperatures and leads to further thawing. This feedback includes glacier melting in Greenland and Antarctica as well.
   Thawing permafrost in Siberia is releasing ancient methane. It not only contributes to rising sea levels but also destabilizes ocean circulation, climate, and biodiversity.
   As in the legend of Pandora, who opens a box that is better left shut, releasing evils into the world, she cannot put them back once they are out.
   The permafrost is the shut box. Methane is the hidden danger inside. Once the permafrost thaws, methane is released. This warming opens more “boxes,” and like Pandora, once started, this process is hard to reverse.
3. Water Vapor Feedback: Warmer temperatures accelerate evaporation, increasing the amount of water vapor (a greenhouse gas) in the air, which traps more heat, further amplifying warming.
4. Forest Fires and Dieback: Increased temperatures intensify heatwaves and droughts, which lead to more forest fires. Forest loss reduces carbon absorption and contributes to CO₂ levels, which further raises temperatures.
   Forest ecosystems are crashing. Shifting rainfall and rising heat are increasing tree deaths. As the forests die, they unleash their trapped carbon and can no longer soak up more, feeding the warming cycle. The Amazon rainforest, once a “carbon sink,” is now releasing more CO₂ than it soaks up in some regions.
5. Ocean Heat Absorption Feedback: Warmer oceans absorb less CO₂, reducing their role as carbon sinks, which leads to more atmospheric CO₂ and further warming.
6. Drought and Wildfire Feedback: Rising temperatures increase the frequency of droughts, which lead to more wildfires. Wildfires release CO₂ and reduce vegetation cover, which further increases atmospheric CO₂ and global temperatures.
7. Soil Carbon Release Feedback: Warmer temperatures speed up soil breakdown of organic matter, freeing more CO₂ and methane. This continues to warm the Earth and quickens soil erosion.
8. Ocean Stratification Feedback: Warmer surface waters suppress deep ocean mixing, reducing nutrient circulation. This destabilizes marine ecosystems and slows down the ocean’s ability to take up CO₂, increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases.
9. Ice Sheet Instability Feedback: Thawing glaciers and ice sheets release freshwater into the ocean, which can disrupt ocean currents, such as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). This can lead to extreme weather patterns and the further destabilization of ice sheets.

The ongoing deterioration of biodiversity underscores the urgency. Species are disappearing at unprecedented rates—not as part of their natural life cycles, but as a result of unregulated consumption, shortsighted development, and a refusal to examine our real needs. 

This pursuit of limitless growth is destabilizing ecosystems, without reflection of ever-greater consumption.

Purely technical or political solutions will not work
To truly understand the causes of the climate crisis, we must move beyond physical symptoms and examine the human level of consciousness. The climate change of our planet, in Vedanta’s vision, reflects not just ecological imbalance, but the fragmentation within. 

If we mistake destruction for development, we must inquire: What kind of consciousness generates this illusion?

This is not one more global issue—it is the overarching challenge of our time. The way forward demands more than policy or technology; it demands a profound shift in how we live, think, and are connected to the planet.

Vedanta teaches that our outer destruction of the world mirrors an inner disconnection. Driven by a sense of lack, we seek fulfillment through accumulation. When Earth can no longer satisfy this appetite, we look to other planets, calling that escape “progress.” But true transformation begins within, with self-reflection and an honest examination of the desires that fuel insatiable consumption.

The Bhagavad Gita offers timeless advice: right action arises only from self-knowledge. Lasting solutions will not only arise from innovation but from a deeper understanding of who we are. As we turn inward, we encounter the ultimate source of this crisis—the ego, which constantly seeks wholeness outside itself.

When consciousness observes itself without resistance, a profound shift becomes possible. Perhaps this inward awakening holds the key. But time is slipping. The feedback loops we’ve triggered may soon close the window for meaningful change. For now, it remains open—but not for long.

Links 

• Australia drops two ranks in the current CCPI, to 52nd and among the low-performing countries
• Australia: Climate Action Tracker
• Australia Passes Law to Begin Mandatory Climate Reporting in 2025
• United Nations Climate Reports
• From deluges to drought: Climate change speeds up water cycle, triggers more extreme weather
• January 2025 sees record global temperatures despite La Niña

Tackling climate crisis will increase economic growth, OECD research finds

Third of global GDP could be lost this century if climate crisis runs unchecked, says report

The UN climate chief said extreme weather would shave 1% from Europe’s GDP before mid-century, and by 2050 would shrink the economy by 2.3% a year. Photograph: Borja Suárez/Reuters

The Guardian - Fiona Harvey Environment editor

Taking strong action to tackle the climate crisis will increase countries’ economic growth, rather than damage their finances as critics of net zero policies have claimed, research from the world’s economic watchdog has found.

Setting ambitious targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and setting out the policies to achieve them, would result in a net gain to global GDP by the end of the next decade, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), in a joint report with the UN Development Programme.

The calculation of the net gain, of 0.23% by 2040, would be even greater in 2050, if it included the benefit of avoiding the devastation that not cutting emissions would wreak on the economy.

By 2050, the most advanced economies would enjoy an increase of 60% in GDP per capita growth, while by the same date lower income countries would experience a 124% rise from 2025 levels.

In the shorter term, there would also be benefits for developing countries, with 175million people lifted out of poverty by the end of the decade, if governments invest in cutting emissions now.

By contrast, a third of global GDP could be lost this century, if the climate crisis were allowed to run unchecked.

Achim Steiner, executive secretary of the United Nations Development Programme, told a conference held by the German government in Berlin on Tuesday: “The overwhelming evidence that we now have is that we are not regressing if we invest in climate transitions. We actually see a modest increase in GDP growth, that may look small at first … but quickly grows.”

Simon Stiell, the UN climate chief, also warned in a speech on Wednesday morning in Berlin that Europe would suffer economic devastation from the climate crisis, if strong action were not taken soon. Extreme weather would shave 1% from Europe’s GDP before mid-century, and by 2050 would shrink the economy by 2.3% a year.

Although those figures may appear small, the crucial point is that the economic contraction would continue year after year. For comparison, the financial crisis of 2008-09 caused a contraction of 5.5% in the EU, but recovery began within a few years. The contraction owing to the climate crisis would be the equivalent of a serious recession occurring every year.

By the end of two decades of such damage, the EU economy would cease to exist.

“[Climate breakdown] is a recipe for permanent recession,” said Stiell. “As disasters make more and more regions unliveable, and food production declines, millions more people will be forced to migrate, internally and across borders.”

He added: “The climate crisis is an urgent national security crisis that should be at the top of every cabinet agenda.”

Critics of the target of reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 have complained that tackling the climate crisis, by switching from fossil fuels to a low-carbon economy, would stifle economic growth and cripple the global economy.

However, the costs involved in investing in renewable energy are relatively modest, compared with the likely damage. In the UK, the cost is likely to be 0.2% of GDP a year to 2050. Providing climate finance to the poor world would also benefit rich countries.

Data from the International Renewable Energy Agency (Irena), published on Wednesday, found record-breaking growth last year of 15% in renewable energy capacity. Nearly two-thirds of the growth was from China, the world’s powerhouse of green energy generation.

Francesco La Camera, the director general of Irena, said: “The continuous growth of renewables we witness each year is evidence that renewables are economically viable and readily deployable.”

However, fossil fuels continue to attract investment. In 2023, about 1.5m new jobs were created in the global clean energy sector – but nearly 1m jobs were also added in the fossil fuel industry.

Links

• Green technology and innovation
• Climate adaptation and resilience
• Climate mitigation and net-zero transition
• Finance and investment for climate goals
• Hottest year on record
• Young leaders on the frontlines of climate action

Climate determined the date of the election, yet remains utterly absent from it

Crikey - Ketan Joshi

More than 1,000 media pieces from major outlets mentioned climate change during the peak of the Black Summer bushfires. In February this year, there were just 250.

Major flooding in Lismore, NSW, from Tropical Cyclone Alfred (Image: AAP/Jason O'Brien)

Author Ketan Joshi is a writer, analyst, and communications consultant focusing on clean energy and climate change. He previously worked in climate and energy for private companies and government agencies, and now writes journalism and commentary from the front lines of climate and energy battles around the world. He is based in Oslo and consults to organisations addressing the climate crisis.

Australia’s election date was decided by climate change. 

Like every other major weather event of the past decade, Cyclone Alfred emerged in an atmosphere sweltering due to the heat-trapping effect of greenhouse gases. That made it hit harder and more unpredictably. 

Alfred tracked much farther south than cyclones normally do, so homes in southern Queensland and northern New South Wales were battered.

Albanese was forced to shift his election announcement, with both major parties having to deal with a surprise budget. It was weirdly fitting: a climate-intensified disaster playing a major role in deciding the timing of an election campaign that will refuse to directly engage with the urgency of fossil fuel elimination.

The days of the 2019 climate strikes have come and gone. Few want to say it aloud: Australia has entered a completely new phase of climate discourse. During the peak of the Black Summer bushfires, there were more than 1,000 pieces mentioning climate change in selected major print media outlets. In February 2025, there were about 250. Concerns have shifted towards the cost of living.

When it comes to the cost of power generation technologies, nuclear, coal, and gas are the most expensive, while wind and solar are the cheapest. 

However, Australians believe the opposite is true: polling shows 57% of respondents underestimate the percentage of renewables in Australia’s grids, and there is worryingly deep support for the expansion of new fossil gas extraction sites (alongside widespread acceptance of the “need” for gas in the “long term”). Incredibly, even the basic acceptance that human-induced heating is occurring shows early signs of weakening.

During the COVID pandemic, we were scared of death, disease and loss, but at some point in the past few years, we stopped being scared of the terrifying outcomes of fossil fuel reliance. Part of this is self-inflicted by people like me. 

Back in the mid-2010s, it emerged that we as climate communicators needed to talk more explicitly about the benefits of technologies like wind, solar, electric vehicles, and heat pumps: they’re cheaper, shinier, and modern. The notes we strike should be optimistic.

But these are side benefits. The heart of the story is that this is a massive harm-minimisation project that lives or dies on how rapidly we eliminate a trio of harmful substances from society. 

Is it any surprise that polls are showing the public is massively disconnecting from the sheer physical urgency of the problem, when so much of the focus has been on the power bill savings of solar panels and not on the immediate and deadly threat posed by a coal-fired power station?

Dutton now has the space to freely propose policies that actively incentivise the increased burning of fossil fuels in Australia. It is no accident that the opposition leader’s core energy message is promising to more heavily subsidise the use of oil and gas in Australia.

Under his proposals, wealthy people doing their shopping using gas-guzzling luxury utes and four-wheel drives will see a massive cut to their fossil fuel costs, through a deep cut to the taxation of road transport fuels. 

Dutton is promising to reserve a proportion of Australia’s gas for domestic use, on the grounds that ramping up supply of this fossil fuel will bring down power bills (a policy requested by crossbench senators including Jacqui Lambie and Rex Patrick).

At the time of writing, Australia’s core gas lobby groups haven’t yet screamed in outrage — presumably because Dutton is also offering to take an axe to the already generous approvals process for new gas extraction sites. Both the fuel excise cut and the gas extraction policies act as effective subsidies for fossil fuels.

The Coalition’s nuclear plan would almost certainly do nothing beyond massively increasing the lifespans of Australia’s unreliable coal-fired power fleet over the coming decades (to the delight of utilities more than willing to eat up subsidies to keep those plants polluting longer).

Labor has not been as brazen in proposing fossil fuel subsidies disguised as cost of living policies, but they suffer the same affliction in avoiding the issue at hand. Generous energy bill subsidies are vote-winners, but they don’t help get expensive fossil fuels out of power grids (particularly gas, the cost of which is a primary driver of wholesale electricity prices).

It is an absurd thing to spectate a debate about fossil fuels that refuses to mention the physical consequences of their use. Imagine gun control advocates in the US talking solely about the financial savings of not paying for bullets.

We want to stop burning coal, oil and gas because they rapidly wreck the physical systems we rely on to live. The fact that climate impacts are pulling the levers of this election’s schedule lays it out pretty neatly: the laws of physics don’t change based on our beliefs and our statements. 

Maybe this election is the perfect time to get back to the heart of the matter: fossil fuels are deadly, and we need to ditch them ASAP.

Links

• Newspaper coverage of climate change or global warming in five Australian newspapers
• Dutton’s nuclear promises billions for fossil fuels and a smaller economy for the rest of us
• While the government denies the science on carbon credits, the climate suffers
• This election, here’s what Australians across age groups and postcodes want from the next government 
• Housing, cost of living and climate change top list of what concerns voters most in Your Say
• The 2025 federal budget fails the millions of voters who want action on Australia’s struggling environment

Australia: Ten Climate Change Questions Demanding Answers - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

As climate change intensifies, Australia’s future is looking more uncertain.

While the impacts of rising temperatures and extreme weather are already being felt across the country, crucial questions remain unanswered.

Experts agree that we need more data and research to understand the full scope of climate change’s effects—and how Australia can best respond.

Australia's climate future is clouded by pressing questions that demand immediate attention:

1. Will the government's gas expansion plans lower energy costs without derailing emission targets?
   The Labor government's strategy to increase gas production aims to reduce energy prices. However, it's uncertain how this aligns with Australia's commitment to reducing emissions.

2. What reforms are in store for Australia's environmental legislation?
   Both major political parties have yet to clarify their positions on overhauling environmental laws, leaving Australians in the dark about future protections.

3. Are Australia's gas exports truly a cleaner alternative to coal?
   The claim that Australian gas exports are a cleaner substitute for coal lacks comprehensive evidence, raising questions about their environmental impact.

4. What are the emission reduction commitments for 2035?
   With 2035 on the horizon, neither major party has outlined clear strategies for emission reductions, leaving a significant gap in Australia's climate policy.

5. How will climate change intensify extreme weather events?
   Australia is already experiencing more frequent and severe heatwaves, bushfires, and floods. The extent of future intensification remains uncertain.

6. What are the projected impacts on Australia's unique biodiversity?
   Climate change threatens Australia's distinctive ecosystems, but detailed assessments of potential species extinctions and habitat loss are still needed.

7. How vulnerable are coastal communities to rising sea levels?
   With sea levels rising, the specific risks to Australia's coastal infrastructure and communities require further investigation to inform adaptation strategies.

8. What health risks does climate change pose to Australians?
   The health implications, including the spread of diseases and heat-related illnesses due to increased temperatures, need more comprehensive research.

9. How will water resources and agriculture be affected?
   Understanding the future availability of water and its impact on agriculture is crucial for ensuring food security and supporting rural economies.

10. What are the economic costs of inaction on climate change?
    Quantifying the financial consequences of failing to address climate change is essential for policymakers and the public to grasp the urgency of mitigation efforts.

Addressing these unanswered questions is critical for Australia's environmental and economic future.

Links

• Australians deserve answers on climate before they vote
• What is climate change and what can we do about it?
• Understanding climate change
• Dug up in Australia, burned around the world – exporting fossil fuels undermines climate targets
• Impacts of Climate Change
• Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred ushers in a fresh wave of climate denial in Australia