Australia's New National Environment Law - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Federal overhaul reached agreement with the Greens on 27 November 2025[2] New national environmental standards and an agency, NEPA, are central features[1] Exemptions for native forest logging and some land clearing will be removed within 18 months[3] Coal and gas projects will not be fast-tracked under the deal with the Greens[2] Business groups warn of costs and uncertainty for major projects[6] Conservation lawyers and scientists remain cautious about loopholes and enforcement[5]

The Federal Government and the Greens have agreed on major amendments to Australia’s environment law after months of negotiations.^[2]

The agreement delivers new national environmental standards and creates a National Environmental Protection Agency, known as NEPA, to oversee implementation.^[2]

The package is built on recommendations from the 2020 independent review of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Samuel review, and has been presented by the government as a long overdue modernisation of the EPBC Act.^[1]

Under the deal, native forest logging that was previously exempt under regional forest agreements will be subject to federal standards within 18 months of the bill’s passage.^[3]

The government also accepted a Greens push to prevent fast-tracking of coal and gas projects through the new approvals route, while retaining a federal role on water-related approvals.^[2]

Labor ministers described the reforms as balancing nature protection with streamlined approvals intended to reduce duplication between Canberra and the states.^[4]

Business groups and industry bodies warned the package, as negotiated with the Greens, would introduce new costs and uncertainty for resource, infrastructure, and housing projects.^[6]

Environmental lawyers, scientists and some conservation organisations welcomed parts of the bill, but warned the reforms contain potential loopholes that could weaken protections unless the rules and enforcement are robust.^[5]

What the reform does

The reform replaces the current EPBC Act decision framework with national environmental standards that will set binding thresholds for unacceptable impacts and for protection of key matters of national environmental significance.^[1]

The package also establishes NEPA, a new independent agency to make decisions, publish information and drive compliance across jurisdictions.^[1]

Bioregional planning, strategic assessments and a requirement for public environmental information are central elements designed to shift from project-by-project decisions to more strategic, regional approaches.^[4]

The bills include measures intended to speed approvals for projects deemed to meet the new standards while maintaining criminal penalties and higher fines for deliberate breaches.^[4]

Transitional arrangements are proposed so that existing class approvals continue to operate while the new system is bedded in.^[9]

Political manoeuvring and the parliamentary deal

The government negotiated with the Greens in late November 2025 to secure votes needed to pass the reform package through the Senate on the final sitting day of Parliament.^[2]

The Greens secured explicit commitments on native forest logging and the removal of some exemptions, in exchange for agreeing not to press immediately for stronger climate-related assessment triggers.^[3]

The Coalition opposed the final deal, arguing the changes would increase energy and project costs and reduce investor certainty.^[11]

Labor argued the deal was necessary to end two decades of legal uncertainty and to deliver a single national framework that listens to science and business alike.^[4]

Business and industry reaction

Major industry groups urged bipartisan clarity and warned that certain drafting and administrative arrangements could delay major projects unless clarified quickly.^[7]

The mining and resources sector said the bill as negotiated failed to strike the right balance between environmental protection and responsible development, and called for clearer definitions and faster administrative processes.^[6]

The Business Council and other peak business bodies urged federal and state governments to finalise rules that avoid duplicative approvals and unnecessary costs for large infrastructure and energy projects.^[7]

Environmental and legal responses

Conservation organisations welcomed creation of national standards and an independent agency, while warning that the detail of standards and enforcement will determine outcomes for species and ecosystems.^[10]

Environmental law centres advised that although the reforms include promising tools such as unacceptable impact tests, the draft laws still permit pathways that may undermine biodiversity outcomes if not tightly defined.^[5]

Universities and expert groups called for stronger transparency and clear metrics for measuring net gain and biodiversity recovery under the new framework.^[8]

Practical implications on the ground

For native forests in parts of New South Wales and Tasmania, the change means projects previously exempt from federal scrutiny will become subject to national standards and potential legal challenge under federal law.^[3]

Developers of renewable energy, housing and mining projects will face a new approvals architecture that aims to speed decisions where standards are met, but will also encounter more stringent data and reporting obligations.^[9]

Indigenous groups and state governments will continue to play crucial roles in regional planning and approvals, with the commonwealth able to enter new federal-state agreements under the reformed system.^[1]

Analysis and remaining questions

Legal analysts say the success of reform rests on how NEPA exercises its powers, how “unacceptable impacts” are defined, and how bioregional plans are developed and resourced.^[9]

Economists and industry advisers note that certainty for investment will depend on operational detail, timelines for agency decisions, and clarity on transitional arrangements for existing approvals.^[7]

Conservation scientists warn that national standards must be robust, enforceable and underpinned by strong monitoring if the reforms are to reverse species decline and habitat loss.^[10]

Next steps

The reform bills will proceed through legislative stages, with public consultations and committee consideration scheduled, and the government signalling a staged rollout for NEPA and standards implementation over the next two years.^[4]

Ministers have said additional funding and administrative resources will be needed to support the agency and to develop bioregional plans that meet statutory timeframes.^[1]

Stakeholders from business, environment and Indigenous organisations have been invited to make formal submissions during the consultation window and to engage with agencies drafting the standards and guidance.^[4]

Bottom line

The EPBC reform deal struck in late November 2025 represents a significant rewrite of Australia’s national environmental law, pairing new national standards and an independent agency with compromises aimed at securing Senate passage.^[2]

How well the reforms protect nature while supporting responsible development will depend on the precise legal drafting, agency resourcing, and ongoing political will to enforce the new rules.^[5]

References

1. EPBC Act reform — Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water
2. Labor strikes deal with Greens to pass long-awaited overhaul of nature protection laws — The Guardian, 27 Nov 2025
3. Labor concedes native forest protections, fossil fuel carveout on EPBC reforms — The Australian, 27 Nov 2025
4. Environment Protection Reform Bill 2025 — Parliamentary Library Bills Digest
5. EPBC Act reforms make it to parliament — EDO, 31 Oct 2025
6. EPBC Bill fails to strike right balance — Minerals Council statement, 27 Nov 2025
7. Nation’s prosperity hinges on crucial EPBC reforms — Business Council of Australia
8. Expert reaction: new environmental laws to pass Senate — Scimex, 27 Nov 2025
9. Understanding the EPBC Act reforms: A practical guide — Norton Rose Fulbright
10. Environmental law reforms unlikely to deliver for biodiversity without major strengthening — Biodiversity Council
11. Albo strikes historic deal with the Greens — Yahoo News / AFP, 27 Nov 2025
12. Nature laws agreement delivers big forests outcome — MediaNet / NewsHub, 27 Nov 2025

Back to Top

Has the World Crossed Climate Tipping Points? The New Global Tipping Points Report and What Comes Next - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Warm-water coral reefs have passed a central thermal tipping threshold at about 1.2°C.[1] Global average warming is now near or above the reef threshold, around 1.3–1.4°C.[2] The report flags growing risks to ice sheets, the Amazon, and the Atlantic circulation.[2] Cascading tipping events would amplify damage beyond isolated systems.[3] Australia’s reefs and coastal communities face immediate and near-term risks from heat and bleaching.[4] Some interventions still reduce risks, but rapid global mitigation is essential.[1]

A major new scientific assessment finds that warm-water coral reefs have passed a global thermal tipping threshold and are experiencing widespread dieback.^[1]

The Global Tipping Points Report places the central estimate for reef thermal tipping at about 1.2°C of global warming above pre-industrial levels, with a plausible range of about 1.0°C to 1.5°C.^[1]

Independent media and science outlets note that global mean temperatures are now roughly 1.3 to 1.4°C above pre-industrial baselines, pushing reefs into the danger zone identified by the report.^[2]

The report was prepared by a broad international team and highlights that other planetary subsystems, including Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, the Amazon rainforest, and the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, are close to thresholds where change could become abrupt and long lasting.^[1]

Scientists warn the primary concern is not only individual tipping points but the risk of cascades, where one system’s collapse raises the odds of another failing, producing larger and faster climate shifts.^[3]

For Australia the report sharpens a near-term threat to the Great Barrier Reef and to communities dependent on fisheries and tourism, and it calls for urgent mitigation and local management to limit losses.^[4]

Crucially, the report stresses that “irreversible” does not always mean instantaneous annihilation and that some forms of recovery or adaptation remain possible, even if the shape of ecosystems or societies changes for generations.^[1]

What the Global Tipping Points Report actually says

The Global Tipping Points Report synthesises the latest empirical data and expert judgement on 25 vulnerable Earth systems and their thresholds.^[1]

The report identifies warm-water coral reefs as the first system for which the central estimate of a thermal tipping threshold has been exceeded by current global temperatures.^[1]

The report’s reef assessment combines observed mass bleaching and mortality from successive marine heatwaves with modelling of thermal tolerance and recovery, producing a median threshold near 1.2°C and a quantified probability that repeated bleaching events will prevent recovery of extensive reef structures.^[5]

The document also maps plausible thresholds and timeframes for other systems, and it emphasises where uncertainty remains large but risks are non-trivial, notably for ice sheets and tropical forests.^[1]

Why coral reefs matter and what crossing their threshold means

Warm-water coral reefs support a quarter of marine biodiversity and provide food, coastal protection and income to hundreds of millions of people worldwide, meaning their loss has immediate human consequences.^[5]

Crossing a reef thermal threshold means that repeated mass bleaching events become the norm, and that large, complex reef structures are unlikely to recover on human timescales without dramatic reductions in global heat stress and aggressive local management.^[1]

That outcome does not preclude pockets of reef persistence or recovery under exceptional local conditions, but it does imply the loss of reefs as a widespread global feature and the services they provide.^[1]

Cascades and the most worrying linked risks

The report highlights that tipping elements are connected, and that a shock in one region or system can change the probability of shifts elsewhere through physical and ecological feedbacks.^[3]

Major concerns flagged include accelerated ice loss from Greenland and West Antarctica, which would raise global sea levels and could alter ocean circulation patterns that regulate regional climates.^[2]

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, or AMOC, is listed as vulnerable to freshening and warming that could slow or reconfigure large-scale ocean flows and rapidly shift climates in Europe and parts of the Atlantic basin.^[2]

The Amazon is also described as edging toward a tipping regime where drought, fire and human pressure could convert rainforest to savannah in places, which would release carbon and further reinforce warming pressures.^[1]

How likely are cascading failures

The report does not assert inevitability for major cascades but quantifies increased probabilities as global temperatures rise and as stressors accumulate, and it highlights nonlinear thresholds that make timing and scale hard to predict.^[1]

A separate assessment of systemic risk notes that economic, social and ecological feedbacks can amplify physical tipping points, meaning cascade pathways are plausibly faster and more disruptive than simple isolated models indicate.^[3]

What this means for Australia

Australia is already seeing the practical consequences of reef heat stress, with repeated bleaching events along the Great Barrier Reef and along Western Australian coasts undermining coral resilience and tourism revenue.^[4]

The report elevates the immediate risk profile for the Great Barrier Reef and for northern and western coastal communities that rely on reef fisheries and coastal protection from storms.^[5]

Australia’s national exposure depends on both global emissions pathways and domestic actions on water quality, fishing, and local restoration that can buy time for reefs while global temperatures are reduced.^[1]

What “irreversible” actually means

The report and allied analyses explain that irreversible often refers to changes that cannot be undone on human timescales rather than literal permanence, for example sea level rise that persists for centuries or ecosystems that will not reassemble to prior states within centuries.^[1]

Irreversibility can also mean committed losses of function, such as the structural collapse of reefs, long-term declines in carbon sink capacity in forests, or committed sea level rise that locks in migration and land loss for coastal societies.^[3]

What interventions remain possible

The report emphasises that aggressive emissions reductions remain the single most powerful intervention to reduce the probability of further tipping events and cascades, and that near-term cuts reduce long-term committed impacts.^[1]

Complementary measures include large-scale expansion of protected areas, improved land and water management, restoration of degraded ecosystems, targeted removal of local stressors such as pollution and overfishing, and investment in adaptation for affected communities.^[5]

The report also notes the potential for positive societal tipping points, such as rapid clean energy uptake, which can reduce emissions trajectories if policy and finance accelerate deployment at scale.^[1]

Conclusion — a tighter window, not a closed door

The Global Tipping Points Report presents a stark message: one of the planet’s major ecosystems has already moved into a higher risk regime, and other systems are poised where modest additional warming could push them over local thresholds.^[1]

The practical implication is that societies face higher probabilities of rapid and hard-to-reverse change, but that timely, deep emissions cuts combined with targeted local measures can still reduce risks and preserve options for adaptation and recovery.^[3]

For Australia the immediate task is to combine national mitigation with intensive reef management and community planning, recognising that some losses are now probable while others are still avoidable.

References

1. Global Tipping Points Report 2025 (full report)
2. Planet's first catastrophic climate tipping point reached, report says, with coral reefs facing 'widespread dieback' — The Guardian
3. Climate tipping points are being crossed, scientists warn ahead of COP30 — Reuters
4. 'Tipping point' threshold reached for world's coral reefs, report says — ABC News
5. Global Tipping Points Report 2025 — ZSL news
6. Global Tipping Points Report 2025 — Summary (WWF hosted PDF)
7. Tipping points in the earth system — NGFS report
8. Living Planet Report 2024 — WWF
9. Earth enters 'new reality' as coral reefs reach first climate tipping point — Phys.org

Back to Top

Are people fed up with the climate debate or are they still listening? - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Many people still see climate change as a major threat.[2] Large polls show many think about climate change regularly.[1] Interest can fall when immediate crises hit the headlines.[3] In some rich countries concern has softened since 2022.[2] People express frustration at slow government delivery.[4] Scientific milestones keep the risk current and urgent.[5]

The global conversation about climate change is shifting rather than ending.

Some surveys show high and persistent concern about climate risks across many countries, even as priorities vary by place and moment.

At the same time pockets of fatigue and frustration have grown where people see talk without clear government action.

That combination—continued worry paired with impatience—drives much of how the public now responds to climate news.

Understanding whether people are “tuning out” requires looking at multiple recent, reputable polls and the contexts that shape attention.

This article compares major public opinion studies and explains what they say about concern, fatigue, and political trust.

The aim is to describe what the evidence supports, and where public feeling is less certain or changing rapidly.

What the big surveys actually say

Large international surveys show that climate remains a major public concern in many countries, with majorities calling it a serious threat in most places surveyed by Pew Research Center in 2025.^[2]

The UNDP global survey found more than half of people report thinking about climate change daily or weekly, indicating ongoing salience rather than universal disengagement.^[1]

Ipsos’s People and Climate Change 2025 report documents widespread concern about impacts, but also finds that economic pressures and geopolitical crises can push climate down citizens’ immediate priority lists.^[3]

In countries such as Australia and the United States surveys show significant majorities still back stronger climate action, while a smaller but vocal minority expresses scepticism or fatigue.^[6]

Is “talk and no action” driving people away?

Public impatience is real where promises from governments are repeatedly delayed or weakened, and those perceptions erode trust in political leadership on climate issues.^[4]

Polling shows that citizens who rate government performance poorly on climate are more likely to express frustration and disengage from advocacy or news about the subject.^[4]

That disengagement tends to be selective: many frustrated citizens still support specific local or tangible measures such as renewable energy or flood protection.

In short, anger at political delay often coexists with continued support for practical solutions rather than a blanket “tuning out.”

News cycles, crises and attention

Attention to climate fluctuates in response to the news agenda, with wars, inflation, or energy shocks sometimes crowding out coverage of long-term risks.

When immediate crises dominate, public concern measured in polls can fall or be reprioritised without implying people deny the science.^[3]

Yet scientific developments and extreme-weather events often revive attention because they create direct, observable impacts for people and communities.

For example the scientific confirmation that global temperatures breached 1.5°C in 2024 created renewed public discussion about near-term risks and policy urgency.^[5]

Who is most likely to tune out

Evidence suggests tuning out is most common among people who feel policy makers are not responsive and among those facing immediate economic hardship.

Political identity and media ecosystems also shape whether citizens see climate as a priority or as overhyped news.

Younger people often express strong concern but also higher levels of climate anxiety, which can paradoxically lead some to withdraw from constant coverage.

Conversely older cohorts may deprioritise climate when other issues like cost of living or health take precedence.

What this means for advocates and politicians

Simple messaging about doom encourages fatigue, while clear offers of concrete policy outcomes and local benefits are more likely to sustain engagement.

Polling evidence shows people respond to tangible measures such as clean energy jobs, disaster preparation, and household cost-reducing technologies more than abstract long-term targets.^[3]

Transparency about trade-offs and incremental wins helps rebuild trust where disappointment in “talk” has set in.

Framing action around immediate benefits and protections, rather than only distant targets, reduces the sense that climate policy is endless rhetoric.

Bottom line

The public is not uniformly “sick” of the climate debate, but fatigue and frustration are rising where political delivery lags and competing crises dominate attention.

Robust, repeated surveys show continued concern and substantial public support for concrete climate measures, even as priorities shift between countries and over time.^[2]

The challenge for democracies is to convert broad concern into visible local benefits to keep people engaged and to avoid polarising the debate into permanent cynicism.

That is a political and communications task, not a signal that the public has abandoned climate action as a goal.

References

1. World’s largest survey on climate change shows what results reveal, UNDP, 27 June 2024
2. Global views: climate change as a threat, Pew Research Center, 19 August 2025
3. People and Climate Change 2025, Ipsos, April 2025
4. Climate Change in the American Mind: Beliefs & Attitudes, Fall 2024, Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
5. 2024 was the first year above 1.5°C, scientists say, Reuters, 10 January 2025
6. Majority of Australians believe urgent action is needed, Ipsos Australia, 16 April 2025

Back to Top

Solar and home batteries surge as Australians chase bill savings and energy independence - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

More than 4 million Australian rooftops now host solar panels, after about 300,000 new systems were installed in 2024.1 Rooftop solar supplied 12.4 per cent of Australia’s electricity in 2024, up from 11.2 per cent in 2023.2 An estimated 32,000 new solar systems paired with batteries were installed in 2024, a one third rise on 2023.3 New South Wales now leads home battery sales, ahead of Victoria and Queensland.4 One in three households already has rooftop solar, and planners expect that share to pass half of detached homes by the mid‑2030s.5 Analysts expect distributed solar capacity to climb from about 21 GW today to 36 GW by 2030 and 86 GW by 2050, with strong growth in batteries alongside it.6

Australians are installing rooftop solar and home batteries at record pace, as households and small businesses look to cut soaring power bills and gain more control over when they use electricity.¹

More than 300,000 rooftop solar systems were added in 2024 alone, pushing the national total past 4 million installations and cementing consumer-owned solar as a major part of the grid.¹

Rooftop solar supplied 12.4 per cent of Australia’s electricity in 2024, up from 11.2 per cent the year before, and continues to outpace large-scale solar as a share of generation.²

Analysts estimate roughly 32,000 new solar and battery systems were registered in 2024, as more customers choose to store daytime solar for use in the evening peak.³

New South Wales leads the country on home battery sales, with Victoria and Queensland close behind, revealing that uptake is strongest in the eastern states’ sprawling suburbs.⁴

Energy planners expect rooftop solar on homes and businesses to keep growing rapidly, with distributed solar capacity projected to rise from about 21 gigawatts now to around 36 gigawatts by 2030 and 86 gigawatts by mid‑century.⁵

They also forecast a rapid expansion of small-scale batteries, which can act together as virtual power plants and help keep the grid stable as coal plants retire.⁶

Cost-of-living pressures, falling technology costs and the promise of greater energy independence are driving this shift, while generous sunshine across much of the continent makes rooftop solar an obvious choice for many Australians.¹

How fast solar use is growing

Clean Energy Council data show that 300,375 rooftop solar systems were installed across Australia in 2024, lifting the total number of systems on homes and small businesses above 4 million for the first time.¹

Those small-scale systems generated 12.4 per cent of Australia’s electricity in 2024, up from 11.2 per cent in 2023 and nearly double their contribution in 2020.²

The Australian Energy Market Operator reports that distributed solar hit record output in late 2024, helping renewables reach more than three quarters of generation at times in the National Electricity Market and pushing minimum grid demand to new lows in several states.⁷

Rooftop systems already supply about 13 per cent of generation in the National Electricity Market in some quarters, exceeding the output of utility-scale solar and matching or beating other renewable sources in the daytime mix.⁵

Energy planners expect that, on sunny days this decade, rooftop solar alone could meet more than half of underlying demand across the eastern grid during midday hours.⁵

Projections from the latest Integrated System Plan suggest that by 2034 more than half of detached homes in the National Electricity Market will have rooftop solar, rising to almost four in five homes by 2050 under the central transition scenario.⁵

Who is installing solar and batteries

Most rooftop solar systems sit on detached houses and small business premises, reflecting the fact that owners of stand‑alone buildings can more easily decide to invest in panels on their own roofs.¹

One in three Australian households already has rooftop solar, and uptake tends to be highest in outer suburbs and regional towns where roofs are larger and electricity bills for heating and cooling can be substantial.⁵

Apartment dwellers and renters face more barriers because they often cannot make decisions about shared roofs or long-term investments, which leaves them more dependent on the main grid and retail tariffs.⁸

Battery systems are spreading fastest among solar owners with higher daytime production and evening consumption, such as families with electric vehicles or electric heating, who can shift more of their use to stored solar rather than grid power.³

Industry data indicate that around 32,000 new solar and battery combinations were registered with the national regulator in 2024, following a more than 50 per cent surge in such installations in 2023 and a further one third increase in 2024.³

Clean Energy Council reporting shows that New South Wales now records the highest number of home battery sales, with more than 14,000 systems in the second half of 2024 alone, followed by about 11,000 in Victoria and 8,500 in Queensland over the same period.⁴

Why households and businesses are investing

Households primarily install solar to cut electricity bills, with industry analysis estimating typical annual savings of up to about $1,500, which can almost double when a battery is added and used well.⁶

Many consumers also seek more energy independence, wanting to rely less on grid prices and to keep essential appliances running during blackouts when their systems allow limited backup from batteries.⁶

Environmental concerns remain a strong secondary driver, as small-scale solar and batteries give households a visible way to cut their emissions and support the national goal of reaching about 82 per cent renewable electricity by 2030.⁶

Government rebates and feed-in tariffs, which pay households for surplus solar sent to the grid, continue to support uptake, although incentives and tariff levels vary between states and have generally declined as systems have become cheaper and more common.¹

Home batteries still have a relatively high upfront cost, typically in the order of $12,000 to $15,000 for a common system size, which industry groups flag as a major barrier to wider adoption without broader rebate schemes.⁴

Energy organisations are calling for a national battery rebate program to complement existing state schemes, arguing that coordinated support would speed uptake, ease evening peak demand and lower overall system costs for all consumers.⁴

Where solar and batteries are being used

Solar and batteries are widespread in every state and territory, but the highest volumes of new rooftop systems and storage are in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, which together dominate national home battery sales and a large share of solar installations.¹

AEMO’s market reports show record distributed solar output in all National Electricity Market regions in late 2024, with Queensland and Victoria in particular seeing strong midday solar generation that pushes grid demand to record lows.⁷

Western Australia, which operates its own wholesale market, has also recorded sharp growth in rooftop solar, with distributed systems steadily lowering operational demand in the middle of the day and prompting new rules to manage minimum demand events.⁷

Regional and rural communities often rely heavily on solar and, increasingly, batteries because long feeder lines and exposure to extreme weather can make grid power less reliable, so local generation and storage can help maintain essential services.⁸

In cities, suburban streets lined with panels now contribute a significant share of local daytime demand, which is reshaping how distribution networks plan upgrades and manage voltage on low-voltage feeders.¹

Commercial and industrial rooftop systems are also expanding, as supermarkets, warehouses and light manufacturers seek to shield their operations from volatile wholesale prices by generating and, in some cases, storing more of their own power on site.⁸

What comes next for solar and batteries

Projections prepared for AEMO by the national science agency indicate that distributed solar capacity, including residential and business rooftops as well as larger commercial systems, is expected to climb from about 21 gigawatts today to roughly 36 gigawatts by 2030 and 86 gigawatts by 2050, with rooftop systems accounting for most of that growth.⁶

Under AEMO’s central transition scenario, rooftop solar capacity could reach around 72 gigawatts by mid‑century, driven by further cost reductions and ongoing consumer demand for behind‑the‑meter generation.⁵

The same planning documents highlight that small-scale batteries, electric vehicles and controllable loads will become critical parts of the future grid, acting together as flexible “consumer energy resources” that can provide services once supplied mainly by large power stations.⁵

If enough owners allow their batteries to be coordinated through virtual power plants, these fleets can support frequency control, supply capacity during peaks and reduce the amount of utility‑scale generation and network investment needed to keep the system reliable.⁴

Energy market bodies warn that stronger standards, smarter inverters and better incentives will be essential to integrate millions of solar and battery systems safely, while ensuring benefits flow not only to early adopters but also to renters, apartment residents and low‑income households.⁸

For now, the trend is clear, with every new panel and battery pushing Australia further along the path to a grid dominated by renewable energy owned not just by utilities, but by households and businesses across the country.¹

References

1. Clean Energy Council, Rooftop solar and storage biannual report July–December 2024
2. Clean Energy Council, Rooftop solar and storage report January–June 2024
3. Australian Energy Council, Solar Report: Year of 2024
4. Clean Energy Council, Rooftop solar uptake booms in 2024 as call grows for national home battery rebate
5. PV Magazine Australia, AEMO reinforces role of rooftop solar in energy transition
6. CSIRO for AEMO, Small-scale solar PV and battery projections 2024
7. AEMO, Quarterly Energy Dynamics Q4 2024
8. Clean Energy Council, Rooftop solar and storage biannual report January–June 2025

Back to Top

COP30: Belém delivers finance, dodges fossil fuels and leaves a fractured legacy - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Final COP30 text omitted any explicit commitment to phase out fossil fuels[1] Negotiators agreed to increase adaptation finance, effectively tripling current goals by 2035[2] At least 29 nations threatened to block the text unless fossil fuel language was included[3] The final decision was pushed through after marathon talks and overnight negotiation sessions[4] Major environmental groups said the outcome underdelivers on fossil fuel action[5] Colombia and the Netherlands announced an independent conference on phasing out fossil fuels[6]

The COP30 summit in Belém closed with a compromise package that increased funds for adaptation but conspicuously avoided explicit fossil fuel commitments.

Negotiators approved a text that ramps up money for vulnerable countries while omitting a clear roadmap to phase out the fuels that drive warming. ^[1]

The deal was finalised after late night sessions and extended negotiations that tested the patience of many delegations. ^[4]

Officials described the outcome as pragmatic, while critics called it inadequate and tone deaf to the science. ^[5]

The compromise commits richer countries to at least triple finance for adaptation by 2035, a significant upward revision of current targets. ^[2]

Yet that financing pledge was bracketed with timelines and indicators that some negotiators say weaken its near term impact. ^[2]

Delegations from small island states, parts of Latin America and climate justice groups left Belém frustrated that fossil fuel language had been excised. ^[3]

The final text does include mechanisms for future work on energy transitions, but those mechanisms stop short of a binding fossil fuel phase out at the UN level. ^[1]

What the final decision actually says

The COP30 decision focuses on scaling up adaptation finance and refining indicators to measure progress in vulnerable countries.

The text calls on developed countries to substantially increase support for adaptation and resilience. ^[2]

The language on mitigation and energy is intentionally generic, asking “actors” to accelerate action rather than naming fossil fuels. ^[4]

COP30 presidency documents indicate a commitment to follow up work on energy transition pathways outside the main decision text. ^[1]

Why fossil fuels were removed from the text

Opposition from major oil, gas and coal producing countries and from states that rely on fossil revenues prevailed during the final drafting. ^[4]

Negotiators described a political split in which some delegations pushed for explicit phasing language while others warned of economic and energy security consequences. ^[1]

The result was a middle path that delivered finance commitments rather than a direct fossil fuel roadmap at the UN level. ^[2]

Voices from the floor

Several delegations, including Colombia and a bloc of at least 29 countries, threatened to hold up the text unless fossil fuel transition language was included. ^[3]

Those delegations argued that a decision that cannot name fossil fuels is inconsistent with the science and with countries’ own commitments. ^[1]

Environmental groups said the final package “underdelivers” on what is required to keep 1.5 degrees within reach. ^[5]

At the same time, several developed nations welcomed the finance package as a pragmatic step in a geopolitically fragmented moment. ^[4]

Practical consequences and next steps

Practically, the decision increases money channelled to adaptation projects that protect communities from heat, flood and crop failure. ^[2]

The COP30 presidency said it will advance a separate fossil fuel transition proposal, but that proposal will not carry the same status as a COP decision. ^[1]

Some countries signalled they will pursue parallel diplomatic and regional initiatives to craft concrete fossil fuel phase out pathways. ^[6]

Colombia and the Netherlands announced plans to co-host an intergovernmental conference focused on a just transition away from fossil fuels in April 2026. ^[6]

Assessment

Belém delivered more money and a promise of further work, but it stopped short of the decisive fossil fuel language many scientists and negotiators said was essential. ^[5]

The final bargain exposed a diplomatic reality in which finance pledges can be agreed, while energy system transformations remain politically fraught. ^[4]

The outcome makes clear that the UN process will share space with new forums where willing countries and subnational actors attempt to draft operational phase out plans. ^[6]

What to watch

Watch the follow up work streams promised by the COP30 presidency and the April 2026 conference in Santa Marta for whether technical and financial pathways for a just phase out emerge. ^[6]

Also watch whether the newly tripled adaptation funding target is implemented in full, and how quickly money reaches communities on the front line. ^[2]

References

1. COP30 seals uneasy climate deal that sidesteps fossil fuels | Reuters
2. UN climate talks end with deal for more money to countries hit by climate change | AP News
3. Cop30 draft text omits mention of fossil fuel phase-out roadmap | The Guardian
4. COP30 deal urges more funds for poorer countries, omits fossil fuels | Al Jazeera
5. STATEMENT: COP30 Delivers on Forests and Finance, Underdelivers on Fossil Fuels | WRI
6. Governments of Colombia and The Netherlands Announce Co-hosting First International Conference on the Just Transition Away from Fossil Fuels | Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative

Back to Top

Wisdom of the elders - Julian Cribb

Surviving the 21st Century - Julian Cribb

Imbecility of the rich

AUTHOR

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

As human civilization pursues its relentless march to oblivion, it is time to reflect on the many wise voices who have forewarned of it – and the many foolish ones that are inviting it.

“Right now, we’re facing a manmade disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years,” said British science broadcaster David Attenborough, 99, in his final warning to humanity.

“If we don’t take action, the collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon. But the longer we leave it, the more difficult it’ll be to do something about it.”

“There’s a chance for us to make amends, to complete our journey of development, manage our impact, and once again become a species in balance with nature. All we need is the will to do so.”

Pioneer primatologist Jane Goodall, who died on Oct 2, 2025, said in her last message: “If you want to save what is still beautiful in this world, if you want to save the planet for the future generations, your grandchildren, their grandchildren, then think about the actions you take each day.

“We’re not only part of Mother Nature. We depend on nature for clean air, water, food, clothing—everything.

“As we destroy one ecosystem after another, as we create worse climate change, worse loss of diversity, we must do everything in our power to make the world a better place for children today and those who will follow.”

The caveats of pioneer climatologist James Hansen, 84, who first warned the world of the risks of global overheating in 1988, have proven correct time and again. Recently Hansen tabled proofs that the climate crisis is worse, and moving much faster, than most people – including the IPCC – imagine.

His latest study, to evaluate climate sensitivity and the forces that underly climate change, found the world’s climate to be far more sensitive to a doubling in atmospheric CO2 that previously estimated, whereas the contrary cooling effect caused by atmospheric sulphate aerosols may have been overestimated.

The Earth’s oceans, our planet’s primary life support system, are now in crisis due to overheating and overfishing, and are perilously close to tipping into collapse, according to pioneer oceanographer Sylvia Earle, 90.

“What are you willing to put into this goal of securing a habitable planet? To me, it’s our highest priority,” says Dr Earle.

“Nothing else matters. We are experiencing a meltdown of our life support system. I can hold up the mirror and say, here are the problems and here are the solutions. Nobody can do it all, but everybody can do something.”

Eminent Canadian geneticist Dr David Suzuki, 89, has stated bluntly is that it is already too late to halt climate change. The question is what we can do next in the face of unfolding climate chaos – and politicians who cannot tell the truth about what is really happening.

“We’re in an emergency just now. We passed +1.5 degrees in 2025 and we are heading for record carbon emissions this year.”

Suzuki argues that the key flaw in our current system is the exclusion of nature from economic thought, leading to irrationality in how we value assets. “Nature, the air, the water, the soil, the biodiversity that allows us to live (are) not in the economic system.”

Underlining his point, he explains the Amazon, the greatest terrestrial ecosystem on the planet, has no economic value until it is logged, mined, dammed or used to grow soybeans and beef.

As far back as 2010, planetary biologist James Lovelock – late author of the Gaia theory that the Earth functions as a self-regulating organism, wrote in The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning: “The Earth’s population will be culled from today’s 6.6 billion to as few as 500 million, with most of the survivors living in the far latitudes – Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, the Arctic Basin.”  

The figure of 6.6 billion people applied to 2010, the time when Lovelock was writing. That number rose to 8.25 billion in 2025, and is projected by the UN to reach 9.8 billion in 2050. Unless there is a collapse.

In 1992 the Union of Concerned Scientists warned: “Human beings and the natural world are on a collision course. If not checked, many of our current practices put at serious risk the future we wish for human society and the plant and animal kingdoms.

“We may so alter the natural world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner we know.”

In 2017, ecologist William Ripple and 15,000 colleagues repeated the warning: “We are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our intense material consumption and by not perceiving continued rapid population growth as a primary driver behind many threats.

“By failing to adequately limit population growth, reassess the role of an economy rooted in growth, reduce greenhouse gases, incentivize renewable energy, protect habitat, restore ecosystems, curb pollution, halt defaunation, and constrain invasive alien species, humanity is not taking the urgent steps needed to safeguard our imperilled biosphere

In 2020 they added: “We declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.”

In the 2023 State of the Climate report, the scientists said: “We warn of potential collapse of natural and socioeconomic systems in a world where we will face unbearable heat, frequent extreme weather events, food and fresh water shortages, rising seas, more emerging diseases, and increased social unrest and geopolitical conflict,”

Despite such repeated admonition by learned and responsible individuals on a colossal pile of hard evidence and proof, countries, corporations and political leaders have remained largely deaf, blind and heedless to the predicament facing humanity and the planet.

The influence of obscene wealth and selfish power over politics and government has never been plainer. It transcendence over the fate of humanity was never more complete.

The wisdom of these elders stands in strident contrast to the unsated lust of the world’s ‘richest’ individuals, oligarchs, families and corporations for a substance that exists nowhere in the Universe outside the human imagination. Money.

That’s right, the art of being a billionaire is to own more of nothing than anyone else in the cosmos. If humanity lost confidence in the value of money, their ‘wealth’ would simply evaporate, as in the Weimar and Argentine hyperinflation episodes.

Yet these creatures who lust after a delusion hold their shallow insights into the human predicament superior to those who have devoted lifetimes to its study.

Inveterate fabulist Donald Trump informed the United Nations “This ‘climate change,’ it’s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion.”

Arab prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud, sneakier than Trump but just as dangerous, pledged $2.5 billion for ‘climate action’. Yet his country has led the fight in the COP conferences to block, sabotage, and delay global climate action.

Global plutocrat Elon Musk, who in 2023 declared AI as the greatest threat to civilisation has lately swivelled to targetting women, stating that declining global fertility rates “will lead to mass extinction of entire nations.” (And thus, presumably, to lower profits for billionaires.)

But what do these Tech Bros actually think they know about the coming collapse of civilisation? Apparently, what terrifies them most of all is not so much climate catastrophe or nuclear holocaust – as AI apocalypse... they very thing they are building so profitably.

Consequently, like a bevy of little Hitlers, the Tech Bros are also busy excavating luxury hardshell bunkers in the remotest corners of the planet, costing $400m or more. (Or, as Stephen Klein eloquently puts it, ‘digging their own graves’.) Companies like SAFE (Strategically Armoured & Fortified Environments), Atlas Survival Shelters and SubStructure Solutions are arising to cater to the boom in timorous oligarchy.

The irony, of course, is that the end of the world is being engineered with our money. In easy monthly payments, tens of millions of gullible clients worldwide are forking over their hard-earned cash for the very AI products that are enriching the Tech Bros and which, they themselves fear, could end our civilisation.

Having digested this abomination, please return to the first part of this article and review the wisdom of the elders, their care, their caution and ultimately, their conviction that hope is not dead. Provided we lose the monetary, energy systems and selfish people that are destroying our world.

And then reflect that the ultra-rich have one destination - and one alone.

To line their pockets with the blood of your grandchildren.

Links

• David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet – Transcript
• Dr. Jane Goodall’s Final Message To The World
• Seeing the Forest for the Trees
• Earth’s oceans are ‘perilously close’ to tipping point, marine biologist says
• Dr. Sylvia Earle marine biologist, oceanographer, explorer, writer, and lecturer
• Dr David Suzuki Canadian academic, science broadcaster, and environmental activist
• David Suzuki: The Brutal Truth About Climate Change
• Dr James Lovelock independent scientist, environmentalist and futurist
• The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning
• World Scientists Warning To Humanity
• William Ripple Professor of Ecology Oregon State University
• World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice
• World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency
• the 2023 State of the Climate report
• $2.5 billion for ‘climate action’
• Gore points finger at Saudi blocking tactics at UN COP30 climate summit
• AI as the greatest threat
• Elon Musk Issues Birth Rate Warning: ‘Mass Extinction’
• The Silicon Valley Billionaires Who Have Designed Our World Have Planned Their Escape
• Inside the $478 million luxury bunker only the rich can seek shelter from apocalypse
• Atlas Survival Shelters

Back to Top

Pacific Islands on the Edge: Climate Change and the Rising Struggle for Survival - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Pacific Islands are vulnerable to sea-level rise and coastal hazards.1 Social disruption includes forced migration and mental health strain.2 Economies face risk across farming, fishing, and tourism.3 Coral bleaching, water scarcity, and biodiversity loss reshape island ecologies.4 Cultural identity, language, and belonging are threatened by displacement.5 Pacific leaders champion global ambition and climate justice.6

Pacific Island nations are at global warming ground zero.

They are facing climate-driven disruptions to land, seas, and society.¹

Sea-level rise, accelerating faster than global averages, brings inundation, flooding, and erosion to already fragile atolls.²

Communities are seeing homes and schools threatened by saltwater intrusion, storm surges, and disappearing coastlines.³

The social fabric is tested as families move, sometimes permanently, disrupting deep-rooted cultural and kinship ties.⁴

Economically, livelihoods built on fishing, farming, and tourism are jeopardised by shifting rainfall, ocean warming, bleaching reefs, and extreme weather.⁵

Cultural identities are at stake as sacred sites, traditions, and even languages face the prospect of being lost with the land.⁶

Despite these burdens, Pacific leadership remains steadfast, pushing for ambitious global action, fair adaptation finance, and a voice for islanders at the main table of climate negotiations.⁷

Adaptation and resilience now define the region’s future, requiring innovation, support, and global solidarity.⁸

Geographic Vulnerability in the Pacific

Pacific Islands are among the world’s most climate-vulnerable places, with many nations rising just a few metres above current sea levels.⁹

Rising seas outpace global averages in the region, placing infrastructure, agriculture, and freshwater at immediate risk.¹⁰

Saltwater contaminates groundwater, undermining clean water access and crop production.¹¹

Many islands experience more frequent and intense storms while changing El Niño and La Niña cycles cause unpredictable rainfall, droughts, and cyclones.¹²

The World Meteorological Organization reports marine heatwaves nearly twice as frequent here as globally, compounding ecosystem losses.¹³

These biophysical risks cut across every domain of island life, creating a cascading series of challenges.¹⁴

Low-lying atolls such as Kiribati, Tuvalu, and the Marshall Islands face an existential threat as climate change outpaces adaptation.¹⁵

Geography itself becomes destiny under rising global temperatures, affecting national security, health, and development.¹⁶

Social Impacts and Community Resilience

Pacific societies are shaped by kinship, community, and a deep connection to ancestral land, all tested by climate-induced disruptions.¹⁷

In some nations, planned relocation has already begun; over 80 communities in Fiji have been earmarked for movement due to climate threats.¹⁸

The process is emotionally painful, with families uprooted from home, history, and spiritual places.¹⁹

Health complications rise as clean water becomes scarce, food insecurity increases, and diseases spread in the wake of floods or droughts.²⁰

Mental health strains are reported widely, as climate anxiety and trauma from sudden disasters leave scars that may persist for generations.²¹

Pacific resilience traditions—like sharing food and resources—remain strong, but climate change now tests those bonds in ways they have never experienced.²²

As movement becomes more common, communities must also learn to keep cohesion and culture intact.²³

Economic Effects: Agriculture, Fisheries, and Tourism

Changes in rainfall, temperature, and ocean chemistry destabilise core sectors of Pacific economies.²⁴

Shifting rainfall patterns cause crop failures, especially for root crops like taro and cassava vital for local diets.²⁵

Farming yields decline further as saltwater intrusion ruins coastal and riverbank fields.²⁶

Ocean acidification and warming seas reduce fisheries’ productivity, threaten food security, and weaken income for artisanal fishers.²⁷

Coral bleaching devastates marine life relied on by local communities for livelihoods and tourism.²⁸

Tourism—the economic backbone for some—suffers from degraded coral reefs, beach loss, and increased cyclone risks.²⁹

Disaster recovery costs and adaptation investments are mounting, outstripping in-country resources and increasing Pacific dependence on international aid and remittances.³⁰

Ecological Consequences and Biodiversity Loss

Coral reefs in the region bleach and die under marine heatwaves and acidification, undermining fisheries and storm protection.³¹

Mangroves—essential for biodiversity and shoreline protection—decline under salinisation and development pressure.³²

Biodiversity loss accelerates, threatening food security and traditional hunting practices.³³

Groundwater resources are contaminated with saltwater, pushing some communities to rely on rainwater collection or imported bottled water.³⁴

Environmental changes happen faster than nature or communities can adapt, risking ecosystem collapse in worst-case scenarios.³⁵

Cultural Dimensions, Heritage, and Identity

Loss of ancestral land disrupts more than homes; it unravels ties to stories, customs, and the land’s sacred meaning.³⁶

Studies in Fiji and elsewhere show climate relocations can accelerate language attrition and the loss of traditional ecological knowledge.³⁷

Youth increasingly express climate anxiety over the future of their islands, fearing not just loss of land, but loss of identity.³⁸

For communities forced to leave, cultural survival becomes bound to the preservation of oral history, ceremony, and collective memory.³⁹

Ensuring culture and knowledge are passed on is now a core pillar of climate adaptation for Pacific societies.⁴⁰

Political Challenges and Leadership

Pacific Island leaders have forged a clear global voice on climate advocacy, calling for 1.5°C-aligned action and loss and damage support.⁴¹

Conclusion: Adaptation, Resilience, and Hope

Pacific Island nations are determined to survive and adapt, but require global solidarity, ambition, and justice to secure a future for all islanders.⁸

References

1. Adapting Coastal Cities and Territories to Sea Level Rise: Pacific Regional Report – Ocean-Climate.org
2. Climate Change Transforms Pacific Islands – World Meteorological Organization
3. Climate Change and Pacific Island Countries – United Nations CC:Learn
4. Reconsidering Sovereignty Amid the Climate Crisis – Carnegie Endowment (2025)
5. Islands on the Edge: The Pacific’s Struggle for Climate Justice – AIIA
6. Pacific Community Climate Adaptation and Resilience Report – PCCS
7. Understanding Cultural Losses and Damages Induced by Climate Change – Pacific Region, Fiji Case Study
8. New Report Reveals Pacific Leadership on Climate – UNFCCC
9. Climate Change and Pacific Islands: Indicators and Impacts – Reef Resilience (PIRCA)
10. WMO State of the Climate in the South-West Pacific 2023 Report
11. Climate Action Urged as Leaders Gather, Pacific Islands Forum – SPREP
12. Why the Pacific Islands Forum Matters for Australia and Climate Action – Climate Council
13. Climate Forecasts Warn of Economic Risks – APIBC (2025)
14. Understanding and Responding to Climate-Driven Non-Economic Loss in the Pacific Islands – ScienceDirect
15. Climate Change and Pacific Island Food Systems – University of Wollongong
16. Climate Change, Vulnerability, and Cultural Loss – Tandfonline (2025)
17. FAO Report: Impacts of Climate Change on Pacific Fisheries and Agriculture
18. IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: Climate Impacts on Small Island States
19. NOAA Coral Reef Watch – Coral Bleaching Outlooks
20. WHO: Climate Change and Human Health in Pacific Islands
21. ADB: Economics of Climate Change in the Pacific
22. Tuvalu’s Leadership and Advocacy for Pacific Climate Ambition – PINA
23. COP28 Official Pacific Delegations Statements
24. World Health Organization: Climate Change and Health Factsheet
25. Pacific Islands Climate Outlook Forum (PICOF) #6 Summary
26. Climate-Induced Migration in the Pacific – Journal Environmental Management
27. USP Studies on Traditional Knowledge and Eco-Adaptation
28. UNESCO: Ocean Acidification and Fisheries in the Pacific
29. The Conversation: Bleaching Hits Pacific Islands
30. World Bank: Climate Change and Pacific Economies
31. SPREP: Climate Change and Freshwater in the Pacific
32. International Maritime Organization: Net Zero Shipping Framework
33. Climate Analytics: Analysis of Global Climate Finance Disparities
34. Pacific Climate Change Portal: Adaptation Funding Projects
35. Journal of Cultural Heritage: Climate Change and Cultural Loss
36. Pacific Islands Development Forum: Climate Justice and Diplomacy
37. SDG Progress Reports in the Pacific Region – United Nations
38. Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade: Pacific Engagement on Climate
39. The Conversation: Pacific Islanders Push New Adaptation Models
40. Environmental Research Letters: Socioeconomic Impacts on Small Island States
41. International Court of Justice: Advisory Opinion on States’ Climate Obligations

Back to Top