Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Global biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation threaten worldwide security and prosperity, and is already causing crop failures, intensified natural disasters, and infectious disease outbreaks across all regions, says the British Government’s latest Security Assessment.

The official analysis of  Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security,  says vertebrate populations have declined by an average of 68% since 1970, with freshwater species dropping 84%, pushing Earth past six planetary boundaries including biosphere integrity. 

Every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to irreversible collapse, risking cascading effects like geopolitical instability, resource conflicts, mass migration, and economic shocks as food and water scarcity intensifies.  

Halting this trajectory demands urgent global action, such as the Kunming-Montreal Framework's targets for protecting 30% of land and ocean by 2030 and reforming harmful subsidies.

Biodiversity loss is a global threat

Halting and reversing biodiversity loss Some of the solutions to biodiversity loss, such as forest protection and restoration, can only be enacted locally.  Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, including the UK, agreed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework in 2022, a landmark agreement to ‘halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.’  Its targets, if met, would change the current trajectory and include: • Protecting 30% of global land and ocean by 2030; • 30% of global nature to be under restoration by 2030; • Mobilising finance to close the funding gap of $700bn; • Reducing risks from pesticide usage by 50% by 2050; • Eliminating or reforming harmful subsidies by $500bn per year. It would also be necessary to meet the Paris climate agreement target of limiting warming to 1.5°C.

Ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions and ecosystems. 

The average size of monitored wildlife populations declined by 73% between 1970-2020. 

Populations of vertebrate species have declined by an average of 68% since 1970. 

Freshwater ecosystem species populations have shown the largest losses, falling 84% in the same period.

The rate of extinction is tens to hundreds of times higher than the average over the past 10 million years. It suggests that a sixth mass extinction may be underway.

With current trends, global ecosystem degradation is highly likely to continue to 2050 and beyond. 

There is a high degree of uncertainty around the timing and pathways of ecosystem degradation, given the number and complexity of the drivers involved.

Food production is the most significant cause of terrestrial biodiversity loss.

As the global population grows, reaching 9.7 billion by 2050, the impact of food production on natural systems will intensify and it will become even more challenging to produce sufficient food sustainably.  

Biodiversity loss impacts national security

Nature is a foundation of national security. Biodiversity loss is putting at risk the ecosystem services on which human societies depend, including water, food, clean air and critical resources. 

 

The impacts will range from crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks to conflict within and between states, political instability, and erosion of global economic prosperity. 

 

Increasingly scarce natural resources will become the focus of greater competition between state and non-state actors, exacerbating existing conflicts, starting new ones and threatening global security and prosperity.
 

 

Degrading ecosystem functions Water regulation and cycling Soil formation Oxygen production Pollination Disease control Air quality Erosion control Food production Carbon storage	Physical and biological impacts Crop failure Fisheries loss Water and air pollution Water scarcity Novel diseases Floods, storms, landslides Changes to global weather patterns Loss of genetic diversity Global temperature rise
Human security risks Food shortages, inflation, famine Water insecurity Health risks Supply chain disruption Livelihood loss, poverty Loss of pharmaceutical opportunities Elite capture of resources Pandemic risk	International security risks Migration Extremism, terrorism Serious Organised Crime Political polarisation and instability Economic insecurity Interstate conflict, civil wars

Critical ecosystems are at risk of collapsing

If current rates of biodiversity loss continue, every critical ecosystem is on a pathway to collapse. 

An ecosystem collapses when it passes beyond a critical threshold or tipping point, after which it can no longer maintain essential functions or structure, leading to extensive shifts to its size and composition. 

The ecosystem transitions irreversibly from one stable state to another. For instance, the Amazon basin collapse would see it shifting to a drier savannah state. 

Case study: protecting and restoring ecosystems improves food system and societal resilience to shocks. In Malawi, over 20 million trees have been planted and 42,000 hectares of degraded land rehabilitated.  This has supported over 500,000 local residents with improved access to water, diversified food production and income sources.  The number of participants depending on humanitarian aid has declined by 60%.  Source: Restoring ecosystems to boost resilience to climate shocks in Malawi, World Food Programme, 2023. Planetary boundaries are the safe limits identified by scientists for human pressure on nine Earth system processes crucial for maintaining a stable planet.  As of 2023, six boundaries have been crossed:  (1) biosphere integrity (including biodiversity loss);  (2) climate change;  (3) land use change;  (4) freshwater change;  (5) nutrient flows (nitrogen and phosphorus); and  (6) novel entities (chemical and plastic pollution).  The three remaining boundaries are: (7) stratospheric ozone depletion;  (8) atmospheric aerosol loading; and (9) ocean acidification.  Source: Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2023  Since the drafting of this report, a new version of this research has been published.

Collapse impairs an ecosystem’s ability to provide vital services including clean water, food production, and climate regulation. 

This could accelerate climate change and biodiversity loss and have catastrophic implications, including the collapse of major food sources and fundamental changes to global weather patterns and the water cycle. 

As biodiversity loss and degradation continue, impacts become more severe and the likelihood of ecosystems collapsing increases. It is likely that ecosystem collapses would happen concurrently given their shared drivers and feedback loops. 

There is a high degree of uncertainty around the timing and pathways of ecosystem collapse. 

The drivers of ecosystem degradation are approaching the known thresholds for collapse - for example, the Amazon is likely to collapse at 20-25% deforestation when combined with temperature rises and forest fires; it is currently at 17%.

But the thresholds for collapse could be higher or lower than the science has been able to identify: we could be closer to, or further away from, the thresholds than we think; and there could be additional thresholds that we do not know about yet. 

There is a realistic possibility that trends to date mean we have unknowingly crossed thresholds already and irreversible collapse of some ecosystems is inevitable (for example coral reefs), though we may not see the impacts for several years. 

There is a realistic possibility some ecosystems start to collapse by 2030 or sooner, as a result of biodiversity loss from land use change, pollution, climate change and other drivers. 

There is a realistic possibility that coral reefs in SE Asia and boreal forests will start to collapse from 2030, and rainforests and mangroves from 2050. 

Preventing ecological collapse would require the reduction of human impacts, alongside restoration of ecosystems. Restoration of some ecosystems (tropical forests) is more feasible than others (coral reefs, Himalayas).

National security risks from ecosystem collapse 

• Migration will rise as development gains begin to reverse and more people are pushed into poverty, food and water insecurity. A one percentage increase in food insecurity in a population compels 1.9 percent more people to migrate.
• Serious and Organised Crime will look to exploit and gain control over scarce resources. More people pushed into poverty will mean more opportunities for SOC to exploit (e.g. people trafficking and black markets in scarce food, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals). 
• Non-state actors including terrorist groups will have more opportunities resulting from political instability - e.g. acting as mercenaries or pseudogovernments. They may gain control over scarce resources. 
• State threats become more severe as some states become more exposed than others to food and water insecurity risks. 
• Pandemic risk will increase as biodiversity degrades, people move between countries and transfer of novel diseases between species becomes more likely. 
• Economic insecurity becomes more likely. Nature is a finite asset which underpins the global economy. It would take resources of 1.6 Earths to sustain the world’s current levels of consumption. The total annual value of ecosystem services to the UK was £87 billion in 2022 (3% of GDP).
• Geopolitical competition will increase as countries compete for scarce resources including arable land, productive waters, safe transit routes, critical minerals. 
• Political polarisation and instability will grow in food and water insecure areas and as populations become more vulnerable to natural disasters. Disinformation will increase. 
• Conflict and military escalation will become more likely, both within and between states, as groups compete for arable land and food and water resources. Existing conflicts will be exacerbated. 

References

UK Government – Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security

WWF & Zoological Society of London – Living Planet Report 2022

IPBES – Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Rockström et al. – Planetary boundaries framework

Steffen et al. – Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene

UNEP – Global Environment Outlook 6

Convention on Biological Diversity – Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

FAO – The State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture

IPCC – Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Lovejoy & Nobre – Amazon tipping point

The collapse of Nature ... and what it means for us. - Julian Cribb

Surviving the 21st Century - Julian Cribb

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

Worldwide, nature is collapsing and - according to the UK Government - will take human civilisation with it when it goes.

A new report from the UK states baldly what many countries’ governments and politicians are desperately trying to hide from their people: that environmental decline and collapse will hit all humans as hard as the animals and plants it is wiping out, as hard as global heating, nuclear war or any other catastrophic threat.

Worldwide ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten both national and global security and prosperity, says the British Government’s latest Security Assessment.

“The world is already experiencing impacts including crop failures, intensified natural disasters and infectious disease outbreaks. Threats will increase with degradation and intensify with collapse,” the report states. It warns that, without global action, the trend will continue beyond 2050.

“Cascading risks of ecosystem degradation are likely to include geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict, migration and increased inter-state competition for resources,” the report says, hinting at the wars to come.

The UK’s findings strongly echo those of the UN’s Global Environment Outlook 7, issued in September 2025.

This stated that “Humanity now faces perhaps the biggest choice it will ever make: continue down the road to a future devastated by climate change, dwindling nature, degraded land, and polluted air, land and water, or change direction to secure a healthy planet, healthy people and prosperity for all.”

“If we choose to stay on the current path – powering our economies with fossil fuels, extracting virgin resources, destroying nature, polluting the environment – the damages will stack up,” warned UN Environment Program (UNEP) chief Inger Andersen. Climate change will slash 4% a year off world GDP, food supplies will fail , millions will die from pollution, and the earth will become “a toxic garbage dump”.

The British Government adds that critical ecosystems that support major global food production and impact global climate, water and weather cycles will affect national security for most, if not all, countries.

“Severe degradation or collapse of these would highly likely result in water insecurity, severely reduced crop yields, a global reduction in arable land, fisheries collapse, changes to global weather patterns, release of trapped carbon exacerbating climate change, novel zoonotic diseases and loss of pharmaceutical resources.

“All countries are exposed to the risks of ecosystem collapse within and beyond their borders. Some will be exposed sooner than others and are likely to act to secure their interests, particularly water and food security.”

The UK highlights the following national security risks from ecosystem collapse:

· Migration will rise sharply as more people are pushed into poverty, food and water insecurity.

· Organised Crime will exploit scarcity and suffering leading to an increase in blackmarket trade in scarce food, drugs and strategic metals, human trafficking and slavery.

· Terrorist groups will discover fresh opportunities in political instability and may seek to control scarce resources.

· Internal threats will grow as individual countries face greater food and water threats.

· Pandemic risks will rise with the collapse of nature, due to mass migration, travel and new diseases passing between humans and animals.

· Economic insecurity is much more likely. Nature is a finite asset - whereas human demand now exceeds the Earth’s ability to supply.

· Geopolitical tensions will rise as countries compete over scarce resources including land, water, safe transit routes and strategic minerals.

· Political polarisation and instability will grow in regions subject to food and water insecurity and/or natural disasters.

· Disinformation will increase.

· More wars will break out within and between states, as groups and nations compete fiercely over dwindling food, land and water. Existing conflicts will get worse.

The headlines in the UK report were also underscored in Australia’s first national Climate Rish Assessment, and in two recent reports by the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group. Though these deal specifically with climate rather than the wider environment, the warnings about rising threats to national security and national sovereignty are identical.

At the back of this mounting menace to the human future is the issue that no politician dares to speak: the collapse of the environment, and of human civilization, is driven at root by overpopulation and overconsumption.

Global population is now approaching 8.3 billion people, who together consume 105 billion tonnes of materials a year – almost twice what the Earth can sustainably supply. That’s thirteen tonnes of materials to support every human – four times more than in the past.

Although its growth rate is slowing somewhat, population is not expected to reach its peak, 10.3 billion people, until the 2080s. Then it will be five times the carrying capacity of the Planet. Meanwhile materials consumption is forecast to reach 160 billion tonnes a year by the 2060s.

The global environmental crisis that is now engulfing all nature as well as civilization stems directly from the human ‘industrial metabolism’, a number of scientific groups have pointed out. As we rip apart the biosphere in a furious search for ever-more materials, minerals, food, water and energy, the environment that cradles all life is disintegrating.

“These changes are mostly driven by social and economic systems run on unsustainable resource extraction and consumption,” warned Rockstrom and colleagues in 2024.

This brutal truth lies at the core of the British Government’s warning of impending global instability, collapse and mass migration. Even the most thick-skinned and ill-informed in society are beginning to sense there is something seriously amiss with the world. Though they often strike out at the wrong targets, their apprehensions are not wrong.

If we destroy the cradle of life on Earth, we will knowingly destroy ourselves.

Julian Cribb Articles

• Collapse is near, scientists warn
• De-icing the Earth: a fatal human choice. 
• Rivers of Death
• Unlike politicians, thermometers do not lie
• Welcome to BunkerWorld: Home of the rich and fearful
•  Wisdom of the elders
•  The black work of Big Oil
•  Stealing the Breath of Life
•  The Earth Uncloaked - a catastrophe in slow motion
•  Australia issues ‘terrifying’ climate warning
•  Military experts warn of climate wars
•  Tackling the Earth Emergency
•  A distracted world marches steadily towards catastrophe

These voices are the loudest in Australia’s ‘climate wars’ - Christian Downie

The Conversation - Christian Downie

Author Christian Downie Christian Downie is Professor of Political Science, School of Regulation and Global Governance, Australian National University.

There’s a reason political commentators refer to Australia’s “climate wars”. Every time a climate policy is put on the table, supporters and opponents come out in force and duke it out.

Last year, debates over Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions target led to a heated contest between various groups such as the Climate Council — arguing for strong action — and others such as the Business Council of Australia, which commissioned modelling to highlight the economic costs of a strong target.

This was not a one-off. Since at least the 1990s, emissions-intensive industries such as coal and gas and their lobby groups have had an outsized influence on climate policy. This includes groups such as the Minerals Council of Australia, which represents BHP, Rio Tinto and Whitehaven Coal, and Australian Energy Producers, which lobbies on behalf of BP, Shell and Woodside, among others.

Until now, we did not have a good understanding of who mobilises on climate policy in Australia, what side of the issue they fall on, and in which arenas they mobilise. In our new research, we found a core set of only 20 groups dominating climate policy debate in Australia, including gas corporations, industry lobby groups, environmental NGOs, and think tanks.

Who are these groups?

To find out which groups are most influential, we collected data on all organisations active on climate policy in Australia between 2017 and 2022. This included examining the number of groups as well as their volume of activity in the executive branch of government (responsible for implementing and enforcing laws, managing day-to-day administration and setting policy), the parliament and the media. 

The top 20 groups dominating climate policy
Based on volume of activity across all arenas (2017-2022)

Industry labels are inferred from broad service categories and do not appear in the original data.

Table: The Conversation Source: Mapping organised interests across arenas in Australian climate policy, Christian Downie & Darren Halpin Created with Datawrapper

For example, we identified 700,000 mentions of groups in articles about climate change from 13 media outlets, including The Australian and the Sydney Morning Herald.

As well as media records, we also built a database of organisations who actively consulted with government departments and provided evidence to parliamentary inquiries.

We found 20 groups accounted for more than half (52%) of all activity.

They included a mix of mining and energy firms, such as AGL, BHP and Rio Tinto and their lobby groups, such as the Minerals Council of Australia. It also included high-profile NGOs, such as the Climate Council, and think tanks active on climate policy, including the Australia Institute and the Grattan Institute.

It’s important to note we didn’t look at the content of the messages in the media, the parliament or in departmental consultations, just the number of organisations and the frequency of their activity.

Where do these groups stand on climate action?

Among the 20 groups, some are strong supporters of climate action, such as the Climate Council. By contrast, the Minerals Council of Australia has a long history of opposing climate policies dating back to the Kyoto Protocol in the 2000s and the short-lived carbon price in the 2010s.

Interestingly, there are more pro-climate groups than anti-climate groups. Most NGOs in our study tended to support action on climate change, including the Australian Conservation Foundation, Greenpeace and WWF.

Many of the business groups do not. But it’s not as black and white as this might suggest. Firms and business advocacy groups are not unified. A growing number of renewable energy companies now mobilise in support of climate policy, often through advocacy groups such as the Smart Energy Council.

Interestingly, many industries active on climate policy don’t have a hardwired position. Rather, they sometimes support and sometimes oppose climate policy. This is often because their commercial interests are only indirectly impacted by climate policies, such as firms in the technology or finance industries.

These somewhat “neutral” groups actually account for the majority of groups active on climate policy in Australia.

Does this vary by arena?

We also explored whether some groups dominate the media more than the parliament, or the parliament more than the executive. For example, are environmental NGOs more active in the media than in Senate hearings? Are business groups more active in consultations with the government departments that make up the executive branch of government?

Interestingly, we found the media is the only arena where fossil fuel interests dominate. For example, groups typically opposed to climate action represent 43% of all media mentions, compared to 20% in support and 36% neutral.

Engagement in climate change policy in media
Number of engagements by type of organisation and stance of the organisation.

News Media data are mentions in Australian news media on articles on climate change; Social media are mentions in tweets of seed accounts of climate policy active entities in tweets mentioning climate change.

Chart: The Conversation Source: Mapping organised interests across arenas in Australian climate policy, Christian Downie & Darren Halpin Created with Datawrapper

Engagement in climate change policy in legislature
Number of engagements by type of organisation and stance of the organisation.

Legislature data sourced from appearances/evidence to committee inquiries on climate change Chart: The Conversation Source: Mapping organised interests across arenas in Australian climate policy, Christian Downie & Darren Halpin Created with Datawrapper

Engagement in climate change policy in the executive government
Number of engagements by type of organisation and stance of the organisation.

Chart: The Conversation Source: Mapping organised interests across arenas in Australian climate policy, Christian Downie & Darren Halpin image Created with Datawrapper

This begs the question – why does the media appear to have a strong bias for reporting pro-fossil fuel messages?

One explanation consistent with overseas studies is simply that messages from business coalitions and very large businesses are more likely to receive media coverage than other types of organisations, such as environmental NGOs.

These organisations are likely to have high standing in the media because they are viewed as key players in policy debates with inside knowledge. Certainly in Australia, the largest firms and lobby groups mobilised on climate change are tied to? fossil fuel industries.

Do these groups matter?

As we sweat through another of the hottest summers on record, the federal government will rightly remain under pressure to put in place further policies to cut carbon pollution. In fact, recent polling shows one in two Australians want action on climate change “even if this involves significant costs”.

Who mobilises to support or oppose climate policies will likely have a big influence on policy outcomes such as increasing renewable electricity in the grid, phasing out petrol and diesel vehicles or stopping new coal and gas projects

Our research shows a core set of groups, including firms in the coal and gas industries, that are likely to have an outsized voice in such policy debates.

While this does not always equate to influence, it is an important precondition. In the media in particular, it appears fossil fuel interests have the loudest voice.

Links

Climate wars, carbon taxes and toppled leaders: the 30-year history of Australia’s climate response in brief​

With 2035 emissions targets set, what Australia does next will help shape global efforts to keep 1.5°C alive​

Membership and benefits: our members – Minerals Council of Australia​

Members – Australian Energy Producers​

Investigating networks of corporate influence on government decision-making: the case of Australia’s climate change and energy policies​

These voices are the loudest in Australia’s ‘climate wars’​

Australia’s 2035 climate target is coming. Here’s how we’ll know if it’s good enough​

What is a climate target, and how does Australia’s new one for 2035 stack up against other countries?​

Australian government lobbied to protect fossil fuel industry from IPCC criticism​

These voices are the loudest in Australia’s ‘climate wars’ (news feature)

Making polluters pay could fix Australia’s climate problem – and its budget: Michael Keating

 Pearls and Irritations - Michael Keating

A new report shows how making polluters pay will not only diminish the threat from climate change, but it can also help restore the budget and the economy.

Author Michael Keating Michael Keating is a former Secretary of the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Finance and Employment, and Industrial Relations.  He is presently a visiting fellow at the Australian National University.

The key domestic policy challenges facing Australia’s national government right now are climate change, restoring Australia’s fiscal capacity, and lifting Australia’s stagnant economic growth rate.

The best way forward in responding to these challenges are the tax changes proposed by the Superpower Institute in a very important report released on 29 January. 

Unfortunately, this report has been received very little attention by the mainstream media, and hence this summary that follows.

Climate change

As the Superpower Report demonstrates we are not on track to meet our climate targets.

“Sectors representing nearly 40 per cent of Australia’s emissions in 2005 have not begun to reduce. Transport emissions have risen by more than 20 per cent, industry by about seven per cent and stationary energy by more than 20 per cent. Almost all progress has come from land-use change”.

As the report says, “Australia’s current emissions-reduction policies are inefficient because they are narrow and fragmented, with large gaps in coverage… The current policy mix is also expensive to the Budget”, and none of the present policies raise the revenue required to support households and businesses in making the transition to net zero.

More than 50 years ago, the member countries of the OECD, including Australia, agreed that the polluter must pay.

Allowing free pollution is of course economically inefficient, as economic efficiency depends upon the people who destroy productive capacity and well-being being responsible for paying the costs of remediation. Otherwise, they have no incentive to stop polluting.

But making the polluter pay is not what we are presently doing in Australia, and most polluters incur no cost. The present Safeguard Mechanism is capturing only 30 per cent of Australia’s emissions. While the other main instrument for reducing carbon emissions – the Capacity Investment Scheme – has only commenced construction or commissioned less than 3GW of capacity compared to a target of 40GW of new renewable energy capacity and storage.

In addition, gas companies in Australia do not pay an adequate return for being allowed to extract the gas resources that really belong to all Australians. As the report finds, “Currently Australian state and federal governments take approximately 30 per cent of fossil fuel companies’ profits, through a combination of the corporate tax, royalties, and the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax”. This compares with the between 75 and 90 per cent that other major fossil fuel exporting countries typically take, without damage to their trade.

In particular, when fossil fuel prices rise to generate super profits, unlike in other countries, these additional profits in Australia do not translate into additional government revenue.

The Superpower Institute report has proposed two major new taxes to limit carbon emissions and secure a fairer return from our gas supplies: a Polluter Pays Levy (PPL), and a Fair Share Levy (FSL).

The PPL is a tax on the carbon embedded in fossil fuels extracted or imported for use in Australia. If applied to around 140 extraction sites operated by fewer than 60 companies, the Superpower Institute estimates that will cover more than 80 per cent of Australia’s emissions – well above the 30 per cent currently covered by the Safeguard Mechanism and the 34 per cent covered by policies for the electricity sector.

The PPL would begin in 2026 at $17 per tonne of CO2 equivalent and rise until it meets the EU carbon price in 2034, after which it would follow the EU price. In addition, the PPL should be accompanied by a European-style Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, or CBAM, applied to energy-intensive imports so that domestic producers are not disadvantaged.

Modelling in the report shows that PPL would accelerate the reduction in emissions, delivering about 100 million tonnes of additional abatement after ten years, and more than double the total reductions expected under current policies.

The FSL is a tax on economic rents modelled on Norway’s Special Tax on Petroleum Income. Because rent taxes leave normal returns untouched, they do not affect future incentives to invest or trade, or Australia’s international competitiveness, and do not increase prices. In addition, because most of the profits from Australia’s oil and gas industry accrue to foreigners, a substantial share of this additional tax burden is borne offshore, while Australians are better off.

The proposed FSL of 40 per cent would lift Australia’s effective tax on fossil fuel profits to around 58 per cent, still at the lower end of global norms.

Restoring Australia’s fiscal capacity

The official forecasts show ongoing structural budget deficits forever of around two per cent of GDP. This represents a real danger to economic management, but it will not be fixed unless the government raises additional revenue or cuts government expenditures.

Of course, no-one wants to pay more tax, but the fact is that many government programs have been chronically under-funded for a decade or more. For example, the punitive university fee regime imposed by Morrison continues to distort tertiary education, equitable school funding under Gonski will not be fully realised until 2034, and public investment in universities, the CSIRO and R&D is lower in real terms than it was a decade ago. 

Hospital waiting lists remain too long, in part because aged care is still inadequate, with home care packages delayed for more than a year. Income support for unemployed people is widely regarded as insufficient, rent assistance remains too low, and public housing funding is well short of historic norms. In addition, it is generally agreed that we will need to spend a lot more on defence in future.

So clearly we need to raise more revenue, and the two taxes proposed in this report, represent by far the easiest way to make a substantial start.

It is estimated that together the two levies would raise on average $35.6 billion a year in additional revenue over the next 25 years.

However, the report recognises that many small businesses and households have limited opportunities to avoid the additional energy costs. The first call on this additional revenue must therefore be compensation payments to small businesses and households.

To insulate small businesses, the report proposes a Small Business Energy Compensation Payment of $325 per year, similar to the support provided by the former Energy Bill Relief Fund (EBRF) from 2023 to the end of 2025. It is estimated that this relief would require around $325 million per year of PPL revenue and would support around one million eligible small businesses.

The report proposes two payments to households to help insulate them from rising energy costs. However, as households electrify their homes these costs will fall.

First, a Household Compensation Payment will cover conservative estimates of the increases in energy bills before they are able to electrify their homes. The report estimates that this payment will cost an average of $4.1 billion each year, between 2026 and 2050, and it will be worth an average of $330 per household between 2026 and 2050, peaking at about $500 per household in 2033.

The second payment would be to those households, such as renters, those living in apartments and any others who face barriers to electrifying their homes. For the first decade of the PSL the report recommends committing $4 billion per year to supporting these people.

After these compensation payments are netted out, the report estimates that the PPL will deliver an average of $18.5 billion in net annual revenue through to 2050. In addition, it is estimated that the FSL will raise an average of around $13 billion a year.  So together these two taxes will make a very significant contribution to fixing our budget problems, as well as accelerating the desired reduction in carbon emissions.

Lifting Australia’s stagnant economic growth rate

Australia’s economic stagnation over the last 15 years or so largely reflects low investment as manufacturing investment has been wound back and we have switched to service industries. In addition, Treasury modelling released last September predicts that the annual value of fossil fuel exports will fall by more than $60 billion by 2030 as countries decarbonise their economies.

However, as the report says, Australia has a remarkable opportunity to accelerate its economic growth and maintain its exports in a decarbonising world. Australia’s renewable energy, mineral, and other natural resources give it a comparative advantage in producing and exporting zero-carbon, energy intensive goods such as green iron, aluminium, silicon, ammonia and fuels.

By embracing taxes on carbon pollution Australia will create the necessary incentives to promote the development of these new green industries and lift overall economic prosperity.

This report has provided a pathway for the Albanese Government to provide the leadership we expect from government and make a real difference to both the environment and the economy. Action along these lines will not cost the government electorally and it could well help isolate the Opposition.

Michael Keating Recent Articles

• Making polluters pay could fix Australia’s climate problem – and its budget
• Mark Carney – Values: an economist's guide to everything that matters
• Australia’s economic growth forecasts look upbeat – but the foundations are shaky
• Best of 2025 - Why Labor can’t be bold without confronting tax reform
• Best of 2025 - Assessing the Liberal Party's policy-making capacity
• Best of 2025 - The debate about net zero ignores the evidence
• Trump is delusional about Venezuelan oil
• Best of 2025 - Trump’s risky American economy

Lethal Heat, Soft Targets: Is the ACT’s New Climate Framework Enough for a Burning Canberra? - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

New ACT climate paper shifts from fixed targets to a flexible framework backed by rolling action plans.1 Strategy groups act under eight themes, keeping a 2045 net zero goal but soft‑pedalling 2035 milestones.2 Government concedes it is unlikely to fully meet its 2025 emissions target, exposing a credibility gap.3 Community and environment groups have branded the discussion paper a vague “placeholder”.4 The ACT’s claim to climate leadership is under pressure amid weak national progress and ongoing fossil fuel approvals.5 Public consultation runs to 18 March 2026, framed by advocates as a last chance to demand a plan with teeth.6

On a not‑too‑distant summer afternoon in 2035, the bitumen in a quiet Gungahlin cul‑de‑sac is soft enough to take a footprint, the air still and 40‑plus degrees even after 6pm, and the only movement is the shimmer above the roofs of tightly packed townhouses.⁷

Inside, an evaporative cooler labours uselessly in air that is both scorching and dry, while a young family huddles in the only semi‑bearable room, scrolling their phones to find the nearest public “heat refuge” promised in the ACT’s new climate strategy.⁷

Outside, the patchy street trees offer almost no shade, and the concrete paths radiate stored heat accumulated over days of a heatwave that climate models say will become far more frequent in Canberra by mid‑century.⁷

Against this backdrop of lethal heating, the ACT Climate Change Strategy 2026–35 arrives wrapped in the cool language of “overarching frameworks”, “thematic pillars” and “sequenced action plans”.¹

It promises a fair and inclusive shift to a net‑zero, climate‑resilient city by 2045, but leaves key decisions about how steeply emissions must fall in the 2030s to future documents and future ministers.¹

Community groups and climate advocates say that gap between embodied heat in suburbs like Gungahlin and the paper’s abstract language could be measured in extra ambulance call‑outs, higher power bills, and lives lost in poorly insulated rentals.⁴

Now, with consultation open until 18 March 2026, Canberrans are being asked whether a framework without firm 2035 targets is enough as the climate crisis accelerates around them.⁶

The promise of a new framework

The ACT Climate Change Strategy 2026–35 is pitched as an evolution rather than a rewrite, shifting from a single, detailed plan to an overarching framework supported by a series of shorter‑term action plans that can be updated as technology, economics and federal policy change.¹

The government argues this model will allow it to respond more nimbly to new risks and opportunities, rather than locking in a fixed list of measures in 2026 that may be out of date by the early 2030s.¹

In practice, that means the strategy sets the direction and principles, while detailed commitments – from building standards to public transport timetables and retrofit programs – are pushed into rolling action plans with shorter time horizons.¹

Officials frame this as a way to avoid the “set and forget” problem that plagued some earlier climate documents, in which ambitious targets were not always matched by delivery mechanisms or regular public reporting.¹⁰

But critics warn that flexibility cuts both ways: a framework can be a vehicle for rapid escalation, or a convenient shell into which future governments pour watered‑down commitments if political winds change.⁴

Eight themes, one net‑zero horizon

The discussion paper organises the next decade of climate action into eight themes that run from energy and transport through to resilience, housing, nature and the economy, each intended to knit mitigation and adaptation together.¹

The themes include energy, transport, buildings and urban form, the natural environment, waste and the circular economy, industry and innovation, community resilience and wellbeing, and government leadership.¹

Across these pillars the strategy reaffirms the territory’s long‑standing goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2045, building on interim targets of a 50–60% cut by 2025, 65–75% by 2030 and 90–95% by 2040 against 1990 levels.⁸

Having already shifted its electricity supply to 100% renewable contracts, the ACT locates the bulk of remaining emissions cuts in phasing out fossil gas, electrifying transport, improving building performance and reshaping urban development to reduce car dependence.¹⁰

Electrification is the dominant through‑line: the paper foreshadows a gas‑free future for new suburbs, continued expansion of zero‑emissions public transport, and support for households to replace gas appliances and petrol cars with electric alternatives powered by renewables.¹⁰

On the adaptation side, the themes bundle commitments around resilient infrastructure, urban cooling, emergency management and nature‑based solutions such as urban forests and restored waterways that can blunt the worst impacts of extreme heat and storms.¹

Electrification and resilient infrastructure

The strategy doubles down on the ACT’s reputation as an early mover on electrification, with a clear signal that gas has no long‑term future in the territory’s homes, businesses or public assets.¹⁰

Earlier commitments – including phasing out gas by 2045, delivering all new government buildings and public schools as all‑electric, and transitioning the government’s passenger fleet and bus network to zero emissions – are presented as foundations for the next phase rather than completed work.¹⁰

Electrification is framed not just as a climate measure but as a cost‑of‑living and health intervention, with more efficient homes, cleaner air and reduced exposure to volatile fossil fuel prices cited as co‑benefits.¹

Resilient infrastructure emerges as the other major pillar, with the paper canvassing upgrades to energy and transport networks, drainage systems and public assets so they can withstand longer heatwaves, more intense storms and increased bushfire risk.¹

This includes proposals for more shaded streets, climate‑ready schools and community facilities that can double as refuges during extreme heat and smoke events, acknowledging that even rapid emissions cuts will not prevent dangerous warming already locked in by past pollution.⁹

The target the ACT is likely to miss

Beneath the aspirational language, the paper contains a blunt admission: the ACT is unlikely to fully achieve its 2025 emissions reduction target of 50–60% below 1990 levels, despite its vaunted status as “the nation’s climate action capital”.⁸

The government points to population growth, slower‑than‑expected shifts in transport and building emissions, and national policy constraints as reasons the territory is struggling to bend the curve fast enough in the early 2020s.¹

That frankness is unusual in Australian climate politics, where missed milestones are more often buried than acknowledged, but it also raises uncomfortable questions about whether the ACT can credibly promise steeper cuts again in the 2030s.¹¹

Under the existing trajectory, the ACT must not only regain lost ground from the 2025 shortfall but accelerate towards its 2030 and 2040 goals, cutting deeply into transport and building emissions that tend to be slow and capital‑intensive to shift.⁸

Critics say this is precisely why the new strategy should contain binding, sector‑specific targets for 2035 and beyond, rather than leaving the steepness of the emissions descent curve to future action plans and future parliaments.⁴

Frameworks, hard numbers and the 2035 gap

The timing of the ACT strategy coincides with the federal government adopting a national 2035 target of cutting emissions 62–70% below 2005 levels, a benchmark that highlights how much of Australia’s decarbonisation effort is now expected in the decade after 2030.¹²

National projections released late last year suggested Australia was on track for only about a 48% cut by 2035 on current settings, well short of that goal, underscoring how quickly policies will need to tighten if the country is to stay inside a 1.5C‑consistent carbon budget.¹²

Against that backdrop, the ACT’s decision to stop short of spelling out explicit 2035 targets in its core strategy looks to some like a retreat from the transparent, time‑bound goals that once set the territory apart from larger jurisdictions.⁸

Climate advocates argue that a framework without clear waypoints risks allowing incrementalism to creep back in, especially as the “easy wins” of renewable electricity have already been banked and the remaining cuts require reshaping transport, housing and land‑use patterns.¹¹

Others, including some policy experts, say a framework could still drive deep cuts if it is paired with legally binding carbon budgets, transparent sectoral plans and independent monitoring that forces future governments to explain any backsliding in public.¹⁰

For now, the draft paper leans more on the language of “pathways” and “options” than on the hard numbers and enforcement mechanisms that would give those pathways real teeth.¹

Voices from the ground

Outside the bureaucracy, patience is wearing thin among parts of Canberra’s climate movement, which has long celebrated the ACT’s leadership but now fears the territory is coasting on past achievements just as the crisis intensifies.⁴

The Conservation Council ACT Region has described the 2026–35 discussion paper as a “vague”, “hastily put‑together placeholder” that sketches broad principles but ducks crucial decisions about timelines and accountability for cutting emissions this decade and next.⁴

Housing advocates, renters’ groups and health organisations are also pressing for much stronger commitments on minimum energy performance standards, mandatory upgrades for the worst‑performing rentals and more ambitious urban greening to cut lethal heat in low‑income suburbs.⁹

They argue that without concrete timelines and funding for measures like deep retrofits, street trees and accessible cooling refuges, the burden of rising temperatures will continue to fall hardest on people in older homes, social housing and outer‑suburban estates with little shade.⁹

For these groups, the debate is less about the elegance of the framework and more about whether their members will be safer, healthier and less exposed by the time the next mega‑heatwave or smoke‑choked summer rolls through the capital.⁷

The government’s collective action case

The ACT government, for its part, insists the strategy is grounded in collective action and wellbeing, highlighting co‑benefits such as lower bills, cleaner air, active transport, improved biodiversity and more liveable neighbourhoods as central to the plan.¹

Ministers argue that framing climate policy through health, equity and quality of life – rather than only tonnes of carbon – will make it easier to build durable public support for the disruptive changes required in housing, transport and energy systems.¹

The paper talks about partnering with communities, businesses and First Nations organisations to co‑design local solutions, from neighbourhood‑scale energy projects to nature‑based adaptation and culturally appropriate emergency responses.¹

Yet in the absence of binding interim targets or guaranteed minimum investment levels, those aspirations risk reading as hopeful rather than assured, leaving community groups to fight the same battles budget by budget and project by project.⁴

The tension between the government’s emphasis on shared wellbeing and advocates’ demand for harder edges – targets, timelines, enforcement and funding – runs through almost every section of the draft strategy.⁴

Climate leadership at a crossroads

For more than a decade, the ACT has revelled in its image as Australia’s climate pioneer, from legislating ambitious targets to contracting 100% renewable electricity and pledging to phase out gas without buying offsets to meet its goals.¹⁰

That leadership has often stood in stark contrast to national policy, where the Safeguard Mechanism, heavy reliance on offsets and a slow‑moving coal and gas sector have left Australia off‑track for both its 2030 and 2035 targets.¹²

At the same time, the federal government has promoted “Nature Positive” laws and global biodiversity summits while continuing to approve new fossil fuel projects and maintain a pipeline of coal and gas developments that independent analysts say would blow the global 1.5C budget.¹³

Reports released in the wake of recent disasters such as Cyclone Alfred have described Australia as a “fossil fuel behemoth”, noting that its coal, oil and gas exports are on track to cause several times more climate damage than its domestic emissions.¹³

In that context, the ACT’s new strategy will be read not just as a local policy document but as a test of whether a self‑declared climate leader can maintain its edge with frameworks and principles rather than firm timelines and enforceable carbon budgets.⁸

If the territory loosens its grip on clear targets while the rest of the country continues to expand fossil fuel production under a Nature Positive banner, the gap between climate rhetoric and lived reality in suburbs like Gungahlin will only widen.¹²

Adaptation, accountability and a deadline

Beyond emissions accounting, the 2026–35 strategy will shape how Canberra adapts to a climate already changing faster than many models anticipated, with hotter summers, shifting rainfall and compounding risks from fire, heat and smoke.⁹

That makes decisions about building standards, rental protections, insurance, planning codes, urban forests and public infrastructure as consequential for residents’ day‑to‑day safety as decisions about the territory’s next megawatt of renewable generation.⁹

Advocates warn that if the strategy does not lock in stronger adaptation measures by the mid‑2030s – from mandatory cool roofs and higher energy performance to expanded green space in heat‑vulnerable suburbs – the costs will show up in health statistics, lost productivity and widening inequality.⁹

They argue that a credible plan for the next decade must combine clear emissions trajectories with legally backed adaptation benchmarks, transparent reporting and independent oversight, so that no government can quietly let the framework drift while temperatures climb.¹¹

For now, though, the most tangible line in the sand is not a 2035 carbon budget but a consultation deadline: public submissions on the ACT Climate Change Strategy 2026–35 close on 18 March 2026, a date community groups describe as a final chance for Canberrans to demand a plan with teeth before the shape of the next climate decade is effectively locked in.⁶

References

1. ACT Government – Developing the next ACT Climate Change Strategy 2026–35 discussion paper
2. ACT Climate Change Strategy targets and net zero by 2045 commitment
3. ACT Climate Change Strategy 2019–25 – 2025 emissions reduction target (50–60% below 1990)
4. Conservation Council ACT Region – commentary on 2026–35 climate strategy as “vague placeholder”⁴
5. Fossil Fuel Non‑Proliferation Treaty Initiative – Exporting Harm: Australia’s fossil fuel expansion and climate hypocrisy
6. ACT Government – Climate Change Strategy consultation dates (29 January–18 March 2026)
7. AdaptNSW – Projected climate change impacts and heatwaves in the ACT region
8. ASBEC – Overview of ACT Climate Change Strategy 2019–2025 and interim targets
9. AdaptNSW – Climate risks, health and adaptation needs in the ACT
10. ACT Greens – Commitments on electrification, gas phase‑out and zero‑emissions fleets
11. Climate Action Tracker – Australia’s policies, offsets reliance and decarbonisation pathways
12. ABC News – Australia projected to badly miss 2035 climate target of 62–70% cuts
13. The Australia Institute – Nature Positive rhetoric and fossil fuel approvals critique

Back to top