Worried About Climate Collapse? Here’s Ten Things You Can Actually Do - Gregory Andrews

 Lyrebird Dreaming - Gregory Andrews

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

Someone asked a really good question on one of my posts recently. They said they loved the climate content but wondered what they can actually do. 

And honestly, that question matters. Because one of the worst things about climate collapse is the feeling of powerlessness. 

We watch governments approve new coal and gas. We watch billionaires and huge companies greenwash their way through everything. We watch floods, fires, heatwaves, bleaching, crop failures and insurance crises roll through communities - and then we’re told to recycle more.

Yes, personal choices matter. But they’re not enough. The climate crisis wasn’t created by ordinary people forgetting their reusable cups and shopping bags. It was created by political choices, corporate power, fossil fuel lobbying, and decades of delay. 

So the answer has to be bigger than individual guilt. It has to be about active hope. Not passive optimism. That means choosing to act because the future is still being shaped, and because power shifts when people organise.

Here’s my top ten things you can do.

1. Stop trying to do everything

This might sound strange as number one. But it matters. Climate collapse is overwhelming because it touches everything: energy, transport, housing, food, forests, oceans, politics, money, war, migration, health and justice. Nobody can work on all of that at once. So choose your lane.

Maybe your thing is political campaigning. Maybe it’s protecting a local forest. Maybe it’s helping renters electrify. Maybe it’s First Nations justice. Maybe it’s calling out fossil fuel fascism. Maybe it’s making art, writing posts, showing up at meetings, or helping good people get elected. 

You don’t have to do everything. But you do need to do something.

2. Join with other people

Individual action matters most when it becomes collective action. One person writing to a politician can be ignored. A thousand people writing to a politician becomes a problem. One person changing banks is symbolic. Thousands of people shifting their money away from fossil fuel finance becomes pressure. One person talking about climate might feel isolated. A community talking about climate can change an election.

This is why movements matter. Find a local climate group, a community campaign, a Landcare group, a union campaign, a school group, a renewable energy group, or a community independent campaign. 

Climate action becomes less scary when you stop carrying it alone.

3. Get political - properly political

The climate crisis isn’t just an environmental issue. It’s a political issue. That means voting matters. But voting isn’t the only thing that matters. Join campaigns. Door knock. Hand out how-to-vote cards. Scrutineer. Host kitchen table conversations. Ask candidates direct questions. Support people who are serious about climate, integrity and community.

I felt genuinely empowered working with my community to help get David Pocock elected in 2022. It reminded me that politics doesn’t have to be something done to us by party machines. It can be something we do together. And we almost got there with Jessie Price in 2025. Next time, for sure. The community independents movement matters because it shows that ordinary people can organise, challenge the major parties, and change the national conversation. 

That’s climate action.

4. Hold politicians accountable between elections

Politicians don’t only need to hear from us every three years. They need to hear from us all the time. Email them. Call their offices. Ask for meetings. Turn up to town halls. Respond to consultations. Make submissions. Ask simple, direct questions:

• Will you support no new coal and gas?
• Will you support a climate trigger in national environment law?
• Will you support ending fossil fuel subsidies?
• Will you support protecting forests?
• Will you support electrifying homes, transport and industry?

Don’t let them hide behind vague language about “balance”, “transition” or “all of the above”. Ask what they’re actually doing.

5. Follow the money

The fossil fuel industry does’t just dig up coal and gas. It buys influence. It sponsors events. It funds think tanks. It donates to political parties. It advertises during sporting events. It puts its logo on community programs. It hires lobbyists. It uses greenwashing to buy social licence. So follow the money.

Ask who’s funding the campaign. Ask which companies are sponsoring the conference. Ask whether your superannuation is invested in fossil fuels. Ask whether your bank is lending to new coal and gas projects. Ask whether your university, sporting club, festival, arts organisation or charity is taking fossil fuel money. 

The social licence of fossil fuel companies is not inevitable. It can be withdrawn.

6. Call out fossil fuel fascism and corporate greenwashing

Big fossil fuel companies aren’t just selling coal and gas. They’re defending a dying business model with political donations, lobbying, disinformation, culture wars, attacks on protest rights, and greenwashing. That’s why I call it fossil fuel fascism. It’s what happens when a powerful industry knows its product is destabilising the climate, but instead of changing course, it tries to bend democracy around its own survival.

So call it out. When a gas company says gas is “clean”, ask compared to what. When a coal company sponsors a community event, ask what social licence it’s trying to buy. When politicians repeat fossil fuel talking points, ask who benefits. When corporations talk about “net zero”, ask whether they’re still expanding coal and gas. When media outlets run climate denial or delay narratives, ask who’s funding the story.

Greenwashing works when nobody challenges it. Fossil fuel power works when people are too polite, too tired, or too intimidated to name it. Name it. Because democracy can’t survive if governments keep serving fossil fuel companies while communities pay the price.

7. Use your workplace, profession and networks

Most of us have more influence than we realise. You may not feel powerful as one person. But you may be part of a workplace, board, school, university, union, church, sporting club, professional association, arts organisation or community group.

Ask what your organisation is doing on climate. Does it have a climate policy? Is it electrifying? Is it divesting? Is it reducing travel emissions? Is it still banking with fossil fuel lenders? Is it purchasing renewable energy? Is it using its public voice? 

Every institution is part of the climate system now. Push yours.

8. Protect nature where you live

Climate and nature aren’t separate crises. Protecting forests, wetlands, grasslands, rivers, reefs, soils and threatened species is climate action. So is restoring habitat, removing invasive species, supporting cultural burning, protecting urban trees, and defending Country from destructive development.

This work is local, practical and powerful. It also helps to counter despair. Because when you plant something, restore something, defend something, or care for Country, you’re not just opposing destruction. 

You are participating in repair. That matters.

9. Talk about climate in human terms

Facts matter. Science matters. Data matters. UN treaty obligations matter. But people are moved by stories. So talk about climate as a cost-of-living issue. Talk about insurance. Talk about rent and food prices. Talk about asthma. Talk about heat stress. Talk about children. Talk about older people. Talk about farmers, our Pacific neighbours and First Nations communities watching Country change before their eyes.

The climate crisis isn’t a future abstraction. It’s already here. And it’s already personal.

The more we make that visible, the harder it becomes for politicians and corporations to pretend delay is harmless.

10. Practise active hope

Hope isn’t the belief that everything will be fine. Hope is the decision to act anyway.

Some days, that might mean joining a campaign. Some days, it might mean making a phone call. Some days, it might mean donating $20. Some days, it might mean sharing a post. Some days, it might mean resting so you can keep going.

Climate action isn’t about purity. It is about persistence. The fossil fuel industry and fascists want us isolated, exhausted, cynical and ashamed. So refuse that.

Find your people. Choose your lane. Build power. Hold politicians accountable. Hold companies accountable. Protect what you love. And keep going. Because the future isn’t decided yet. And ordinary people like us, organised together, have changed history before.

Gregory Andrews Climate Change Articles

• Fossil Fuel Fascism: When a Dying Industry Tries to Take Democracy With It
• Climate Policy Counts Dollars and Tonnes. What if We Counted the Dead?
• The Climate Crisis is a Health Crisis
• The Science Is In: Global Warming Is Accelerating
• While We Watch Iran, the Planet Keeps Burning
• Have your say on Canberra’s next Climate Strategy: It will be make or break
• Science Warns of Future Where Billions Bake
• Two Years to 1.7°C: the “Prediction Game” We Can’t Afford to Lose
• Emergency Photos Ops Aren't Climate Leadership
• Why Fascists Reject Climate Science
• Don’t Be Distracted: Earth’s Life Support Systems Are Collapsing
• Diesel rebates for miners and a new EV tax? Australia’s climate policy double-think
• What Gas is That? Get to Know Your Climate Pollutants

Australia: When the Thermometers Come Under Pressure - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Australia's climate intelligence system faces growing strain
as the continent records unprecedented heat

Key Points

Australia has warmed by about 1.5°C since 1910.[1] Extreme heat is Australia's deadliest natural hazard.[2] Climate risks increasingly cascade across multiple systems.[3] Marine heatwaves are growing in frequency and intensity.[4] Urban areas face rising exposure to extreme heat.[5] Climate science capacity faces ongoing institutional pressures.[6]

The Instruments in the Heat

The temperature display outside Bourke climbed through the forties before midday.

Across inland Australia, automated weather stations stood in the glare, collecting measurements that would flow through telecommunications networks, forecasting systems, climate archives, emergency management centres, and research institutions.

Each reading appeared routine. Together they formed the nervous system of a continent confronting accelerating climate change.

Australia has warmed by approximately 1.5°C since national records began in 1910, according to Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO assessments. The country's ten warmest years have all occurred since 2005. ^[1]

Those numbers underpin decisions worth billions of dollars. Farmers use them. Energy operators depend upon them. Emergency services rely on them during heatwaves, bushfires, floods, and cyclones.

Few Australians ever see the infrastructure producing those measurements.

Watching a Continent Grow Hotter

The Bureau of Meteorology operates one of the largest environmental monitoring networks in the Southern Hemisphere.

Weather stations stretch across deserts, tropical coastlines, alpine regions, airports, islands, and remote communities. Ocean buoys track conditions offshore. Satellites relay information from regions where few people live.

The system was built for a different climate.

Australia's climate statement for 2024 recorded the nation's second-warmest year since records began. Heatwave conditions affected large parts of the country throughout the year, while minimum temperatures reached record levels nationally. ^[7]

Long-term warming creates a paradox for climate monitoring.

The hotter Australia becomes, the more heavily governments, businesses, and communities depend upon accurate observations. Yet the same rising temperatures increase stress on infrastructure, communications systems, ecosystems, and critical services.

Climate monitoring has become both a witness and a participant in the climate story.

The Human Stakes Behind the Data

Heat rarely arrives with the dramatic imagery of a cyclone.

It creeps through suburbs after sunset. It lingers inside ageing homes. It settles over regional towns where air conditioning becomes a necessity rather than a luxury.

The consequences often appear in hospital admissions, ambulance call-outs, and excess mortality statistics.

Research and government assessments consistently identify extreme heat as Australia's deadliest natural hazard. Recent studies suggest the human toll associated with heatwaves greatly exceeds figures captured through direct heat-related death classifications alone. ^[2]

Older Australians, people with chronic illnesses, outdoor workers, and residents of lower-income communities face particularly high exposure.

In western Sydney, summer temperatures can differ dramatically from cooler, leafier suburbs closer to the coast.

The thermometer records a number. The social consequences depend upon where people live, work, and sleep.

The Great Barrier Reef and the Silent Ocean Emergency

Hundreds of kilometres offshore, another monitoring challenge unfolds.

Marine heatwaves increasingly reshape ecosystems that once changed slowly across decades.

Coral reefs, fisheries, seagrass systems, and coastal habitats depend upon long-term observations capable of detecting subtle trends before they become irreversible transformations.

The State of the Climate 2024 assessment found marine heatwaves around Australia are becoming more frequent and more intense as ocean temperatures rise. Australian waters have warmed by more than one degree since 1900. ^[4]

Scientists monitoring the Great Barrier Reef increasingly rely on integrated observing systems combining field measurements, satellites, ocean sensors, and modelling.

Those datasets allow researchers to distinguish temporary fluctuations from structural ecological change.

Without continuous observations, ecological decline becomes harder to detect until consequences become visible across entire ecosystems.

A Network Under Institutional Pressure

Climate observations depend upon people as much as instruments.

Technicians maintain equipment. Scientists validate records. Analysts examine anomalies. Software specialists manage data flows measured in millions of observations.

Institutional capacity often receives less attention than climate statistics.

Recent debate surrounding climate science staffing highlights how specialised expertise can become concentrated within relatively small teams. Scientists have warned that reductions in climate modelling capability could affect Australia's contribution to future international climate assessments and national projection systems. ^[6]

Such concerns extend beyond individual agencies.

Climate adaptation planning, infrastructure investment, insurance pricing, agricultural forecasting, and emergency management increasingly depend upon sophisticated climate intelligence.

Every observing network ultimately relies upon sustained funding, institutional memory, and scientific expertise.

Cascading Risks

Climate hazards rarely remain confined to a single sector.

A severe heatwave can impact public health, electricity demand, transport infrastructure, agricultural productivity, and ecosystem stability simultaneously.

Australia's first National Climate Risk Assessment places particular emphasis on these interconnected risks.

The assessment identifies climate impacts as cascading, compounding, and concurrent, affecting infrastructure, health, food systems, ecosystems, and economic activity at the same time. It highlights dozens of nationally significant climate risks across Australian society. ^[3]

Climate monitoring provides one of the few mechanisms capable of tracking those interactions across multiple systems.

Temperature records connect to hospital admissions.

Ocean observations connect to fisheries.

Rainfall measurements connect to water security and agricultural production.

Data becomes the bridge linking physical change to social consequence.

The Cities Heating from Within

More than ninety per cent of Australians live in urban areas.

Many cities create their own microclimates through roads, concrete, roofing materials, reduced vegetation, and dense development.

Urban heat can amplify already dangerous temperatures.

Researchers examining Australia's urban climate capability argue that significant gaps remain in observational networks and datasets needed to understand city-scale climate risks. Those gaps can alter adaptation planning and heat resilience strategies. ^[5]

The challenge carries immediate implications.

Local governments need accurate information when deciding where to plant trees, upgrade public housing, design cooling centres, or protect vulnerable populations during prolonged heatwaves.

Every adaptation strategy begins with measurement.

The Future of Climate Intelligence

The most important climate story in Australia may involve neither emissions nor forecasts.

It may involve observation itself.

Every year brings higher temperatures, more intense marine heatwaves, growing infrastructure exposure, and increasing pressure on institutions responsible for understanding those changes.

The World Meteorological Organization emphasises that climate services and early-warning systems are becoming increasingly vital as global temperatures continue rising. ^[8]

Australia's climate monitoring network represents far more than thermometers in paddocks or buoys floating offshore.

It functions as a national intelligence system for a warming continent.

The decisions Australians make about cities, food production, public health, insurance, infrastructure, and ecosystems will depend upon the quality of information flowing through that system.

As climate risks become more frequent and more interconnected, the value of trustworthy observations rises alongside the temperature.

The future may judge climate monitoring as one of the country's most important forms of adaptation, a quiet infrastructure of measurement helping Australians understand a world changing faster than the institutions built to measure it.

References

1. CSIRO & Bureau of Meteorology, State of the Climate 2024
2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Extreme Heat and Health Impacts
3. CSIRO, National Climate Risk Assessment
4. CSIRO, State of the Climate 2024: Ocean Warming and Marine Heatwaves
5. Nazarian et al., Strengthening National Capability in Urban Climate Science: An Australian Perspective
6. Scientists Fear CSIRO Cuts Could Damage Australia's Climate Modelling Capability
7. Bureau of Meteorology, Annual Climate Statement 2024
8. World Meteorological Organization, State of the Global Climate 2024

Back to top

Climate change has already made Australians in one State much poorer, and more’s to come - The Conversation

The Conversation - Timothy Neal  Ben Newell

Rachel Claire/Pexels

Authors

Timothy Neal Senior lecturer in Economics and the Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney Ben Newell Professor of Cognitive Psychology and Director of the Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

The world’s hottest years over the past decade have coincided with stagnant economic productivity, rising prices and geopolitical instability.

Is this just coincidence or has the current level of climate change been one of the drivers? Climate change is often framed as a problem for the future. But how much economic damage has today’s current level of ~1.35°C of warming already caused?

To answer that question, we analysed the effects of climate change to date on the New South Wales economy. The results were released today as part of a Net Zero Commission report.

We estimate climate change has already caused median losses of around 18% (probability range 4–33%) to the NSW economy, the biggest economic jurisdiction in the country. At a median 18% loss, that translates to about A$21,300 per person on average in yearly income.

We show that it’s not local bushfires or flooding that are driving the majority of damage, but changing global weather that in turn affects our cost of living.

Imagine a world without climate change

Studies typically project the global economic damage that climate change will do by 2050 or 2100.

Some influential estimates have suggested climate damage would be fairly small. But our recent research and work by others shows the economic damage coming down the pipeline could be more than four times larger than previously thought.

Our research question for this report was different: “What would the NSW economy look like today if historical emissions of greenhouse gases had not caused climate change?”

This requires a thought experiment: imagining a past where we burn fossil fuels at the historical rate, but the additional carbon dioxide and other atmospheric gases do not cause changes to temperature or rainfall patterns.

Answering this question will allow us to understand the economic losses we have already endured from historical climate change.

How we did it

First, we collected data on historical economic growth and weather across the world over the past 70 years. We then modelled how weather changes (or shocks) impacted economic growth over this period. There is significant debate on how to do this, so we adopted a variety of approaches. 

Then we had to plausibly guess at how the weather would have evolved in the past four decades without climate change. To create this hypothetical weather series, we simply removed any trend found in the weather data which we ascribe to human-caused climate change. This works because there is no evidence natural causes have contributed to the upward trend in temperatures. 

                                                                         Global average temperature
Red line is actual or observed temperature. The black line is de-trended or counterfactual temperature, which is the predicted temperature if the human-caused climate change signal is removed.

Chart: The Conversation Source: Timothy Neal, Ben Newell
Get the data Embed Download image Created with Datawrapper

 Finally, we compared economic growth rates predicted by the models under the observed and under the hypothetical weather conditions. The contrast between the total economic production of the NSW economy in the two scenarios is the economic cost of historical climate change for a given year.

                                                                         NSW average temperature
Red line is actual or observed temperature. The black line is de-trended or counterfactual temperature, which is the predicted temperature if the human-caused climate change signal is removed.

Chart: The Conversation Source: Timothy Neal, Ben Newell
Get the data Embed Download image Created with Datawrapper

What we found

We estimate the median economic loss for NSW in 2024 was 18%. There is significant uncertainty in this figure, with the lower estimates around 4% and the higher around 33%.

The median loss figure of 18% translates into an average of $21,288 in losses per person in yearly income (in 2023–2024 dollar values). In other words, the model finds that if historical warming had not occurred then people living in NSW would each have $21,288 more dollars, on average, in their pockets every year. This amount is large enough to meaningfully improve the quality of life of the state’s average household.

The models suggest the primary mechanism through which this loss has occurred is the rise in the global average temperature. When people think about losses associated with climate change in NSW, they might consider how climate change exacerbated the bushfires of 2019–20, or the floods that followed. The damages they caused are, of course, real and significant.

However, the economic models suggest the majority of the damage has come from shifts in weather globally. Given the interconnectedness of modern economies through trade and global supply chains, it is reasonable to assume that climate shocks to supply chains affect the whole globe.

The interconnectedness of the global economy can be seen in the downturn following the US-Israel war with Iran and the halt to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. Eric Seddon/Pexels, CC BY

How we think about climate change

When pollsters ask Australian voters what issues they care about, “climate change” is often listed as one issue among many. Voters are asked to assess how important climate change is to them relative to the cost of living, public health, interest rates, secure employment, and other important things.

Presenting issues in this way reinforces a common misconception that they are independent, and that one can be prioritised over the other.

To the contrary, there is now good evidence that climate change is strongly related to economic outcomes, which in turn drive the cost of living, interest rates, investment in in health and education and the labour market.

It’s time to stop thinking of climate change as “merely” an environmental issue, which can be discarded when economic times are tough. Instead, we should recognise what it really is: a current and ongoing threat to our standard of living.

The Conversation Climate Change Articles

• A very strong El Niño may be approaching. Here’s what it could mean for the world’s weather
• Scientists have scrapped the worst‑case climate scenario – because action is making a difference
• Why the phrase ‘Super El Niño’ makes Australian climate scientists roll their eyes
• Dramatic changes in upper atmosphere are responsible for recent droughts and bushfires: new research
• We eat a lot of wheat. So how can we grow more in a changing climate? 
• Overheated cows, flooded highways, and now a fuel crisis: why Australia’s food system is in big troubl
• Searching for a ‘technofix’ to climate change has many dangers. Could radical humility save the planet? 
• Climate change means more landslides in NZ – but new tech can help reduce the risk 
• The carbon tax debate damaged Julia Gillard’s leadership – and good climate policy for years to come 
• What Australians really think about climate change
• People around the world will act on climate change to create a better society: study
• How well does the new Australian Curriculum prepare young people for climate change?
• Climate explained: why some people still think climate change isn’t real 
• ‘I tend to be very gentle’: how teachers are navigating climate change in the classroom

Back to top

Burning for Credits: How Corporate Carbon Is Colonising Australia's Ancient Fire Knowledge - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Australia's carbon credit scheme earns tens of millions from Indigenous burning
while questions grow about who controls Country

Key Points

Savanna fire projects cover 330,000 square kilometres of northern Australia and have generated over 13 million ACCUs. 1 The WALFA project in west Arnhem Land reduced wildfire emissions by 37.7% over its first seven years. 2 Annual revenue from savanna burning reaches approximately $50 million AUD for Indigenous communities. 3 The 2022 Chubb Review found the ACCU scheme sound but critics raised transparency and Indigenous rights concerns. 4 The Lancet found Indigenous communities face "carbon pirates" and agreements biased toward corporate actors. 5 European-era fire suppression broke traditional burning cycles, creating fuel loads that now drive catastrophic wildfires. 6

Near Elliott in the Northern Territory, Mudbarra Country spreads across 2,845 square kilometres of sub-tropical woodland. 

Senior traditional owner Janey Dixon describes fire as something ancestral rather than agricultural. "Our ancestors are following us when we light the fire," she has said.

The Karlantijpa Savanna Burning Project has operated on Mudbarra Country since 2015. It now generates income through the sale of Australian Carbon Credit Units. ⁷

Traditional owners conduct surveys, plan early dry-season burns and bring younger members onto Country. On the surface, the arrangement looks like a policy success. Dig further and the picture fragments.

A structural tension has solidified inside Australia's carbon market. Aboriginal communities possess the oldest continuous land management knowledge on earth. A federal scheme has assigned that knowledge a dollar value, a methodology and an audit calendar.

The question pressing on researchers and land councils is whether the market has captured cultural burning. Or whether cultural burning is using the market on its own terms.

What the Fire Actually Does

European colonisation carried a conviction that fire was the enemy. Pastoral and park management suppressed burning, breaking cycles maintained for millennia. Vegetation grew thick. The fuel accumulated. When fire arrived, it arrived catastrophic.

Three decades of ecological science confirms what traditional owners had always practised. Early dry-season burning disrupts fuel continuity that allows late-season wildfires to run. ⁶

The savanna biome produces 86 per cent of all fire events on the continent. It contributes 10 per cent of Australia's total carbon emissions annually. Shifting burning to the early season reduces both greenhouse gas output and biodiversity loss.

The evidence base is anchored in west Arnhem Land. In the mid-1990s, Aboriginal landowners and researchers produced the West Arnhem Land Fire Abatement project. WALFA covered 28,000 square kilometres and became the world's first savanna burning abatement initiative.

WALFA reduced wildfire-related greenhouse gas emissions by 37.7 per cent over its first seven years. ²

The result rewrote how the carbon market understood land management. It created the template for every subsequent savanna burning project in Australia.

WALFA is now managed by ALFA, Arnhem Land Fire Abatement, an entirely Aboriginal-owned company. Traditional owners created it to control their own engagement with the carbon industry. It supports fire projects across more than 80,000 square kilometres of Arnhem Land.

The structure matters. Ownership by traditional owners defines what flows where. It also defines who retains authority over burning decisions.

The Bureaucracy That Controls the Match

The legal terrain for cultural burning remains jagged across Australia. Fire management acts, parks legislation, native title conditions and tenure rules create overlapping jurisdictions. Each is capable of blocking a planned burn.

Liability insurance requirements compound the problem. Most Indigenous ranger groups operate with limited, inconsistent government funding. Insurance costs on certain tenures can exceed what communities can afford.

The legal right to manage Country and the practical ability to do so sit in different places.

The Central Land Council supports fire management across more than 417,000 square kilometres of Aboriginal land. Their program combines customary knowledge with contemporary techniques. Burns follow mosaic patterns across spinifex sandplains during cooler months. ⁸

The CLC has been clear that burning happens because of obligation to Country. The carbon revenue follows rather than leads. That distinction carries weight.

Cultural burning follows seasonal, ceremonial and ecological cues that resist precise scheduling. Carbon accounting requires fixed windows, documented evidence and regular audits. Communities face a choice between burning right and burning in a way the audit accepts.

Thirteen Million Credits and Counting

By April 2024, 81 projects had registered under the ACCU scheme's savanna fire management methods. Together they generated over 13 million ACCUs. ¹

That figure represents nearly 10 per cent of all ACCU issuances. Savanna burning ranks as the fourth largest method by credit volume. Projects now span more than 330,000 square kilometres of northern Australia.

Annual revenue reaching Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities sits at approximately $50 million. ³

Where communities own and control their carbon enterprise, money flows toward self-determination. Where they participate as junior parties under external aggregators, the calculation changes.

Revenue splits between communities, proponents, aggregators and brokers remain opaque. The Clean Energy Regulator's register records methodologies and ACCU issuances. It does not record what proportion of proceeds reaches the community whose Country is being burned.

The Chubb Review in 2022 called for greater transparency across the scheme. It left the question of Indigenous revenue distribution without a precise resolution. ⁴

In August 2025, the federal government released two updated savanna fire management methods for public consultation. The new methods incorporate the Savanna Carbon Accounting Model and credit both avoided emissions and enhanced biomass recovery. ⁹

The Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee assessed the drafts as meeting offset integrity standards. Whether the new methods address structural power imbalances inside project agreements remains an open question.

Colonisation by Contract

Research in The Lancet Planetary Health in 2025 described a troubling global pattern. Indigenous communities entering carbon markets face agreements biased toward corporate actor benefits. ⁵

The paper identified "carbon pirates" who register projects without genuine free, prior and informed consent. Anticipated financial benefits sometimes fail to reach communities. Exploitation generates conflict between communities and project developers.

Australia's savanna burning program is frequently cited as a positive exception. ALFA in Arnhem Land does represent something different from the pattern The Lancet describes. But ALFA developed over decades with meaningful Aboriginal agency at every stage.

Replication requires those same conditions. Where communities hold weaker tenure or projects arrive through external proponents, authority and income distribute differently. Long contractual lock-in periods can extend beyond any government funding horizon.

Internal conflict over carbon revenues has surfaced as a recurrent problem. Project structures that recognise one corporation can leave other family groups outside the revenue stream. Litigation at community cost against well-resourced proponents rarely reflects the true complexity of traditional ownership.

What the Audit Cannot Measure

The carbon accounting framework reduces fire to tonnes avoided, seasons documented and satellite coverage verified. It was designed to produce fungible credits that governments and corporations can trade. Cultural burning is about relationship, obligation and knowledge transmission, not carbon arithmetic.

Elaine Sandy, director of Jinkaji Aboriginal Corporation, described the Karlantijpa project this way: "We are bringing together the wisdom of both ways of teaching, our way and kardiba way." The phrase holds two complete knowledge systems in productive tension.

The Chubb Review found the overall ACCU scheme sound. It called for improved data sharing but resisted claims of systematic overstatement. ⁴

Independent researchers and the Australian Conservation Foundation pointed to "gaping holes" in governance. The 2026 savanna methods incorporate SavCAM modelling and updated science. Independent longitudinal monitoring on carbon-funded Country, with genuine data sovereignty for traditional owners, remains limited.

CSIRO holds Australia's deepest fire ecology research capacity. Budget pressures and staff reductions have constrained its independent monitoring capability. Where that independence weakens, the integrity of the credit scheme weakens with it.

The Funding Question the Market Avoids

Sean Appoo of the Aboriginal Carbon Foundation put the tension plainly at the 2025 Australian Sustainable Finance Summit. Investment in cultural burning remains insufficient, "coupled with unstable political conditions." Corporate leaders hesitate. Politicians cycle through commitments.

The carbon market bypasses that instability. But it does so by making cultural practice legible to accounting systems built without Aboriginal people in mind.

The Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger program funds rangers including for burning work. Funding per ranger, against the costs of managing vast remote Country, leaves most programs stretched. ¹⁰

Without a dedicated federal funding stream for cultural burning, communities face a stark choice. Engage with the ACCU system on available terms, or watch Country go unmanaged.

Indigenous-led policy groups have argued for structural reforms. Stronger consent requirements, guaranteed community revenue thresholds and legal categories for cultural burning are among the proposals. Direct public funding for ranger programs, at sufficient scale, would remove the pressure to enter carbon markets for survival.

A Choice the Country Should Make

The Australian savanna burning program has done something genuinely significant. It channelled real money to Aboriginal communities and restored burning practices that suppression policies had destroyed. Emissions fell across some of the continent's most fire-prone landscapes.

The WALFA-to-ALFA trajectory, from research partnership to Indigenous-owned enterprise, deserves its prominence in policy literature. It does not resolve the structural questions.

Cultural burning exists because of obligation to Country. It carries ceremonial dimensions resistant to documentation. A framework demanding fixed windows and satellite verification sits awkwardly against that reality.

When market requirements bend the practice toward what a methodology can measure, something changes. The fire still burns. Whether it remains cultural burning, beyond a commercial sense, depends on who holds the match.

The 2026 method reforms are a material step toward scientific rigour and Indigenous inclusion. They arrive as Safeguard Mechanism demand for offsets rises, pressuring communities into agreements before governance frameworks are ready. Faster, better-funded and genuinely sovereign alternatives remain the work ahead.

References

1. Clean Energy Regulator. (2024). Traditional Indigenous savanna burning practices in Kakadu National Park. Australian Government.

2. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change. (2022). Diffusion of Indigenous fire management and carbon-credit programs: Opportunities and challenges for scaling-up to temperate ecosystems. Frontiers Media.

3. Ecology Law Quarterly. (2024). Cultural Burning Can Mitigate Climate Change and Produce Income for Native American Tribes. UC Berkeley School of Law.

4. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. (2022). Independent Review of Australian Carbon Credit Units. Australian Government.

5. The Lancet Planetary Health. (2025). Carbon markets: a new form of colonialism for Indigenous Peoples?. Elsevier.

6. ScienceDirect. (2015). Indigenous benefits and carbon offset schemes: An Australian case study. Environmental Science and Policy, Elsevier.

7. Indigenous Carbon Industry Network. (2025). Karlantijpa Savanna Burning. ICIN.

8. Central Land Council. (2023). Managing Threats: Fire Management across Central Australian Aboriginal Land. CLC.

9. EcoVoice. (2025). Public consultation opens on new savanna burning method. EcoVoice Environment News Australia.

10. The Indigenous Business Review. (2025). Aboriginal Carbon Foundation calls for private investment in First Nations-led climate projects. IBR.

11. Arnhem Land Fire Abatement. (2024). About ALFA NT: Arnhem Land Fire Abatement Northern Territory. ALFA NT.

12. Clean Energy Regulator. (2024). Arnhem Land Fire Abatement case study. Australian Government.

13. RenewEconomy. (2023). Chubb prunes carbon credit scheme, but concern lingers over fossil fuel offsets. RenewEconomy.

Back to top

Fossil Fuel Fascism: When a Dying Industry Tries to Take Democracy With It - Gregory Andrews

Lyrebird Dreaming - Gregory Andrews

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

There is a phrase that captures something ugly about the world we are now living through.

It sounds extreme. But so is the behaviour it describes. 

Fossil fuel fascism is what happens when the coal, gas, and oil industries begin to lose the economic argument, the scientific argument and the moral argument - and respond by attacking democracy itself.

It’s not simply climate denial. It’s not just lobbying. It’s not even just greenwashing. 

It’s the hardening of fossil fuel politics into something more nasty and aggressive: disinformation, culture war, attacks on science, intimidation of activists, capture of governments, weakening of environmental laws, and use of state power to protect industries that are cooking the planet. 

It also thrives on chaos, division, and war because a frightened, divided and exhausted public is easier to distract from the accelerating consequences of global heating.

The Guardian recently described this as part of a global energy power shift. China is racing ahead as an “electrostate”, dominating solar, wind, batteries and EVs, while the US under Trump is retreating into oil, gas, deregulation and fossil-fuel nationalism. The old American oil order is not disappearing quietly. It is fighting back.

This is the key point. Fossil fuel fascism is not a sign of strength. It’s a sign of panic.

For more than a century, fossil fuels shaped global power. Oil built empires. Coal powered industrialisation. Gas was sold as the “cleaner” bridge that would take us safely into the future.

Guernica by Pablo Picasso is perhaps the world’s most-famous anti-Fascist artwork

But the future has arrived - and it’s electric. Renewables are no longer the expensive alternative. They’re increasingly the cheapest form of new energy. IRENA found that in 2024, 91 per cent of newly commissioned utility-scale renewable capacity produced power more cheaply than the lowest-cost fossil fuel alternative. 

Utility-scale solar was 41 per cent cheaper, and onshore wind 53 per cent cheaper, than the cheapest fossil fuel option. Renewables also avoided an estimated US$467 billion in fossil fuel costs in 2024 alone. That changes everything.

Now that clean energy is cheaper, fossil fuel politics can no longer rely on the old argument that coal, oil and gas are necessary for prosperity. So the argument shifts. Suddenly renewables are “woke”. Climate action is “elitist”. EVs are an attack on freedom and emit dangerous radiation. Wind farms are a threat to the nation. Scientists are political enemies. Protesters are extremists. Gas becomes “security”. Coal becomes “sovereignty”. Delay becomes patriotism.

And while we’re pushed from one outrage to the next - culture wars, real wars, manufactured crises and political chaos - the planet keeps heating in the background.

This is how a dying industry disguises self-interest as national interest.

And Australia shouldn’t pretend it’s only an American disease. We have our own version. Wrapped in hi-vis vests and divisive language. We have a political system still deeply influenced by fossil fuel money. 

We approve new coal and gas projects while claiming to take climate change seriously. We count domestic emissions while pretending exported emissions vanish at the port. We talk about the clean energy transition while expanding the very industries driving climate breakdown. And when communities, scientists, young people, First Nations custodians or climate advocates object, they’re too often treated as obstacles to progress rather than voices of reason.

But fossil fuel fascism will be overcome for one simple reason: it is fighting the future.

The clean energy transition is now powered by technology, economics and public demand. Solar panels, batteries, heat pumps, electric vehicles and renewable grids are not fringe ideas anymore. They’re infrastructure. They’re jobs. They’re cheaper bills. They’re cleaner air. They’re energy independence.

The International Energy Agency says renewable power capacity is set to grow faster between 2025 and 2030 in more than 80 per cent of countries than it did in the previous five years, with solar accounting for almost 80 per cent of the global increase. The fossil fuel industry can slow the transition. It can corrupt it. It can make it more unjust. It can make the climate damage worse. But it cannot stop the physics, the economics or the moral force of people wanting a liveable future.

So what do we do?

First, we name it. Fossil fuel obstruction is not “balance”. It’s not “pragmatism”. It’s not “keeping the lights on”. When governments approve new fossil fuel projects in a climate emergency, they are choosing to make the crisis worse.

Second, we electrify everything we can. Rooftop solar. Batteries. Efficient homes. Heat pumps. Induction cooking. Electric cars, bikes, and buses. Every household, business, and community that gets off fossil fuels weakens the political power of the fossil fuel industry.

Third, we stop rewarding climate vandalism. Move banking, superannuation and investments away from companies funding fossil fuel expansion. Ask councils, universities, festivals, galleries, and community organisations who sponsors them. Culture matters. Social licence matters.

Fourth, we mobilise and vote like the climate is real. Not as a side issue. Not as a nice-to-have. But as the foundation of economic security, food security, health security and intergenerational justice. For me, that means getting involved in the community-based independents movement to get more people like David Pocock, Sophie Scamps and Kate Chaney elected to our Parliament. 

And finally, we refuse despair. Despair is useful to the fossil fuel industry because it turns us citizens into spectators. Hope, properly understood, is not optimism. It’s discipline. It’s action. It’s choosing to fight because the future is still being made.

Fossil fuel fascism is rising because the fossil fuel age is ending. Our job is to make sure it ends democratically, justly and fast.

Gregory Andrews Climate Change Articles

• Climate Policy Counts Dollars and Tonnes. What if We Counted the Dead?
• The Climate Crisis is a Health Crisis
• The Science Is In: Global Warming Is Accelerating
• While We Watch Iran, the Planet Keeps Burning
• Have your say on Canberra’s next Climate Strategy: It will be make or break
• Science Warns of Future Where Billions Bake
• Two Years to 1.7°C: the “Prediction Game” We Can’t Afford to Lose
• Emergency Photos Ops Aren't Climate Leadership
• Why Fascists Reject Climate Science
• Don’t Be Distracted: Earth’s Life Support Systems Are Collapsing
• Diesel rebates for miners and a new EV tax? Australia’s climate policy double-think
• What Gas is That? Get to Know Your Climate Pollutants