31/03/2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links

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

Author

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

The Sunday Guardian (India) - Acharya Prashant

Where do we currently stand on climate change?

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

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

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

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

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

What are feedback loops?

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

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

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

Some of the most significant feedback loops include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links

30/03/2025

Tackling climate crisis will increase economic growth, OECD research finds

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

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

The Guardian - Fiona Harvey Environment editor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links

29/03/2025

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

Crikey - Ketan Joshi

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

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

Author

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

Australia’s election date was decided by climate change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links

28/03/2025

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

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

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

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

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

Will the government's gas expansion plans lower energy costs without derailing emission targets?
The Labor government's strategy to increase gas production aims to reduce energy prices. However, it's uncertain how this aligns with Australia's commitment to reducing emissions.
What reforms are in store for Australia's environmental legislation?
Both major political parties have yet to clarify their positions on overhauling environmental laws, leaving Australians in the dark about future protections.
Are Australia's gas exports truly a cleaner alternative to coal?
The claim that Australian gas exports are a cleaner substitute for coal lacks comprehensive evidence, raising questions about their environmental impact.
What are the emission reduction commitments for 2035?
With 2035 on the horizon, neither major party has outlined clear strategies for emission reductions, leaving a significant gap in Australia's climate policy.
How will climate change intensify extreme weather events?
Australia is already experiencing more frequent and severe heatwaves, bushfires, and floods. The extent of future intensification remains uncertain.
What are the projected impacts on Australia's unique biodiversity?
Climate change threatens Australia's distinctive ecosystems, but detailed assessments of potential species extinctions and habitat loss are still needed.
How vulnerable are coastal communities to rising sea levels?
With sea levels rising, the specific risks to Australia's coastal infrastructure and communities require further investigation to inform adaptation strategies.
What health risks does climate change pose to Australians?
The health implications, including the spread of diseases and heat-related illnesses due to increased temperatures, need more comprehensive research.
How will water resources and agriculture be affected?
Understanding the future availability of water and its impact on agriculture is crucial for ensuring food security and supporting rural economies.
What are the economic costs of inaction on climate change?
Quantifying the financial consequences of failing to address climate change is essential for policymakers and the public to grasp the urgency of mitigation efforts.

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

Links

27/03/2025

2025 Budget: Big Promises, Bigger Doubts on Climate Action - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Treasurer Jim Chalmers unveiled the 2025 Federal Budget on March 25, promising billions for green industries. But critics say it's too little, too late.

$3 Billion for Green Energy—Enough?

The government pledged $3 billion to boost green metals and hydrogen. Chalmers called it an investment in a “Future Made in Australia.” He argued it would attract investors and create jobs.

Environmental groups aren’t convinced. “It’s window dressing,” said climate activist Sarah Evans. “We need urgent action, not just industry handouts.”

Voters Want More

Polling shows Australians want stronger climate policies. Many say the budget falls short. “People see through the spin,” said economist Daniel Wright. “They want real emissions cuts, not just money thrown at projects.”

Disasters Costing Billions

The budget admits climate-related disasters have already cost Australia $13.5 billion. But critics say the response is reactive, not preventive. “We’re paying the price for inaction,” said environmental analyst Lisa Tran.

Global Pressures Add to Uncertainty

The budget also warns of economic risks from global trade shifts. It points to U.S. policies that could disrupt Australia’s economy.

A Missed Opportunity?

While the budget puts cash into green industries, many argue it doesn’t go far enough. “This was the chance to lead on climate,” said Wright. “Instead, we got half-measures.”

The debate is far from over.

Links

26/03/2025

Climate Change Australian Wildlife - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Climate change is having a profound impact on Australia’s animals and marine life.

Rising temperatures, shifting weather patterns, habitat destruction, and ocean acidification are some of the biggest threats.

Here’s how different species are being affected:

Land Animals

Koalas – Rising temperatures and more frequent bushfires are destroying eucalyptus forests, reducing food sources and habitat. Heatwaves can also cause dehydration and stress.
Kangaroos – Extreme heat and drought limit food and water availability, causing population declines in some areas.
Platypuses – Reduced rainfall and prolonged droughts are drying up rivers and streams, threatening their aquatic homes.
Flying Foxes – Mass die-offs have been recorded due to extreme heat events. Temperatures above 42°C (107°F) can kill thousands in a single day.
Frogs – Habitat loss and climate-related disease outbreaks, such as the spread of chytrid fungus, are pushing many frog species toward extinction.

Marine Life

Great Barrier Reef – Coral bleaching caused by warming ocean temperatures has devastated large sections of the reef, impacting fish and other marine species that rely on it.
Sea Turtles – Rising sand temperatures at nesting sites affect the sex ratio of hatchlings, with more females being born, threatening future population stability.
Fish Species – Warmer waters are forcing fish to migrate to cooler regions, disrupting ecosystems and food chains.
Sharks and Rays – Changes in water temperature and food availability are shifting shark distribution patterns, leading to increased sightings in areas where they were once uncommon.
Penguins and Seabirds – Changing ocean currents and declining fish stocks due to climate shifts are reducing food availability for seabirds like little penguins.

General Climate Impacts

Increased Bushfires – Destroying vast areas of habitat and killing large numbers of animals.
Drought and Water Shortages – Reducing food and water sources for many species.
Extreme Weather Events – Cyclones, floods, and storms are damaging ecosystems and displacing wildlife.
Ocean Acidification – Making it harder for shellfish and corals to form their protective structures, threatening the entire marine food chain.

Conclusion

Climate change is already causing severe disruptions to Australia’s wildlife.

Conservation efforts, habitat restoration, and emissions reduction are essential to protecting these species from further harm.

Links

25/03/2025

Climate Change and Mental Health - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

The link between climate change, global warming, and mental health is becoming increasingly evident. The psychological and emotional impacts of environmental changes are affecting individuals and communities worldwide.

Here’s how:

1. Direct Psychological Impacts

Extreme weather events (e.g., hurricanes, floods, bushfires) lead to PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Survivors often struggle with grief, loss, and uncertainty.
Rising temperatures have been linked to increased aggression, irritability, and even higher suicide rates in some regions.

2. Chronic Stress & Anxiety (Eco-Anxiety & Climate Distress)

Many people, especially younger generations, experience eco-anxiety—chronic fear of environmental collapse.
Feelings of helplessness and despair can lead to depression and social withdrawal.

3. Displacement & Social Disruption

Climate-related displacement (e.g., rising sea levels or droughts) leads to forced migration, loss of home, and cultural identity, increasing risks of PTSD and depression.
Indigenous and rural communities are particularly vulnerable to losing traditional ways of life, which affects mental well-being.

4. Economic & Occupational Stress

Farmers, fishers, and outdoor workers face job insecurity due to changing climate conditions, leading to financial stress and mental health struggles.
Economic downturns linked to climate disasters put pressure on mental health support systems.

5. Disrupted Access to Healthcare & Social Services

Natural disasters damage hospitals, clinics, and infrastructure, making mental health support harder to access.
Vulnerable populations (e.g., elderly, low-income groups) suffer the most from climate-related healthcare disruptions.

What Can Be Done?

Personal Resilience: Mindfulness, social connections, and activism can help individuals manage climate distress.
Community Support: Strengthening mental health services in disaster-prone areas is crucial.
Policy Action: Governments should address mental health as part of climate adaptation strategies.

Climate change is not just an environmental issue—it’s a human crisis that affects mental well-being at both personal and societal levels.

24/03/2025

Last decade was Earth’s hottest ever as CO2 levels reach an 800,000-year high, says UN report

Associated Press - Sibi Arasu

Ricky Leath, an outreach specialist with the City of Miami, distributes water and supplies to the homeless to manage high temperatures, May 15, 2024, in Miami. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File)

Last year was the hottest year on record, the top 10 hottest years were all in the past decade and planet-heating carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at an 800,000-year high, a report Wednesday said.

In its annual State of the Climate report, the World Meteorological Organization laid bare all the markings of an increasingly warming world with oceans at record high temperatures, sea levels rising and glaciers retreating at record speed.

“Our planet is issuing more distress signals,” said António Guterres, United Nations Secretary-General.

He noted that the report says the international goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.8 Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times is still possible.

“Leaders must step up to make it happen — seizing the benefits of cheap, clean renewables for their people and economies,” he said.

2024 was the first year to exceed 1.5 C in global temperature increase. Source: Copernicus Climate Change Service Graphic: M.K. Wildeman

The report attributed the heating to human activity — like the burning of coal, oil and gas — and in a smaller part to the naturally occurring El Nino weather phenomenon.

An El Nino formed in June 2023 and dissipated a year later, adding extra heat and helping topple temperature records.

In 2024, the world surpassed the 1.5 C limit for the first time — but just for a single year. Scientists measure breaching the climate goal as Earth staying above that level of warming over a longer time period.

The report said global heating is contributing to more extreme weather events that have led the highest levels of displacement for 16 years, contributed to worsening food crises and caused massive economic losses.

There were at least 151 “unprecedented” extreme weather events in 2024 alone, it said.

“It is a wake-up call that we are increasing the risks to our lives, economies and to the planet,” said Celeste Saulo, WMO’s Secretary-General.

Humanitarian worker Roger Duvan Lagunes carries a fan into a shelter in Veracruz, Mexico, on June 16, 2024. (AP Photo/Felix Marquez, File)

The report’s warnings come as the United States President Donald Trump has issued a series of rollbacks on climate commitments and cast doubt on climate science.

The U.S. is the world’s second biggest polluter currently and the largest emitter of greenhouse gases historically. It’s left some worried that other countries will also have less ambitious targets as a result.

“The science is indisputable. Attempts to hide climate science from the public will not stop us from feeling the dire impacts of climate change,” said Brenda Ekwurzel of the U.S.-based not-for-profit, Union of Concerned Scientists.

Men deliver sacks of ice cubes as demand remains high due to hot temperatures in Quezon city, Philippines on April 24, 2024. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila, File)

Vanessa Nakate, a Ugandan climate activist also warned that “the longer we delay emissions cuts, the worse it will get.”

“Phasing out fossil fuels is not a choice—it is an emergency response to a crisis unfolding before our eyes,” she said.

Links

23/03/2025

Analysis of Prime Minister Albanese's Climate Change Policies - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has reshaped Australia's climate policies with ambitious targets and legislative reforms. However, critics argue his approach contains significant weaknesses.

Policy Initiatives and Commitments

After taking office in 2022, the Albanese Government raised Australia’s emissions reduction target under the Paris Agreement to 43% by 2030, up from the previous 26-28%. This commitment became law with backing from the Greens and crossbench senators.

The government also reformed the "safeguard mechanism", requiring major carbon emitters to stay within limits or buy carbon credits. Following negotiations with the Greens, a "hard cap" on emissions was introduced—the most significant climate legislation since the 2011 Clean Energy Act.

Criticisms and Weaknesses

Support for Fossil Fuels: Despite climate commitments, the government approved coal mine expansions, expected to emit over 1.35 billion tonnes of CO₂ by 2048. Critics argue this contradicts its emissions goals and undermines Australia's credibility.
Lack of a Climate Trigger in Environmental Laws: The omission of a climate trigger in new environmental legislation has drawn criticism from advocates and crossbench senators.
Energy Costs and Economic Impact: Some claim the focus on renewables and net-zero targets has driven up energy costs and created economic instability. They argue that a more reliable power mix, potentially including nuclear energy, is necessary.
Perceived Leadership Inconsistency: Prime Minister Albanese’s rejection of a climate trigger has drawn comparisons to former Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s leadership style, with critics accusing him of "bulldozing" policies.

Key Climate Policies and Their Shortcomings

Emissions Reduction Target (43% by 2030): While an improvement, experts argue it falls short of the 50-75% reductions needed to meet Paris Agreement goals.
Powering Australia Plan: Prioritizes renewable energy investments but lacks clear implementation timelines and funding details.
National Reconstruction Fund: Allocating $3 billion to green manufacturing and low-emissions technologies, but seen as insufficient for the scale of transition required.
Climate Change Authority: Strengthened under Prime Minister Albanese, but lacks enforcement power to hold the government accountable.
Adaptation and Just Transition Gaps: No comprehensive adaptation plan for communities already experiencing climate impacts, and little planning for fossil fuel-dependent workers.
International Climate Finance: Australia's contributions remain below those of comparable developed nations, limiting its influence in climate diplomacy.

Conclusion

Prime Minister Albanese has pushed Australia’s climate policies in a more progressive direction, but gaps remain between promises and action.

The greatest weakness is the contradiction between stronger climate targets and continued fossil fuel approvals.

Without bold decisions, Australia risks falling short of its commitments while facing mounting economic and environmental pressures.

Links

21/03/2025

Climate Change has Significant Health Implications for Australians - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Climate change has significant health implications for Australians, with both direct and indirect effects.

Here are some key areas of concern:

1. Extreme Heat and Heat-Related Illnesses

Australia is experiencing more frequent and intense heatwaves.
Increased risk of heatstroke, dehydration, and elevation of pre-existing conditions (e.g., heart disease, kidney disease).
Vulnerable populations (elderly, children, outdoor workers, and people with chronic illnesses) are at higher risk.

Link Link

2. Air Quality and Respiratory Issues

Bushfires: More frequent and severe fires lead to smoke inhalation, increasing cases of asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory diseases.
Pollution and Allergens: Rising temperatures can increase pollen levels, worsening conditions like hay fever and asthma.

Link

3. Vector-Borne Diseases

Warmer temperatures and changing rainfall patterns create ideal conditions for mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue fever, Ross River virus, and Murray Valley encephalitis to spread further south.

Link

4. Water and Food Safety

Foodborne illnesses: Rising temperatures can increase the risk of bacterial contamination (e.g., Salmonella).
Waterborne diseases: Flooding can lead to contaminated drinking water, increasing the risk of gastrointestinal diseases.

Link

5. Mental Health Impacts

Climate-related disasters (bushfires, droughts, floods) contribute to stress, anxiety, PTSD, and depression.
Farmers and rural communities face increased risks of suicide and psychological distress due to prolonged drought and economic hardship.

Link

6. Injury and Mortality from Natural Disasters

More severe storms, floods, and fires increase the risk of injuries, deaths, and displacement.
Communities exposed to repeated disasters face long-term health system strain.

Link

7. Disruptions to Healthcare Services

Extreme weather events can damage hospitals, disrupt medical supply chains, and reduce access to essential health services.
Increased demand for medical care during climate events may overwhelm health systems.

Link

Who is Most at Risk?

Elderly people and young children
Indigenous communities
People with chronic diseases
Low-income and remote communities
Outdoor workers (e.g., farmers, construction workers)

Link

What Can Be Done?

Strengthening healthcare infrastructure to cope with climate risks.
Improving early warning systems for heatwaves and disease outbreaks.
Increasing public awareness and education on climate-related health risks.
Transitioning to sustainable energy and climate-friendly urban planning.

Link

Links

20/03/2025

Trump's America is abandoning climate action and the fight just got harder

ABC Analysis - Alan Kohler

Donald Trump's America is rapidly abandoning climate action with the winding back of EPA climate protections the latest policy shift. (Reuters/Tuane Fernandes)

AUTHOR

Alan Kohler is finance presenter and columnist at ABC News.
He also writes for Intelligent Investor.

While markets and media were chasing Donald Trump’s tariff fiasco last week, something far more important happened in East Palestine, Ohio.

The new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, chose the fire station in that tiny village between Pittsburgh and Cleveland to announce that he was "driving a dagger through the heart of climate change religion", as he put it.

Zeldin is rolling back 31 environmental rules (Make America Dirty Again?) including the EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare, which has been the legal basis for all US action against climate change.

In short, Trump’s America is abandoning climate action.

The new head of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, has portrayed concern over climate change as a "religion" and overturned the EPA’s 2009 finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. (AP: John Minchillo)

Meanwhile in Brazil, the government is clearing a swathe of the Amazon rainforest for a road to get 50,000 delegates to the next UN climate change conference – COP30 – to held, weirdly, in the remote city of Belem in November.

Bulldozing the Amazon rainforest is a fitting way to mark 30 years of failure, of annual gabfests that have released colossal amounts of carbon dioxide from the mouths of the well-meaning, and burned tonnes of aviation fuel to get them there, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions not one bit.

In those three decades, human use of fossil fuels has increased 54 per cent.

The withdrawal of America, and the influence that will have on other countries and companies, means the COP30 delegates might as well stay home this year.

The global effort to prevent climate change which began with COP1 in Berlin in 1995 and peaked two years later with a burst of optimism in Kyoto, is pretty much over; it’s dead.

There are two other reasons for this:

China talks, and does, a big game about renewable energy, but is frantically building coal-fired power stations. Last year it added 100GW of coal capacity, five times Australia’s entire coal-fired capacity, another 94.5GW is under construction and 66.7GW more has been approved.
To reach net zero, at least 2 billion tonnes of carbon, and possibly as much as 5 billion, will have to be sequestered in new trees because carbon emissions definitely won’t be zero in 25 years. Yet there simply won’t be enough new trees planted. Many of those supplying emitting companies with offset certificates are getting away with saying that a tree not cut down is the same as a tree planted.

The cost of success

Energy scientist, Vaclav Smil puts the total cost of achieving net zero by 2050 at $US444 trillion, or $US17 trillion a year for 25 years, “requiring affluent economies to spend 20 to 25 per cent of their annual GDP on the transition”.

Clinging to hope and culture on a sinking island

Torres Strait Islanders on the front line of climate
change are fighting a landmark lawsuit to save their
vanishing ancestral homes.
But is it too late?

Only once before in history has that much money been spent – in World War 2. This time the spending would have to last three decades, not five years, and no country is contemplating anything like that.

So net zero by 2050 won’t happen and the increase in global temperature will not be limited to the 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels that was agreed as preferred at Paris in 2015 – nowhere near it.

Current policies and pledges put the world on track for around 2.5–3°C of warming, but if emissions remain high and predicted tipping points are reached, 4°C is likely later this century.

At that point, scientists tell us, large parts of the planet be will uninhabitable, and the parts that aren’t uninhabitable will be more unpleasant and dangerous.

Why have we failed to limit warming?

Before we get on to what 3–4°C of warming means for Australia, it’s worth reflecting on why this has happened. Why has 30 years of talking and earnest good intentions failed to prevent global warming?

Obviously, a big part of it is the fossil fuel industry’s success in turning climate change into a political issue instead of a scientific one, persuading the right side of politics that it’s all part of a left woke conspiracy, even a “religion”, with the right-wing media facilitating that project, led by Rupert Murdoch.

But I think the more fundamental reason is the scientific community’s failure to tell the truth.

There has been systemic reticence on the part of scientists to spell out what’s actually going on, first because science is inherently uncertain, so they are always reluctant to be definitive, and second because they worry that if the true nightmare was revealed, politicians and everybody else would either refuse to believe it or just give up.

So science says 1.5°C of warming and avoiding the extremes of climate change are achievable, and the way politics and media work, that is taken to mean it will be achieved, no problem.

In fact it is now very unlikely, and Australia should do what France is doing and refocus on adapting to reality.

The reality of a 3-4°C temperature rise

On the same day that Lee Zeldin was stabbing climate change religion to death with his dagger, the French minister for “ecological transition”, Agnes Pannier-Runacher released a 377-page report titled Le Plan National d’Adaptation, designed to prepare France for 4°C of warming. Four degrees!

My French is limited, but the plan looks quite inadequate for the catastrophe that sort of rise in global temperature would bring. At least they are thinking about it.

What the science says about future cyclones

As global temperatures climb, climate scientists
say some of the things that made Tropical Cyclone
Alfred unique could be a taste of the future.

For Australia, warming of 3-4°C would see the complete destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, constant flooding of south-east Queensland and northern NSW, cyclones as far south as Coffs Harbour, frequent bushfires everywhere else, and a massive refugee flood as Bangladesh and Pacific Islands are inundated.

Apart from the refugees, preparing for that risk is largely a matter of infrastructure and insurance – in other words, money.

About 25 per cent of Queensland households are currently uninsured, according to the Actuaries Institute. As premiums rise, that number will increase.

In south-east Queensland, 70 per cent of houses were built before the 1970s. All of them are in Region B of the National Construction Code (NCC), which means they are not built to withstand a category 2 cyclone.

If Cyclone Alfred had not become a tropical low before hitting the Queensland coast, and had stayed Category 2, many thousands of families would have been financially ruined. Their uninsured houses would have lost their roofs or collapsed.

The next cyclone, or the one after that, will likely remain as Category 2.

Insurance reality bites

Separately, almost all households in Australia are underinsured because of the roughly 40-50 per cent rise in building costs since the pandemic, which is reflected in very few replacement sums in insurance policies.

As Cyclone Alfred was peaking in the Coral Sea in late February, the Insurance Council of Australia released a new report titled Advancing Australia’s Resilience, directed at influencing policies for the coming federal election and reducing the cost of insurance.

It recommended $30 billion of spending on infrastructure, as follows:

Deliver new critical flood defence infrastructure ($15 billion)
Strengthen properties in harm's way ($5 billion)
Managed relocation (buy-backs) ($10 billion)
Future-proof existing flood mitigation infrastructure ($150 million)

The ICA is talking mainly about floods, which it says is the second biggest component of insurance premiums (tax is the biggest – GST and stamp duty).

The $30 billion would be spent building levies along river banks and around towns, raising houses onto stilts and simply helping families move out of flood plains by buying their unsaleable properties – that is, reducing risk and thereby lowering premiums and get more houses insured.

Needless to say, the government has filed the report under 'M' for maybe later, with a copy under 'V' for vested interest.

But the reality is that without that kind of spending, and probably much more, it will be impossible to live in much of regional Australia, and the cities are already over-crowded.

That is, of course, unless it’s all a new green woke scam religion.

Let’s hope so.

Links