Lethal Heating: 11/14/25

Surviving the 21st Century - Julian Cribb

AUTHOR

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

Now is the sinister time of year when the Barons of Big Oil gather together, under the auspices of the United Nations and with the blessing of most world leaders, to celebrate the 350 million needless deaths they will cause between now and 2050 in the name of profit.

Yes, it’s the Conference of the Parties on Climate Change, also known as COP30, the event where the fossil oligarchs toast their victory over humanity and its future - and the fact they have successfully played the entire world for mugs, hypnotising us into climate paralysis. This time the ‘Conclave of the Pernicious’ was hosted by Brazil.

Don’t take my word for it. Here’s what UN chief Antonio Guterres had to say: “Too many corporations are making record profits from climate devastation, with billions spent on lobbying, deceiving the public and obstructing progress”

And in a sideswipe at the politicians in countries like the USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Canada, China, India and Australia who are the chief enablers of the death and destruction, he said: “Too many leaders remain captive to these entrenched interests. Too many countries are starved of the resources to adapt – and locked out of the clean energy transition. And too many people are losing hope that their leaders will act.” Fair enough.

Absent from the talks was Trump’s USA, per capita the world’s worst climate vandal and champion backslider. It was too busy, allegedly, trying to stitch up a new offshore natural gas deal for its chief predator, Exxon. Missing too were China, Russia and India.

However, this didn’t stop Colombian president Gustavo Petro declaring Trump a foe of humanity, and Chilean president Gabriel Boric from branding him a liar for his fatuous claim that climate change was a ‘con job’. As Lincoln might have said: you can fool most Americans most of the time - but the rest of the world sees Trump pretty clearly.

Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva stated bluntly that Earth ‘can no longer sustain humanity’s dependence on fossil fuels’.

The death toll from the use of fossil fuels is not confined to climate change – far from it. The bulk of it is down to air pollution, toxic food, water and homes, plastic pollution of our bodies, pesticides, drugs and other petrochemical byproducts. These claim the lion’s share of the 14 million deaths per year which the World Health Organisation says are attributable to the human living environment. But the climate toll is large and mounting, already in the millions.

Here’s what The Lancet said in its 2025 summary of health impacts, prepared for COP30: “Driven by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is increasingly claiming lives and harming people’s health worldwide.

“Of the 20 indicators tracking the health risks and impacts of climate change in this report, 12 have set concerning new records in the latest year for which indicator data are available.”

Heat deaths are the most publicly visible marker of climate impact. In recent years they have grown to around 546,000 per year, says The Lancet, up 63% since 1990. As to the cause “On average, 16 (84%) of the 19 life-threatening heatwave days that people were exposed to annually in 2020–24 would not have occurred without climate change.” So there’s not much doubt who those deaths are down to – the fossil barons and their political bootlickers.

Flood, storm, tidal surge, famine and other climate deaths are harder to attribute, but rising in lockstep with the planet’s temperature nonetheless. “The incidence of extreme (rainfall) days (which affect health and can trigger flash floods and landslides), increased in 64% of the world’s land surface between 1961–90 and 2015–24,” states The Lancet.

Meanwhile, it adds. a record-breaking 61% of the global land area was affected by extreme drought in 2024, which is 299% above the 1950s average, further threatening food and water security, health and safety, and inflicting heavy economic losses. So if you notice food prices going up at the supermarket, you know who (among others) to thank: the fossil barons and their political bootlickers.

Additionally, hotter and drier weather is increasing the incidence of wildfires. 2024 recorded a record-high 154 000 deaths from wildfire smoke inhalation. So you know who to thank when you start coughing up your lungs: the fossil barons and their political bootlickers.

Meantime, ticks and mosquitoes are on the rampage in our hotter, wetter world: the dengue transmission potential of mossies went up 49% in 2024, leading to 7.6 million cases in the first few months, while 364 million more folk were at risk of tick fever, according to The Lancet’s experts. So you know who to thank for your next bite: those ticks in the fossil fuel corporations and their political bootlickers.

Some may regard this analogy as a tad harsh but, seriously, that’s what ticks do – spread death and disease (like the delightful Crimean–Congo haemorrhagic fever) while busily sucking your blood.

And, with an argument even economists - the high priests of capitalism - might understand, The Lancet states the world lost $1.1 trillion last year, about 1% of its GDP, thanks to climate-driven declines in productivity, rising absenteeism and overstressed healthcare systems. Added to which is another third of a trillion in direct climate damage like big floods, storms, fires etc. As private insurance is increasingly refusing to pay for such losses, this cost is falling more heavily on the state and taxpayer. Again, thanks to those who sold an extra 1.6 per cent of carbon in the first place.

In the eyes of The Lancet, world leaders have basically turned their backs and blocked their ears to half a century of climate and health warnings: emissions are rising faster, forests are falling, more people are dying, adaptation and carbon cuts are on indefinite hold. Political agendas in leading countries have downgraded the priority of climate action by a half or more.

The “fossil fuel giants (including Shell, BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron) have paused, delayed, or retracted their climate commitments, increasingly pushing the world towards a dangerous future,” The Lancet added. Meanwhile the big banks contributed $611 billion to expanding oil, gas and coal output in 2024. And governments added a further three quarters of a trillion dollars a year in subsidies to fossil fuel corporates, despite many promising to cease the practice.

The ultimate price for all this, warns The Lancet, will be paid for in millions of human lives.

Meanwhile the Conclave of the Pernicious rumbles on, uselessly, with Turkey and Australia vying for the shame of hosting the next memento mori event, COP31 in 2026.

Links

Back to Top

Key Points

The federal parliamentary Liberal Party has formally abandoned a net zero by 2050 commitment.^[1]
The decision follows a marathon party-room debate and aligns the Liberals with the Nationals.^[2]
Leader Sussan Ley framed the change as prioritising affordable energy while remaining in the Paris Agreement.^[3]
Critics say abandoning formal targets risks diplomatic and legal problems under the Paris framework.^[2]
Moderate Liberals warned the move could cost urban seats and business support.^[5]
The Coalition will now negotiate a joint Liberal–National position before presenting it to the joint party room.^[4]

The federal parliamentary Liberal Party has formally decided to abandon its long-standing commitment to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Opposition Leader Sussan Ley announced the change after a protracted internal debate and a shadow ministry meeting.

The party said it will prioritise policies intended to lower energy costs and emphasise technology and voluntary markets instead of legislated long-term targets.

The decision brings the Liberals into line with the Nationals, which already removed net-zero language from its platform this month.

Party officials say Australia will remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement while not setting domestic long-range targets before an election.

Critics including legal academics and climate groups say the move risks international backlash and could amount to backsliding under the Paris framework.

Moderates warned the strategy may cost the Coalition metropolitan voters and damage business confidence in energy policy.

The Liberals have appointed representatives to negotiate a common Coalition position with the Nationals ahead of a joint meeting later this week.

What happened

A party-room meeting lasting several hours produced a majority mood in favour of removing a firm net-zero by 2050 commitment from Liberal policy. ^[1]

The shadow ministry then met and resolved to formally abandon the 2050 target while saying emissions would fall year-on-year in line with comparable countries. ^[1]

The Liberals announced they would also repeal parts of Labor’s 2030 emissions legislation and reconsider renewable energy targets if elected. ^[3]

Leader Sussan Ley framed the change as a shift to “energy abundance”, listing nuclear, gas and keeping coal plants operating longer as policy options. ^[3]

Why the party changed course

Internal pressure from conservative and regional MPs who view net-zero targets as a threat to traditional industries helped drive the shift. ^[4]

The Nationals’ earlier abandonment of net-zero language accelerated the Liberals’ move by making Coalition unity harder to sustain if the Liberals retained the target. ^[4]

Party strategists argue that promises to limit energy costs and resist mandated closures will play to concerns among regional voters and some working-class electorates. ^[2]

How the leadership explained the decision

Sussan Ley told reporters the party would not pursue a policy of net zero while stressing Australia would remain in the Paris Agreement. ^[3]

Shadow ministers said emissions would be reduced “as fast as technology allows” and by benchmarking “comparable countries”, but they did not publish binding interim targets. ^[1]

Dan Tehan, the opposition energy spokesperson, said the Liberals would “throw all technologies” at emissions reduction and create market mechanisms rather than legislated mandates. ^[1]

Immediate reactions

The prime minister and Labor described the decision as walking away from climate responsibility and said it would undermine investment certainty. ^[1]

Environmental organisations warned the move risks higher future costs from worsening climate impacts and slower clean-energy investment. ^[1]

Some moderate Liberals publicly warned they might resign frontbench positions or quit if the party fully abandoned net-zero language. ^[5]

Legal and diplomatic implications

Experts have flagged that unpicking domestic targets while remaining a Paris signatory could raise questions about whether Australia is backsliding on its nationally determined contributions. ^[2]

Observers note the Paris framework expects progression in climate commitments and that abrupt reversals can damage international credibility. ^[3]

Electoral and economic consequences

Political analysts say abandoning net-zero risks alienating metropolitan and business voters who have increasingly treated climate policy as a deciding issue. ^[5]

Industry groups seeking policy certainty have warned that changing long-term targets creates investment uncertainty for renewables, storage and heavy-industry decarbonisation. ^[2]

What happens next

The Liberal and National parties have appointed three representatives each to negotiate a joint Coalition climate and energy position ahead of a full joint party room meeting. ^[4]

If the Coalition hopes to present a single platform at the next election, it will need to reconcile competing priorities on affordability, security, and emissions reduction. ^[1]

Bottom line

The Liberal Party’s decision to abandon a net-zero by 2050 commitment is a deliberate political repositioning that prioritises energy affordability and Coalition unity over settled long-term climate targets. ^[3]

The choice narrows policy differences with the Nationals but raises questions about international obligations, investor confidence and the Coalition’s appeal in urban electorates. ^[2]

References