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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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)
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.
