Geelong 2050: Rising Heat, Floods, and Fires Threaten the City’s Future - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Geelong faces rising heat, floods,
fires, and coastal threats by 2050

The projected impacts of climate change on Geelong, Victoria, by 2050 will radically reshape every facet 
of the city, from the weather and ecology to its economy and daily life.¹

Key Points
Days over 35°C may double by 2050 in Geelong.	1
Sea level rise of at least 24cm expected by 2050.	2
Statewide emissions reduction targets: 75–80% below 2005 by 2035, net zero by 2045.	3
Heatwaves, drought, and bushfire will increase in frequency and severity.	4
Geelong’s current strategy prioritises climate action, renewable energy, and a circular economy.	5
Without rapid new action, climate hazards could double and costs soar.	6

Geelong must adapt quickly or face escalating climate dangers by 2050.

Residents will feel the bite of more frequent and longer heatwaves.¹

Experts project that days exceeding 35°C may double in number for communities across southeastern Australia by 2050, and Geelong will not be spared.¹

Heat stress will threaten the health of vulnerable populations, increasing ambulance callouts and emergency room visits.¹

The expanded risk of bushfire, even this close to the coast, will disrupt urban services and public events, forcing schools to close and putting neighbourhoods on edge.⁴

Mental health strains—driven by climate anxiety and the stress of adapting to uncertain seasons—will become common.⁶

Flood risk will increase, especially for parts of the city built along low-lying creeks and the Barwon River, raising insurance costs and forcing new social policies in housing and risk management.⁴

As these hazards accelerate, equitable adaptation and community resilience strategies will be necessary to protect those most at risk.⁶

Economic Impacts

Geelong’s economy is uniquely diversified, but climate disruption threatens all its pillars.

The Victorian Government’s emission reduction targets provide scope for future job growth in renewable energy, zero-carbon transport, and land restoration.³

Manufacturing, logistics, and agriculture will need to adapt as temperatures and rainfall patterns shift: heatwaves will disrupt supply chains and force up cooling costs, while water scarcity could hit agricultural yields hard.⁴

Floods and fires will periodically damage infrastructure, require expensive upgrades, and stress insurance and recovery budgets.⁴

Meanwhile, opportunities will emerge for climate-tech start-ups, circular economy initiatives, and restoration projects that can help Geelong transition towards a “net-zero” future.⁵

Every dollar spent on adaptation in 2025 could save multiples by mid-century, but only if ambitious policy and local business action continues.³

Ecological Impacts

Already, Geelong’s coastal ecology faces mounting pressure from the warming climate.

By 2050, average temperatures are likely to rise by at least 1.5°C above the 1960-1990 baseline, with regional projections warning that 2°C may be reached if global emissions remain high.¹

Native vegetation, including wetlands and coastal reserves, will be threatened by shifting rainfall patterns and sea level rise—24cm is a baseline projection for the Victorian coast by mid-century, with greater rises possible.²

Increased bushfire risk will damage woodland biodiversity and force changes in wildlife corridors and habitat conservation.⁴

Estuaries and coastal waters will experience higher salinity and lower oxygen levels, stressing fisheries and reducing the resilience of saltmarshes and mangroves.²

Without immediate ecological restoration and managed retreat at vulnerable sites, losses to biodiversity and ecosystem services are likely to accelerate.⁵

Political Impacts

Victoria has legislated aggressive emissions reduction targets: 28–33% below 2005 levels by 2025, 45–50% by 2030, 75–80% by 2035, and net zero by 2045.³

Geelong’s own climate plan aligns with these, prioritising renewable energy uptake, circular economy action, sustainable cities, and climate-safe building standards.⁵

However, gaps remain between goals and real action.

While emissions have fallen statewide, continued political mobilisation is needed so regional cities like Geelong receive sustained investment and policy attention—even as climate hazards worsen.³

By 2050, climate politics will increasingly drive local government strategies, influence election platforms, and reshape spending priorities in housing, health, and urban design.³

Regional adaptation must focus as much on “justice”—not just energy or emissions—as vulnerable communities will need the strongest protections.⁶

Cultural Impacts

Geelong’s unique coastal lifestyle is at risk, as cherished beach events, community sports, and outdoor festivals become more vulnerable to extreme weather.

Sea level rise will reshape the city’s foreshore, imposing costs on heritage conservation and requiring stronger community-led stewardship.²

Festivals and surf culture may see disruptions, forcing new traditions to form in response to unseasonable storms and heat.⁴

Climate change will redefine storytelling—artists, journalists, and educators in Geelong will help to forge new narratives of hope, resilience, and activism.⁵

Australian culture will increasingly measure itself not by the absence of disaster, but by the ingenuity shown to adapt and thrive under new climatic conditions.⁶

Weather and Hazards

By 2050, projections see Geelong’s annual temperature increasing up to 2°C above the historical mean, with a trend toward longer and more severe heatwaves.¹

Rainfall will likely decrease overall, with drier winters but potentially more extreme downpours producing flash floods.¹

Fire weather days will become more frequent, and bushfire risk will extend into months previously considered “safe”.¹

Sea level rise of at least 24cm is locked in for the Victorian coast; further increases are possible if emissions remain high.²

Extreme events—storms, heatwaves, floods—will become the “new normal,” demanding much more robust emergency planning and built environment adaptation.⁶

Contrasting Current and Future Action

Geelong in 2025 is mobilising fast—its sustainability strategy stresses urgent action and grassroots projects, aligning with statewide climate action plans.³

But many policies remain in early stages, including large-scale renewable uptake, circular economy infrastructure, and comprehensive resilient-city planning.³

To meet 2050’s challenge, Geelong will need to dramatically expand energy transition efforts, green its built environment, unroll nature-based solutions, and embed adaptive measures in transport, health, and public spaces.³

Inaction, or slow progress, will leave the city exposed to compound climate risks—from heat stress and power outages to ecological loss and culture shock.⁴

The window to secure a resilient, sustainable Geelong is closing fast, making every year’s action—and political courage—critical.

References

1. Climate Council: How hot will your neighbourhood be by 2050?
2. Climate Change in Australia: Victoria State Climate Statement
3. Victoria's climate action targets
4. Victoria's changing climate
5. Geelong Sustainability Strategy 2025 & Action Plan
6. Built Environment Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan (2022-2026)

Back to top

Wollongong NSW 2050: Hotter, Wetter, Wilder - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Wollongong faces rising heat, floods,
fires, and coastal threats by 2050 

Key Points
1.	Wollongong could see annual average temperature rises of up to 2°C by 2050 [1]
2.	The number of days above 35°C may more than double by mid-century [2]
3.	Coastal erosion and sea level rise threaten infrastructure and local beaches [3]
4.	Bushfire and flood risks are projected to sharply increase [4]
5.	Local government targets net-zero emissions by 2050, but larger transformation is needed [5]

Heat and Weather: The Rising Tide

Wollongong is expected to get hotter, with average temperatures rising by up to 2°C by 2050 compared to 1990 baselines.^[1]

Extreme heat days—those above 35°C—are likely to more than double, increasingly impacting public health, work, and leisure.^[2]

Respite from the nearby ocean will be less and less reliable, as heatwaves extend longer and humidity increases.^[2]

Wollongong Council has identified heat as one of the most direct existential threats to vulnerable groups, from infants to the elderly, and is aggressively studying adaptive building materials and community welfare strategies.^[2]

Rainfall, Floods and Drought

Rainfall patterns will shift in unpredictable ways, with less winter rainfall and heavier summer downpours forecast for the region.^[2]

Flood risk remains a major concern as intense summer storms occur more frequently, threatening stormwater systems and low-lying suburbs.^[2]

Meanwhile, increased drought conditions during other seasons will strain water supply, public greenspace, and even sports fields.^[2]

Council adaptation plans focus on stormwater management and public awareness campaigns to prepare residents for episodic extremes.^[2]

Fire and Bushland: Heightened Hazards

With hotter summers and drier winters, the threat of major bushfires is rising.^[4]

The Christmas-New Year Black Summer of 2019/2020, which devastated the Illawarra south of the city, is a bellwether for future risk.^[4]

Council’s adaptation roadmap calls for reviewing bushland management, including engagement with First Nations traditional burning practices, to build ecological resilience.^[4]

Erosion and Sea Level Rise

Climate models project sea levels along the NSW coast will rise by 0.2 to 0.4 metres by 2050, with even moderate scenarios producing measurable coastal inundation.^[3]

This threatens prized beaches, beloved cycleways, and ocean-front roads, as well as critical infrastructure like surf clubs and car parks.^[3]

More frequent and severe coastal erosion is anticipated, and Wollongong’s Open Coast Coastal Management Program is already working to adapt development and protections at key points.^[3]

Ecology and Biodiversity

Urban and natural ecosystems, ranging from the escarpment’s forests to the patchwork of coastal habitats, face a double onslaught of heat and salinity.^[2]

Native vegetation and city street trees, crucial for cooling suburbs, are being expanded, while sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion challenge wetlands and mangrove zones.^[3]

Invasive species and pest outbreaks are expected to worsen, threatening agriculture and native species alike.^[2]

Social and Economic Impacts

Social inequality could be exacerbated, as those lacking resources will bear increased burdens from heat, flooding, or rising insurance costs.^[2]

Housing, rental and property markets may fluctuate as high-risk coastal zoning is reevaluated by planners and banks.^[2]

The projected cost for coastal protection is substantial, affecting local government budgets, and insurance premiums on homes and businesses are already rising.^[3]

Cultural and Political Change

Wollongong’s unique culture woven through beachside life, surf clubs, and celebration of the outdoors will be tested by sea level rise and loss of access to foreshore amenities.^[3]

Traditional owners, community advocates, and youth are increasingly involved in planning and climate politics, creating both conflict and new forms of local resilience.^[2]

Public demands for climate leadership are growing, placing pressure on council and state representatives to set binding targets and act decisively on emissions.^[5]

Current Action Versus Future Needs

Wollongong City Council targets net-zero council emissions by 2030 and whole-community net zero by 2050.^[5]

Progress has been made, with investments in landfill methane capture, renewables, and electrification of council fleets.^[5]

Yet, experts warn that transformative social, economic, and infrastructure shifts beyond local government scope are essential to avoid the harshest futures.^[4]

Resilience requires not only emissions cuts, but also community adaptation: rebuilding for hotter, wetter, or drier weather, transitioning away from fossil energy, and protecting those most at risk.^[2]

References

1. NSW Climate Change Projections: Average Temperature
2. Wollongong Climate Change Planning Summary 2022
3. NSW Govt: Climate, Weather and Oceans: Sea Level Rise
4. Wollongong Climate Change Planning Summary 2022
5. Wollongong City Council: Climate Action

Back to top

Newcastle NSW 2050: Racing the Climate Clock - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Newcastle faces an escalating climate crisis
that is reshaping its economy and communities

Key Points

• Projected temperature rise of 1.2–3.6°C by 2050^[1]
• Hot days (35°C+) set to double or quadruple^[2]
• Winter rainfall to decrease up to 26%^[3]
• Sea level rise: 18–31cm by 2050^[4]
• Severe fire danger days will more than double^[5]
• Current climate policy focuses on renewables and emissions cuts^[6]

Newcastle, New South Wales, the bustling engine of the Hunter region, faces a future shaped by relentless climate forces.¹

Temperatures here are forecast to climb, with days above 35°C multiplying, and summers stretching into new territory by 2050.²

Rainfall patterns will warp, with winters expected to grow drier, amplifying water stress and reshaping local ecology.³

Sea level rise, measured already at 3.7mm per year, edges city streets and surf beaches closer to flooding and erosion. By 2050, Newcastle’s coastline could see the ocean 18–31cm higher than today.⁴

Fire weather will intensify, with the number of severe fire danger days projected to more than double in some seasons, reshaping the region’s risk profile and disaster resilience strategy.⁵

Climate action in Newcastle, vigorous but incomplete, faces enormous pressure, as local governments pledge emissions cuts and renewable energy expansion yet confront political, economic, and community challenges.⁶

Social Landscape: Communities at Risk

Rising heat will alter daily life, testing public health and amplifying the urban heat island effect.¹

Vulnerable populations - older residents, outdoor workers, and the homeless - face heightened risks from extreme heat and bushfires.²

More frequent fire weather events threaten homes on city edges and rural hinterlands, fuelling anxiety about personal safety and regional emergency preparedness.⁵

Water security will be challenged by shifting rainfall, stressing local supply systems and raising the stakes for efficient water use and infrastructure decisions.³

Social resilience projects are emerging, with councils coordinating to build stronger safety nets, but disparities persist between richer and poorer districts.⁶

Economic Crossroads: Industry and Adaptation

The Hunter economy, which is driven by mining, agriculture, shipping, and tourism, is sensitive to climate volatility.¹

Hotter summers and decreased winter rain risk crop yields, complicate viticulture, and endanger food producers who rely on stable seasonal cycles.³

Extreme heat will challenge productivity in outdoor industries, from construction to shipping and port operations, potentially increasing workplace health costs.²

Tourism and surf culture, vital to Newcastle’s identity, may suffer from rising seas and more frequent high tide floods, eroding beaches and damaging waterfront properties.⁴

Transitioning to a “circular economy” embracing innovation, cleaner energy, and resource reuse will demand major investment and training for local businesses and workers.⁶

Ecological Shifts: Struggling Biodiversity

Rising temperatures and disrupted rainfall patterns threaten native flora and fauna, amplifying stress on vulnerable habitats.¹

Bushland reserves, including Barrington Tops and Wollemi, face more frequent and severe fire events, raising concerns over long-term species survival and ecological integrity.⁵

Coastal wetlands and low-lying lakes, unique to the Hunter, will face seawater incursions and saline pollution as the ocean advances.⁴

Conservation and adaptive management, leveraging Indigenous knowledge and new refuges, will be pivotal in safeguarding what remains of the region’s biodiversity.⁶

Political Reality: Policy, Action, and Limits

Newcastle City Council is credited with progressive climate action—100% renewables for operations, hefty emissions cuts, and ambitious goal-setting for community-wide change by 2030.⁶

Local government collaborates via the Hunter Joint Organisation, yet action remains constrained by state and national policy gaps and political gridlock over fossil fuel transition.⁶

A new 2025 Climate Action Plan aims to accelerate adaptation and emissions reductions, but tough trade-offs loom for coal, heavy industry, and investment priorities.⁶

Culture: Identity, Memory, and Hope

Climate stress is reshaping Newcastle’s social and cultural fabric, as coastal residents, Indigenous communities, and newcomers re-negotiate their connections to place.¹

Surf lifesavers, artists, and activists are already redefining local traditions, drawing on collective memory and new technology to prepare for a transformed coast.⁴

The push for community-led renewable projects and knowledge-sharing brings hope, but also raises hard questions: Who benefits? What is protected? Who decides?⁶

What Must Change?

To avert worst-case impacts, Newcastle must scale up: rapid emission cuts, aggressive local planning for disasters, nature-based adaptation, and radical inclusivity in decision-making.⁶

Indigenous leadership and cultural knowledge need full integration into city planning, to ensure that adaptation is respectful, effective, and rooted in place.⁶

Stronger regional and national policy, matched with grassroots innovation, will determine whether Newcastle in 2050 is thriving or merely surviving against the tides.

References

1. Climate change in the Hunter - AdaptNSW, NSW Government
2. How hot will your neighbourhood be by 2050 – Climate Council
3. Rainfall and climate projections – AdaptNSW
4. Climate Change Impacts on Australian Beaches and Surf
5. The Critical Decade: NSW climate impacts – Climate Commission
6. City of Newcastle Strengthens Climate Action Plan; SolarQuotes: Newcastle Climate Action Plan

Back to top

Australia braces for escalating fire and flood disasters by 2035 under minimal warming - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Additional 0.5°C by 2035 will worsen fire and flood risks[1] Southeast Australia most vulnerable to bushfires[3] Flood risks rising in NSW, QLD, VIC and SA[5] Coastal properties face major inundation by 2050[6] Net zero by 2035 is essential[8]

Australia faces escalating fire and flood disasters by 2035 under just half a degree more warming.

An additional 0.5°C of global warming by 2035 is projected to significantly intensify bushfire and flood hazards across Australia, with major implications for public safety, ecosystems, and infrastructure.

Queensland and southeast Australia, including Victoria and New South Wales, along with urban and coastal communities, face sharply increased risks.

Without urgent mitigation and adaptation measures, increasing disaster frequency and severity threaten homes, livelihoods, and natural systems, with economic costs escalating into the billions annually^[1][2].

Intensified Fire Risks

Scientific assessments converge on a strong likelihood of more frequent, longer, and severe bushfire seasons due to warming and drying trends in southeastern Australia.

Regions such as eastern Victoria (including Gippsland), southern inland New South Wales, and urban fringes around Melbourne and Brisbane are especially vulnerable.

Fuel dryness will increase, fire seasons will start earlier and last longer, and the incidence of extreme fire weather including dry lightning and pyro-convection will rise.

This puts at risk the Blue Mountains, Hunter Valley, Maranoa in Queensland, and southeastern Tasmania, where large, unpredictable wildfires are expected to become more common^[3][4].

Growing Flood Dangers

Climate projections also highlight increased heavy rainfall events and flooding, particularly in northern New South Wales including Richmond, Tweed, Ballina, Lismore, and Clarence Valley which are prone to tropical cyclones and severe riverine flooding.

Flood risk is increasing in urban coastal areas such as Sydney’s Kurnell Beach and Bondi Beach, Melbourne’s Docklands and Kensington Banks, as well as Gold Coast and Adelaide suburbs facing sea-level rise.

Rapid urban growth on floodplains combined with overwhelmed drainage infrastructure further exacerbates this flood threat.

Coastal erosion and rising seas additionally threaten thousands of properties nationwide, with coastal homes within 150 metres of the shoreline at highest risk of inundation and becoming uninhabitable by 2050^[5][6].

Compound and Coastal Hazards

• The interplay of drought, fires, and floods will have a multiplier effect.
• Fire-scorched landscapes increase runoff and erosion, enhancing flood magnitude.
• Communities face repeated disaster cycles, stressing social and economic resilience.
• Coastal erosion combined with sea-level rise endangers major population centres and accelerates property loss across Australia’s coastlines^[1][7].

Adaptation and Policy Recommendations

Expert recommendations include deployment of improved early-warning systems for fires and floods, enhancing infrastructure resilience, enforcing planning restrictions in high-risk zones, and boosting social and ecological adaptive capacity.

A rapid transition to net-zero emissions by 2035 is critical to limit warming and avoid the worst projected impacts.

National policies must integrate emission reductions alongside development strategies that prioritise climate risk management and equitable community support^[2][3][8].

References

1. CSIRO, Climate projections for Australia ↩ ↩ ↩
2. Climate Council, 2035 Target Matters ↩ ↩
3. SBS, The climate change scenario that could leave Australia unrecognisable ↩ ↩ ↩
4. Climate Council, Climate vulnerable locations ↩
5. Realestate.com.au, Coastal flood risk in major cities ↩ ↩
6. Climate Council, Climate Risk Map ↩ ↩
7. Greenpeace, National Climate Risk Assessment ↩
8. Greens, 2035 Net Zero Target ↩ ↩

Back to top

Labels: climatechange,globalwarming,australia,bushfires,floods,coastalerosion,netzero

Climate Change Is Rewriting the Soundtrack of Nature - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Animals are changing their voices

as the climate crisis deepens

As climate change reshapes habitats, animals are altering the way they sing, call, and communicate

Key points

Climate change is reshaping animal communication [1] Noise and heat disrupt ecosystems and behaviours [2] Soundscapes reveal hidden stress in species [3] Australian wildlife already shows measurable changes [4]

The science of bioacoustics

Scientists are turning to bioacoustics, the study of sound in the natural world, to measure environmental stress.

By recording animal calls across habitats, researchers are documenting shifts in pitch, frequency, and rhythm.

These subtle changes reveal how warming temperatures and shifting ecosystems are altering life at a biological level ^[1].

Birdsong under pressure

Australian birds, from magpies to fairy-wrens, are changing their songs as forests thin and heatwaves intensify.

Some species are singing earlier in the morning to avoid rising daytime temperatures.

Others are reducing the complexity of their calls, which may weaken their ability to attract mates or defend territory ^[2].

The silence of frogs

Frogs are often early indicators of environmental decline, and their calls are falling silent in many regions.

Climate-driven loss of breeding wetlands and temperature stress reduces both the volume and frequency of their croaks.

Scientists warn that if these calls vanish entirely, it signals deep ecological breakdown ^[3].

Oceans growing louder

Marine species also face sonic disruption as climate change reshapes ocean soundscapes.

Warming waters increase underwater noise, while coral bleaching reduces the natural reef chorus that guides young fish.

Whales and dolphins are struggling to adapt, their calls increasingly drowned out by shipping, storms, and shifting sea chemistry ^[4].

Australia’s changing soundscape

Australia provides some of the clearest examples of how climate stress transforms animal communication.

From heat-stressed bats falling silent to altered birdsong across the outback, researchers are tracing how animals adapt or fail.

These shifts not only change ecological balance but also alter the cultural identity of landscapes long defined by their sounds ^[5].

Cultural and ecological loss

The decline of natural soundscapes is more than a scientific warning.

Indigenous cultures often encode ecological knowledge in animal calls, from the timing of frog choruses to seasonal bird migrations.

As those voices fade, both cultural memory and ecological resilience weaken ^[6].

References

1. Nature – The rise of bioacoustics in climate research ↩ ↩
2. Scientific American – How climate change is affecting birdsong ↩ ↩
3. ABC News – Australian frogs fall silent under climate stress ↩ ↩
4. The Guardian – Oceans are getting noisier, marine life is struggling ↩ ↩
5. CSIRO – Australian birdsong changing with climate ↩
6. BBC Future – The culture of animal communication ↩

Back to top

Scientists Denounce Trump Administration’s Climate Report - New York Times

New York Times - Lisa Friedman   Sachi Kitajima Mulkey

Scores of researchers reviewed the Energy Department’s argument
about greenhouse gases and found serious deficiencies 

 

A heat relief station at the Salvation Army Phoenix Citadel Corps.
Credit...Juan Arredondo for The New York Times

More than 85 American and international scientists have condemned a Trump administration report that calls the threat of climate change overblown, saying the analysis is riddled with errors, misrepresentations and cherry-picked data to fit the president’s political agenda.

The scientists submitted their critique as part of a public comment period on the report, which was to close Tuesday night.

“No one should doubt that human-caused climate change is real, is already producing potentially dangerous impacts, and that humanity is on track for a geologically enormous amount of warming,” the scientists wrote. They compared the administration’s report to efforts by the tobacco industry to create doubt around the health links between smoking and cancer.

The five researchers who prepared the administration’s July report were handpicked by Chris Wright, the energy secretary, and they all reject the established scientific consensus that the burning of oil, gas and coal is dangerously heating the planet. They acknowledged that the Earth is warming but said that climate change is “less damaging economically than commonly believed.”

The administration used the report to justify its recent announcement that it would repeal limits on greenhouse gas emissions that stem from burning fossil fuels.

Mr. Wright has accused the report’s critics of avoiding a robust discussion of the science.

“People had been much less willing than I had hoped to engage in a thoughtful dialogue on climate change,” he said in a recent interview. “This is fundamentally a story about something that’s a real physical phenomenon that’s scientifically complicated. It’s a scientific, economic issue and people treat it too often as a religious issue.”

The Energy Department declined to comment on the criticisms from scientists about the report. Ben Dietderich, a spokesman for Mr. Wright, said in a statement that the agency sought an “open and transparent dialogue around climate science.” He added, “Following the public comment period, we look forward to reviewing and engaging on substantive comments.”

The Trump administration is pursuing an aggressive agenda to ramp up the production and use of coal, oil and gas, the burning of which is the main driver of climate change.

At the same time, average global temperatures have risen by between 1.25 and 1.41 degrees Celsius (or 2.25 to 2.53 degrees Fahrenheit), compared with preindustrial times. That may sound small, but the warming has impacted every region of the planet with more frequent and intense heat waves, floods, wildfires, droughts and other disasters.

Ross McKitrick, one of the report’s authors, said that their climate work for the Energy Department had been paused because of pending litigation. He defended the report’s lack of peer review, saying that it underwent an initial review within the Energy Department. Critiques submitted during the public comment period will be part of the public record, he said.

Dr. McKitrick said that the report’s authors followed their assignment and focused on themes that do not typically get enough attention.

But the 85 scientists, many of whom produced work that was cited in the Energy Department report, said that the report should be discredited.

In a chapter-by-chapter rebuttal that essentially serves as a peer review, the scientists took apart some of the government’s most eye-popping claims.

“Their goal was to muddy the waters, to put out a plausible-sounding argument that people can use in the public debate to make it sound like we don’t know whether climate change is bad or not,” said Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, who led the rebuttal.

The Energy Department report could have a significant impact on federal policy. Climate denialists have for years acknowledged that they wanted to put the imprimatur of the federal government on research that runs counter to accepted climate science. That could give them more influence with Congress and strengthen their ability to legally challenge climate regulations.

Already the Environmental Protection Agency is using the Energy Department analysis to justify the repeal of the endangerment finding, a 2009 scientific declaration that climate change poses a danger to human health and welfare. That finding is the basis for regulations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from such sources as automobiles and power plants.

Dr. Dessler said he was driven to reply to the Trump administration report because he felt it made a mockery out of a fundamental and heavily scrutinized field of science.

By Tuesday morning, more than 2,300 comments had been filed regarding the report. Among them was a submission from the American Meteorological Society, a premier climate science organization, which outlined what it called “foundational flaws” in the report and called on the government to correct the findings.

Dr. Dessler’s 439-page report — nearly three times as long as the Energy Department’s — disputes each chapter of the agency’s findings. In many cases, the government’s version deploys a scientific “kernel of truth,” taken out of context, to make its arguments seem credible, he said.

For example, the Energy Department report states that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that helps plants grow, and therefore more gas would improve agricultural yields. The scientific review points out that the Energy Department report sidesteps the negative impacts of global warming on plant life, including extreme heat, drought, wildfires and floods.

In another instance, the Trump administration’s report cited two studies by Antonio Gasparrini, a professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, to support its statement that deaths caused by cold weather exceed those caused by heat.

While that is true, Dr. Gasparrini said, the report ignores the fact that climate change is increasing heat-related deaths, and at a greater rate than it would prevent deaths from cold.

“I found the report very poor from a scientific perspective, with contradictory and unsupported statements,” he said.

Cyrus C. Taylor, a physics professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, said a chart showing yearly average atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations omitted key data and made misleading choices on a graph to make it seem as though levels had risen only slightly.

“It’s a graphical sleight of hand,” Dr. Taylor said.

The scientists found other errors as they reviewed the federal report, including misquoting an international climate report, using incorrect scientific definitions and oversimplifying and mixing up the results of multiple studies.

Pamela D. McElwee, a professor of human ecology at Rutgers University, reviewed a section of the Energy Department report that claimed technological advances and wealth would protect communities from the impacts of climate change. It noted, for example, that improvements to canals, levees and flood gates in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina helped protect against the storm surge from Hurricane Isaac in 2012.

Dr. McElwee, who called the report “absolute sloppiness,” said it failed to consider future scenarios and the cost of climate disasters. The section on risks from climate change cited a 2023 paper that does not exist — and included a link to a different paper that concluded that nations should address climate change because the consequences would be damaging.

The Trump administration’s report also highlighted the work of Kristie Ebi, a global health professor at the University of Washington, as proof that dietary supplements would help combat nutrient loss from plants in a warmer world. But Dr. Ebi said her research did not make that claim.

Jim Rossi, a professor at Vanderbilt University in Nashville who specializes in energy law, said the report was significantly flimsier than what would typically be used to support federal policies or reverse them.

“There’s nothing wrong with having dissenting viewpoints that differ from the mainstream involved in reports used for policy assessments,” Mr. Rossi said. But to reverse course on a policy decision, the evidence “ought to be at least as strong as the factual record and science that supported the decision in the first place,” he said.

Links

• How Close Are the Planet’s Climate Tipping Points? - New York Times
• Climate Change Is Transforming Summer in Europe - New York Times
• The Old Climate-Activism Playbook No Longer Works. What Else Can? - New York Times
• Humans Are Altering the Seas. Here’s What the Future Ocean Might Look Like. - New York Times
• Scientists May Have Identified a Culprit Behind Declining Amazon Rains - New York Times
• Trump, With Tariffs and Threats, Tries to Strong-Arm Nations to Retreat on Climate Goals - New York Times

Three reasons why the climate crisis must reshape how we think about war

The Conversation - Duncan Depledge

Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock

Author Duncan Depledge is Senior Lecturer in Geopolitics and Security, Loughborough University, Leicestershire, England.

Earth’s average temperature rose more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels in 2024 for the first time – a critical threshold in the climate crisis. At the same time, major armed conflicts continue to rage in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan and elsewhere.

What should be increasingly clear is that war now needs to be understood as unfolding in the shadow of climate breakdown.

The relationship between war and climate change is complex. But here are three reasons why the climate crisis must reshape how we think about war. 

1. War exacerbates climate change

The inherent destructiveness of war has long degraded the environment. But we have only recently become more keenly aware of its climatic implications.

This follows efforts primarily by researchers and civil society organisations to account for the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from fighting, most notably in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as to record emissions from all military operations and post-war reconstruction.

One study, conducted by Scientists for Global Responsibility and the Conflict and Environment Observatory, has made a best guess that the total carbon footprint of militaries across the globe is greater than that of Russia, which currently has the fourth-largest footprint in the world.

The US is believed to have the highest military emissions. Estimates by UK-based researchers Benjamin Neimark, Oliver Belcher and Patrick Bigger suggest that, if it were a country, the US military would be the 47th-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world. This would put it between Peru and Portugal.

These studies, though, rest on limited data. Sometimes partial emissions data is reported by military agencies, and researchers have to supplement this with their own calculations using official government figures and those of associated industries.

There is also significant variation from country to country. Some military emissions, most notably those of China and Russia, have proved almost impossible to assess.

The US military is one of the largest polluters in history. Jeffrey Groeneweg / EPA

Wars can also put international cooperation on climate change and the energy transition at risk. Since the start of the Ukraine war, for instance, scientific cooperation between the west and Russia in the Arctic has broken down. This has prevented crucial climate data from being compiled.

Critics of militarism argue that the acknowledgement of war’s contribution to the climate crisis ought to be the moment of reckoning for those who are too willing to spend vast resources on maintaining and expanding military power. Some even believe that demilitarisation is the only way out of climate catastrophe.

Others are less radical. But the crucial point is that recognition of the climate costs of war increasingly raises moral and practical questions about the need for more strategic restraint and whether the business of war can ever be rendered less environmentally destructive.

2. Climate change demands military responses

Before the impact of war on the climate came into focus, researchers debated whether the climate crisis could act as a “threat multiplier”. This has led some to argue that climate change could intensify the risk of violence in parts of the world already under stress from food and water insecurity, internal tensions, poor governance and territorial disputes.

Some conflicts in the Middle East and Sahel have already been labelled “climate wars”, implying they may not have happened if it were not for the stresses of climate change. Other researchers have shown how such claims are deeply contentious. Any decision to engage in violence or go to war is always still a choice made by people, not the climate.

Harder to contest is the observation that the climate crisis is leading militaries to be deployed with greater frequency to assist with civilian emergencies. This encompasses a wide range of activities from combating wildfires to reinforcing flood defences, assisting with evacuations, conducting search-and-rescue operations, supporting post-disaster recovery and delivering humanitarian aid.

Chinese soldiers stacking sandbags in a flooded area of Hebei province. chinahbzyg / Shutterstock

Whether the climate crisis will result in more violence and armed conflict in the future is impossible to predict. If it does, military force may need to be deployed more frequently. At the same time, if militaries are depended upon to help respond to the growing frequency and intensity of climate-related disasters, their resources will be further stretched.

Governments will be confronted with tough choices about what kinds of tasks should be prioritised and whether military budgets should be increased at the expense of other societal needs.

3. Armed forces will need to adapt

With geopolitical tensions rising and the number of conflicts increasing, it seems unlikely that calls for demilitarisation will be met any time soon. This leaves researchers with the uncomfortable prospect of having to rethink how military force can – and ought to be – wielded in a world simultaneously trying to adapt to accelerating climate change and escape its deep dependence on fossil fuels.

The need to prepare military personnel and adapt bases, equipment and other infrastructure to withstand and operate effectively in increasingly extreme and unpredictable climatic conditions is a matter of growing concern. In 2018, two major hurricanes in the US caused more than US$8 billion (£5.95 billion) worth of damage to military infrastructure.

My own research has demonstrated how, in the UK at least, there is growing awareness among some defence officials that militaries need to think carefully about how they will navigate the major changes unfolding in the global energy landscape that are being brought about by the energy transition.

Militaries are being confronted with a stark choice. They can either remain as one of the last heavy users of fossil fuels in an increasingly low-carbon world or be part of an energy transition that will probably have significant implications for how military force is generated, deployed and sustained.

What is becoming clear is that operational effectiveness will increasingly depend on how aware militaries are of the implications of climate change for future operations. It will also hinge on how effectively they have adapted their capabilities to cope with more extreme climatic conditions and how much they have managed to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.

Soldiers delivering humanitarian aid. photos_adil / Shutterstock

In the early 19th century, the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz famously argued that while war’s nature rarely changes, its character is almost constantly evolving with the times.

Recognising the scale and reach of the climate crisis will be essential if we are now to make sense of why and how future wars will be waged, as well as how some might be averted or rendered less destructive.

Links

• Militarism: A Leading Cause of Environmental and Climate Crises
• Estimating the Military’s Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Threat Multiplier: Climate, Military Leadership, and the Fight for Global Security
• Military Responses to Climate Hazards
• Global Peace Index 2025
• The Utility of Force

Back to top