The Reckoning We Never Had: Why Scientists Are Calling for a Global Climate Risk Assessment - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Why scientists are calling for a global assessment of climate-change risk, 
and why the absence of one is itself a form of danger

Key Points

Despite decades of IPCC science reports, no internationally mandated global climate risk assessment has ever been conducted. 1 Scientists warn that IPCC assessments address the physics of climate but leave a critical gap in communicating the full scale of societal risk. 2 Cascading and interconnected failures, from heatwaves to food systems to infrastructure, remain severely underestimated in national planning. 3 Poorer nations and the Global South bear disproportionate risk, yet their lived realities remain under-documented in formal global assessments. 4 Researchers call for a new assessment model with cross-sector, interdisciplinary architecture that links directly to finance, infrastructure and policy. 5 Proponents argue the assessment must be designed to inform and empower, not paralyse, with clear communication of what humanity can still choose to avoid. 6

A Gap at the Heart of Global Policy

There is a question that sits, largely unasked, at the centre of every climate negotiation, every infrastructure tender and every government budget.

It is not how warm will the world get, but what will that warmth actually do to us?

The distinction sounds subtle.

It is not.

In late February 2026, a group of leading climate scientists published a commentary in the journal Nature making an assertion that is, on reflection, astonishing: despite decades of climate science, trillions of dollars in research funding and an entire global institution, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, dedicated to synthesising our understanding of a changing planet, the world has never conducted an internationally mandated assessment of climate-change risk.

Not a science assessment.

A risk assessment.

The difference is the difference between a meteorologist telling you there is a cyclone forming in the Coral Sea and an emergency coordinator telling you which hospitals are below the storm surge line, which roads will be cut, which communities cannot self-evacuate and how many people are likely to die if the levee fails.

The first is knowledge.

The second is the thing that saves lives.

Professor Rowan Sutton, Director of the UK's Met Office Hadley Centre and one of the paper's two lead authors, put it plainly in a statement released alongside the Nature comment: "Despite clear scientific evidence and repeated warnings, the world remains unprepared for the scale and complexity of these challenges."¹

The paper, co-authored by nine scientists and co-signed by a broader group of researchers, calls for a global assessment of avoidable climate-change risks, designed to tell policymakers and citizens not just what is happening to the climate but precisely what the consequences are, how severe they might be and, critically, which of those consequences can still be prevented.

What the IPCC Does, and What It Cannot

To understand the gap these scientists are trying to fill, it helps to understand what the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) actually does.

Established in 1988, the IPCC is not a research body.

It does not conduct experiments or gather primary data.

It synthesises published scientific literature into Assessment Reports, produced on roughly six-to-seven-year cycles, that summarise the state of knowledge about the physical climate system, the impacts of change and the options for mitigation and adaptation.

Its reports are authoritative, comprehensive and, when you read the underlying chapters rather than the carefully worded Summary for Policymakers, frequently alarming.

But the IPCC's mandate is to be a science assessment, not a risk assessment, and the two are not the same thing.²

As the Nature paper explains, a scientific assessment asks first what is expected to happen and then considers how it might affect society.

A risk assessment inverts that logic.

It asks first what outcomes would be catastrophic for society and then works backwards to determine how likely those outcomes are and what the range of possible trajectories looks like.

This is the methodology used in public health, defence, engineering and finance.

It is the framework that underpins nuclear safety regulation, pandemic preparedness and the design standards of bridges.

It has never, the authors note, been applied comprehensively to climate change at a global, internationally mandated level.

The proposed assessment would run in parallel with the IPCC process, not replace it.

Its purpose is distinct: where the IPCC documents what science knows with the greatest confidence, a global risk assessment would focus on what society most needs to know, including outcomes that are low-probability but high-impact, cascading failures that cross sector boundaries and consequences that existing national-level assessments consistently underestimate.¹

The Failures Already Visible

The case for a new approach is not theoretical.

Europe sweltered through a series of heatwaves in recent years that killed thousands of people and triggered wildfires that burnt more than 380,000 hectares of land in Spain alone.⁴

Heat killed tens of thousands across the continent in the 2003 European heatwave, yet mortality remained underestimated in national emergency plans for years afterward.

Governments that had flood defences did not necessarily have plans for what would happen to their water supply systems when the power grid failed during a concurrent extreme heat event.

They had not planned, in other words, for cascades.

Professor Tom Oliver, from the University of Reading and a co-author of the paper, described the problem this way: "Climate risks are deeply interconnected and can trigger each other in ways that aren't always obvious. Extreme heat harms human health directly, but it also drives drought and crop failure, which can lead to food shortages and civil unrest."⁵

The Nature paper cites the risk to food systems as one of the clearest examples of this interconnection.

Agricultural yields are threatened by changing precipitation patterns, shifting pest ranges, heat stress to crops, soil degradation and pollinators in decline.

These are not independent risks.

They compound one another, and a simultaneous failure across multiple breadbasket regions, something that existing national food-security assessments rarely model, could trigger cascading humanitarian and economic consequences across the globe.

Similarly, the authors point to the risk of mass casualties from extreme heat in cities such as Belém, in Brazil's Amazon basin, where modelling suggests that wet-bulb temperatures exceeding the limits of human physiological tolerance could arrive within the lifetime of children born today, under high-emissions scenarios.

Policymakers, the paper argues, may be broadly aware that heat deaths will increase.

They are not necessarily aware of the threshold at which conditions become unsurvivable without air-conditioning, the urban populations most exposed, the grid resilience required to sustain that cooling and the public health systems that would be overwhelmed in its absence.

That is the difference between knowing that risk exists and understanding what it looks like at the moment it materialises.³

Cascading Risks and the Limits of Siloed Thinking

The scientists argue that one of the central failures of current preparedness is that risk is assessed in silos.

The health ministry models excess deaths from heat.

The transport department models road damage from flooding.

The energy regulator models peak demand during hot summers.

What almost no authority models is the interaction between all three, simultaneously, during a compound extreme event in which the power grid fails, water treatment plants lose pressure, hospitals lose cooling and transport links are disrupted.

This is not a hypothetical sequence.

It is the sequence that has played out, in partial form, in multiple high-impact events in recent decades: during the 2003 European heatwave, during Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico in 2017 and during the Texas winter storm of 2021, when the failure of a single system, the power grid, precipitated cascading failures across water, heating, healthcare and food supply.

A global climate-risk assessment, the paper argues, would need to map these interdependencies explicitly, drawing on new methodologies that can model interconnected systems and borrow from risk frameworks used in the financial sector, security analysis and public health.²

The goal is not simply an academic exercise.

It is an operational framework: a living risk dashboard that finance ministries, city planners and disaster-management agencies can actually use.

Such a tool would need to be updated more frequently than an IPCC Assessment Report, which takes years to produce and is outdated in parts by the time it reaches publication.

The pace of climate extremes, the rapid evolution of clean energy technology and the emergence of social tipping points all demand a more nimble instrument, one capable of incorporating new data and revised assessments on a timescale relevant to infrastructure planning cycles and budget rounds.

Tail Risks and the Courage to Look

Perhaps the most politically sensitive element of the proposed assessment is its explicit intention to examine tail risks: low-probability scenarios that are nonetheless plausible and whose consequences would be catastrophic.

Multi-breadbasket failure, in which simultaneous crop losses across several of the world's major agricultural regions overwhelm the global food system, is one such scenario.

Regional uninhabitability, in which large parts of the tropics or subtropics become physiologically unsurvivable during summer months without mechanical cooling, is another.

The collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would commit the world to metres of sea-level rise over coming centuries, is a third.

Current national risk assessments, the paper argues, systematically underweight these scenarios, in part because the political incentive to acknowledge them is low and in part because the science, while pointing clearly at their possibility, cannot assign precise probabilities to events that have no historical precedent.

The Nature paper proposes handling this uncertainty through a framework borrowed from risk engineering: rather than asking for a precise probability, identify a severity threshold, such as five metres of sea-level rise, and assess how the likelihood of crossing that threshold changes as a function of time and of human decisions about emissions.¹

This is a more honest way of communicating risk under uncertainty.

It does not pretend to precision it does not have.

But it makes visible the shape of the danger and the degree to which human choices can alter that shape.

Equity, Justice and the Global South

The scientists are explicit that the proposed assessment must not replicate the structural inequities that have distorted global climate governance.

The IPCC has long been criticised for producing knowledge dominated by institutions in the Global North, assessed through disciplinary frameworks that can struggle to capture the lived realities of communities most exposed to climate change.

A farmer in the Sahel whose rainfall patterns have become unrecognisable over a single generation holds knowledge that no climate model fully captures.

A low-lying Pacific atoll nation that faces the loss of its entire territory to sea-level rise has a stake in how risk is framed and communicated that far exceeds its representation in existing global processes.

The Nature paper calls for the proposed assessment to actively embed local knowledge, loss-and-damage realities and adaptation limits from highly exposed regions, and to involve communities, civil society and Indigenous knowledge holders in the design, vetting and ground-truthing of the risk mapping exercise.⁴

David Obura, director of CORDIO East Africa and a co-author, brings to the paper a perspective grounded in the climate realities of the African continent and the Indian Ocean region, where the gap between formal assessments and lived exposure is stark.

The paper stops short of prescribing a specific governance architecture for translating global findings into national and municipal planning, though it implies that the assessment's value will depend entirely on its ability to cascade downward, into the budget cycles, infrastructure codes and emergency plans of the governments that need it most.

The paper also raises, without fully resolving, the tension between a process that names and quantifies vulnerability and the political resistance of governments that may not welcome the scrutiny.

Some form of risk-transparency mechanism, analogous to the peer review of national climate plans under the Paris Agreement, is implied rather than explicitly proposed.

Infrastructure, Finance and the Cost of Delay

One of the paper's most consequential arguments concerns infrastructure.

Roads, bridges, coastal defences, water treatment facilities and energy grids built or renovated today are being designed to engineering standards that reflect historical climate data, not the conditions those structures will face across their operational lifetimes.⁵

A bridge built in 2026 to a fifty-year flood standard may, by 2076, be operating in a climate where what was once a fifty-year flood occurs every decade.

This is not a hypothetical problem.

It is a systematic underinvestment in resilience that a global risk assessment could make visible and quantifiable.

The Nature paper aligns with growing concern among central banks, financial regulators and insurers about the systemic implications of climate-related financial risk.

The 2026 World Economic Forum Global Risks Report found that economic losses from weather and climate-related extremes have reached approximately $500 billion in Europe alone, with much of that damage remaining uninsured.⁶

The authors suggest that formal involvement of financial institutions in the risk assessment, through stress tests and risk product development, could help ensure that the findings translate into lending conditions, insurance pricing and investment criteria rather than simply remaining advisory.

This is the difference between a report that sits on a shelf and one that reprices risk in bond markets.

Communication, Fatigue and the Problem of Yet Another Report

The scientists are aware of the irony.

They are calling for a new global report in a world already saturated with global reports that have not catalysed the action they were designed to motivate.

The challenge of communication is therefore not peripheral to their proposal.

It is central to it.

Professor Peter Stott, the paper's other lead author and a climate scientist at the Met Office and the University of Exeter, argues that the world currently stands at a crossroads in global efforts to reduce emissions: "Bridging the current gap in global risk assessment is an urgent priority. An internationally mandated transparent assessment of avoidable climate change risks is essential to make clear the scale of the risks and the opportunities we have to avoid the worst-case scenarios and safeguard our shared future."¹

The framing of the proposed assessment as one focused on avoidable risks, rather than inevitable catastrophe, is deliberate and important.

Risk assessments can be paralysing.

They can also be clarifying.

The difference depends almost entirely on whether they communicate agency: not just what might happen, but what remains within human power to prevent.

The paper insists that a global climate-risk assessment does not provide a counsel of despair.

It gives a clear picture of the outcomes that societies can still choose to avoid.

This framing matters especially in the information environment of 2026, characterised by entrenched political polarisation, AI-amplified misinformation and a public that has absorbed decades of climate warnings without feeling the full weight of what those warnings mean for their own lives, hospitals, water supply and food systems.

A risk assessment that speaks in the language of consequence, rather than the language of atmospheric physics, has a different chance of cutting through.

It also has a different vulnerability to misrepresentation.

Tail risks, by definition, carry wide uncertainty bands, and uncertainty has historically been weaponised by those with an interest in delay.

The paper's proposed framework, which focuses on impact thresholds and the range of outcomes under different emissions trajectories rather than on point predictions, is designed in part to be resistant to this distortion.

Honest uncertainty, communicated clearly, is not the same as ignorance.

The Role of Journalism and Independent Media

The paper's implications for journalists and independent media are significant, if not fully spelled out.

A global climate-risk assessment of the kind proposed would generate a body of data and analysis that is, in principle, more directly translatable into the kind of reporting that connects with lived experience: not global temperature anomalies but local flood probabilities, not radiative forcing but the likelihood that a specific city's water supply fails during a compound drought-heat event.

If such a process were to involve open-access data tools and explicit partnership with science journalists and investigative reporters, it could enable a level of climate-risk reporting that has so far remained aspirational.

Whether that partnership is built into the governance architecture of any future assessment remains to be seen.

Conclusion: The Reckoning Still to Come

What the scientists who published in Nature in February 2026 are really calling for is a reckoning.

Not a new collection of frightening statistics, though some frightening statistics will inevitably be part of it.

Not another synthesis of what is already known, though such a synthesis will be necessary.

What they are calling for is an honest, internationally mandated, interdisciplinary account of what is actually at stake if the world continues on its current trajectory, and what remains within reach if it changes course.

The absence of such an account is not an accident.

It reflects the difficulty of producing it, the political discomfort of confronting its conclusions and the institutional gap between the science of what is happening and the governance of what to do about it.

Professor Sutton captures the stakes with unusual directness: humanity still has the opportunity to shape "a more prosperous, liveable future," but a global assessment of avoidable climate-change risks is what would enable political leaders and citizens to understand what is at stake, and to "seize that opportunity, while we still have it."¹

The clock, as every climate scientist knows, does not pause for institutional deliberation.

The question is whether the world's governments will commission a serious assessment of what they stand to lose before the losses become irreversible, or whether history will record that humanity had, and squandered, the information it needed to act.

The reckoning, in other words, is coming.

The only question is whether it arrives on our terms, or on the climate's.

References

1. Stott, P. A., Lo, Y. T. E., Marsham, J. H., Obura, D., Oliver, T. H., Palmer, M. D., Ranger, N., Sharpe, S. & Sutton, R. (2026). "We need a global assessment of avoidable climate-change risks." Nature, 650, 826–828. doi: 10.1038/d41586-026-00544-6
2. Sutton, R. T. (2019). "Climate science needs to take risk assessment much more seriously." Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 100, 1637–1642.
3. Oliver, T. H., et al. (2026). Interconnected climate risks framework. Global Sustainability, 9, e4.
4. Euronews. (27 February 2026). "The world remains unprepared: Why scientists are calling for a global assessment of climate change."
5. University of Reading. (25 February 2026). "Update climate change risks list to avoid worst impacts."
6. World Economic Forum. (2026). 2026 Global Risks Report: Environmental risks remain urgent.
7. Met Office. (25 February 2026). "Global call to action: addressing the critical gap in climate change risk assessment."
8. King, D., Schrag, D., Dadi, Z., Ye, Q. & Ghosh, A. (2015). Climate Change: A Risk Assessment. Cambridge University Centre for Science and Policy.
9. Gambhir, A., et al. (2025). Interconnected climate risk modelling. Nature Communications, 16, 7382.
10.  DIO East Africa. (25 February 2026). "Global Climate Change Risk Assessment."

Back to top

Warming Without Pause: How Rising Temperatures, Superheated Oceans and a Shifting Climate Are Remaking Australia's Land, Sea and Future - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Australia's climate is changing faster than almost anywhere on Earth.
The data now demand more than attention.

Key Points

Australia has warmed by 1.51°C since 1910, with most of that rise occurring after 1950, consistent with the global land average. 1 Sea surface temperatures around Australia have risen by more than 1°C since 1900, with the Tasman Sea warming at twice the global average rate. 2 Marine heatwaves are now longer and more frequent, triggering mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef even during La Niña years. 3 Seasonal outlooks show elevated temperatures across most of Australia, with southern and eastern regions facing heightened fire and heat risk. 4 Under high-emissions scenarios, Australia could warm by up to 5°C by 2090, with southern Australia facing severe winter rainfall declines. 5 Some impacts, including further warming and sea level rise, are now locked in regardless of near-term emissions cuts, underscoring the urgency of adaptation. 6

There is a moment, familiar to anyone who has spent a summer in western New South Wales, when the heat stops feeling like weather and starts feeling like a verdict.

The sky bleaches to white, the earth cracks in long geometric lines, and the air carries a faint electric quality, as though the landscape itself is under voltage.

It is a sensation older Australians are increasingly describing as normal, and younger ones as unremitting.

The numbers confirm what the body already knows.

Core Warming Indicators

Australia has warmed by 1.51 ± 0.23°C since national instrumental records began in 1910, according to the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO's joint State of the Climate 2024 report. ¹

Most of that warming has occurred since 1950, and every decade since then has been warmer than the one before it. ¹

This rate of warming is very close to the global average for land areas, while Australia's surrounding oceans have warmed roughly 40 per cent more slowly, meaning the land itself is pulling ahead. ¹

Extending the record back to the 1850–1900 pre-industrial baseline is scientifically contested territory.

The observational network before 1910 was sparse and geographically uneven, concentrated along coastal and colonial settlements, making early reconstructions of national mean temperature far less certain than post-1910 estimates. ⁷

Research by climate scientist Michael Grose and colleagues at CSIRO suggests that when the pre-1910 period is reconstructed using proxy and early instrumental data, Australia's total warming since the 1850–1900 baseline may be closer to 1.6°C, somewhat exceeding the well-characterised post-1910 figure. ⁷

The key uncertainty is that pre-1910 temperatures may have been warmer than some reconstructions suggest, which would reduce the apparent warming, or cooler, which would amplify it.

Scientists hold low-to-medium confidence in the pre-1910 estimates, and caution that data gaps over the interior are the single largest source of uncertainty. ⁷

The acceleration since 1950 is, by contrast, beyond scientific dispute.

Greenhouse gas forcing, rather than natural variability alone, is now understood to be the dominant driver of observed warming since the mid-20th century, consistent with global assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ¹

Australia's warmest year on record was 2019, and eight of the nine warmest years have occurred since 2013. ¹

In 2019 there were 33 days when the national daily average maximum temperature exceeded 39°C, more than in the 59 years from 1960 to 2018 combined. ¹

Very high monthly maximum temperatures that occurred under 2 per cent of the time in 1960 to 1989 are now occurring 11 per cent of the time, roughly six times as often. ¹

Regional warming is not uniform.

According to Climate Change in Australia projections, inland and northern Australia have experienced some of the most pronounced warming trends, while coastal zones have been slightly buffered by ocean temperatures. ⁶

At a global warming level of 1.5°C above pre-industrial temperatures, projections indicate substantial increases in extreme heat days across all Australian regions, with alpine areas in Victoria and New South Wales facing significant declines in snow cover. ⁶

At 2°C of global warming, those thresholds are crossed more severely, with the number of days above 35°C increasing sharply across inland Australia and the tropical north. ⁵

Sea Surface and Ocean Heat

The ocean surrounding Australia is, if anything, a more arresting story than the land. ²

Average sea surface temperatures in the Australian region have warmed by 1.08°C since 1900, a rate close to the global mean sea surface temperature trend. ²

Nine of the ten warmest years on record for Australian-region sea surface temperatures have occurred since 2010. ²

The highest average sea surface temperature on record was set in 2022, a year associated with a strong negative Indian Ocean Dipole event and mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, the first time such bleaching had ever been recorded during a La Niña year. ²

The geography of ocean warming around Australia is uneven and revealing.

The greatest warming has occurred in the Coral Sea and in waters off south-east Australia and Tasmania, where more rapid warming has been recorded over the past four decades. ²

In the Tasman Sea, the warming rate is now twice the global average, driven in large part by the southward extension and intensification of the East Australian Current. ²

That current, a warm-water ribbon flowing down the east coast from the Coral Sea, has pushed further south than it historically reached, carrying tropical species into cooler temperate waters, displacing cold-water fish populations, and creating conditions ripe for marine heatwaves. ⁸

For Tasman Sea fishers, the consequences are already commercially and ecologically tangible, with long-spined sea urchins expanding their range southward and devouring the kelp forests that once anchored coastal marine ecosystems. ⁸

Warming of the ocean surface has contributed directly to longer and more frequent marine heatwaves, defined as periods when temperatures sit in the upper range of historical baseline conditions for at least five consecutive days. ²

These events now persist far longer than they once did, sometimes spanning multiple months, and have contributed to permanent damage to kelp forests, seagrass meadows and coral reefs. ²

Below the surface, the picture is equally sobering.

The world's oceans have absorbed more than 90 per cent of the excess energy stored by the planet as a result of enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations. ²

In 2023, global ocean heat content reached its highest level on record, with an estimated additional 42.8 ± 1 × 10²² joules of energy compared with 1960. ²

The Southern Ocean, which sweeps around Australia's southern margin, has taken up more than half of that excess heat, drawing warmth from the surface into the deep ocean through its powerful circulation. ²

This subsurface warming commits the planet to continued sea level rise, because heat already stored in the ocean will continue to expand the water column for decades regardless of what happens to emissions at the surface. ²

The Integrated Marine Observing System, which operates a network of ocean monitoring buoys, moorings and floats around Australia, shows that regional ocean heat content in parts of the Southern Ocean is increasing several times faster than the global mean. ⁸

Short-Term Seasonal Outlook

For the immediate future, the Bureau of Meteorology's seasonal outlooks point to continued warmth across most of the continent. ⁴

The Bureau's probabilistic forecast maps show elevated odds of above-median maximum and minimum temperatures across southern, eastern and central Australia over the coming three to four months. ⁴

Above-average sea surface temperatures in the Indian Ocean and to the east of Australia are a significant influence on near-term rainfall and heat risk on land, tending to suppress cool changes and reduce rainfall over southern regions. ⁴

For agriculture, elevated minimum temperatures reduce the effectiveness of cold winter vernalisation in crops such as wheat and canola.

For fire risk managers, above-average maximum temperatures combined with reduced winter and spring rainfall translate directly into elevated fuel dryness and bushfire potential by late spring and early summer. ⁴

The interaction between large-scale climate drivers is complex and imperfectly modelled.

The current phase of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation is being watched closely, with models suggesting a return toward neutral ENSO conditions, but the Southern Annular Mode, which has trended positive since 1950, continues to push storm tracks away from southern Australia, reinforcing rainfall deficits in that region. ¹

The Indian Ocean Dipole, whose positive phase reduces rainfall in southern and eastern Australia by suppressing moisture-laden westerlies, also remains a source of uncertainty in the seasonal picture. ¹

Decision-makers should treat the Bureau's probability maps as statements of likelihood rather than certainty.

A 70 per cent chance of above-median temperature means there remains a 30 per cent chance of a cooler-than-median outcome, a distinction that matters enormously for agricultural planning and emergency management resource allocation. ⁴

Seasonal forecast models also have known biases, including reduced skill during transitional ENSO phases and in spring, when the Indian Ocean Dipole is developing, and users should consult the Bureau's explanatory notes alongside the headline maps. ⁴

Long-Term Outlook and Projections

The long-term picture is where the data become most confronting. ⁵

Under a low-emissions scenario consistent with strong global mitigation, Australia is projected to warm by approximately 1.0 to 1.5°C above the 1986 to 2005 baseline by 2090, with the range reflecting uncertainty in both climate sensitivity and emissions pathways. ⁵

Under a high-emissions scenario, the projected range reaches 2.8 to 5.1°C of additional warming by 2090, a number that would transform the habitability of large parts of the interior and north. ⁵

Regionally, inland Australia, the Northern Territory and western Queensland face the largest projected temperature increases under all scenarios. ⁶

The frequency of days exceeding 35°C is projected to increase substantially across all regions, with multi-day heatwaves becoming more intense and more frequent, and the intervals between them shortening. ⁵

Extreme rainfall events are also expected to intensify, even as average rainfall declines in parts of southern Australia, because a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture and releases it in more concentrated bursts. ⁵

The outlook for winter and spring rainfall in southern Australia is among the most consequential of all projected changes.

Climate models consistently project continuing declines in cool-season rainfall in the south-west and south-east, driven by the intensification of the subtropical high-pressure ridge and the southward shift of frontal systems. ⁵

Reduced winter and spring rainfall translates into lower soil moisture, reduced streamflow and diminished inflows into major water supply systems, including the Murray–Darling Basin. ⁵

Murray–Darling inflows have already declined substantially since the 1990s, and projections suggest further reductions that could require fundamental revision of water-sharing agreements and agricultural practices across the basin. ⁵

Global ocean changes are inseparable from Australia's land climate.

Sea levels around Australia are rising, driven by ocean thermal expansion and ice-sheet melt, and are projected to rise by up to a metre by 2100 under high-emissions scenarios, threatening coastal infrastructure, low-lying communities and tidal wetlands. ²

Ocean acidification, caused by the absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide, is reducing the capacity of reef-building organisms to form their calcium carbonate structures, adding a chemical threat to the thermal one already degrading the Great Barrier Reef. ²

Some impacts are now effectively locked in.

Further warming over the coming two to three decades is committed by the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, meaning adaptation is no longer optional but mandatory. ⁶

However, strong mitigation remains highly consequential for impacts beyond mid-century, particularly the probability of crossing the most dangerous warming levels and the frequency and severity of extreme events that occur thereafter. ⁶

Indicators, Communication and Policy Relevance

Among Australia's climate vital signs, scientists and policymakers most frequently cite national mean temperature, Australian-region sea surface temperatures, the number of marine heatwave days, forest and grass fire weather indices, and southern Australian winter rainfall totals. ¹

These indicators have the broadest downstream consequences, from ecosystem health and agricultural productivity to public health, energy demand and water security. ¹

The pace at which records are falling is itself a vital sign.

National temperature and sea surface temperature records have been broken with increasing frequency in recent years, a pattern inconsistent with natural variability alone and consistent with a system undergoing sustained forcing. ¹

Blind spots remain in the observing system.

The pre-1910 land temperature record is limited, particularly for the interior, and the deep-ocean heat content record before the Argo float era, which began around 2000, is sparse and uncertain. ⁸

Extended monitoring of subsurface ocean temperatures in the Southern Ocean, the Coral Sea and the Tasman Sea would significantly improve both seasonal forecast skill and long-term projection accuracy. ⁸

Adaptation planning has not kept pace with the science.

Current national policies on coastal planning, water infrastructure, agricultural support and urban heat management are largely calibrated to historical climate variability, not to the projected conditions of the 2040s and 2050s. ⁵

In the words of CSIRO's own assessment, Australia has already experienced increases in average temperatures, more frequent hot weather, fewer cold days, shifting rainfall patterns and rising sea levels, and more of the same is expected in the future. ⁵

Conclusion

Taken together, Australia's climate indicators describe a continent in rapid transformation.

The land has warmed by 1.51°C since 1910, with the pace of change accelerating since 1950 in a pattern that cannot be explained by natural variability alone.

The surrounding oceans, particularly the Tasman Sea and Coral Sea, are warming faster than the global average, generating marine heatwaves that are rewriting the ecological character of Australia's coastal waters.

In the short term, Australians face another season of above-average temperatures and elevated fire and agricultural risk, modulated by shifting ENSO conditions and a Southern Annular Mode that continues to drain rainfall from the south.

Over the long term, the projections demand a fundamental reckoning: with how cities are designed, how water is allocated, how coastlines are governed, and how agricultural systems are sustained in a landscape that will look, feel and function differently from the one Australians have known.

Some of that future is already determined by the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.

But the most dangerous possibilities, those at the outer range of high-emissions projections, remain within the reach of mitigation.

That distinction, between the committed and the preventable, is the single most important thing the full suite of indicators asks Australian policymakers and the public to understand.

The thermometer is not neutral. It is an instruction.

References

1. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology — State of the Climate 2024: Australia's Changing Climate
2. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology — State of the Climate 2024: Oceans
3. CSIRO — Marine Heatwaves and Coral Bleaching, State of the Climate 2024
4. Bureau of Meteorology — Seasonal Climate Outlooks
5. CSIRO — Climate Projections for Australia
6. Climate Change in Australia — Australian Warming at Global Warming Levels
7. Grose, M. et al. (2023) — Australian Climate Warming from 1850 (NESP Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub)
8. Integrated Marine Observing System (IMOS) — Long-term Sea Surface Temperature Around Australia

Back to top

Will climate change put women in the ascendant? - Julian Cribb

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)

In one of the more startling side-effects of global warming, the hotter it gets, the more babies are being born female.

The masculo-patriarchy are in for a fresh shock. 

Besides the massive decline in fertility, increasing gender confusion and loss of male identity that is roiling western manhood, there are now signs that one of the consequences of global heating will be a female majority human population.

That’s the evidence from a new study covering millions of births in 34 countries across India and Sub-Saharan Africa, places greatly affected by overheating. 

Essentially, UK scientist Dr Jasmine Ghany and team found that, the hotter it gets, the more the gender ratio at birth skews towards females.

As maximum temperatures climb above 20 degrees C, the tendency increases towards fewer male and more female births – even in societies that prefer boy babies.

The theory appears to be that extreme heat stress on the mother leads to a greater proportion of male babies dying in the womb. That these fatalities are natural, and not the result of sex selection by the parents, is supported by the strong preference for male offspring in the societies.

The irony in all this is that global warming, along with the other nine catastrophic threats to human civilisation and society, is almost entirely man-made. 

It is men who mine the oil, coal and gas, who fell the forests, clear the land, make and distribute the poisons that are disrupting human sex hormones, build the nukes and who lie, habitually and selfishly, about the consequences. 

Women tend to a somewhat more realistic view. 

Figure 1. Births per woman, 1950-2025. Source UN.

For example, women collectively have long understood or sensed the world is overpopulated, and have been methodically lowering the birth rate, almost universally (except in very poor societies), from 5 babies per woman to 2.2 over the past half century.

While superficially, scholars are inclined to ascribe the decline in female fertility to things like education, healthcare, careers and equality for women, it is hard not to suspect something is also happening at the species level – a Baby Bust reciprocal to the Baby Boom that followed the slaughter of 65-85 million people in WWII.

Simultaneously has come the near-panic among the aggressive males who form the modern pronatalist movement, largely led by men of business, (who seem not to grasp that societies with fewer children are richer and that business profit depends not on sheer numbers of consumers but on their ability to afford the goods and services on offer).

In the US, Donald Trump is offering a $1000 bribe to any US citizens who have a baby, while in Russia Putin – more thriftily – has revived an old Soviet custom by awarding a medal to any ‘mother-heroine’ who has ten babies. Hungary’s Viktor Orban is busy subtracting his citizens’ reproductive rights. In all, about 55 countries (of 196) have a strong pronatalist stance.

Figure 2. Total fertility rates, by country, 2024. Source: Population Reference Bureau.

The close identity of pronatalism with misogyny, coercion, religious patriarchy and female subjugation has disturbed many observers. 

 

Likewise, health experts argue it is “not only ineffective, but dangerous to the health and well-being of women and other populations and in direct conflict with modern reproductive goals, reproductive justice, and decades of efforts towards achieving gender parity.”

 

 This all raises the question whether pronatalism is, in reality, simply an emotional reaction by prominent males against their perceived ‘loss of manhood’ and ‘traditional’ male roles.

There are several ways to view the apparent decline in the male gender.

If one inclines to a Gaian perspective, one might be tempted to speculate that the Earth, as a Lovelockian biological meta-organism, is busy curbing the parasitic gender that causes the most harm to the natural balance of life. The hotter they make the planet, the fewer the human males it will tolerate.

Or, if the decline in male sperm counts continues at present rates, human male fertility may collapse globally by 2045.

One unanswerable fact is that males are the architects of their own misfortunes – not something the average male ego can easily acknowledge.

Take sperm counts and gender confusion, for example. There is very little doubt these are driven by the flood of toxic chemicals which a male-dominated petrochemical industry has unleashed over the past half century: plastics, pesticides, phthalates and hundreds of other endocrine disrupting substance are ubiquitous in modern industrial food, drink, clothing, homes and workplaces. But the men responsible seem neither to know nor care.

It is equally plain that global heating is driven by male-dominated industries such as fossil fuels, agriculture, forestry and construction. The fossil fuels sector, for example, is 86% male to 16% female in its composition, whereas women make up 32% of the renewable energy workforce.

From all of the above, it is hard not to conclude that women are better suited as leaders in a 21^st Century in which all of humanity is in peril from the 10 megathreats largely engendered by men.

As I have previously written in this column: “As a rule, women don’t start nuclear wars, dig coal, destroy landscapes and forests, pollute air and oceans or poison their children. They tend to think more about the longer term than do men, and about the future needs of their children and grandchildren. They tend to seek peaceful and constructive solutions to problems rather than fighting over differences in values and beliefs, or resources.”

For the past two centuries every war that ever got started was started by men, or by male-dominated governments – and not one of them by women, who have been among the chief victims among the 200 million dead, of militant manhood. 

Such a situation would be truly catastrophic for a humanity menaced by ten converging megathreats. Wars will not solve any of them.

In arguing that women should lead humanity in this century, it is neither a matter of gender nor politics. It’s one of the emerging rules of human survival. Left to male leadership the world will have autocracy, war, climatic collapse, environmental ruin and universal poisoning – just as it has over the past century or two. Despite this, only about 30 countries (15%) currently have a female head of state.

For humanity as a whole it is now a matter of choosing the kind of leadership which can best get us through the most dangerous emergency in all of human history.

Female thinking can save the planet, and humanity. And this means female thinking by men as well as by women.

But we also need a majority of wise women in positions of power if we are to escape the fate which male aggression, overconsumption and overpollution are building for us. And a majority female population, engendered by global heating, could just help to achieve that.

Julian Cribb Articles

• When the water runs out...
• The great dying
• Australia issues ‘terrifying’ climate warning
• 'Died of a delusion': the fate of modern civilisation?
• Collapse is near, scientists warn
• De-icing the Earth: a fatal human choice. 
• Rivers of Death
• Unlike politicians, thermometers do not lie
• Welcome to BunkerWorld: Home of the rich and fearful
•  Wisdom of the elders
•  The black work of Big Oil
•  Stealing the Breath of Life
•  The Earth Uncloaked - a catastrophe in slow motion 
  
•  Military experts warn of climate wars
•  Tackling the Earth Emergency
•  A distracted world marches steadily towards catastrophe

The Burning Premium: How Climate Change Is Pricing Australians Out of Their Homes - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Across a continent shaped by fire, flood and cyclone, 
the bill for a warming world is landing not in distant futures 
but in this year's insurance renewal notice.

Key Points

Australian home insurance premiums rose 14% in a single year between 2022 and 2023, the biggest annual increase in a decade, driven by record climate disaster losses. 1 1.6 million Australian households now face insurance affordability stress, spending more than one month's gross income on premiums, up from 1.24 million the previous year. 2 Northern Australia faces the country's highest premiums, with average home and contents costs exceeding $4,600 per year in north Western Australia despite a federal cyclone reinsurance pool. 3 The Climate Council estimates that one in 25 Australian properties could become effectively uninsurable by 2030, with 80% of that risk driven by river flooding. 4 Roughly 3% of Australian bank loan assets, equating to approximately $60 billion in loans, are tied to properties likely to face unaffordable insurance, threatening financial system stability. 5 Parametric insurance and AI-driven risk modelling are emerging as potential tools for covering previously uninsurable climate risks, but significant equity and access gaps remain. 6

The envelope arrived in January, as it always does, bearing the name of a well-known insurer and the quiet menace of an annual renewal.

For a homeowner in Townsville, north Queensland, the figure inside had risen again, this time by more than 20 per cent on the previous year.

She had not made a claim. Her house had not flooded.

But the wet season had been brutal elsewhere in the region, and the insurer's algorithms had recalculated her risk along with everyone else's.

She is not alone, and her experience is not unusual.

Across Australia, the intersection of a warming climate and a hardening global insurance market is producing costs that are beginning to exceed what ordinary households can bear.

The story of climate change and insurance is, at its core, a story about who pays for a problem they did not cause and whether the structures that once protected Australians from disaster can continue to do so.

A Record of Losses

In 2022, major floods inundated much of eastern Australia's coastline and river plains, triggering insured losses of $7 billion, almost double the previous record. ¹

That single year's bill reshaped the pricing decisions of every major insurer operating in the country.

Between 2022 and 2023, the average home insurance premium in Australia rose by 14 per cent, the largest single-year increase in a decade. ¹

The McKell Institute has modelled that the direct cost of natural disasters in Australia could reach $35 billion per year in 2022 dollars by mid-century, an average of more than $2,500 per household per year. ¹

Yet averages, as actuaries are fond of noting, conceal more than they reveal.

For households in high-risk flood zones, cyclone corridors or bushfire-prone valleys, insurance costs are already multiples of the national average.

The 2019-20 summer, remembered as the Black Summer, saw general insurers pay out $3.89 billion across more than 300,000 claims from bushfires, floods and storms. ⁴

Since 2013, insured losses in every single year have exceeded the combined losses of the five years from 2000 to 2004. ¹

The trend is not cyclical.

It is structural.

The Reinsurance Transmission Belt

To understand why premiums rise even for households far from the most recent disaster, one must understand reinsurance, the system by which insurers themselves buy insurance against catastrophic losses.

Global reinsurers, having absorbed mounting losses from extreme weather events across Europe, Asia and the Americas, have tightened their pricing and reduced their capacity. ⁷

This global hardening transmits directly into Australian premium pricing.

Higher costs for reinsurance mean that primary insurers, the ones who sell policies to homeowners, must charge more, or accept losses they cannot sustain.

The Australian Prudential Regulation Authority's data shows that housing insurance underwriting has been unprofitable since 2019-20. ¹

This is a critical finding, because it dispels any simple narrative about insurer profiteering.

Premiums are rising not because companies are extracting excess margins, but because the underlying risk has genuinely, materially increased.

Building cost inflation, driven by post-pandemic supply chain pressures, accounts for roughly half of recent premium increases in isolation, but when compounded with climate-driven catastrophe frequency, the combined effect has been severe. ⁸

Sharanjit Paddam, Principal in Climate Analytics at actuarial firm Finity and one of Australia's most cited researchers on insurance affordability, has described the feedback loop clearly: worse climate events lead to higher reinsurance costs, which lead to higher premiums, which lead more households to drop cover, which concentrates risk further among those who remain insured.

The Affordability Precipice

In the year to March 2023, median home insurance premiums rose by 28 per cent to $1,894, with properties in the highest-risk zones — flood-prone areas, bushfire corridors — recording increases of 50 per cent. ⁸

By March 2024, the share of households in what researchers term "affordability stress", spending more than one month's gross income on home insurance, had risen to 15 per cent, up from 12 per cent the previous year. ²

That equates to 1.6 million households, up from 1.24 million twelve months earlier. ²

For those households, insurance costs average 8.8 weeks of income, more than seven times the national median. ⁸

As of 2023, one in 20 Australian households was underinsured, and about one in 30 had no insurance at all. ⁹

That equates to more than two million people living without adequate cover in a country that experiences some of the world's most destructive climate events.

A 2025 Climate Council poll found that 46 per cent of Australians with home insurance reported that extreme weather had already increased their premiums, while 54 per cent feared that cover would become unaffordable or unavailable in their location. ⁹

In 2025, Australians paid up to $700 more for home and contents premiums than in 2024. ⁹

The Geography of Risk

The premium map of Australia increasingly reflects its climate map.

In north Western Australia, average home and contents premiums now exceed $4,600 per year. ³

In the Northern Territory and north Queensland, average premiums exceed $3,000 per year, more than 60 per cent above the national median. ³

Strata insurance in north Western Australia averages more than $18,000 per policy, an increase of 18 per cent in a single year. ³

The Queensland state is deemed the most at risk of an imminent insurance crisis, with five of the ten most vulnerable areas nationally located there. ⁴

Rural and remote communities face additional challenges that compound the raw premium cost.

Sparse infrastructure means that when disaster strikes, rebuilding takes longer, builders charge more for remote work, and supply chains are less resilient.

Indigenous communities, which are disproportionately located in remote and climate-exposed regions, face the intersection of geographic risk, limited market competition and historical underinvestment in mitigation infrastructure.

Lower-income households more broadly tend to live in higher-risk areas precisely because land in those areas has historically been cheaper, a pattern that climate change is now converting into a trap, as Finity's Paddam has observed in his affordability research. ¹⁰

The Cyclone Pool: A Partial Remedy

In response to the acute affordability crisis in northern Australia, the federal government established the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool in 2022, administered by the Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation and backed by a $10 billion government guarantee. ¹¹

The pool provides reinsurance to insurers for cyclone and related flood damage without a profit margin, reducing the cost of reinsurance that insurers pass on to consumers.

By the time all large insurers had joined by the end of 2023, the pool had begun to deliver modest relief.

The ACCC's fourth annual insurance monitoring report found that average premiums in medium to high cyclone risk areas decreased by 11 per cent compared to pre-pool pricing, with the most prominent reductions in Mackay, Cairns and Townsville, where median premiums fell by approximately 15 per cent. ³

However, the pool's limitations are significant and well-documented.

RACQ, a major Queensland insurer, reported that one in two cyclones over the preceding 40 years would not have been substantially covered by the pool as designed. ¹²

The National Insurance Brokers Association has noted that the pool fails to address insurance-based taxes, with Queensland alone expected to collect more than $2 billion in stamp duty from insurance premiums by the 2027-28 financial year. ¹³

Taxes of this kind can add up to 18 per cent to premium costs, a burden that disproportionately falls on those in highest-risk areas. ⁷

The cyclone pool illustrates both the potential and the insufficiency of targeted government intervention.

It has helped at the margins, but the structural forces driving premiums upward are broader than any single policy mechanism can address.

Regulation, Transparency and the Limits of Markets

Insurers are under no legal obligation to explain the climate-related rationale behind specific premium increases in terms that consumers can interrogate or contest.

The result is a market characterised by opaque pricing, where households are told only the new figure, not the model behind it.

The APRA Insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment, commenced in July 2023, represents the most systematic attempt yet to model how insurance affordability may change between now and 2050 under different emissions scenarios. ¹⁴

Its findings, which draw on the inputs of major reinsurers including Munich Re and Swiss Re as well as climate scientists, are intended to inform regulatory responses.

The Actuaries Institute has called for a comprehensive policy suite including targeted subsidies, tax reform and risk-reduction infrastructure investment to address affordability in the near term. ⁸

The National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework provides a policy architecture for mitigation investment, but its implementation has been uneven and its funding commitments insufficient relative to the scale of risk now being priced into insurance markets.

The Insurance Council of Australia has called for enhanced land-use planning, stricter building codes and increased investment in flood defences and home-hardening measures as structural solutions. ²

There are genuine limits to what government can do without distorting the risk signals that insurance pricing provides.

If premiums are subsidised heavily enough that they no longer reflect hazard, communities and individuals lose the financial incentive to avoid high-risk locations or invest in resilience.

Yet if premiums are allowed to rise without limit or constraint, the social consequences are severe: uninsured households, collapsed property values, stranded mortgage holders and governments forced to fund recovery from public funds without the efficiency of a functioning insurance market.

Property Values, Mortgages and the Financial System

The consequences of unaffordable insurance extend well beyond individual households.

A 2024 Climate Valuation report warned that flooding exacerbated by climate change could leave communities in Australian suburbs without access to affordable insurance or mortgage lending, services it described as critical to a functioning property market. ¹⁵

Finity research has estimated that roughly 3 per cent of Australian bank loan assets are tied to properties likely to have unaffordable insurance. ⁵

That equates to approximately $60 billion in loans.

Actuary Sharanjit Paddam has stated that if those loans were to fail, the outcome "would cause a severe crisis for the banking system in Australia." ⁵

Banks are already beginning to incorporate climate risk into mortgage lending assessments, and some are moving toward denial of loans for properties in areas where insurance is unavailable.

The risk of a contagion effect is real: as buyers discover that properties cannot be insured, sellers find themselves unable to realise value, property prices fall, and the damage spreads to adjacent areas through the mechanism of perception alone.

The Climate Council's estimate that 1 in 25 Australian properties could become effectively uninsurable by 2030, with 80 per cent of that risk attributable to river flooding, suggests the contagion could arrive sooner than most financial regulators have modelled. ⁴

The Algorithm and the Actuary

Climate models are now central to the actuarial forecasting that determines what households pay for cover.

Insurers are deploying AI and big data tools to price individual properties with a precision that was impossible a decade ago.

This individualised approach means that two houses on the same street can receive dramatically different premiums based on subtle differences in elevation, drainage, construction type or proximity to a watercourse. ⁷

The methodological sophistication is genuine and represents a more accurate translation of risk into price.

But accuracy and equity are not the same thing.

A household that finds itself in a high-risk location, not by choice but by the constraints of income, has limited ability to respond to actuarially precise pricing.

UNSW's Dr Fei Huang, a senior lecturer in risk and actuarial studies, has proposed a multidisciplinary ethical framework that draws from actuarial science, climate science, philosophy, social science and economics to assess the justice implications of insurance pricing decisions. ¹⁰

The question she poses, who bears the cost of insurance affordability, and is that distribution just?, is one that markets alone cannot answer.

New Products and the Adaptation Horizon

Industry and researchers are exploring models beyond the conventional annual premium structure.

Parametric insurance pays a predetermined sum when a specific trigger, such as a cyclone reaching a defined wind speed or a flood exceeding a certain gauge level, is met, without requiring an assessment of individual property damage. ⁶

Advances in satellite technology and artificial intelligence are enabling parametric products to cover risks across large areas, including farms, municipalities and coastal communities, that would be prohibitively expensive to assess individually. ⁶

Community risk pools, in which groups of households share risk collectively rather than purchasing individual policies, represent another model under active consideration.

The Actuaries Institute's Elayne Grace has described sustainable finance as a critical part of the solution, arguing that better data and climate risk frameworks can create pathways for households, investors, insurers and lenders that allow government to focus support on those in greatest need. ²

Insurers that offer discounts on premiums for home-hardening measures, such as cyclone-rated roofing, flood barriers or ember-resistant construction, are beginning to create financial incentives aligned with physical risk reduction.

The ARPC cyclone pool itself includes a discount mechanism for properties that implement recognised mitigation measures, though the ACCC has noted that uptake remains limited. ³

Conclusion: A Country Repricing Itself

Australia is, in the language of finance, in the process of repricing itself.

The cost of living in a place that floods, burns or blows away with increasing frequency is being written, line by line, into the insurance contracts that underpin the country's housing system, its banking system and its social fabric.

The process is not orderly, and it is not equitable.

Those least responsible for the emissions that have accelerated this risk are, in many cases, bearing the highest costs: residents of northern Queensland, remote Indigenous communities, lower-income households in flood-prone areas on the urban fringe.

The federal cyclone pool is a meaningful but insufficient intervention.

Tax reform, land-use planning, building standards and sustained infrastructure investment in risk reduction are the structural levers that can change the trajectory, but they require sustained political commitment that has so far not materialised at the necessary scale.

If emissions trajectories do not change markedly, the McKell Institute's projection of $35 billion in annual natural disaster costs by mid-century will render parts of the country not merely expensive to insure but simply uninsurable in the conventional sense.

Insurance is a mechanism for sharing risk across time and across populations.

When risk becomes certainty, insurance ceases to function.

The question Australia faces is not whether climate change is repricing its housing stock - it already is - but whether policy, innovation and collective will can keep enough of the country within the boundaries of insurability to prevent the kind of cascading failures that would leave the most vulnerable households, and ultimately the broader economy, without the buffer that insurance has always provided.

The renewal notice will keep arriving.

The only question is whether Australians will be able to afford what is inside.

References

1. The Australia Institute (2024) — Premium Price: The Impact of Climate Change on Insurance Costs
2. Insurance Business Australia (2024) — Soaring Premiums Push 1.6 Million Aussie Households into Insurance Crisis
3. ACCC (2025) — Cyclone Reinsurance Pool Lowering Premiums in High Risk Areas but Affordability Concerns Remain
4. World Economic Forum (2022) — Climate Change Is Causing an Insurance Crisis in Australia (citing Climate Council, Uninsurable Nation)
5. Green Central Banking (2025) — Australia's Insurance Gap Is a Risk to the Financial System
6. World Economic Forum (2025) — How Parametric Insurance Is Building Climate Resilience
7. UNSW BusinessThink (2024) — Factors Behind Home Insurance Premium Increases, Dr Fei Huang
8. Insurance Business Australia (2023) — The Home Insurance Affordability Stress Facing Australian Households (Actuaries Institute / Finity)
9. Climate Council (2025) — New Poll Reveals Climate Stress Hitting Aussie Homeowners
10. UNSW BusinessThink (2024) — Home Insurance Is on the Rise. Is There an Affordable Solution?
11. Australian Reinsurance Pool Corporation — The Cyclone Pool
12. RACQ (2025) — Opening Statement to the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool Public Hearing
13. NIBA (2025) — NIBA Responds to ACCC Cyclone Reinsurance Pool Insurance Monitoring Report
14. APRA (2024) — Insurance Climate Vulnerability Assessment
15. Green Central Banking (2025) — Australia and NZ Face Home Insurance Crisis Due to Climate, Experts Warn

Back to top