Around the world, major cities
are hurtling toward a future where soaring temperatures, rising seas,
collapsing infrastructure, food shortages, and civil unrest could make
daily life unrecognisable — or impossible.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned the Earth is heading towards increased temperatures of more than 3C. This will have catastrophic effects for life on Earth. The areas shown in red on the globe will become uninhabitable by 2100, because of extreme heat, rising seas or tropical cyclones. The height of the red bars on the map show the current population now living in each of these future uninhabitable locations.
Cities Most at Risk Some cities face extreme risks from rising seas, intense heat, flooding, and
economic collapse.
Risk Level
Cities
🔴 Critical Risk
Miami, New Orleans, Venice, Jakarta, Dhaka, Basra
🟠 High Risk
New York, Cairo, Lagos, Phoenix, Delhi, Houston
🟡 Moderate Risk
Los Angeles, Bangkok, Karachi, Manila, Buenos Aires
Legend
🔴 Critical Risk: Severe threats from rising seas, extreme heat, frequent flooding, civil unrest, or economic collapse.
🟠 High Risk: Major impacts highly likely without significant interventions.
🟡 Moderate Risk: Noticeable impacts increasing but still somewhat manageable in the short term.
Note: Climate risks are evolving rapidly, and city-specific vulnerabilities may increase with time if global emissions are not significantly reduced.
Coastal Cities Facing Rising Seas
In Miami, Florida, the threat isn’t a distant forecast. "Sunny day flooding," where tides swamp streets even without rain, is already a regular occurrence (Washington Post). Sea level rise, compounded by stronger hurricanes and a collapsing insurance market, could force an exodus from one of America's fastest-growing metro areas.
Across the Atlantic, Venice, Italy is fighting a losing battle against the water that made it famous. Despite the installation of a $6 billion flood barrier system known as MOSE, frequent high tides continue to inundate the city (Reuters).
Jakarta, Indonesia faces a twofold disaster: rising seas and a sinking city. Over-extraction of groundwater has caused Jakarta to subside by up to 10 centimeters a year (National Geographic).
Heatwaves, Water Shortages, and Economic Collapse
Inland, extreme heat is turning modern life into a survival challenge. In Phoenix, Arizona, 2023 set records with 31 consecutive days over 110°F (43°C) (New York Times).
Delhi, India is grappling with life-threatening temperatures that could soon reach "wet-bulb" conditions — combinations of heat and humidity fatal to humans without cooling (Smithsonian Magazine).
Water scarcity threatens political stability too. Cairo, Egypt is feeling the effects of a shrinking Nile River (Al-Monitor).
In Basra, Iraq, summers regularly top 120°F (49°C), while saltwater intrusion into the Shatt al-Arab River has poisoned farms and drinking water (Middle East Institute).
Flooding, Food Insecurity, and Civil Unrest
Dhaka, Bangladesh faces chronic flooding and dangerous heatwaves, making it one of the world’s most vulnerable megacities (Al Jazeera).
In Lagos, Nigeria, repeated flooding threatens homes, transportation, and food supply chains (The Conversation).
Even cities accustomed to rebuilding are stretched thin. Houston, Texas is facing climate-fueled hurricanes and rising insurance costs (Bloomberg).
Conclusion: Early Warnings for the World
These cities are early warning systems. Climate change is not a slow, linear problem — it’s a force multiplier, accelerating financial collapse, humanitarian crises, and migration pressures.
Without drastic global action to cut emissions and invest in adaptation, a future where millions are displaced by the collapse of once-great cities is not just likely.
Where do the major parties stand on climate change?
As the election campaign draws to a close, it's safe to say both major parties have been quiet on climate change.
Energy
policies have featured prominently, which of course carry consequences
for climate change, but beyond generalities, climate has been
under-represented.
The last
election was dubbed by many "the climate election", which saw the teal
independents ride a wave of climate frustration into parliament, and a
promise from Anthony Albanese to "end the climate wars".
Once
again, the independents and Greens have been advocating for stronger
climate action, and in the event that Australia has a minority
government after May 3, climate change would be a key focus of any
negotiations.
During its last
term, Labor passed a number of significant reforms, especially focusing
on speeding up the transition to renewables.
Many
of these policies are under threat if the Coalition wins the next
election, promising to scrap or weaken them significantly.
"They
have rejected every single policy that's gone through the parliament
that would improve tackling climate change. They've just rejected it,"
Climate Council CEO Amanda McKenzie said.
"There
is not a single policy there to cut climate pollution. So what that
says to me is they are hell bent on continuing the climate crisis
getting worse and worse."
Tony
Wood, the Grattan Institute's energy and climate director, said
everything the Coalition announced so far would either slow down or curb
emissions reduction.
"I think
we're at one of those points where what happens at this election will
have enormous consequences, not just for the energy system, but also for
our emissions more generally."
The
Coalition’s climate platform consists of using nuclear energy to
decarbonise the electricity grid, despite its own modelling indicating
it will result in higher emissions between now and when any reactors
would come online.
What has Labor done for the climate?
CEO of the Climate Council, Amanda McKenzie. (ABC News: Supplied)
Labor
has made inroads in its last term of office on the regulatory and
policy framework that could guide Australia's transition to a green
economy, the often unsexy work of climate progress.
Some
of the changes introduced under the last government include: new laws
so that Australia's biggest corporations have to disclose their climate
risk and actions; strengthening the regulation of Australia's biggest
polluters; and introducing emissions standards for cars sold into the
country.
At the same time, it
continued to approve new coal and gas projects, disappointing climate
advocates such as the Climate Council's CEO, Amanda McKenzie.
"It's
sort of two sides of the one coin. You've got to grow the good stuff
and you've got to stop the bad stuff. We've been doing a lot of the
growing the good stuff," McKenzie said.
"We
need to continue doing all the good stuff around the clean energy, but
we need to work hard on replacing fossil fuels and exiting fossil fuels
from our system much more quickly."
Climate
policies matter because they send strong signals to investors and
companies about the path Australia is on, and also offer the structure
for how Australia could bring down emissions across the economy (whether
they do lower emissions remains to be seen).
While most of the focus has been on energy in this election, these policies are firmly in the Coalition's crosshairs.
"This
is a really interesting fork in the road. And I've never seen a
situation where we've had such a divergence of proposals from the two
sides of politics," Tony Wood said.
Cleaning up our transport emissions
Transport makes up more than 20 per cent of Australia's total emissions. (ABC News)
Last
week, the opposition leader confirmed that if elected, he would end a
popular tax break for electric cars aimed at reducing the cost of
switching to electric.
The car industry told the ABC the policy has driven a spike in EV sales and reversing it would increase the cost for Australians of going electric.
The
benefit allows people to lease an electric car through a novated
leasing arrangement without paying fringe benefits tax. It's intended to
boost the number of electric cars coming into the second-hand market in
a few years when the leases end.
Set
to come into effect this July, the fuel efficiency standards ensure car
makers supply Australia with more-efficient petrol cars and more hybrid
and electric cars, which are cheaper to run and better for the climate.
Such
regulations are standard in most countries around the world, with
Russia being one of the only developed countries without one.
The
policy works by setting an emissions limit for each manufacturer on all
the cars it sells cars into the Australian market. It means the car
companies can still sell any higher-polluting cars they want, but will
have to offset them with more efficient models.
Car
makers are only fined if they go over their cap for three consecutive
years, but Dutton wants to scrap the penalties altogether.
"The
policy that Dutton has proposed would totally undermine the new vehicle
efficiency standards," the Climate Council's Amanda McKenzie said.
"That
policy is intended to reduce climate pollution [by] more than 300
million tonnes. So that pollution would still [go] in the atmosphere."
Australia has been dubbed a "dumping ground" for inefficient cars that can't be sold elsewhere.
Transport
now makes up almost 23 per cent of the country's emissions, and — with
the exception of the pandemic — have continued to rise steadily as
Australians opt to drive heavier, dirtier SUVs and fly more
domestically.
The Greens helped
pass the legislation last year, at the same time stating they hoped the
pollution limits would be reduced further.
Standing with the world on climate targets
The climate pact aims to limit global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels. (ABC News)
Australia
has a target of a 43 per cent emissions cut by 2030, promised by Labor
at the last election and legislated by parliament.
The
Coalition is critical of Australia’s 2030 target. After statement made
in an election debate by shadow minister for climate change and energy,
Ted O’Brien, the Coalition had to clarify that it was still committed to the Paris Agreement.
In
a statement to the ABC, the Coalition campaign said it wouldn’t set any
targets in opposition “but we will be required to do so in government”
and cast doubt on Australia’s ability to hit the current 2030 target.
“The
emissions reduction targets we set from government will consider the
impact on the economy, the trajectory of emissions, and our own
policies,” the statement read.
President Donald Trump has wasted no time dismantling climate policies and promising a new era of fossil-fuel dominance.
Under
the Paris Agreement, countries are meant to increase their ambition,
not weaken policies, so it's unclear what the consequences would be if
the Coalition watered down the targets.
"We
think this is a really important election in terms of where it is in
timing, because 2030 is very close for major investment. If we start
veering off moving towards that target, it's really hard to get back on
track," Grattan's Tony Wood said.
In
the last term of parliament, the teal independents supported the
government in passing its 43 per cent target, while at the same making
it clear that they wanted it to be higher. Independents such as Monique
Ryan, Zoe Daniel and David Pocock want to see a target of a 60 per cent
emissions reduction by 2030.
The teal Independents have called for more ambitious climate targets. (Reuters: Simon Dawson)
The Greens want to see Australia adopt a 75 per cent target for 2030, which is what the Climate Council is advocating for.
In government, Labor held off announcing a 2035 target until it receives advice from the independent Climate Change Authority.
Swapping fossil fuels for clean energy
Renewable energy is rapidly increasing, with a pipeline of projects under construction. (ABC News)
Australia's
2030 climate target hangs on decarbonising the electricity sector
first, which can then help other areas like transport and industry
reduce their emissions.
Australia
has a target of getting to 82 per cent renewable energy by the end of
the decade. Currently, around 40 per cent of the electricity system is
already renewable, and there is a pipeline of projects already under
construction or in the planning stages.
The
independent Climate Change Authority reported to the government last
year that emissions need to start falling faster if Australia is to hit
that 2030 target.
Regardless,
the Coalition’s plans to flood the market with gas, as it’s been
described, and to also build taxpayer-funded nuclear power plants would
both diminish renewables investment, according to energy experts.
President Donald Trump has wasted no time dismantling climate policies and promising a new era of fossil-fuel dominance.
Under
the nuclear pathway, renewable energy would only supply around 54 per
cent of Australia's energy mix, a small increase from the current 40 per
cent.
"What the opposition has
put together over the last few months has been a series of policies
that would generate a very different mix of electricity generation," the
Grattan Institute's Tony Wood said.
"In
government, a Coalition government would slow down the move to
renewables and the transmission that goes with that. It would extend the
life of coal-fired power stations somewhat, and it would introduce more
gas generation into the mix so that the system remains reliable until
we then had nuclear."
According
to the Clean Energy Council, capping renewables at 54 per cent would
forego $58 billion of new private investment in large-scale solar and
wind projects and Australia would reach the cap in another four years.
Director of the Energy Program at Grattan Institute, Tony Wood. (ABC News: Sean Warren)
"What's happening now is considerable uncertainty and flip-flopping is not good at all for investment," Wood said.
"We
already know that the uncertainty around offshore wind and the
uncertainty around some renewable projects has meant that people say,
'well, we better stop, right?'"
In
its statement to the ABC, the Coalition referred to modelling from
Frontier Economics that shows electricity sector emissions will be lower
in the middle of the century.
“...
emissions in the Coalition’s plan will drop below Labor’s before 2050,
and will generate fewer emissions in 2050 and beyond.”
But
because CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere, overall, the modelling
shows far higher cumulative emissions for the Coalition’s plan.
That
modelling also only accounts for the electricity sector and assumes
there's a slower uptake of other clean technologies and a smaller
economy overall.
The Climate
Change Authority estimates a nuclear policy would add two billion tonnes
of climate pollution by delaying the transition. The modelling that
forms the basis of the Coalition plan also has much higher emissions.
Using 'green' money for more gas
The Coalition proposes to include gas projects in the Capital Investment Scheme. (ABC News)
The
Coalition has focused on gas this election more than the nuclear policy
it spent most of last year pitching to voters. In his budget reply
speech, Peter Dutton promised to open up the Capacity Investment Scheme
(CIS) to allow gas projects.
The
CIS is a government program to boost renewables investment by
underwriting major projects, taking some of the financial risk out for
investors.
It applies to clean power generation (wind, solar) and storage and has so far secured 32 gigawatt of capacity by 2030.
This
policy has allowed the government to secure renewable projects into the
grid as the country's ageing coal power stations retire, and to plot a
trajectory for how Australia's dirtiest sector — electricity — will
reduce emissions.
Labor's plan
for the electricity grid still involves some gas, and it has refused to
address the issue of Australia's gas export industry despite calls from
climate experts.
Holding the dirtiest 200 to account
The Safeguard Mechanism aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Australia's largest industrial facilities. (ABC News)
The
safeguard mechanism policy is the groaning machinery that underpins
much of Australia's climate response, but thanks to its complexity, it
is often overlooked and under-acknowledged.
First
introduced under former Liberal prime minister Tony Abbott, it sets the
rules for how much Australia's dirtiest facilities can pollute each
year, and was reformed and strengthened in the last parliamentary term.
It
covers just over 200 facilities across industries like mining,
manufacturing, waste and gas, which account for almost a third of
Australia's emissions.
"The
safeguard mechanism is the only policy that we have that regulates
fossil fuel pollution from industry. So it's a really important piece of
our policy mix," the Climate Council's Amanda McKenzie said.
Each
facility has its own cap for annual emissions, called a baseline, which
decline at five per cent each year to 2030, plus there's an overall
limit or "hard cap" on the emissions across all facilities.
Importantly,
the safeguard is set in legislation, so while a sitting government can
make some changes, there are fundamental tenets that can't be altered
without a vote in parliament.
Amanda
McKenzie said the safeguard mechanism was already a flawed policy,
allowing polluters to buy or trade offsets to meet their targets.
"It's
not a strong enough policy … it includes offsets, which enable
companies to have a get-out-of-jail-free card when we need genuine
reductions in pollution. So what we'll be advocating for in the next
term is to strengthen that piece of reform."
Data
from the first year of the revamped safeguard mechanism has just been
released and has found that 60 per cent of the facilities used offsets
to meet their targets.
Plugging in our future energy system
Rewiring the Nation aims to modernise and upgrade Australia's electricity grid. (ABC News)
The
Rewiring the Nation policy helps fund the construction of transmission
lines needed to move renewable electricity around the system.
Transmission
projects have become a sensitive topic politically, with some people in
regional Australia, where most of these projects run, mounting
opposition to them.
The
Coalition latched onto these concerns, and said that its nuclear policy
would alleviate the need for as many transmission projects as
electricity generation would remain centralised at the existing coal
power stations.
“Renewable
energy deployment will still grow responsibly under the Coalition’s
plan, but we will avoid the massive overbuild required for Labor’s
plan,” the campaign told the ABC.
But
energy expert Tony Wood says these projects will be needed before the
Coalition's nuclear power stations would start running.
"They are becoming critical to maintaining the current reliability of the system," he said.
"As
we find the coal-fired power stations becoming less reliable as they
get older, the need to be able to move electricity between states when
something does go wrong in one state becomes really important," Wood
said.
"I think a Coalition
government would be faced with some quite difficult challenges if they
were to seriously try and slow down the building of some of those
transmission lines."
The roll-out of transmission projects has sparked backlash in the regions. (Supplied: EnergyCo)
Wood
says that Australia won't be able to connect enough renewables to meet
its other targets without speeding up the transmission rollout.
"We
haven't been building the necessary transmission to connect the
expansion of renewable energy, wind farms, and solar farms, which have
to be built in places we've never had generation before. So to connect
those generators to the main grid needs more transmission."
What could happen to climate after the election
The
world is already halfway through what climate experts call the critical
decade. In Australia, there are several climate issues that are likely
to be prominent in the next parliamentary term.
The election will have a significant impact on how Australia tackles climate change over the coming years.
(Supplied: Spyrakot)
Currently,
major developments can be assessed and rejected if they impact the
surrounding ecosystems, threatened species, waterways, but not if they
have a significant climate impact.
"It's 2025 and we don't have any way of stopping projects on a climate basis," Amanda McKenzie said.
The
Australia Conservation Foundation ranked the major parties and key
independents on their climate and environment policies, and gave the
Coalition just 1/100, while Labor was rated 54/100.
"Labor
scored points for its work on the clean energy and clean manufacturing
transition and its strong stance against costly, thirsty, risky nuclear
power, but lost points for its commitment to expanding the
climate-wrecking coal and gas industries," ACF lead Kelly O'Shannassy
said.
If it wins, Labor wants
to host the major UN climate conference next year alongside Pacific
countries as host, which will ratchet up the pressure on Australia to
outline its position on fossil fuels.
In
a statement to the ABC, climate minister Chris Bowen said that acting
on climate change is in the national interest, calling its reforms
“overdue”.
“Australians don’t
want to see more tired, frustrating climate wars, that only see us miss
the economic opportunities of the global push towards Net Zero."
How
Australia faces the climate challenge over the next three years will be
different depending on the outcome on May 3. If there is a hung
parliament, climate policies will be a strong negotiating point with the
teal independents and the Greens.
As Grattan's Tony Wood points out, three years is a long time in a world that's changing fast.
"If
the current government was to be re-elected for another three-year
term, that would almost make it impossible for the coalition's nuclear
plan, as they've described it, to actually be implemented. It would be
too late," Wood concluded.
"The renewables would be built. The transmission line, hopefully, would
be built. The coal-fired power stations, some of them would have shut
down. So this is a really interesting fork in the road."
In the final days before Australia's May 3 federal election, a fierce new front has opened in the country’s climate wars.
Last week, the federal government granted final approval for Santos' controversial Barossa offshore gas project—described by environmental groups as a “climate bomb” poised to seriously undermine Australia’s climate commitments.
Located in the Timor Sea, north of Darwin, the Barossa gas field is notorious for its extraordinarily high carbon dioxide content. Analysts estimate that burning the extracted gas overseas could release more than 270 million tonnes of CO₂1.
Critics argue this would erase much of the progress Australia has made under its safeguard mechanism, designed to curb industrial emissions.
The approval has sparked outrage from environmentalists, Indigenous leaders, and climate policy experts alike, highlighting the contradictions embedded in Australia's energy strategy.
Election Season and the Energy Debate
As Australians prepare to vote, energy policy has become one of the defining issues of the campaign.
The ruling Labor Party boasts record investments in solar, wind, and green hydrogen projects. Yet their continued support for fossil fuel ventures like Barossa has drawn criticism from climate advocates who argue Australia must sever its reliance on high-emissions industries.
Meanwhile, the opposition Coalition, led by Peter Dutton, has proposed building seven nuclear power plants across the country if elected 2. It’s a dramatic shift that has reignited Australia's long-standing fears about nuclear energy.
Nuclear Power: Risk or Opportunity?
Dutton’s nuclear plan has been met with swift backlash. A coalition of 41 groups—including trade unions, environmentalists, and First Nations representatives—warns that nuclear power is too expensive, too slow to deploy, and fraught with risks around safety and waste disposal2.
Their concerns appear to reflect broader public sentiment. A recent national survey found nearly 55% of Australians would be highly concerned if a nuclear power station were built near their home 3. In contrast, over 80% said they would support a local wind or solar project.
Despite the promises of clean, baseload power, experts caution that nuclear reactors could take more than 15 years to come online and cost many billions. Renewable energy, they argue, can be deployed faster, cheaper, and without the accompanying environmental risks.
The Fossil Fuel Dilemma
While the nuclear debate rages, the approval of the Barossa project underlines another hard truth: Australia remains heavily tied to fossil fuel exports.
Environmental lawyers warn that reliance on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies—often cited as a solution for projects like Barossa—is unproven at commercial scale and could amount to greenwashing. As one lawyer put it, “You can’t just wish away 270 million tonnes of emissions.”
Australia's Climate Identity Crisis
The deeper question this election season is whether Australia can truly transition away from its resource-dependent economic model toward a cleaner future.
For decades, debates over coal and gas exports have divided the nation. Now, with a legal net-zero target in place, Australia faces a critical choice: will it embrace rapid, renewable-driven transformation, or continue to be pulled backward by fossil fuel interests?
Whichever path it chooses, the consequences will resonate far beyond this election—and far beyond Australia's shores. In a land increasingly battered by drought, floods, and bushfires, the stakes could not be higher.
The world’s climate is entering a more dangerous and less predictable phase.
Three powerful and interconnected issues—an unprecedented global coral bleaching event, alarming new research on abrupt temperature swings, and record-shattering heatwaves across South Asia—have captured the world's attention, each revealing the intensifying effects of human-driven climate change.
First, Earth's coral reefs are enduring what scientists are calling the most extensive bleaching event in recorded history. Between 2023 and 2025, around 84% of coral reef ecosystems have suffered significant bleaching, according to new data1.
Fueled by higher-than-normal ocean temperatures, this crisis is decimating critical marine ecosystems that support biodiversity, coastal protection, and millions of livelihoods.
Coral bleaching occurs when stressed corals expel the algae that provide them with energy and colour, leaving them ghostly white and vulnerable to death. While bleaching events have happened before, the scale, duration, and severity of this episode mark a terrifying new chapter.
Abrupt temperature swings
Meanwhile, a groundbreaking study published this week in Nature Communications has revealed that abrupt temperature swings—where conditions flip dramatically from extreme heat to extreme cold—have been happening far more often and are projected to worsen as the planet continues to warm2.
Analyzing six decades of weather records, researchers found that more than 60% of the Earth's surface has experienced increased volatility between 1961 and 2023.
Factors such as the waviness of the jet stream, intensified evaporation, and changing soil moisture levels are making temperature transitions sharper and less predictable. These violent swings are particularly threatening for agriculture, public health, and infrastructure, as populations have less time to adapt to the sudden changes.
Growing climate instability
This theory of growing climate instability has a tragic, real-world manifestation: the brutal April 2025 heatwave that scorched India and Pakistan.
Temperatures in Pakistan's Sindh province neared 49°C (120°F), while New Delhi sweltered under a relentless 40°C (104°F) heat3. A recent analysis from the ClimaMeter group concluded that this particular heatwave was made up to 4°C hotter than similar events would have been before 1987, attributing the majority of this intensification to human-caused global warming.
Natural variability, the study found, played only a minor role. For millions living across South Asia—where limited access to air conditioning and clean water is a daily reality—the difference between a survivable heatwave and a deadly one is measured in single degrees.
What ties these stories together is not just their extremity, but their speed.
The climate is lurching
The climate is not simply changing—it's lurching. From coral reefs dying en masse to farmers watching crops fail in days rather than weeks, the rhythms of the natural world are accelerating toward disruption faster than models predicted.
And yet, amid the chaos, there are signs of hope.
New energy solutions are scaling up. Global emissions, though still dangerously high, have begun to flatten in some regions4. Climate movements are winning stronger environmental protections.
Feedback loops
However, scientists warn that without rapid and sustained action—especially by the world's largest economies—the tipping points we are now seeing could cascade into feedback loops too large to control.
April 2025 may be remembered not just as another grim month of climate news, but as a call to confront a stark choice: intensify our mitigation efforts or prepare for a world increasingly shaped by irreversible extremes.
When Pope Francis stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica in 2013, few could have predicted that this Argentinian Jesuit would become one of the world’s most influential voices on climate change.
But over the past decade, Francis had done exactly that—positioning the Catholic Church not only as a spiritual authority but as a force for environmental justice.
📜 Laudato Si’ — A Wake-Up Call to the World
In 2015, the pope released a groundbreaking encyclical called Laudato Si’, or “Praise Be to You". It was more than a religious document—it was a bold and beautifully written plea to humanity to care for “our common home”.
Francis didn’t mince words: environmental destruction is a moral crisis, and the poor—who contribute least to climate change—are suffering the most because of it.
“The destruction of the environment is an offense against God, a sin that endangers all human beings, especially the most vulnerable.” Source: Laudato Si’ Action Platform
🌐 Influence Beyond the Church
Francis’s message struck a chord beyond Catholic circles. His voice carried into United Nations halls and global climate conferences. Some analysts believe his leadership helped sway public and political opinion in favour of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
He even invited oil executives to the Vatican, urging them to transition toward sustainable energy. In 2023, he addressed the COP28 climate summit and reminded world leaders that the clock is ticking:
“The future of us all depends on the present that we now choose.” Source: Vatican News
🔄 Laudate Deum: A Follow-Up with Urgency
Eight years after Laudato Si’, Pope Francis doubled down with another powerful statement: Laudate Deum, released in 2023. This time, he focused even more directly on human-caused climate change and the systemic barriers that prevent real action.
He called out the failures of international summits and demanded real accountability—not just more words:
“We are in the same boat… but some of us are steering it, and others are bailing water.” Source: Vatican.va
🙏 A Legacy Rooted in Care
What makes Pope Francis’s approach unique is how he connects the dots between faith, science, social justice, and environmental responsibility. He’s not just saying “plant trees”—he’s saying our spiritual health is tied to the health of the Earth and its people.
As climate threats grow more urgent, Pope Francis has become a rare voice of moral clarity. And even as questions about his eventual successor loom, his message is clear: caring for the planet isn’t optional—it’s sacred.
A koala clings to a charred gum tree. Smoke lingers in the air. Below, the forest floor is blackened and bare.
It’s not a memory — it’s the new normal.
🔥 Climate Change Is No Longer a Future Threat
Australia’s unique wildlife is under siege. Climate change is no longer a distant danger. It’s the top threat facing our endangered species today.
From koalas to coral reefs, animals across the country are battling extreme heat, rising seas, megafires, and shifting seasons. Many are losing.
More than 1,800 Australian species are officially listed as threatened. According to the State of the Environment Report 2021, climate change now impacts every ecosystem.
🐨 Koalas Are Burning
Once considered safe, koalas are now endangered in Queensland, New South Wales, and the ACT.
Their forests are drying out. Bushfires are becoming more intense. Food trees are dying from drought or heat stress. And koalas, slow to adapt or move, are being left behind.
“Climate change amplifies every existing threat,” says Dr. Sarah Bekessy of RMIT University. “It’s the firestarter, the floodgate, the heatwave.”
🪸 The Great Barrier Reef Is Dying Fast
In the oceans, rising temperatures are wreaking havoc.
Marine heatwaves have killed off half the Great Barrier Reef’s corals since the mid-1990s. Mass bleaching events in 2016, 2017, and 2020 turned huge sections ghost white.
Corals rely on algae for nutrients and colour. When waters heat up, corals expel this algae — and often die within weeks.
“The reef is the rainforest of the sea,” says Professor Terry Hughes of James Cook University. “When it dies, everything suffers.”
Thousands of marine species depend on reefs. From clownfish to sea turtles, extinction risk ripples outward.
🐸 Frogs, Birds, and Wetlands on the Edge
It’s not just iconic animals in trouble. Entire ecosystems are fraying.
The critically endangered northern corroboree frog, native to the alpine bogs of southeastern Australia, needs cold, wet winters to breed. But snow is melting earlier. Bogs are drying. Eggs are dying.
The eastern curlew, a migratory shorebird, is losing its feeding grounds. Rising sea levels and coastal development are wiping out its wetlands.
In the Kakadu wetlands, saltwater intrusion is killing freshwater plants. Saltwater crocodiles are thriving — but fish, birds, and turtles are disappearing.
⏳ Science Is Clear — And the Clock Is Ticking
A 2020 study in Nature Climate Change found that one in six species could vanish worldwide if global temperatures rise beyond 2°C.
Australia is especially vulnerable. Our ecosystems are isolated and often fragile. Even small shifts in temperature or rainfall can cause population collapse.
💸 Action Is Possible — But Underfunded
Despite the urgency, funding remains patchy.
The Australian Conservation Foundation revealed that recovery funding for threatened species fell by 39% between 2013 and 2018.
Only 39 of Australia’s top 100 endangered species have fully funded recovery plans.
“You can’t save species without tackling climate change,” says Darren Grover of WWF Australia. “We need emissions cuts and on-the-ground recovery — fast.”
🌿 Hope Is Not Lost
There are signs of progress.
Bushfire recovery grants have helped restore habitats.
Wildlife corridors are reconnecting fragmented forests.
Indigenous land management is reintroducing traditional burning and conservation methods.
Grassroots communities are planting native trees and cleaning up coasts.
The federal government has even pledged “zero extinctions” in national parks — a bold goal, if backed by action.
🌏 We Have the Knowledge. We Need the Will.
Climate change is not tomorrow’s threat. It’s today’s reality.
Every delay costs more species. More forests. More reef. More future.
If we act now — and act boldly — we can still protect what makes Australia wild and wonderful.
• Kelly Kirkland Research Fellow in Psychology The University of Queensland
• Abby Robinson PhD candidate in Social Psychology The University of Melbourne • Amy S G Lee PhD Candidate in Social Psychology The University of Melbourne
• Samantha Stanley Research Fellow in Social Psychology UNSW Sydney • Zoe Leviston Research Fellow in Social Psychology Australian National University
Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn.
Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity.
As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon be uninsurable. Yet, despite these escalating disasters — and a federal election looming — conversation around climate change remains deeply polarising.
But are people’s minds really made up? Or are they still open to change?
In research out today, we asked more than 5,000 Australians a simple question: what would change your mind about climate change? Their answers reveal both a warning and an opportunity.
Recent floods in western Queensland devastated graziers and remote towns such as Thargomindah. Bulloo Shire Council/AAP
On climate, Australians fall into six groups
Almost two thirds (64%) of Australians are concerned about the impact of climate change, according to a recent survey.
But drill deeper, and we quickly find Australians hold quite different views on climate. In fact, research in 2022 showed Australians can be sorted into six distinct groups based on how concerned and engaged they are with the issue.
At one end was the Alarmed group – highly concerned people who are
convinced of the science, and already taking action (25% of
Australians). At the other end was the Dismissive group (7%) – strongly
sceptical people who often view climate change as exaggerated or even a
hoax. In between were the Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged and Doubtful –
groups who varied in belief, awareness and willingness to engage.
In our nationally representative survey, we asked every participant
what might change their opinion about climate change? We then looked at
how the answers differed between the six groups.
For those already convinced climate change is real and human-caused,
we wanted to know what might make them doubt it. For sceptical
participants, we wanted to know what might persuade them otherwise. In
short, we weren’t testing who was “right” or “wrong” – we were mapping
how flexible their opinions were.
Our views aren’t set in stone
People at both extremes – Alarmed and Dismissive – were the most
likely to say “nothing” would change their minds. Nearly half the
Dismissive respondents flat-out rejected the premise. But these two
groups together make up just one in three Australians.
What about everyone in the middle ground? The rest – the Concerned
(28%), Cautious (23%), Disengaged (3%) and Doubtful (14%) – showed much
more openness. They matter most, because they’re the majority — and
they’re still listening.
People with dismissive views of climate science are a small minority.jon lyall/Shutterstock
What information would change minds?
What would it take for people to be convinced? We identified four
major themes: evidence and information, trusted sources, action being
undertaken, and nothing.
The most common response was a desire for better evidence and
information. But not just any facts would do. Participants said they
wanted clear, plain-English explanations rather than jargon. They wanted
statistics they could trust, and science that didn’t feel politicised
or agenda-driven. Some said they’d be more convinced if they saw the
impacts with their own eyes.
Crucially, many in the Doubtful and Cautious groups didn’t outright
reject climate change – they just didn’t feel confident enough to judge
the evidence.
The trust gap
Many respondents didn’t know who to believe on climate change.
Scientists and independent experts were the most commonly mentioned
trusted sources – but trust in these sources wasn’t universal.
Some Australians, especially in the more sceptical segments,
expressed deep distrust toward the media, governments and the scientific
community. Others said they’d be more receptive if information came
from unbiased or apolitical sources. For some respondents, family,
friends and everyday people were seen as more credible than
institutions.
In an age of widespread misinformation, this matters. If we want to
build support for climate action, we need the right messengers as much
as the right message.
What about action?
Many respondents said their views could shift if they saw real,
meaningful action – especially from governments and big business. Some
wanted proof that Australia is taking climate change seriously. Others
said action would offer hope or reduce their anxiety.
Even some sceptical respondents said coordinated, global action might
persuade them – though they were often cynical about Australia’s impact
compared to larger emitters. Others called for a more respectful,
depoliticised conversation around climate.
In other words, for many Australians, it’s not just what evidence and information is presented about climate change. It’s also how it’s said, who says it, and why it’s being said.
Of course, the responses we gathered reflect what people say would change their minds. That’s not necessarily what would actually change their minds.
As climate change intensifies, so does misinformation — especially online, where artificial intelligence and social media accelerate its spread.
Misinformation has a corrosive effect. Spreading doubt, lies and uncertainty can erode public support for climate action.
If we don’t understand what Australians actually need to hear about
climate change – and who they need to hear it from – we risk losing
ground to confusion and doubt.
After years of growth from 2012 to 2019, Australian backing for climate action is fluctuating and even dropping, according to Lowy Institute polling.
Climate change may not be the headline issue in this federal election campaign. But it’s on the ballot
nonetheless, embedded in debates over how to power Australia, jobs and
the cost of living. If we want public support for meaningful climate
action, we can’t just shout louder. We have to speak smarter.
