Heat now, deaths later: projecting Australia’s rising heatwave mortality - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Climate change has already increased some historic heatwave death tolls by around 20%.[1] Urban residents face higher heatwave mortality risk due to the urban heat island and social vulnerability factors.[2] A Heatwave Vulnerability Index can predict relative mortality risk at suburb scale.[3] Australia’s existing public health data show rising hospitalisations and heat-related impacts that vary by state and age group.[4] Policy responses must combine mitigation, urban planning, and health-system preparedness to limit future deaths.[5] Targeted action for low-income, elderly and health-compromised populations is essential to reduce projected mortality burdens.[6]

Australia’s exposure to deadly heat is increasing.

Recent studies show this is already translating into excess deaths during extreme events.

Researchers estimate that human-induced climate change raised mortality in major historical Australian heatwaves by around twenty per cent for some events.^[1]

City residents, especially those with low incomes or pre-existing health conditions, carry a larger share of the risk because of the urban heat island and uneven access to cooling and health services.^[2]

New tools such as a Heatwave Vulnerability Index can map neighbourhood-level risk and predict where mortality rises are most likely to occur.^[3]

National health data already record increases in heat-related hospital encounters and a growing burden on emergency services during prolonged hot spells.^[4]

If emissions continue on current trajectories, public health modelling indicates substantially higher mortality burdens in coming decades without stronger adaptation and mitigation.

This article reviews the evidence, explains the mechanisms linking heat to death, and sets out where policy and health systems must focus to lower future mortality.

Why heat kills

Extreme heat increases cardiovascular and respiratory stress and worsens chronic conditions that lead to hospitalisation and death.

Heat also disrupts medication efficacy and can cause dehydration and heat stroke especially among older adults and those with underlying illnesses.

Socioeconomic factors amplify physiological risks because poor housing, lack of cooling and social isolation reduce the chance of timely help.

Urban design matters because surfaces that store heat turn cities into heat islands that raise overnight temperatures and reduce recovery time between hot days.

What recent analyses show

A study led by Australian universities analysed a major Victorian heatwave and concluded excess deaths during the event were increased by about twenty per cent by human-caused climate change for that episode.^[1]

That same body of work and linked analyses found that heatwave mortality is concentrated in cities and suburbs where vulnerability factors cluster together, such as low income and limited health access.^[2]

Researchers have validated a Heatwave Vulnerability Index against Australian mortality records and found it predicts relative increases in deaths across more than two thousand suburbs.^[3]

National surveillance from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows clear seasonality in heat-related injuries and increasing contact with health services during extreme heat years.^[4]

How projections are made

Projections combine observed relationships between temperature and mortality with climate model scenarios that estimate future temperature extremes.

Researchers calibrate models using historic events where mortality data are available to quantify how much human-caused warming shifted the probability or intensity of those events.

Indexes that combine social, demographic and built-environment variables allow researchers to map how exposure plus vulnerability translates into probable deaths at local scales.

Who is at greatest risk

Older Australians and people with cardiovascular disease, diabetes or chronic respiratory conditions face the highest individual risk during heatwaves.

People living alone, those on low incomes and communities with poor access to health and cooling infrastructure are also disproportionately affected.^[3]

Indigenous communities, many of whom already experience higher burdens of chronic disease and housing insecurity, are vulnerable in specific regions and deserve focused intervention planning.

Urban heat and inequality

Heat is not uniform within cities and suburbs with more sealed surfaces, less vegetation and older housing stock retain and re-emit heat at night.

These microclimates make recovery between hot days harder and increase cumulative physiological strain that leads to greater mortality risk.

Mapping tools show that the highest vulnerability scores align with low income and health disadvantage in Australia’s capital cities.^[3]

Health system and policy implications

Health systems must plan for surges in emergency presentations and supply appropriate workforce and cooling capacity during forecast heatwaves.

Public health messaging, community cooling centres and targeted welfare checks for isolated older people reduce near-term mortality risks.

Longer term, urban greening, heat-resilient building codes and reduced greenhouse emissions are necessary to reduce both exposure and the underlying climate driver of more intense heatwaves.^[5]

What adaptation looks like in practice

Successful adaptation blends immediate measures such as heat-health alerts and mobile cooling with structural changes such as increased tree canopy and cooler paving materials.

Investment in social housing upgrades to provide effective passive cooling and access to power for air conditioning is a high return intervention for heat-vulnerable households.

Integrating heat vulnerability mapping into local planning allows authorities to prioritise interventions where mortality reductions will be largest.^[3]

Limits and uncertainties

Projections are sensitive to the emission pathway assumed and to how well future social and health services evolve to protect vulnerable groups.

Local adaptation can substantially reduce mortality compared with an unadapted baseline but cannot remove all risks if global warming continues unabated.

Data gaps remain for some population groups and places which means monitoring and improved health surveillance are essential to refine projections over time.

Conclusions

Empirical studies now link human-induced warming to measurable increases in heatwave deaths for specific Australian events and show the burden is unevenly distributed.

Combining mitigation of emissions with targeted local adaptation and stronger health-system preparedness offers the best route to reduce projected mortality.

Policymakers should use validated vulnerability indices and public health data to allocate cooling, medical and social supports to the highest risk suburbs first.^[3]

Failure to act on both climate emissions and local adaptation will leave larger future cohorts of Australians exposed to preventable heat-related deaths.

References

1. Heatwave mortality studies reveal climate change impacts and risk for cities — University of Queensland, 18 February 2025
2. Heatwave fatalities in Australia: a new analysis — Risk Frontiers
3. Evaluating the association between heatwave vulnerability index and related deaths in Australia — HeatHealth (peer-reviewed article PDF)
4. Extreme heat — Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
5. Climate Council report on extreme heat impacts and solutions (PDF)
6. Vulnerability to extreme heat — The Australia Institute (PDF, Nov 2024)
7. Heat health — Victorian Department of Health
8. Feature — Heat health risk — Australian Climate Service / ACS

Back to top

Facebook community groups and maggot-infested rats: the inner workings of Australia’s climate misinformation war - The Guardian

The Guardian - Graham Readfearn

Senate inquiry hears how ‘propagandised misinformation’ is drowning out
legitimate concerns in Australia’s regions over renewable energy

The notion – despite evidence to the contrary – that electricity bills are rising because of net zero targets has been grist to the anti-renewables mill for years. Photograph: Tim Phillips Photos/Getty Images

Plans for a community battery in Narrabri had been going well – there was a $500,000 federal government grant, the shire council had agreed on a site and it had the necessary approvals to start building.

The battery project – in a council car park – was proposed by local not-for-profit Geni.Energy, with the idea to soak up solar energy during the day for use later.

But then came the community Facebook pages.

“They are the castle of propagandised misinformation,” said Sally Hunter, a founder of Geni.Energy during a Senate inquiry into climate and energy misinformation this week.

Claims the battery was a fire risk and would “shut down the town for days” made their way to local councillors, Hunter said, who in April voted to rescind an agreement, leaving the project in limbo.

The story was just one heard during three days of public hearings for the inquiry at the same time as the Liberal party was deciding to withdraw its backing for net zero greenhouse gas targets.

Groups opposing renewable energy, renewables industry representatives looking to build projects, climate advocates, thinktank operatives and News Corp media executives all appeared – the full suite of actors trying to win arguments locally and nationally about the merits or otherwise of a shift away from fossil fuels.

Raising hostilities

Mis- and disinformation was dividing communities and drowning out legitimate concerns and supportive voices, the inquiry heard.

“We find people who have valid concerns about specific projects get subsumed and are used to weaponise a wider ideological frame,” said Dave Sweeney, a policy analyst and nuclear campaigner at the Australian Conservation Foundation.

There were stories of a windfarm worker being man-handled and threatened in the street and a farmer’s daughter who was accosted outside a pub for her father’s support for wind turbines on his land.

A member of a group opposing an offshore wind project in central NSW said he had maggot-infested dead rats left on his driveway.

“It is hard to overstate just how dangerous mis- and disinformation is,” said Ika Trijsburg, the director of urban analytics at the Institute for Infrastructure in Society at ANU who gave evidence at the inquiry.

“Misinformation around climate does make people increasingly polarised in their decision making and makes their stances uncivil. It can drive a sense of being overwhelmed and a disengagement and this hostility that we see in local communities.”

Trijsburg is also head of democracy and diplomacy at the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV), a group that represents all 79 councils in the state.

In evidence, MAV said councils were dealing with misinformation on the supposed health impacts of wind turbines, on nonexistent deals between five councils and a transmission line project, and claimed risks of fires from electric vehicles.

‘He had a vision’

While the inquiry was hearing evidence, in Canberra the Liberal party followed the Nationals and abandoned a target to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

The perception of widespread opposition in the regions to renewable energy and the notion – despite evidence to the contrary – that electricity bills are going up because of net zero targets, has been grist to the anti-renewables mill that has been turning in the Coalition ranks for years.

One of the chief agitators against net zero targets has been Barnaby Joyce, the New England MP who left the Nationals frontbench last month.

The inquiry heard from Grant Piper, a farmer from central NSW who chairs the National Rational Energy Network (NREN) – a group launched in 2023 to connect groups opposed to renewables projects around the country. According to Piper, there are about 160 of them.

The group’s first zoom meeting in 2023 was hosted by Joyce’s office, Piper told the inquiry. “He had a vision for a group,” he said of Joyce’s involvement.

NREN would go on to host a “Reckless Renewables” rally in Canberra last year and seconded one of its members, Sandra Bourke, to be a spokesperson for Advance Australia – a well-funded rightwing activist group that has also been campaigning against net zero targets.

Joyce had no formal role in NREN, Piper said, but they did speak regularly.

Last week, the Institute of Public Affairs claimed in an email to its followers that abandonment of the net zero target by the Nationals – to be followed days later by the Liberals – “would not have happened without the work of the IPA”.

At the inquiry, the rightwing institute – known for promoting climate science denial and opposing renewables – said it had visited more than 60 regional communities as part of its campaign.

When asked about its funders, the IPA said it wasn’t required to disclose its donors.

The institute wouldn’t confirm if the billionaire and vocal opponent of net zero policies, Gina Rinehart, was still a major funder (court proceedings in 2018 revealed Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting had provided between one-third and a half of all the institute’s revenue in 2016 and 2017).

Nor would it confirm a media report suggesting a coal industry boss had coordinated funding for their work on energy.

A global challenge

The problems of dealing with mis- and disinformation are not unique to Australia. This week an initiative was launched at UN climate talks in Brazil backed by 10 countries to tackle mis- and disinformation.

“As the Nobel Peace prize laureate Maria Ressa said, information integrity is the mother of all battles,” said Trijsburg.

“Once disinformation is created it is very hard to put it back in the box. It is expensive to debunk and it is hard to regenerate trust once a community has had false information shared with them.”

“This is a rapidly developing critical crisis we are finding ourselves in. If we lose this battle then we lose them all.”

Links

• Climate-sceptic IPA refuses to reveal funders in fiery Senate inquiry
• The Coalition claims pursuing net zero will increase power bills – but in the real world the opposite is true
• Liberals formally abandon net zero by 2050 but Ley says reaching target would still be ‘welcome outcome’
• Former Liberal MPs deride net zero dumping as ‘nail in the coffin’ that may prolong pain in urban seats
• The Coalition claims pursuing net zero will increase power bills – but in the real world the opposite is true
•  From Australia to Turkey and, reluctantly, Germany: the tug-of-war over hosting Cop31

The black work of Big Oil - 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links

• Fossil fuel companies attending recent U.N. climate talks responsible for nearly 60% of global oil and gas production 
• This COP must ignite a decade of acceleration and delivery: UN Secretary-General address to Belém Leaders Summit 
• World leaders punch back at US climate denial ahead of Brazil's COP30 negotiations 
• Earth cannot 'sustain' intensive fossil fuel use, Lula tells COP30 
• Public health and environment 
• The 2025 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change 
• Crimean-Congo haemorrhagic fever 
• Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Tracking the impact of government support 

Back to Top

2050 Net Zero: Liberals Ditch Long-Term Climate Target Amid Party Split - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happened

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

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

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

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

Why the party changed course

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

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

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

How the leadership explained the decision

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

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

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

Immediate reactions

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

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

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

Legal and diplomatic implications

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

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

Electoral and economic consequences

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

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

What happens next

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

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

Bottom line

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

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

References

1. Liberal Party formally abandons net zero by 2050 climate target — ABC News
2. Australia's conservative Liberal Party abandons net zero policy — Reuters
3. Liberals formally abandon net zero by 2050 but Ley says reaching target would still be ‘welcome outcome’ — The Guardian
4. The Liberal Party has dumped net zero — but the Coalition's real battle lies ahead — SBS News
5. Ley's net zero decision may bring her extra time as leader, but at what cost? — ABC Analysis

Back to Top

Mending the Planet: The Power of Wind, Sun, and Nature’s Networks - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Rapidly decarbonise global electricity systems[2] Phase out coal, oil, and unabated gas completely[1] Electrify transport, heating, and industry while improving efficiency[2] Slash methane and other short-lived pollutants[4] Protect and restore forests, soils, and blue carbon ecosystems[5] Invest in carbon removal and end fossil fuel subsidies[6]

Stopping global warming demands swift, systemic change across energy, transport, land, and industrial systems.

Scientists agree that deep, rapid cuts to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are the only way to avoid catastrophic climate disruption. ^[1]

The five most critical steps are decarbonising electricity, phasing out fossil fuels, electrifying demand, reducing methane, and protecting natural carbon sinks. ^[2]

These measures must work together, since partial action leaves major sources of emissions unchecked and global temperatures rising. ^[1]

Governments, industries, and citizens all have clear, immediate roles to play in reshaping economies and energy use within this decade. ^[2]

Fast, collective action not only cuts emissions, but also improves air quality, public health, and economic stability. ^[2]

This article explains the five highest-impact strategies to halt global warming, backed by the best available evidence. ^[1]

1. Decarbonise electricity at scale

Electricity generation produces about one-third of global carbon emissions, making it the first sector that must reach net zero. ^[2]

Replacing coal and gas with renewable sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower delivers the fastest and most reliable emissions cuts. ^[2]

Countries that invest heavily in renewable capacity and grid upgrades achieve both cleaner power and cheaper electricity. ^[2]

Governments can accelerate progress through stable policies, long-term investment incentives, and fair access to clean energy technologies. ^[2]

2. End unabated fossil fuel combustion

The burning of coal, oil, and gas without carbon capture remains the single largest source of global warming. ^[3]

Phasing out coal power, restricting new oil and gas developments, and capping existing production are vital steps to stay within carbon limits. ^[1]

Every year of delay increases the need for costly and uncertain carbon removal technologies later this century. ^[1]

Ending fossil fuel subsidies and implementing transparent carbon pricing would shift investment decisively toward clean alternatives. ^[6]

3. Electrify demand and boost efficiency

Transport, heating, and industrial processes that currently rely on fossil fuels can run on clean electricity, sharply cutting emissions. ^[2]

Energy efficiency—through better building design, advanced appliances, and modern manufacturing—reduces waste and demand simultaneously. ^[2]

Electric vehicles, heat pumps, and industrial electrification together can remove billions of tonnes of CO₂ each year when powered by renewables. ^[2]

Strong standards, rebates, and infrastructure investment make electrification accessible and affordable for households and businesses alike. ^[2]

4. Cut methane and other short-lived pollutants

Methane traps far more heat than carbon dioxide, but it breaks down within decades, so reducing it offers rapid climate benefits. ^[4]

Most methane emissions come from fossil fuel leaks, agriculture, and waste—sectors where solutions already exist and are relatively inexpensive. ^[4]

The Global Methane Pledge aims to cut emissions by 30 per cent by 2030, a step that could slow near-term warming measurably. ^[4]

Modern monitoring and regulations can identify leaks, enforce reductions, and deliver one of the quickest wins in climate policy. ^[4]

5. Protect and restore natural carbon sinks

Forests, soils, wetlands, and coastal ecosystems absorb huge amounts of carbon and shield humanity from extreme weather. ^[5]

Stopping deforestation, restoring damaged landscapes, and expanding blue carbon habitats offer cost-effective, nature-based mitigation. ^[5]

These ecosystems also protect biodiversity and support local communities, making climate and conservation goals mutually reinforcing. ^[5]

Strong land rights, transparent governance, and long-term finance are essential to safeguard nature’s role in climate stability. ^[5]

Beyond the five steps

Even with full implementation of these measures, residual industrial emissions will require carbon capture or removal technologies. ^[1]

Such technologies must complement, not replace, deep emission cuts and responsible resource management. ^[1]

Rapid decarbonisation also brings cleaner air, new industries, and enhanced energy security—benefits that extend far beyond climate goals. ^[2]

What remains essential is coordinated global action that turns pledges into measurable progress. ^[6]

Conclusion

To stop global warming, the world must act simultaneously on power, pollution, and protection of natural systems. ^[1]

No single technology or country can achieve this alone, but collective resolve can still steer humanity toward safety. ^[2]

The decisive years are now, not later—what nations do this decade will define the planet’s trajectory for centuries. ^[6]

Implementing these five proven actions gives the world its best and last realistic chance to stop global warming. ^[1]

References

1. IPCC, Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change — Summary for Policymakers.
2. International Energy Agency, Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector.
3. Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Budget (latest assessment and data).
4. Climate and Clean Air Coalition and UNEP, Global Methane Assessment (2021).
5. Global Forest Watch, Global forest change and primary forest loss data.
6. World Meteorological Organization data reported by Reuters, CO₂ levels hit highest ever recorded (2025).

Back to Top

Forty per cent of Australian women without kids hesitant to have children because of climate change, survey finds - The Guardian

 The Guardian - Donna Lu

More than a third of Coalition voters
believe temperatures will not rise at all, poll shows

The survey has found that while 40.4% of women said they were hesitant about having children due to the changing climate, only 17% of men shared that opinion. Photograph: abriendomundo/Getty Images

About 40% of Australian women without kids say they are hesitant to have children because of climate change, a new survey suggests.

The survey, on attitudes about the impacts of global heating, also found that half of Australians were very or extremely concerned about climate change and two in five believed the climate would be “much hotter” in 2050.

Commissioned by Clive Hamilton, a professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University, and carried out by Roy Morgan Research, the survey also found that more than a third of Coalition voters believed the climate would not change at all.

The survey – which involved a nationally representative sample of 2,000 people – found Labor, Greens and independent voters were three times more likely to express high levels of concern about climate change compared with conservative voters.

Concern about climate change was also much more strongly correlated with education level than with age.

Among parents, three in five Labor voters expressed high concern about their children’s future in a changing climate, compared with one in five Coalition voters.

“Compared to men, women expect it to become hotter, are more anxious, and feel more insecure due to the changing climate, suggesting values of care make them more open to the scientific warnings of danger,” Hamilton wrote in a research paper on the survey findings.

Among non-parents, 40.4% of women said they were moderately or very hesitant about having children because of the changing climate, but only 17% of men (one in six) reported the same.

Hamilton suggests that greater hesitancy among women points to a “gendered calculus of risk”.

“Evidence we do have suggests that values of care make women much more open to the alarming nature of the scientific evidence and the visceral impact that weather events have on people,” he said.

Rising levels of climate concern could result in a decline in Australia’s birthrate, Hamilton added.

“There’s a massive disconnect between the conversations that are being had among young people about having children, and government and policy discussions about Australia’s demographic future,” he said. “This survey shows that this is an issue that can’t be ignored.”

The findings roughly align with those of a 2019 Australian Conservation Foundation survey, which found that one in three Australian women under 30 said they were reconsidering having children because of concerns about “an unsafe future from climate change”.

The Roy Morgan survey also involved respondents in areas affected by floods and fires since 2019. Living through extreme weather events had only a small effect on concern about climate change, it found.

“People have ways of explaining it away, or attributing it to natural factors, or are … unwilling to blame climate change for their misfortune,” Hamilton said.

Prof Iain Walker, a social psychologist at the University of Melbourne who was not involved in the survey, said that finding was consistent with other research both from Australia and internationally, which suggested that “experiencing extreme weather events makes little difference, and what difference it does make is likely short-lived”.

“I think the explanation to the counterintuitive effect lies in how people interpret the weather event,” Walker said. “People who already accept anthropogenic climate change will accept a flood or heatwave as more evidence that climate change is happening; those who already reject climate change will explain away the extreme weather events.”

Though the areas the survey identified as affected by extreme weather events were outside capital cities, it found that concern about the climate crisis was somewhat higher in cities than regional areas.

Links

• Recent Australian survey by Clive Hamilton / Roy Morgan Research
• Australia’s horrifying climate future in four charts – and how we can avoid the worst 
• The women choosing the climate over having a baby
• What do Australians think about climate change?
• Women’s Environmental Leadership Australia Report: Gender, Climate and Environmental Justice in Australia
• New survey shows women will change their lives – and votes – for climate action
• Climate change, mental health, and reproductive decision‑making: A systematic review
• The Climate Load (Australia)

COP30: A Test for Global Climate Action - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

COP30 is the next major test of the Paris process and global climate cooperation.[1] Delivery on finance, especially loss, damage, and adaptation, will shape outcomes.[5] Renewable energy and sustainable biofuels will be highlighted as implementation pathways.[8] Geopolitics and uneven national commitments threaten collective progress.[3] Operationalising previous decisions, not only new pledges, is a central test.[0] Civil society and Indigenous voices will press for equitable, transparent finance, and protection of forests.[5]

COP30 in Belém will test whether past summit promises become measurable action.

The summit’s outcome will hinge on finance, implementation, adaptation, and political will.

Countries must show updated national commitments, and measurable progress toward the 1.5°C goal.

If finance pledges for loss, damage, and adaptation remain vague, the summit will have limited impact.

Renewable energy scale-up, and sustainable biofuels are practical pathways that delegations will promote.

Geopolitical tensions and uneven ambition among major emitters pose the summit’s greatest constraint.

Civil society and Indigenous groups will watch closely for commitments that protect forests and frontline communities.

Why COP30 matters

COP30 is the main annual multilateral forum where nearly all countries negotiate collective climate action under the UNFCCC framework.^[1]

The conference comes after COP29, which focused attention on a new collective quantified finance goal and revealed deep divides on resource allocation.^[3]

COP30 in Belém offers an opportunity to move from broad commitments to operational detail on finance, adaptation, and implementation of the UAE consensus, and other prior decisions.^[0]

The selection of Belém and the Amazon setting places forests and land use on the agenda in a symbolic and practical way for global mitigation and biodiversity links.^[9]

Key agenda items

Countries will present updated nationally determined contributions or explain why updates are delayed, which affects credibility and aggregated ambition.^[6]

Operationalising finance flows to support mitigation, adaptation, and the Loss and Damage Fund will be a central negotiating thread.^[5]

The UAE Consensus goals on tripling renewables and doubling energy efficiency remain implementation priorities and will be reviewed for progress and concrete pledges.^[4]

Sustainable biofuels and sustainable aviation fuel targets are expected to feature as specific sectoral measures to reduce emissions in hard-to-abate transport sectors.^[8]

Main obstacles

The single largest obstacle is the political gap between wealthy and developing countries over who pays for historical and ongoing losses caused by climate change.^[5]

Another obstacle is the uneven updating of pledges, with only a minority of countries submitting robust new NDCs on the timetable many analysts expected.^[6]

Geopolitical strain, including reduced engagement by some major powers, complicates consensus building and reduces pressure for strong outcomes.^[11]

Technical and institutional hurdles remain in converting high-level finance pledges into accessible, on-the-ground funding for adaptation and loss and damage.

Finance and loss and damage

Progress on the Loss and Damage Fund’s mobilisation and disbursement mechanisms will determine whether vulnerable states see material relief this decade.^[5]

Donor pledges must be paired with transparent rules that reduce bureaucratic barriers and ensure funds reach communities rather than being delayed by administrative complexity.^[9]

Discussions about a new collective quantified finance goal aim to set a clear numeric target for climate finance flows to 2035 and beyond, but details remain contentious.^[3]

Politics, implementation, and credibility

Delivering measurable implementation of existing agreements will matter more than symbolic language in the final COP texts.^[0]

Host country priorities shape agenda weight and Brazil’s choice of Belém highlights land use, forest protection, and the Amazon’s role in climate stability.^[9]

Civil society scrutiny and Indigenous advocacy will be crucial in holding negotiators to commitments and making the process more accountable.^[5]

Outcomes to watch

Successful COP30 outcomes would include clear operational rules for loss and damage disbursement and a timetable for increased adaptation finance.^[5]

Concrete sectoral pledges, such as biofuel production targets or renewable deployment roadmaps, will show implementation focus beyond abstract language.^[8]

A failure to define financing mechanisms, or to secure stronger NDCs, would leave the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal increasingly out of reach.

Conclusion

COP30 is less a single decisive moment than a step in a long sequence, where implementation and finance must finally catch up to rhetoric.

The summit’s true measure will be whether negotiators turn prior commitments into clear funds, programs, and verifiable national actions.

For citizens and vulnerable communities, the most important outcome will be material support for adaptation and loss recovery, rather than new promises alone.^[5]

References

1. Why COP30 matters & how it can succeed (C2ES PDF)
2. About COP30 - UNFCCC
3. COP29: Progresses and challenges to global efforts on the climate
4. Delivering on the UAE Consensus: Tracking progress toward tripling renewable energy capacity (IRENA)
5. Loss and Damage: a people’s priority to be upheld at COP30 (Amnesty)
6. About COP30 (COP30 official site)
7. IRENA chief expects sustainable biofuels to feature as key COP30 theme (Reuters)
8. COP30: Optimistic Brazil seeks to secure concrete progress on climate action (Le Monde)
9. COP 29: Progress, pitfalls, and the road ahead for climate action (Hogan Lovells)

Back to Top