Australia’s Climate Blind Spot: Why Schools Still Fail to Teach the Defining Crisis of This Century - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Climate change appears in the Australian Curriculum but is unevenly taught across year levels. [1] Primary school students are not guaranteed structured climate change education. [1] Secondary climate education is stronger but varies by subject and teacher confidence. [2] Climate literacy is increasingly recognised as essential for economic, civic and social resilience. [3] A coherent national approach could better prepare students for a climate-shaped future. [4]

Australia’s education system is quietly failing to equip young people with the climate knowledge they will need to survive and govern a warming world.

Whether climate change is taught in Australia’s primary and secondary schools is no longer academic. 

Climate change is already reshaping Australia’s economy, ecosystems, infrastructure and public health. 

The children currently sitting in classrooms will spend their adult lives navigating escalating heat, extreme weather, ecological disruption and energy transition. 

Whether they understand these forces will influence how well Australia copes.

Climate change does appear in the Australian Curriculum. But its treatment is fragmented, uneven and often delayed until late secondary school. As a result, many students complete their schooling with only a partial understanding of climate science, risks, and responses.

How climate change appears in the Australian Curriculum

Australia’s national curriculum is set by the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA), with implementation overseen by States and Territories. In the most recent Version 9.0 update, ACARA significantly increased explicit references to climate change across learning areas.

ACARA documents identify more than thirty explicit mentions of climate change across science, geography, humanities, civics and cross-curriculum priorities. This represents a substantial increase compared with earlier versions, where climate change was frequently implicit or peripheral. ^[1]

In secondary school, climate change is most clearly addressed in Science and Geography, particularly in Years 9 and 10. Students are expected to learn about greenhouse gases, energy balance, observed warming, impacts and mitigation strategies. Civics and citizenship subjects may also touch on international climate agreements and governance.

However, the curriculum does not mandate a comprehensive climate learning sequence across all years. Much depends on subject selection, teacher confidence and school priorities.

Primary school climate education: largely optional

In primary school, climate change is rarely taught explicitly. While related concepts appear, such as weather, natural hazards, ecosystems and sustainability, there is no requirement that students understand climate change as a scientific and societal phenomenon.

Analyses of curriculum changes show that earlier geography content dealing with climate systems was reduced in favour of broader environmental themes. This has limited opportunities to introduce climate concepts early in an age-appropriate way. ^[5]

As a result, primary climate education often depends on individual teachers or schools choosing to go beyond minimum requirements. Some schools engage external programs or use state-based resources, but coverage remains inconsistent across jurisdictions.

This gap matters. Research shows that early climate education supports scientific literacy, critical thinking and emotional resilience. Delaying structured climate learning until adolescence risks leaving students unprepared to understand climate impacts they are already experiencing.

Secondary school climate education: uneven depth

Secondary schools provide more formal exposure to climate change, particularly in science. Students typically learn about the enhanced greenhouse effect, evidence of warming and human drivers. Geography classes may examine climate impacts, adaptation, and mitigation.

Yet even at this level, coverage is uneven. Climate change may be treated as one unit among many, sometimes rushed or disconnected from real-world decision making. Teachers report uncertainty about how deeply to engage with policy, economics, or social justice dimensions.

Studies and departmental reviews indicate that some educators avoid climate change due to perceived controversy, lack of training or concern about community backlash. ^[2]

The result is fragmented climate literacy. Students may learn isolated facts without understanding how climate change shapes energy systems, food security, employment, health, or governance.

Barriers teachers face

Teachers operate within crowded curricula and tight time constraints. Literacy and numeracy targets dominate early schooling, leaving little room for emerging cross-cutting issues unless they are clearly prioritised.

Many teachers report limited access to professional development focused on climate pedagogy. While scientific consensus is clear, translating climate knowledge into age-appropriate, solution-focused learning requires support.

There is also concern about student anxiety. Without guidance on constructive framing, some teachers avoid climate discussions rather than risk distress. This avoidance can inadvertently increase anxiety by leaving students without tools to understand or contextualise what they see in the world around them.

Why climate literacy matters

Climate change is no longer a niche scientific topic. It influences infrastructure design, public health planning, agriculture, insurance, defence, energy markets and labour demand. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) has repeatedly warned that climate impacts will intensify across Australia this century. ^[6]

Students leaving school today will enter a workforce shaped by decarbonisation, climate adaptation and disaster response. Climate literacy supports employability, civic participation and democratic decision making.

Young Australians themselves consistently express strong interest in learning about climate change and contributing to solutions. Education systems that ignore this reality risk disengagement and mistrust.

Should climate change be taught more comprehensively?

The evidence strongly suggests yes. A coherent national approach would ensure all students develop climate literacy regardless of school, postcode, or teacher background.

This would involve explicit learning outcomes at each stage of schooling, beginning with foundational concepts in primary years and progressing toward systems thinking, solutions and civic engagement in secondary school.

Climate change should be integrated across disciplines. Mathematics can explore data trends. Civics can examine governance. Arts can explore cultural responses. Science can provide the physical foundation.

Teacher support is essential. Commonwealth and state governments could expand professional development, resource hubs and curriculum guidance aligned with best practice and scientific consensus.

Preparing students for a climate-shaped future

Education alone cannot solve climate change. But without climate-literate citizens, Australia’s capacity to respond is weakened.

Schools shape how young people understand risk, responsibility, and possibility. Teaching climate change clearly, early and constructively is not political advocacy. It is preparation for reality.

The world Australian students will inherit is already warmer than the one their parents knew. Education systems that fail to acknowledge this are not neutral. They are unprepared.

References

1. ACARA: Australian Curriculum Version 9.0 and climate change
2. Australian Government Department of Education: Climate change education
3. IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report
4. Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO: State of the Climate
5. The Conversation: Climate change in the Australian Curriculum
6. CSIRO: Climate change science and impacts

Back to top

Burning issue: how the world’s biggest fossil fuel users are driving and reshaping the climate crisis - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Ten countries burning most fossil fuels drive the bulk of global CO₂ emissions and will decide whether the world stays within safe climate limits 1. Emissions from coal, oil and gas hit record highs in 2023 even as clean energy investment accelerates 2. Policy responses among major emitters range from aggressive coal phase‑outs to renewed fossil fuel expansion and subsidy regimes 3. By 2030, fossil fuel demand is projected to peak globally but remain stubbornly high in several producer economies 4. Communities in the top‑emitting countries already face escalating social, economic and ecological damage from a warming climate 5. Planners and policymakers must deliberately wind down fossil fuel production while scaling renewables, efficiency and just transition measures 6.

Heating the planet, one barrel and tonne at a time

Burning coal, oil and gas is still pushing global greenhouse gas emissions to record highs, even as the science makes clear that most fossil fuels must stay in the ground to avoid catastrophic climate change.²

Fossil fuels account for nearly 90% of carbon dioxide released by human activity, driving an “enhanced greenhouse effect” where extra heat is trapped in the atmosphere and oceans.¹

That additional heat is already supercharging deadly heatwaves, extreme rainfall, coral bleaching and bushfires, with impacts felt from Chinese manufacturing hubs to Indian farms and American suburbs.⁵

Responsibility for these emissions is highly concentrated, with ten economies led by China, the United States, India, the European Union and Russia producing the majority of global fossil‑fuel CO₂ each year.¹

These same countries are also central to solutions, because their policies on coal power, oil demand, gas infrastructure and industry will set the pace of the global energy transition this decade.⁴

Recent data suggests global demand for fossil fuels could peak before 2030 under current policies, but not fall fast enough to align with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5C temperature goal.⁴

The choices these major emitters make now – whether to double down on fossil fuels or accelerate clean alternatives – will shape social stability, economic resilience and ecological survival far beyond their borders.⁵

The big ten: who burns the most

Recent emissions inventories show that China, the United States, India, the EU‑27, Russia, Japan, Indonesia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and South Korea are the world’s largest national greenhouse gas emitters, dominated by fossil fuel combustion.¹

Together, these ten economies account for well over half of global fossil fuel consumption and nearly two‑thirds of greenhouse gas emissions, despite representing a smaller share of the world’s population.¹

China alone is responsible for more annual CO₂ from fossil fuels than any other country, driven by coal‑fired power, heavy industry and rising oil use for transport.⁹

The United States follows as the largest historical emitter, with high per‑capita oil and gas consumption, particularly in transport, buildings and electricity generation, although coal has declined.⁹

India’s emissions are growing rapidly from a lower base, as coal still dominates power generation and energy demand rises with industrialisation and urbanisation.⁹

The European Union’s emissions are falling overall, but gas‑fired power, industry and transport still produce substantial CO₂, and several member states remain reliant on imported fossil fuels.⁷

Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran stand out as major fossil fuel exporters whose domestic economies and state budgets are deeply tied to oil and gas production and associated emissions.⁵

Are the biggest emitters changing course

All of the top‑emitting countries have signed the Paris Agreement and pledged to reduce emissions, yet their actual policies on coal, oil and gas vary widely in ambition and credibility.⁵

China has committed to peak CO₂ emissions before 2030 and carbon neutrality before 2060, has already met its 2030 non‑fossil electricity target early and is adding record amounts of solar and wind capacity, but it is also still approving and building new coal power plants.¹⁰

The United States has legislated major clean energy subsidies and standards through laws such as the Inflation Reduction Act, which are expected to cut power sector emissions and accelerate electric vehicles, yet federal leasing for oil and gas and continued exports undermine a full phase‑out trajectory.¹⁰

India has expanded renewables rapidly and announced a net zero target for 2070, alongside initiatives for green hydrogen and energy efficiency, but it continues to rely on coal for grid stability and affordable power for development.⁹

The European Union has adopted a 2040 climate target, strengthened its emissions trading scheme and set deadlines to phase out unabated coal in many member states, though gas infrastructure and political backlash threaten to slow reforms.⁷

Japan and South Korea have pledged carbon neutrality by mid‑century and are tightening electricity plans, joining international alliances to phase down coal, while still banking on technologies such as co‑firing ammonia and hydrogen in fossil plants.¹

Major producers like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Indonesia continue to plan new oil, gas or coal projects, even as international institutions and civil society call for fossil fuel subsidy reform and clear end dates for extraction and combustion.⁵

What fossil fuel demand could look like in 2030

Energy outlooks from the International Energy Agency project that under today’s stated policies, global demand for coal, oil and gas will peak before 2030, largely due to rapid growth in renewables, electric vehicles and efficiency.⁴

In China, coal use is expected to plateau and then gradually decline this decade as solar, wind and nuclear expand, even though some new coal plants are being built for grid security and industrial demand.⁴

Oil demand in advanced economies including the United States, the European Union, Japan and South Korea is forecast to fall by 2030 as electric vehicles gain market share and fuel economy standards tighten.¹⁴

By contrast, oil and gas demand is projected to remain comparatively resilient in producer economies such as Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran, unless global climate policy and clean technology deployment move far faster than current trajectories.¹⁷

India and Indonesia are expected to see continued growth in energy demand overall, with scenarios showing coal and gas use peaking later if clean energy finance, technology transfer and grid upgrades fall short.⁸

Across all major emitters, announced pledges that fully implement net zero targets would cut fossil fuel use more sharply by 2030, but most countries have yet to align their detailed plans, investment decisions and subsidy regimes with those goals.⁴

The gap between declared ambition and concrete policy on fossil fuels will determine whether the world overshoots 1.5C in the early 2030s or manages a rapid, more orderly decline in emissions.⁹

Social and economic faultlines

The social consequences of continued fossil fuel use in the top‑emitting countries are already visible in worsening heat stress, lost labour productivity, food insecurity and mounting health impacts from air pollution.³

Farm workers in India and Indonesia are experiencing more days of dangerous heat and humidity, which reduce working hours and incomes while increasing the risk of heatstroke and kidney disease.³

In the United States, heatwaves and wildfire smoke linked to fossil fuel‑driven warming are straining health systems, raising mortality and adding billions of dollars in economic losses each year.⁶

China’s manufacturing regions and coastal cities face rising climate‑related disruption from typhoons, floods and droughts, threatening supply chains that serve global markets.⁹

Communities near coal mines, oilfields and gas export hubs from Russia to Saudi Arabia and Iran remain economically dependent on fossil fuel jobs and royalties, which exposes them to volatility as global demand shifts.⁵

Managing a just transition – where workers, regions and low‑income households are supported through reskilling, social protection and public investment – has become a central political challenge in each of these economies.⁸

Without deliberate planning, the eventual decline of fossil fuel industries could deepen inequality and trigger social unrest, especially in regions that lack economic diversification beyond coal, oil or gas.⁵

Ecological and cultural costs of endless combustion

Ecosystems in the major emitting countries are already under acute stress from the warming and weather extremes driven by continued fossil fuel combustion.³

Rising temperatures and changing rainfall are damaging forests, wetlands and croplands across China, India, Russia and the United States, increasing the risk of fire, pest outbreaks and crop failure.⁹

Ocean warming and acidification, fuelled by CO₂ from fossil fuels, threaten fisheries and coastal communities in Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and Iran, undermining food security and cultural practices tied to the sea.³

Indigenous communities from Siberia to the Persian Gulf and North America are seeing traditional lands and livelihoods transformed by melting permafrost, changing animal migrations and more intense storms.⁵

Cultural heritage sites and historic cities in Europe, the Middle East and Asia face increasing risk from sea‑level rise, flooding and heatwaves, challenging conservation efforts and tourism‑based economies.⁷

These ecological and cultural losses are cumulative and often irreversible on human timescales, which means every additional year of high fossil fuel emissions narrows the space for effective adaptation.⁹

The burden falls disproportionately on vulnerable groups – including low‑income households, Indigenous peoples and small‑scale farmers – who have contributed least to historic fossil fuel emissions.⁵

Politics of delay and transition

Fossil fuel politics in the top‑emitting countries are shaped by powerful incumbents, from national oil companies and utilities to industrial lobbies and regions reliant on coal and gas revenue.⁵

At recent UN climate summits, more than 80 countries have pushed for a clear global roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, while major producers and petrostates have fought to weaken or delay commitments.⁴

In the European Union and parts of the United States, political backlash against climate policies has emerged as parties capitalise on concerns about energy prices, jobs and cultural identity.⁷

China and India argue that developed countries should move fastest to cut emissions and provide more finance and technology for clean energy, highlighting historical responsibility and per‑capita disparities.¹²

Producer economies such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran depend heavily on oil and gas export revenue, which creates strong incentives to resist rapid global decarbonisation without credible pathways for diversification.¹⁷

International initiatives like Just Energy Transition Partnerships and emerging campaigns for a Fossil Fuel Non‑Proliferation Treaty aim to co‑ordinate finance, policy and oversight for a fair phase‑down.²

Yet current pledges and funding remain far short of what is needed to support coal regions in South Africa and Indonesia, oil‑dependent economies in the Middle East, and gas‑linked communities in Russia and the United States.⁵

What planners and policymakers must do now

For regional planners and policymakers in the world’s major emitting countries, reducing long‑term climate risk now depends on deliberately managing the decline of fossil fuel use rather than assuming markets will solve it.⁸

Planning systems need to embed carbon budgets and climate risk assessments into decisions on new power stations, industrial zones, housing developments, ports and transport corridors.⁵

Regulators and treasuries must phase out fossil fuel subsidies and reorient public spending toward energy efficiency, public transport, storage, grid upgrades and distributed renewables that cut both emissions and household bills.⁵

Labour market and education policies should support workers in coal mines, oilfields, gas plants and heavy industry with retraining, income support and early‑warning systems for industrial restructuring.⁸

Urban planners in megacities from Beijing to Delhi, Jakarta and Houston can reduce fossil fuel dependence by prioritising compact, transit‑oriented development, building standards that cut energy demand and heat‑resilient public spaces.³

Critically, planners must involve affected communities, Indigenous groups and workers in decision‑making, to build legitimacy for transition plans and reduce the risk of political backlash.⁵

Coordinated regional planning that aligns land‑use, transport, energy and industry can lock in lower‑carbon pathways now and avoid expensive retrofits or stranded assets later this century.⁴

Stopping the burn: adaptation, policy and the end of fossil fuels

Even with rapid emissions cuts, climate impacts will intensify in the coming decades, which means adaptation must happen alongside an accelerated phase‑out of coal, oil and gas in the top‑emitting countries.⁹

Adaptation priorities include heat‑resilient housing and workplaces, upgraded drainage and flood defences, climate‑smart agriculture, coastal protection and disaster‑ready health systems in vulnerable regions.³

To stop burning fossil fuels, governments need clear timelines to end new exploration, halt approvals for unabated coal plants and retire existing fossil infrastructure in line with 1.5C‑consistent carbon budgets.⁵

National climate plans should spell out how and when coal, oil and gas production and consumption will decline, backed by laws, economic instruments and public investment that make clean energy the default choice.⁵

Internationally, richer high‑emitting countries have a responsibility to provide far more climate finance and technology support to emerging economies, so they can leapfrog to renewables instead of locking in fossil‑fuelled growth.¹²

Ultimately, phasing out fossil fuels is less a question of technical feasibility than of political will, public pressure and the speed at which governments decide to shift power, money and planning away from coal, oil and gas.¹

The decisions taken this decade in Beijing, Washington, Delhi, Brussels, Moscow, Riyadh, Jakarta, Tehran, Tokyo and Seoul will determine whether future generations inherit a liveable climate or a dangerously destabilised one.⁹

References

1. Global Carbon Project – Fossil CO₂ emissions at record high in 2023
2. World Resources Institute – Countries phasing out coal the fastest
3. NASA – Emissions from fossil fuels continue to rise
4. Carbon Brief – IEA: Fossil‑fuel use will peak before 2030
5. IISD – Next generation national climate plans must phase out fossil fuels
6. Stanford – Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels reached record high in 2023
7. Climate Action Tracker – EU policies and action
8. UNFCCC / IISD – Fossil fuel phase‑out and a just transition
9. EDGAR – GHG emissions of all world countries 2024 report
10. Climate Council – Power Shift: The US, China and the race to net zero
11. List of countries by greenhouse gas emissions
12. IEA – Oil 2025: Analysis and forecast to 2030
13. IEEJ – A global energy outlook to 2035 with strategic considerations

Back to top

Collapse is near, scientists warn - 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)

The apocalypse of civilisation is now closer than it has ever been in the whole of human history.

That’s the latest assessment of the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. You know, the chaps who devised the Doomsday Clock, back in 1947, after inventing the atomic bomb and then realising, oops, we may just have signed humanity’s death warrant.

They have just reset the clock at 85 seconds to midnight – the closest to absolute catastrophe it has ever been, even compared with the fearful depths of the Cold War and its mad nuclear arsenals.

This time the reasoning is based on not only on an out-of-control nuclear arms race – but also on the mad behaviour of some of the world’s most powerful countries, galloping global heating, the emerging threat of crazy scientists creating deadly new plagues and the ungoverned use of disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence, especially in the military sphere.

“Russia, China, the United States, and other major countries have instead become increasingly aggressive, adversarial, and nationalistic. Hard-won global understandings are collapsing, accelerating a winner-takes-all great power competition and undermining the international cooperation critical to reducing the risks of nuclear war, climate change, the misuse of biotechnology, the potential threat of artificial intelligence, and other apocalyptic dangers,” says Doomsday editor John Mecklin.

The trouble is that the latest assessment omits at least seven other global catastrophic threats which combine to place us a lot closer to midnight than the Chicago group have calculated. But first to what they are actually measuring in the human death-wish.

They noted an escalation in the threat of nuclear conflict between Europe and Russia, as well as Ukraine and Russia, and – with the withdrawal of the USA, the likely creation of a new European arsenal. The threat was also magnified between India and Pakistan as well as between Israel and Iran, while North Korea has traded its troops as Putin’s cannon-fodder in exchange for Russian nuclear weaponry. Meanwhile the anti-nuclear treaties have mostly fallen in a heap.

“In 2025, the world slipped closer to normalising nuclear risks. There was an almost complete absence of communication on strategic stability among nuclear adversaries and no sustained pressure from non-nuclear weapons countries for engagement. Also worrying is a lack of leadership on nuclear issues, with no country stepping up to stem the growing sense of disorder and breakdown of norms,” the group reported.

On climate it found: “Record-breaking climate trends continued in 2024 and 2025. Globally averaged temperature in 2024 was at the warmest level in 175 years of record-keeping. Likewise, atmospheric carbon dioxide—the greenhouse gas most responsible for human-caused climate change—reached a new high of 152 percent of 1750 levels.”

The average time between major climatic disasters like floods, droughts and hurricanes has decreased from 80 days in the 1980s to just 12 days now. Quote that to those who say nothing has changed.

Meanwhile the Trump, Putin and Al Salman regimes, along with others, are doing everything they can to bake your kids as quickly as possible. Even if all the world’s caron reduction schemes were implemented, the world is still going to +2.5 degrees this century, the Chicago group warns.

Their third major threat of a global wipeout is the recent warning that biotechnology and AI can now be combined to develop a plague capable of destroying not only humans, but most life on Earth along with them.

Dozens of scientists have now proposed creating “mirror life” from living disease organisms in the laboratory. These are organisms with an opposite chirality (molecular shape) to existing pathogens, which means that nobody (and maybe no animal) would have any immunity to them, since our immune system is adapted to molecules of a particular shape.

Scientists and policymakers recently agreed the threat of this happening is real – but there are no global means of controlling or preventing it from happening, especially by malicious actors, the Doomsday Clock authors warn.

The global fascination with Artificial Intelligence has led to a stampede to apply it in as many new uses as possible, before other countries can do so. And this is what is arming and driving the race to use AI to build ever-more dreadful nuclear and biological weapons systems.

At the same time “Increasing chaos, disorder, and dysfunction in the world’s information ecosystem threaten society’s capacity to address difficult challenges, and it is clear that AI has great potential to accelerate these processes of information corruption.”

In short, society will not know if anything is true any longer or not, and will soon lose all ability to make intelligent decisions. It will be reduced to the same informational state as the Dark Age following the fall of the Roman Empire.

Those are the chief factors that caused the Chicago Group to advance the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 85 second to midnight, the harshest warning it has ever uttered.

Despite that, they forgot to mention that:

- Every child on the planet is being poisoned and brain-damaged daily by the ever-growing flood of toxic chemistry released by global society, and hardly anything is being done to halt it.

- The world water crisis is growing worse by the day, and is being exacerbated by global heating. Worldwide, rivers are dying.

- There is an alarming decline in the health of the world’s oceans, due to human activity, while fisheries are collapsing everywhere.

- The world food supply is approaching collapse due to lack of water, loss of topsoil, universal use of poisons and climate change.

- Rates of extinction are accelerating universally with the collapse of ecosystems threatening the survival of humans also.

- Forests are still being felled at unsustainable rates.

- The human population is 8.3 billion and growing at +70 million people a year.

- Human demand for resources is now nearly double what the Earth can supply sustainably.

- Seven of the Earth’s nine safety boundaries have now been breached.

If the scientists of the Chicago Group included these other catastrophic threats to humanity, they would probably push the hands of the Doomsday Clock far closer to midnight than in their latest appraisal, which covers only about one third of the major threats to human existence. They are looking at only a fraction of the problem.

The only way out for humanity of the hole we are digging for ourselves is to develop a binding world agreement, and an action plan, to abate all the threats simultaneously. Not just one or two of them. All of them.

That agreement is the Earth System Treaty, proposed by the Council for the Human Future. Without it we are, quite simply, embracing the Doomsday foretold by the Clock. And sooner than the most informed expect.

Julian Cribb Articles

• 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
•  Australia issues ‘terrifying’ climate warning
•  Military experts warn of climate wars
•  Tackling the Earth Emergency
•  A distracted world marches steadily towards catastrophe

Science Warns of Future Where Billions Bake - Gregory Andrews

Lyrebird Dreaming - Gregory Andrews 

Author Gregory Andrews is: Founder and Managing Director of Lyrebird Dreaming A former Australian Ambassador and High Commissioner in West Africa Australia’s first Threatened Species Commissioner A leader in Indigenous policy

As southeastern Australia swelters through its second record-breaking heatwave within weeks, it’s important to connect the dots between the weather here and the global science on a warming world.

A major new study from researchers at the University of Oxford has found that the number of people living with “extreme heat” will nearly double by 2050 if global warming reaches 2°C above pre-industrial levels. 

And we all know this is now a scenario that’s almost certain given the lack of political will for rapid cuts in fossil fuel emissions. 

The study shows almost one-quarter of the world’s population are already living under conditions defined as extreme heat. And twenty years from now, that share is set to expand to over 40 per cent - almost 4 billion people.

In practical terms, what the Oxford team modelled is a world where dangerous heat becomes the norm, not the exception. 

Where heatwaves like those Australia is experiencing now aren’t just blips; but rather, sustained heat intense enough to overwhelm human thermoregulation, stress health systems, seriously disrupt food and water supplies, and permanently harm ecological systems. 

This shift is also projected to kick in soon after the 1.5 °C threshold. That means it’s happening!

Heatwaves are already Australia’s most lethal natural hazard. They cause more deaths than bushfires, floods, and cyclones combined, disproportionately affecting older people, outdoor workers, First Nations, low-income communities, and anyone without reliable access to cooling. This isn’t hyperbole - it’s what public health data shows.

The science is crystal clear: climate change isn’t just making heatwaves happen - it’s making them hotter, longer, and more frequent. Human-caused warming amplifies the intensity of heat events by stacking the deck with higher baseline temperatures and stronger extremes. With every fraction of a degree of warming, heatwaves climb to new highs, last longer, and occur more frequently.

So as the mercury keeps hitting highs this summer, we can’t treat these events as isolated weather anomalies. They are yet another warning bell of a climate system responding to centuries of burning coal, oil, and gas. And they remind us why half-hearted climate targets and offset accounting won’t cut it. 

The world the Oxford researchers describe - one where billions live under prolonged extreme heat - is set to become our children’s normal. 

References  

• Nearly half the world’s population will experience extreme heat under 2 °C warming
• IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Synthesis Report
• Climate change and health, World Health Organization
• State of the Climate in Australia, Bureau of Meteorology
• State of the Climate, CSIRO
• Increasing frequency and intensity of heat extremes due to human influence
• Extreme heat and human health, Australian Government Department of Health
• The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change
• Emissions Gap Report, United Nations Environment Programme
• Heatwaves are Australia’s new normal and they’re going to get worse

Back to top

Southward Bound: How Warming Seas Are Driving Sharks and Marine Life Down Australia’s Coast - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Sharks shifting south along east coast1 Ocean temps hit record highs2 Poleward migration global trend3 Threats to fisheries, biodiversity4 Expert warnings on habitat squeeze5 Urgent need for policy shifts6

Off Nambucca Heads, on the NSW Mid North Coast, a research vessel slices through dawn haze as a bull shark's fin slices the surface, a sight once rare this far south.

Scientists aboard, from UNSW's marine lab, tag the creature, noting water at 28°C, 2°C above norms for January 2026².

This shark has journeyed 500km south from Queensland, chasing tolerable temps amid the East Australian Current's relentless push¹.

CSIRO data logs east coast seas warming 0.8°C per decade since 2015, mirroring global trends driving marine life poleward².

White sharks now linger off Sydney year-round, bull sharks extend NSW stays by a day yearly, and hammerheads invade Tasmania's cooler realms¹.

It's not isolated: tuna, turtles, coral fish follow suit, reshaping ocean food webs from Cairns to the Roaring Forties³.

As Australia enters uncharted oceanic territory by 2040, fishers and ecologists warn of collapsing quotas, novel predators, and biodiversity flux⁴.

Record Warming Fuels Flight

IMOS (Integrated Marine Observing System) buoys off Sydney Harbour clocked 2025's peak sea surface temps at 29.5°C, shattering records by 1.2°C, per CSIRO's annual marine update². 

This heat spike, tied to a third global coral bleaching event, forces ectotherms like sharks – reliant on ambient water for thermoregulation – to migrate or perish. NOAA's (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) 2026 ocean heat content data confirms southern hemispheres absorbing 91% of excess planetary warmth, accelerating the East Australian Current southward by 3km yearly¹⁰.

Dr Jessica Meeuwig, UWA marine ecologist, observes: "Sharks are grey nomads heading south as tropics turn lethal – bull sharks now claim three extra NSW months by 2030."¹ 

Her team's acoustic tracking reveals juveniles extending Sydney sojourns 15 days over 15 years. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) AR6 projects 2–4°C east coast rises by 2100 under medium emissions, compressing habitable bands¹¹.

Parallel global patterns emerge: US Northeast lobster fisheries crashed as warming evicted them poleward 240km since 1960s, per EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) indicators⁹. 

In Australia, scalloped hammerheads – once tropical – now prowl Jervis Bay, displacing locals.

Shark Shuffle Disrupts Food Webs

Bull sharks shadowing estuaries chase whiting and bream southward, starving northern prey stocks while novel competition hits Tasmanian cool-water species¹. 

UNSW's Dr Blake Lubitz models bull shark range expanding 500km south by 2050, overlapping with declining gummy sharks. Trophic cascades loom: overabundant tropicals devour juvenile temperate fish, eroding biodiversity hotspots like Twofold Shelf⁵.

"Habitat compression squeezes juveniles – north retreats, south no refuge yet," warns Southern Cross University's Adrienne Gooden, tracking whites via satellites¹. 

Her data shows sub-adults clustering at 16–24°C optima, now shifting Victoria-NSW borders. University of Tasmania's Gretta Pecl documents 82% of southeast species poleward-bound, averaging 59km/decade¹².

Coral trout and red emperor, reef icons, flee a warming GBR (Great Barrier Reef) at 7km/year, per AIMS (Australian Institute of Marine Science) long-term monitoring, invading southern trawl grounds⁴.

Fisheries Face Flux

Commercial prawners off Eden report 40% bull shark bycatch hikes since 2023, shredding nets and slashing hauls, says NSW DPI (New South Wales Department of Primary Industries) fisher logs¹. 

Quotas for southern calamari plummet as invaders disrupt spawning; kingfish – shifting 102km/decade east coast – evade traditional gillnets⁶. 

Economic toll: $200m annual hit projected for east coast fleets by 2040, per FRDC (Fisheries Research and Development Corporation) climate vulnerability assessment.

Local fisher Mick Reilly, Stroud Holidays charter captain, laments: "Used to dodge tigers north of Coffs; now makos tail us to Port Stephens – clients spooked, bookings down 30%."¹ 

Recreational sectors echo pain: surf clubs log novel white shark patrols from Seal Rocks to Bicheno. Tasmania's abalone divers face hammerhead swarms, halting harvests.

IPCC flags fisheries yield drops 20–30% in tropics, gains fleeting in poles before ecosystems destabilise¹¹.

Global Echoes, Local Alarms

CSIRO-IMOS fusion maps tuna poleward at 400km/decade globally, greens turtles nesting south to Sydney for cooler hatcheries². 

Peer-reviewed meta-analysis in Nature Climate Change (2023) tracks 595 fish stocks: 70% poleward, velocity matching heat gradients³. 

European sardines oust herring; Alaskan pollock southbound on cool cycles.

University of Sunshine Coast's Alice Pidd notes: "Kingfish blitz 102km/decade here – rules for parks, quotas must evolve."⁴ 

Deakin's Louisa Graf probes Victorian rays: tropicals outcompete, pushing cold-affiliates westward. NOAA's Gulf models predict snapper 300km north by 2050 – Australia's mirror inverted.

Ocean acidosis compounds: undersaturated aragonite dissolves pteropod shells, base of shark food chains¹⁰.

Adaptation Hurdles Ahead

Marine parks like Solitary Islands face invader influx sans tropical exclusion; dynamic boundaries needed, urges IMOS director². 

Fisheries quotas lag migrations – AFMA's (Australian Fisheries Management Authority) static TACCs (Total Allowable Commercial Catches) blind to 20km/year shifts. Policy lag risks extinctions: whitefin swellsharks retreat Bass Strait under dual fishing-heat pressure⁸.

Prof David Schoeman (UniSC) cautions: "Post-2040 averages exceed 2015 extremes – conservation paradigms obsolete."⁶ 

UNSW advocates AI-driven acoustic arrays for real-time tracking, feeding adaptive management.

 Community co-design is vital: First Nations knowledge integrates holistically with western science for resilient parks.

Federal marine estate review, due 2027, must embed climate velocity, or watch icons flee.

References

• Sharks seek sea change as ocean temperatures rise - ABC News
• Ocean Warming and Marine Life Migration - Seaside Sustainability
• Study: Most marine fish are responding to ocean warming by relocating toward the poles - Global Seafood
• Marine wildlife fleeing to poles due to global heating - Island Times
• Feeling the Heat: Warming Oceans Drive Fish Into Cooler Waters - Yale E360
• Climate change: global heating warming oceans uncharted future Australia - The Guardian
• Warming oceans are changing marine habitats - The Invading Sea
• Global warming to reshape Australian shark and ray populations - Marine Conservation
• Climate Change Indicators: Marine Species Distribution - US EPA
• Climate Change Indicators: Marine Species Distribution - NOAA
• IPCC AR6 Ocean, Cryosphere and Sea Level Change
• IMOS-UTAS Marine Migration Atlas

Back to top 

Decades Ahead of Schedule: What a Fast‑Forward Climate Means for Life on Earth - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Climate impacts once expected mid‑century, from deadly heatwaves to rapid ice loss, are already unfolding worldwide in the 2020s Scientists warn the world is on track to breach the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 °C threshold before 2030, with 2024 the first year above 1.5 °C on average Escalating extremes are already costing hundreds of billions of dollars and exposing deep inequalities in how nations can respond and recover Europe’s first continent‑wide climate risk assessment finds many risks have reached critical levels and that adaptation is falling dangerously behind Experts say the acceleration exposes gaps in earlier climate modelling and political assumptions, raising urgent questions for global climate policy and public awareness UN and independent analyses show only unprecedented emissions cuts this decade can keep 1.5 °C technically within reach and avoid locking in dangerous tipping points

In the space of a few short years, the climate crisis has shifted from a looming future threat to a disruptive present reality that is reshaping daily life on every continent.¹

Record‑breaking heat, unseasonal deep freezes, megafires, floods and sudden glacier losses are now arriving in clusters, straining emergency services, food systems and fragile ecosystems.²

Events once described in scientific reports as likely in the 2050s or 2070s are instead unfolding in the 2020s, compressing timelines for governments, businesses and communities that had planned for a slower‑burn crisis.³

Researchers quoted in a recent AOL feature warn that climate impacts are now “decades ahead of forecasts”, with polar regions warming around four times faster than the global average and driving cascading risks far beyond the Arctic and Antarctic.⁴

The European Environment Agency’s first continent‑wide climate risk assessment paints a similar picture closer to home, finding many risks have already reached critical levels and could become catastrophic without urgent action.⁵

At the same time, new UN analyses warn that the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 °C warming goal could be effectively breached within a few years, roughly a decade earlier than many policymakers had assumed when the deal was signed in 2015.⁶

As governments grapple with compounding disasters and rising costs, the accelerating crisis is exposing gaps in climate models, in political planning and in public understanding of how quickly a hotter world would arrive.⁷

The future arrives early

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its sixth assessment report, it concluded that human activity had already warmed the planet by about 1.1 °C since the late 19th century and that 1.5 °C would likely be reached or exceeded in the coming two decades.⁸

That cautious phrasing now looks understated, after 2024 became the first year in which the global average temperature exceeded 1.5 °C above pre‑industrial levels and a string of months broke heat records over land and sea.⁹

Scientists stress that the Paris target refers to a long‑term 20‑year average, not a single year, yet leading climate researchers and the UN secretary general now acknowledge that overshooting 1.5 °C in the late 2020s is all but inevitable without drastic cuts this decade.¹⁰

New analyses suggest that if current national pledges are fully implemented, the world is still on course for between 2.6 °C and just over 3 °C of warming by 2100, far beyond the thresholds at which heat, drought and flood risks escalate sharply.¹¹

These projections sit uneasily alongside the lived reality in many regions, where changes once treated as end‑of‑century scenarios, such as multi‑week heatwaves and rapid glacier retreat, have become regular features of the climate news cycle.¹²

The IPCC has already warned that heat extremes that would have been rare in a cooler climate are now more frequent and intense, while further warming will accelerate permafrost thaw, glacier melt and the loss of snow cover and summer Arctic sea ice.¹³

In an AOL article published this month, experts say these changes are “decades ahead of forecasts” and caution that relying on speculative geoengineering schemes, such as injecting particles into the stratosphere or building massive sea walls, risks further destabilising an already stressed climate system.¹⁴

Heat, ice and extremes in a fast‑forward climate

One of the clearest signals of the accelerating crisis is the surge in extreme heat, which the IPCC and national weather agencies now link directly to human‑driven warming in attribution studies that compare observed events with modelled worlds without greenhouse gas emissions.¹⁵

In Europe, Asia, North America and parts of Africa, recent summers have delivered heatwaves that smashed temperature records, pushed power grids to breaking point and caused thousands of excess deaths, particularly among older people and outdoor workers.¹⁶

The European Environment Agency warns that southern Europe has become a hotspot for compound risks, with extreme heat and drought undermining agricultural production, outdoor labour and human health while also priming forests for more severe wildfires.¹⁷

Beyond heat, the cryosphere – the frozen parts of the planet – is undergoing rapid and in some cases abrupt change, from the retreat of mountain glaciers to increased melting of polar ice sheets that lock in sea level rise for centuries.¹⁸

The IPCC’s impacts assessment notes that glaciers and snow cover in many regions will continue to shrink in coming decades, while recent work on climate “tipping points” suggests that even within the 1.5–2 °C range there is a risk of triggering irreversible ice sheet loss in Greenland and West Antarctica.¹⁹

Researchers have also documented more frequent marine heatwaves, which can devastate coral reefs and fisheries, and more intense rainfall extremes that overwhelm ageing drainage systems and floodplains designed for a more stable climate.²⁰

In the United States alone, federal data show the number and cost of billion‑dollar weather and climate disasters have climbed sharply over the past decade, with cumulative losses since 1980 now approaching US$3 trillion.²¹

Societies under strain

The impacts of this rapid warming are not only environmental; they are social, economic and political, reshaping where people can live, how food is grown and how societies allocate scarce resources for recovery and adaptation.²²

Globally, one recent analysis for business groups estimated that climate‑related extreme weather events cost the world economy more than US$2 trillion between 2014 and 2023, with a sharp rise in losses in the last two years of that period.²³

The burden falls unevenly, with developing countries often suffering disasters whose economic cost can exceed their annual gross domestic product, leaving them trapped between servicing debt, rebuilding infrastructure and investing in long‑term resilience.²⁴

Within countries, climate shocks deepen existing inequalities, as low‑income households, Indigenous communities and people with insecure work are more likely to live in high‑risk areas, have less access to insurance and face greater barriers to relocating after disasters.²⁵

Health systems are already feeling the pressure, from heat‑related illness and smoke inhalation during prolonged bushfire seasons to the spread of vector‑borne diseases such as dengue fever into regions that were previously too cool for the mosquitoes that transmit them.²⁶

The European climate risk assessment highlights risks not just to people and ecosystems but to financial stability, warning that repeated disasters could strain solidarity mechanisms such as the EU Solidarity Fund and destabilise insurance markets.²⁷

As climate impacts intersect with food price spikes, energy shocks and migration pressures, analysts warn of rising potential for social unrest and for political actors to exploit grievances, particularly where governments are seen to have underestimated or mishandled the risks.²⁸

What the acceleration reveals

For many scientists, the speed and severity of current impacts do not mean that climate models were fundamentally wrong, but rather that their warnings were too often filtered through political and economic assumptions about gradual change and linear risk.²⁹

IPCC assessments have long emphasised that extremes, such as heatwaves and heavy rainfall, would increase faster than average conditions, yet decision‑makers often seized on global mean temperature targets as if they were precise stabilisation points rather than markers on a spectrum of escalating hazards.³⁰

Recent research on tipping points reinforces that even warming levels within the Paris range may not be “safe”, because they raise the probability of crossing thresholds that trigger self‑reinforcing changes, from forest dieback in the Amazon to abrupt permafrost thaw that releases more methane.³¹

At the same time, observational data have improved, revealing that some regional processes – such as Arctic amplification, where high‑latitude regions warm much faster than the global average – are progressing at the upper end of earlier projections.³²

The AOL reporting on polar geoengineering underscores a related concern: that betting on unproven technological fixes could distract from the immediate task of rapidly cutting emissions and adapting to impacts that are already locked in by past pollution.³³

Experts quoted in that piece argue that large‑scale interventions designed to reflect sunlight or reshape ocean circulation could create new environmental risks and governance disputes, while consuming time and money that would be better spent on proven solutions such as renewable energy, efficiency and ecosystem restoration.³⁴

Taken together, these findings point less to a failure of physics and more to a failure of politics and communication, in which cautious scientific language and optimistic policy narratives concealed the likelihood that “future” climate impacts would manifest within a single generation.³⁵

Policy, adaptation and public awareness

The rapid approach of 1.5 °C is forcing a reckoning in global climate policy, as governments prepare the next round of national climate plans and face pressure to align them with trajectories that keep the Paris goals technically alive.³⁶

The UN Environment Programme’s latest Emissions Gap Report concludes that to follow a least‑cost pathway to 1.5 °C, global greenhouse gas emissions must fall by about 42 per cent by 2030 compared with 2019 levels and by 57 per cent by 2035, a scale of reduction it describes as “unprecedented”.³⁷

On current policies, however, the world is heading towards a significantly hotter future, which is why the report warns that without stronger pledges and immediate action the 1.5 °C goal “will be gone within a few years”.³⁸

This has profound implications for adaptation, the term used to describe measures that reduce harm or take advantage of any limited benefits from climate change, such as redesigning cities to cope with heat, building flood‑resilient infrastructure or changing crop types and farming practices.³⁹

The European risk assessment makes clear that adaptation is not keeping pace with rising hazards, warning that incremental steps will not be enough and that some risks already demand transformative changes to how land is used, how ecosystems are protected and how critical infrastructure is planned and financed.⁴⁰

In many countries, the acceleration of impacts is also reshaping public awareness, as people who once saw climate change as an abstract environmental issue now experience its consequences in the form of smoky summers, flooded suburbs or soaring insurance premiums.⁴¹

Communication experts argue that this lived experience can unlock support for faster decarbonisation and stronger adaptation, but only if governments and media avoid fatalism and instead emphasise that every fraction of a degree of avoided warming reduces risks and protects lives and livelihoods.⁴²

A narrowing window

If there is a common thread running through the latest science, policy analysis and expert commentary, it is that the window for avoiding the most dangerous outcomes of global heating is narrowing but has not yet closed.⁴³

Climate scientists note that if the world can reach net zero emissions – where greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere are balanced by removals – global temperatures are likely to stabilise within about two decades, limiting further long‑term warming.⁴⁴

That prospect underpins calls from researchers, business groups and civil society for a rapid build‑out of clean energy, improvements in energy efficiency, reform of fossil fuel subsidies and changes in land use that protect and restore carbon‑rich ecosystems.⁴⁵

The choice facing governments is no longer between a stable past and a slightly warmer future, but between a world that manages a rapid yet orderly transition and one in which unmanaged climate chaos erodes the foundations of economies, democracies and cultures.⁴⁶

As the disasters of the 2020s make clear, the timetable for that choice has moved up, and the consequences of delay are already written in smoke, floodwaters and the silent retreat of ice.⁴⁷

References

• IPCC AR6: climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying (CMCC)
• Emissions Gap Report 2024: huge cuts needed to keep 1.5 °C alive (UNEP/UNEP‑CCC)
• UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024 summary (PBL)
• As we breach 1.5 °C, we must replace temperature limits (Nature)
• The 1.5 °C temperature target explained (WRI)
• Billion‑dollar weather and climate disasters (NOAA)
• 2020 US billion‑dollar disasters in context (NOAA Climate)
• Extreme weather events cost economy US$2 trillion over the last decade (ICC/Oxera)
• European Climate Risk Assessment (EEA)
• Europe is not prepared for rapidly growing climate risks (BGC Jena)
• The first EU climate risk assessment report (PSI)
• IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability (Zero Carbon Analytics)
• IPCC AR6: climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying (CMCC)
• ‘Climate change is here’: experts warn environmental crisis is decades ahead of forecasts (AOL / The Independent)
• “Unprecedented cuts” needed to keep 1.5 °C alive: Emissions Gap Report 2024 (IISD)
• Emissions Gap Report 2024: pledges must deliver (UNEP‑CCC)
• UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2024 summary (PBL)
• The 1.5 °C temperature target explained (WRI)
• Exceeding 1.5 °C global warming could trigger multiple climate tipping points (Science)
• Researchers warn that we can’t engineer our way out of the climate crisis (AOL)

Back to top