Andy Burnham promises drive to tackle toxic waste, raise fines and use AI-powered drones to detect illegal activity
Illegal dumps in West Yorkshire, Surrey and Kent will be cleared up using taxpayer money, Andy Burnham has announced, as the prime minister promises a new drive to tackle toxic waste.
Ministers have identified dumps in Bradford, Runnymede and the Isle of Sheppey, which collectively contain about 22,000 tonnes of illegal waste, to be cleared in the next phase of the government’s national clear-up effort.
New Zealand is not on track to adapt to growing climate risks, nor is it cutting emissions quickly enough, according to the latest reports issued by the Climate Change Commission.
Last week, the commission published an evaluation of progress on New Zealand’s adaptation plans, arguing that communities are exposed to greater risk of damage and costs while the government continues to delay decisions about who should pay.
Earlier this year, the commission pointed out that 97% of the government’s spend on natural hazards since 2010 has been on responding to and recovering from disasters, with only 3% going towards reducing future risk. Its latest report warns that the present course risks making things worse.
Here are two examples of the challenges councils and home owners are already facing.
In South Dunedin, about 6,000 houses are at risk of flooding and sea-level rise this century. Following lengthy community engagement, seven possible responses have been developed, ranging from pumping water to large-scale retreat. They cost between NZ$2 billion and $10 billion and would save varying numbers of homes.
The council has now asked for another more engineering-based response (pumps and seawalls) to be added. But the commission warns such responses may constitute “maladaptation” and calls for clearer direction and support from the government.
Another example is insurance. Premiums have risen sharply since January 2023, when Auckland experienced one of New Zealand’s worst floods. In flood zones, some people (perhaps 4%, the commission estimates) cannot get insurance at all.
But “insurance retreat” – when people cannot afford to fully insure their home – is potentially worse. The extent of retreat is not known, because data are not collected.
Politicians have an incentive to avoid blame
Adaptation decisions are complex, expensive and come with a high risk of policy failure.
Researchers have developed a blame avoidance framework to explain how politicians weigh up visibility (how much attention an issue attracts) against avoidability (who will be blamed for failure) before deciding on a course of action.
This can lead to inaction, which in turn risks derailment when impacts from physical climate events begin to overwhelm efforts to transition to a more stable and resilient world.
Minister for Climate Change Simon Watts recently proposed a law change that would require councils to make adaptation plans for communities at high risk from climate change hazards.
But he has not indicated where funding would come from, instead insisting cost-sharing would be determined in the next term of government. This sets up a future scenario in which central government avoids blame while councils are instead blamed for failing to implement their own plans.
Decarbonisation efforts slow down
If New Zealand is not adapting at the pace and scale climate risks demand, the commission’s earlier report on efforts to curb emissions paints a similarly bleak picture.
The report shows 82% of the reductions needed to meet the carbon budget for 2026-2030 are now at risk, as are 99% of cuts required for 2031–2035.
Three main sectors – electricity, agriculture and transport – are now at significant risk of not delivering their share of emissions reductions.
For electricity, this is because of slow progress towards solutions for dry years (when renewable generation from hydro power is reduced) and periods of peak demand during winter.
Meanwhile, the government continues to pursue a proposed import terminal for liquefied natural gas, which could delay the phase-out of gas in industry and unsettle investment decisions in renewable energy.
The agriculture sector is now forecast to miss its 2030 target because the government cancelled pricing agricultural emissions, instead relying on technologies such as methane inhibitors and vaccines, which have not yet arrived.
Had New Zealand stuck with the original standards introduced in 2021, carbon dioxide emissions would be 500,000 tonnes lower each year and $650 million in annual fuel costs would have been avoided. Instead, 203,000 fossil-fueled light vehicles were imported in 2025. They will be on the road for decades to come.
Reliance on emissions trading
The commission’s report shows the rate of emissions cuts has halved since 2023.
But some of the cuts after 2023 were due to deindustrialisation and a weak economic recovery, which tended to suppress emissions. Neither are preferred pathways.
The government continues to rely on the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as its main policy instrument, but the Climate Change Commission warns it is unlikely to effectively drive emissions cuts by the early 2030s because it does not provide a strong decarbonisation signal for either fossil fuels or forestry.
Agriculture is not in the ETS, and some industries receive free credits; overall, the ETS captures only 36% of New Zealand’s gross emissions.
Research shows that relying on a single instrument like the ETS will not lead to the rapid emissions cuts and transformation of the energy system needed to meet upcoming targets.
Internationally, the gap between the emissions cuts required to stay below 2°C of warming and the reductions promised by countries under the Paris Agreement is widening.
A recent study of 21 countries and the EU found the risk of missing targets is linked to lacking political will – for example, by weakening targets or not monitoring policy effectiveness. This in turn is associated with weakened civil societies and entrenched fossil fuel interests. In this respect, New Zealand is not alone.
Cathrine Dyer is affiliated with the Reality of Everything project, which aims to promote conversations about the polycrisis.
Robert McLachlan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When was the last time you bought a loaf of bread?
Chances are you read the ingredients list and saw flour, yeast and salt. But behind every slice is a surprisingly fragile global supply chain that starts with another often overlooked ingredient: nitrogen fertiliser.
Without nitrogen fertiliser, the world’s farmers would struggle to produce enough food for our ever-growing population. It helps grow the wheat used in bread, the barley in beer, the canola that becomes cooking oil and the corn that feeds livestock. Research suggests roughly half of the world’s population is fed thanks to synthetic nitrogen fertilisers.
However, recent global disruptions have suddenly made nitrogen fertilisers more expensive or difficult to get.
So why is this happening? And what does it mean for food security?
From air to fertiliser
Nitrogen gas makes up almost 80% of the air we breathe. But plants can only absorb this nitrogen after it is converted into other forms, such as ammonium or nitrate.
The industrial Haber-Bosch process makes this possible. It combines nitrogen from the atmosphere with hydrogen under extremely high temperatures to produce ammonia. This ammonia is then converted into nitrogen fertilisers, such as urea and ammonium nitrate.
Over the past century, this process has allowed us to produce the nitrogen fertiliser needed to feed the world. But there’s a catch.
Nitrogen fertiliser production depends heavily on natural gas – mainly methane – to provide both the energy needed to run nitrogen fertiliser factories and the hydrogen required to manufacture ammonia. As a result, synthetic nitrogen fertiliser prices closely follow global gas markets. So when energy prices rise, nitrogen fertiliser quickly becomes more expensive.
A volatile product
Geopolitical conflicts can make this even worse. Recent disruptions to global energy supplies – including Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the prolonged US-Iran war – have caused nitrogen fertiliser prices to surge.
In Australia, we import about 3.5 to 4 million tonnes of fertiliser annually. This leaves our local farmers worryingly vulnerable to any fluctuations in international energy markets.
From a practical perspective, farmers can’t simply stop applying nitrogen. Too little nitrogen means lower crop yields, poorer grain quality and reduced income. When nitrogen fertiliser prices soar, farmers may be forced to make difficult decisions.
Higher production costs eventually trickle through the entire food supply chain, raising the price of everything from bread to breakfast cereal and dairy products.
At first glance, producing more nitrogen fertiliser in Australia sounds like an obvious fix. The challenge is emissions.
The Haber-Bosch process is one of the world’s greatest industrial sources of greenhouse gases. Producing ammonia accounts for roughly 2% of global carbon dioxide emissions, generating between 430 to 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.
That’s where biofertilisers could offer a solution.
Organic and biological fertilisers can be made from various natural materials such as compost, animal manures and other recycled organic matter. These materials are typically converted into fertilisers through composting or anaerobic digestion, where microorganisms break down organic matter into nutrient-rich products.
Some biofertilisers are also inoculated with beneficial microbes that help plants access nutrients more efficiently. As these materials decompose, some soil microorganisms gradually release nutrients plants can absorb. Others help plants better capture nutrients by colonising plant roots or the surrounding soil.
Biofertiliser products have attracted interest worldwide, as farmers search for ways to grow crops without relying on synthetic fertilisers. Existing research has yielded promising results, with certain biofertilisers improving crop yields and nutrient absorption.
However, they come with limitations. Biofertilisers typically contain much lower concentrations of nitrogen than conventional fertilisers, meaning farmers must apply more biofertilisers to provide the same amount of plant-available nitrogen. They may also only release nutrients at certain temperatures or in soils with enough moisture or beneficial microbes. This makes them less predictable than synthetic fertilisers. Other factors such as soil type, rainfall and crop variety may also affect how effective biofertilisers are in any given location.
With all these variables to consider, farmers are often left wondering which products genuinely work and under what conditions.
To ensure biofertilisers benefit farmers, we must invest in robust research. We should prioritise long-term field trials across different soils, climates and farming systems. We also need independent testing so farmers can compare products. At the same time, we must develop decision-making tools to help growers identify the right type of biofertiliser, application rate and timing for their farming operation.
Global conflicts expose how vulnerable our food system is. And our rapidly changing climate compels us to shift away from synthetic, fossil fuel-based fertilisers.
Biofertilisers could be one way to grow food more sustainably. But we need more information to ensure we use them in ways that protect farmers, consumers and the environment alike.
Katharina Belt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Researchers laud return of giant tuna to North Sea after being fished almost to point of extinction
Researchers have lauded two giant bluefin tunas being caught off the coast of Yorkshire for the first time in more than six decades as a “success story” for marine conservation.
The tunas, which were caught a day apart off the coast of Whitby earlier this week, have mostly been absent along the north-east coast of Britain since the 1960s.
