by bpckle | May 29, 2026 | In the Media
Climate change is exacerbating rainfall, flooding and sea-level rises in coastal and low lying areas. During the past few years, disastrous floods have swept through Lismore in New South Wales, Northern Queensland, and the Great Ocean Road in Victoria. Large waves have pounded beaches, causing erosion in Byron Bay and Wamberal Beach in NSW and Lancelin, Western Australia.
With climate change likely to accelerate extreme weather in Australia, planned or managed retreat – moving people and infrastructure away from these areas – will grow only more important.
But planned retreat often provokes intense backlash from Australian communities on the front line of climate change. Councils and state governments are generally reticent to have this conversation with communities.
My research, published earlier this year, shows why planned retreat can become emotional – and divisive and how planners and communities can tackle it.
The take-home message? Talking to people from both sides of the debate can help a lot.
What does planned retreat involve?
Planned or managed retreat can involve relocation of people, houses and infrastructure. It can also mean restricting development in risky areas.
A successful example of relocation occurred after an “inland tsunami” flash flood destroyed homes and lives in Grantham, Queensland, in 2011. After the disaster, the town was moved out of harm’s way in a collaboration between state, local governments and communities.
However, planned retreat often provokes fear and anger – especially among residents in vulnerable areas – over the effect on private property.
There was community backlash in the NSW Lake Macquarie City Council area in 2012, when the council included “retreat” among a suite of options it was considering to manage rising seas and flooding in low lying areas.
Fearful and angry property owners voiced concern this would drive down property prices and drive up insurance.
Another example involved a recent draft plan by the Commonwealth and Western Australian governments, which included eventual relocation for residents of Home Island and West Island in the remote Cocos Keeling Islands, about 2,750 kilometres northwest of Perth.
Residents of this low-lying island community were angry at what they saw as a threat to their culture and human rights.
Similarly, Torres Strait Islanders find being forced to abandon their home a painful injustice.
Community frustration
If communities want to relocate out of harm’s way, they need somewhere to live.
After catastrophic flooding in the NSW town of Lismore in 2022, thousands of people were left homeless. Over 1,700 homes were damaged.
Two years after the flood, the NSW state government purchased 497 damaged properties in Lismore, as part of an effort to move residents from these areas.
But many in the community expressed frustration with the slow pace of the process, and lack of affordable housing in the region.
If retreat becomes a taboo topic, planners and residents have limited options.
Residents of Lancelin, Western Australia, have lost coastal walkways due to erosion, which has also threatened a popular hotel.
Yet more than 900 people signed a petition against planned retreat.
In NSW’s Wamberal Beach, retreat has become so politically unpalatable, state and local governments agreed to progress designs for a multi-million dollar seawall to protect waterfront properties from erosion. (It is yet to be built.)
Lessons from research
My research looked at planned retreat in the context of climate change.
In 2019, after the NSW Central Coast Council proposed retreat in coastal areas (in areas such Gosford and Woy Woy) for public consultation, I interviewed residents; climate, environmental and property activists; and council and state adaptation planners.
I found similar resistance to planned retreat from homeowners, property investors, real estate agents and residents.
Many people were worried a planned retreat would make insurance more expensive and drive down property values. They also feared planned retreat would threaten the entire existence of their community.
However, climate activists were afraid people would be stuck with properties they could no longer live in. One person joked about being able to go fishing from his lounge room by 2050. These people wanted a public discussion about planned retreat.
Groups on both sides expressed fear and outrage to get their point across. Faced with hostility, the council became reticent to talk to the community.
Not surprisingly, the discussion about planned retreat soon collapsed.
Talking to warring factions
Once the shouting dies down, my research shows both sides of the debate share common views.
People told me the community should talk about what was fair, and the pros and cons of buybacks and relocation.
Overall, during interviews they voiced hope for collaboration, belonging and survival.
This can help provide a road map for planned retreat in Australia. My research shows we need to:
-
air grievances
-
find areas of agreement between warring factions
-
allow affected people and planners to debate what’s fair for individuals and communities
-
acknowledge emotions are part of the process.
For decades, researchers have argued climate change adaptation is a collaborative and community-driven project.
However, recent cases suggest that planned retreat is becoming a divisive issue affecting vulnerable residents. Even the Australian government’s recent National Climate Risk Assessment acknowledged the growing risk sea level rises pose to social cohesion.
We can look to communities for answers. Planned retreat can be tense and emotional – but it can also represent a reset and an opportunity for hope.
Anne Maree Kreller received funding from the School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts, Design and Architecture, UNSW Sydney.
by bpckle | May 28, 2026 | In the Media
Energy specialists say abandoning net zero and increasing oil and gas drilling would cause more instability for Britons
Abandoning net zero and drilling for more oil and gas in the North Sea would be a massive setback for the UK and would not help the economy, leading experts have said in response to claims by the former prime minister Tony Blair.
“This is a bizarre intervention to make during the worst May heatwave on record and when the Iran crisis is providing yet more evidence of the enormous costs of oil and gas,” said Ed Matthew, the UK programme director at the E3G thinktank. “Clean energy is cheaper energy – it protects our bills from prices skyrocketing, its running costs are virtually zero, and it doesn’t cause climate change which threatens economic collapse … The government should ignore Blair’s ideological nonsense and focus on what works.”
Continue reading…
by bpckle | May 28, 2026 | In the Media
Imagine walking into a double-brick house on a scorching 40°C summer day – it feels cool almost straight away. Now imagine stepping into a corrugated tin shed – it feels like an oven. The difference is simple: some materials slow heat down, while others let it rush through.
Soil works in a similar way. Soil in fully functioning condition can act as a thermal buffer: a giant shock absorber for temperature. It holds water and organic matter such as leaf litter, and slows sharp changes in temperature.
But when soil becomes dry, bare or damaged, that protection weakens. During heatwaves, the roots of crop plants may be sitting in rapidly heating soil.
Our new research shows Australia has “thermal gaps” in large areas. A thermal gap is the difference between a soil’s natural ability to absorb heat and keep temperatures steady, and what it is actually doing now after years of farming, land use change and a warming climate. In some areas, especially across southeastern and central Australia, soils are no longer protecting plants from heat as well as they could.
This matters because soil is not just dirt under our feet. It is a buffer against climate change. Soil controls how heat and moisture move between the land and the atmosphere. When soil loses its buffering power, ground temperatures can rise more quickly.
This can reduce plant growth, lower crop and pasture production, and even affect local weather and climate over large areas.
What we did and what we found
To understand where this is happening, we created the first continent-wide map of Australia’s soil thermal buffering capacity.
In other words, we mapped how well different soils can slow heat and keep ground temperatures stable.
We compared each soil’s natural potential with its current condition. This helps show where soil buffering is strong, where it has weakened, and where it may have changed for better or worse.
The results show a clear contrast between soil types.
Clay-rich soils can hold more water and behave more like the double-brick house. They warm and cool slowly, which helps keep roots in a steadier environment.
Iron-rich red and yellow soils in parts of northern Australia, known as Kandosols, also showed good natural capacity and good current condition in our study. These landscapes are still working well as soil heat buffers.
But this does not mean every Kandosol is the same. Soil condition, ground cover, moisture and management still matter.
Sandy soils tell a different story. They naturally hold far less water. When ground cover is low, they lose water faster. Under a hot sun, they behave more like the tin shed. They heat quickly and offer plants much less protection.
That’s why the difference between “just dry” and “hot and dry” is so important. Once dry or degraded soils lose moisture, the sun’s energy heats the ground directly. Roots can become stressed, soil life slows down and crops may decline before the problem is obvious above ground.
This is one reason flash droughts are so dangerous. A flash drought can develop in days or weeks when high temperatures, dry winds and low soil moisture arrive together.
One 2025 global study found flash droughts linked with extreme heat are more severe and take longer to recover from than flash droughts without extreme heat.
For farmers, trouble may already be building below the surface before normal weather warnings capture the full risk.
The good news
The good news is that soil can regain some of its lost heat protection. We can help “re-insulate” the ground with practical farming methods.
One is called “stubble retention”, which means leaving old crop stalks and leaves on the field after harvest rather than burning or removing them.
This layer shades the soil and slows water loss.
Another method, called “cover cropping”, involved growing plants mainly to protect and feed the soil (not necessarily to harvest them). Cover crops keep living roots in the ground, reduce bare soil and add organic matter.
Studies overseas show why this matters. In the US state of Missouri, fields kept covered with plants held more moisture than bare fields. In North Dakota, bare soil was much hotter near the surface than soil protected by barley residue or cover crops.
These methods do not make heatwaves disappear, but they can reduce the stress heat places on soils and crops. Cooler, moister soils may also help surrounding vegetation dry out more slowly, although this is only one part of reducing bushfire risk.
The next step
Our national map is a starting point. It shows where soils may be losing their ability to buffer heat. The next step is to test that risk on real farms.
That means pairing the map with local sensors, such as soil-temperature and soil-moisture probes buried near plant roots. These sensors can show when the soil is drying and how quickly it is heating, and when roots may be coming under stress.
Farm trials can then test which actions work best in different soil types, such as keeping stubble, planting cover crops, adjusting irrigation or reducing grazing pressure.
The results could be turned into simple tools for farmers, such as paddock maps, heat-risk alerts or irrigation guides.
Asking “how dry is the soil?” is no longer enough. We must go further by asking “how fast will this soil heat up once it dries?”
That question matters for irrigation, grazing, crop planning and drought warnings.
If farmers can see heat stress building below the surface, they may be able to act earlier. They can protect ground cover, adjust irrigation, reduce grazing pressure or harvest sooner before the damage becomes obvious above ground.
Soil is one of Australia’s hidden climate defences. Healthy soil stores water, slows heat and protects roots. Damaged soil loses that shield.
By understanding and closing the thermal gap, we can give farms, landscapes and rural communities a better chance in a hotter, drier future.
Amin Sharififar is affiliated with Aroura, global soil security think tank.
