As the IUCN global conservation body prepares to update its red list of endangered species, scientists explain why calculating the true toll of a pandemic is so hard
It began with the brown skuas. The migratory seabirds had arrived on the sub-Antarctic island of South Georgia in 2023, harbouring a deadly passenger. Within months, the southern elephant seals that had come ashore to breed became sick. Mothers and newborn pups were weak and trembling, with many struggling to breathe. What followed was a horrific mass casualty event, caused by the highly infectious avian influenza (H5N1).
By 2025, more than 53,000 female elephant seals had died on South Georgia. That is especially alarming, scientists say, because the island is home to more than half of the global breeding population.
The City of Newcastle bans a climate action group from protesting on community land “now and into the future”, sparking fears about the right to peacefully protest.
A new report suggests this year, carbon emissions may begin to trend downward for the first time.
But it’s important to take this with a grain of salt. While news reports have hailed this event, it will take years to confirm it wasn’t just a blip caused by the US-Iran war.
Carbon emissions are produced by the burning of coal, gas and oil in power stations, factories, vehicles and heating systems across the globe. To avoid the most dangerous consequences of climate change, the world must reach net zero emissions by mid-century. Worryingly, research shows CO? emissions have been on an upward trajectory for most of the industrial age, with 50% of all emissions produced since 1990.
But a new report offers some hope.
The Global Carbon Project collects data on fossil fuel emissions, as well as how much carbon is being absorbed and released by oceans, forests, grasslands and soils. This week it published its 2026 report, just as world leaders are gathering in Turkey, also known as Türkiye, for the COP31 climate conference.
It’s a momentous read if its central finding – that CO? emissions are now on the decline – proves true. After all, similar claims were made back in 2024.
The new report shows emissions from fossil fuels are set to fall slightly, from 38.4 gigatonnes (Gt) in 2025 to a projected 38.2 Gt. That’s a very modest decrease of 0.4%.
There are several reasons for this drop.
Conflicts
One key factor is the ongoing energy crisis, triggered by the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.
Both conflicts have disrupted a significant portion of the world’s energy supply, in particular oil. Crude oil prices have surged from around US$60 (A$87) a barrel at the start of 2026 to the current figure of US$100 (A$145) a barrel.
In Australia, the average cost of petrol increased from 175 cents per litre to about 240c/L in October, and diesel prices from 186c/L to around 280c/L. Even at the low end of these prices, running an electric vehicle would save a typical Australian driver roughly A$2000 each year.
Cars
High oil prices are accelerating the uptake of EVs. A quarter of new cars sold in Australia in 2026 were fully electric. That’s quite a turnaround for Australia, which was an EV laggard compared to the rest of the world.
This trend is very likely to continue as the barriers to buying EVs – such as cost, range and charging infrastructure – are being overcome. Even if petrol and diesel prices return to pre-Iran war levels, EVs will likely be the preferred choice.
China
China is the world’s biggest fossil fuel emitter. Historically, China’s emissions have largely come from coal-fired power stations. But over the past few years, the country’s fossil fuel emissions have plateaued and even begun to slide as China installs wind, solar and hydropower infrastructure at a world-leading rate. In the first half of 2026, less than 50% of China’s electricity came from coal, putting it well on track to meet its net zero by 2060 target. This downward trend could make a major dent in global emissions.
It’s worth noting, global CO? emissions from fossil fuels have dropped several other times in history.
In the 1970s, the influential Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) reduced oil production and cut exports to countries that supported Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The consequent oil shocks of the 1970s and 80s saw oil prices quadruple within months, triggering fuel rationing and economic chaos in major oil-consuming nations.
Global emissions also fell sharply after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Most recently, fossil fuel emissions dropped during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis and COVID pandemic. Both were major disruptions to the international economy that slowed travel, industrial production and general growth, leading to reduced fossil fuel emissions.
In each case, fossil fuel emissions returned to even higher levels once the economy recovered.
So assuming the current fuel crisis eases, will fossil emissions simply start to increase again?
It’s difficult to know for sure. It depends what policies and actions various countries put in place. For example, fossil fuel-driven economic growth in developing countries could offset the emission reductions in countries embracing renewables.
However, what’s certain is the world must keep working to curb fossil fuel emissions.
Take Australia, for instance. Data from the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory show our fossil emissions have slightly decreased since their peak of 415 megatonnes of CO? in 2017 to the present value of 374 megatonnes. This is almost entirely due to emissions reductions in the electricity sector, as wind and solar gradually replace coal-fired power stations.
Meanwhile, stationary energy – which includes burning coal and gas to heat buildings and run factories – has remained stagnant. In the case of transport, emissions have even increased between 2017 and now. This is because more fossil fuel-powered cars and trucks have hit the road in recent years, despite significant EV uptake.
On a global level, our oceans and terrestrial ecosystems – such as forests, grasslands and tundra – are increasingly under pressure from climate change. These systems absorb roughly half of the carbon we emit, but warmer seawater and heat- or water-stressed plants store carbon less efficiently.
So the future of our oceans, forests and entire planet depends on whether we meaningfully and rapidly reduce global emissions.
Roger Dargaville receives and has received funding from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), RACE for 2030, the Monash Woodside Partnership, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and Victorian and federal governments departments.
Stopbanks confine the Waiho River to about a third of its natural bed.Mark Healey, CC BY
Each year, more than a million visitors pass through the small South Island township of Franz Josef/Waiau on their way to see the West Coast’s glaciers and world heritage sites.
But the town faces a rising flood risk because it sits beside one of the country’s most dynamic rivers.
The Waiho River carries enormous quantities of gravel from the Southern Alps. As it leaves the mountains, it would naturally deposit gravel across a wide area, changing course over time.
But since the 1980s, stopbanks (artificial levees) have confined the river to about a third of its natural bed, causing gravel to build up instead of spreading. As a result, the riverbed is rising by about 20 centimetres a year, three times faster than it would naturally.
In 2023, as members of the independent Waiho Technical Advisory Group, we warned that the rapidly rising riverbed posed an increasing threat to the town.
We recommended a ten-year plan centred on giving the river more room to move and deposit its gravel, rather than relying on ever-higher stopbanks.
The physics is simple: feeding the same amount of gravel into a smaller area makes the riverbed rise faster. As the riverbed rises, the safety margin provided by the stopbanks shrinks.
When the group reconvened in August this year to review progress, we found the river was changing faster than the plan was being implemented.
Time is running out fast. Keeping the town safe will require an approach to river management that offers lessons for other communities in New Zealand and around the world facing similar challenges.
A river finding a new path
Since 2010, the Waiho has increasingly spilled north into the neighbouring Tatare Stream, which is about ten metres lower. From January 2023, this spill has carved out a new channel capturing ever more of the Waiho flow.
When the Waiho changed course, its low flow carved a new route into the much smaller Tatare Stream (left).Justin Stout, Waterways Centre for Freshwater Management, University of Canterbury, CC BY
Between March 2025 and March 2026, the spillover point moved a kilometre upstream and the new channel cut down by two metres, exceeding modelled predictions.
Erosion along the new channel has already undermined the base of Havill’s Wall, which protects the town’s wastewater treatment ponds. But the Tatare channel is also filling with sediment. Once it is full, possibly within a decade, the Waiho is expected to reoccupy its southern bed.
As the new river channel cuts deeper, it exposes rock protecting the base of Havill’s Wall.Ben Pasco (Land River Sea), CC BY
Large quantities of gravel also remain upstream, ready to move during future storms.
An earthquake along the Alpine fault will compound the problem, damaging stopbanks and triggering landslides that deliver additional gravel into the river, accelerating the riverbed rise.
Changes in the Waiho River’s course are revealed by the differences between ground surface levels using LiDAR (airborne laser mapping): blue is higher, red is lower.Land River Sea Consulting, CC BY
The uncomfortable solution
The obvious response to a rising riverbed has been to build higher stopbanks. But that treats the symptom, not the cause. While the river remains confined, its bed will continue to rise rapidly and the banks will need to keep pace.
Recent stopbank raising has temporarily reduced the likelihood of flooding, but not its potential consequences. With the river sitting higher above surrounding land, any breach will release floodwater with catastrophic results.
Our central conclusion in 2023 was counterintuitive but logical: protecting Franz Josef/Waiau requires giving the Waiho more room.
If the Waiho was released to the south, it could spread its load of gravel over a much greater area.Based on TAG Report, 2023, CC BY
Releasing the river across its western floodplain would allow gravel to spread over a much larger area, slowing the rate of increase of pressure on the stopbanks protecting Franz Josef/Waiau.
Nobody owns the problem
Making room for the Waiho will not be simple.
It would mean relocating part of State Highway 6, the critical lifeline and main tourist road connecting communities along the West Coast, and removing landfills, farms and other infrastructure on the western flats.
These actions formed part of the ten-year programme we recommended in 2023. Three years on, land purchases and relocation have not started, while highway planning remains at an early stage.
Continuing delays mean stopbanks have to be raised further, with associated costs and increased risks, while the consequences of stopbank failure worsen incrementally.
Part of the issue is governance. Flood protection, land-use planning, managed retreat, emergency management and local infrastructure all sit with different organisations. No single body is responsible for delivering the whole plan.
We propose a new group led by Westland District Council and including the West Coast Regional Council and central government agencies, with a mandate to accelerate the work and pursue government funding.
Franz Josef/Waiau is an early test of a question communities in New Zealand and elsewhere already face, and will face repeatedly in the future. Who leads, and who pays, when relocating property and infrastructure is the safest response to a growing natural hazard risk?
Independent experts have warned since 2002 that the traditional approach of raising stopbanks cannot continue. What is missing is not more information, but ownership and funding. Without both, the river will make the decision for us.
The authors acknowledge the contribution by Matthew Gardner, Director at Land River Sea Consulting and Mark Healey, principal engineer (rivers) at WSP.
Ian Christopher Fuller also works for Tonkin + Taylor as a principal fluvial geomorphologist and technical director.
Tim Davies 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.
