Bird flu could devastate Macquarie Island. Why are we removing the scientists we need to understand it?

by bpckle | Sep 1, 2026 | In the Media

Australia’s Macquarie Island lies deep in the Southern Ocean, about 1,500 kilometres southeast of Tasmania. This World Heritage-listed sanctuary is a haven for species such as elephant and fur seals, penguins, albatrosses and petrels, and a key site for wildlife researchers.

But it is not safe from H5N1 bird flu. This lethal virus is rapidly spreading across the Australian mainland and Southern Ocean, already hitting other sub-Antarctic islands including Heard Island.

However, the Australian government has decided to withdraw all 24 expeditioners – including scientists, tradespeople and support staff – from the site. It says this is mainly to protect them from the psychosocial risks – the psychological harms of working in stressful or traumatic conditions – associated with living through a potential H5N1 outbreak and the wildlife casualties it may cause.

Those risks are real. Witnessing mass wildlife deaths could be deeply distressing for any person. But taking everyone off the island means the scientists who work there cannot document an outbreak as it unfolds, or understand what is happening to wildlife populations we have studied for decades.

At Macquarie, monitoring is vital

Scientists have worked at Macquarie Island for more than 70 years, and withdrawing all personnel will disrupt long-term wildlife, climate, atmospheric and geological monitoring, well beyond the bird flu response.

For southern elephant seals, the stakes are particularly high. The species is considered “vulnerable” on the IUCN Red List and under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Decades of monitoring show numbers of breeding females at Macquarie’s major colony have fallen sharply, dropping from 9,400 in 1949 to 2,550 in 2023. The federal recovery plan for this species identifies disease outbreaks as a threat and calls for regular, scientifically robust monitoring.

Bird flu is precisely this type of threat.

At Australia’s Heard Island, more than 13,000 elephant seal pups died during a recent H5N1 outbreak, while the number of breeding females fell by almost half at monitored sites on Britain’s South Georgia. The Australian Antarctic Division itself identified the need for 2026-27 population data to assess the impact of bird flu on Macquarie Island. But the government has now reversed course in withdrawing the island’s staff.

Psychosocial risk is real

Psychosocial or ecological grief – distress associated with the loss of species and places people care about – is well documented among conservation professionals.

But avoiding exposure to loss isn’t the only answer. Guidance from the World Health Organisation emphasises preparation, training and dedicated mental health and psychosocial support for personnel working in difficult emergency environments.

Other nations have already faced this problem. At other sub-Antarctic islands such as South Georgia, Crozet and Kerguelen and the Falklands, authorities boosted biosecurity measures – including providing personal protective equipment and guidance on wildlife sampling – to maintain essential science and disease surveillance. Similarly, the international Scientific Committee for Antarctic Research Action Group on Wildlife Health recommends assessing which activities should continue during outbreaks and outlines appropriate protective measures.

This raises important questions about how Australia reached its decision. Did the government seek advice from other programs that have successfully monitored outbreaks? Could a smaller specialist team remain with additional training, shorter deployments and dedicated psychological support?

The government hasn’t indicated what the long-term plan will be. Bird flu may not arrive this summer. Elsewhere in the Southern Ocean, outbreaks have recurred across multiple years. If the virus arrives next year or stretches over several years, will expeditioners be withdrawn indefinitely?

Can cameras replace scientists?

After Australia’s personnel leave, the government may rely on live cameras, drones and satellites to monitor Macquarie Island. These tools will be useful. At Heard Island, drones were invaluable for measuring the enormous scale of mortality.

But remote monitoring cannot replace biological sampling. A camera cannot swab a freshly dead pup, collect blood from a surviving animal or conduct a postmortem.

Across Crozet, Kerguelen, Heard, South Georgia and the Falkland Islands, scientists sampled dead and apparently healthy wildlife during major outbreaks. These samples confirmed infections, detected antibodies in survivors and enabled viral sequencing. In our recent research, 104 new virus genomes collected across six sub-Antarctic and Antarctic locations allowed us to map transmission over thousands of kilometres and show how the virus continues to evolve, including adapting to mammals.

Without field samples, we lose crucial information about how the virus is evolving and spreading, limiting our ability to anticipate what happens next.

Remote should not mean out of sight and out of mind

Surveillance, testing and reporting have been a top priority in our bird flu response on the Australian mainland. It should be no different on Macquarie Island, even though it is a remote location.

We cannot stop animals from dying if the lethal virus strain arrives. But we can understand which species are affected, which animals survive and where the virus may travel next.

We have monitored Macquarie’s declining elephant seal population for decades. We should not avert our eyes now.

We say this as scientists who have studied bird flu outbreaks and witnessed devastating wildlife losses firsthand. We are prepared for the difficult reality of studying wildlife disease. But what is much harder to accept is being forced to look away when science could still make a difference.

Read more: What happens next with bird flu? An expert explains why monitoring matters

Jane Younger receives funding from the Australian Research Council, National Geographic Society, Rolex, WIRES, the Marine Megafauna Research Fund and Lindblad-National Geographic. She is affiliated with the University of Tasmania.

Augustin Clessin receives funding from France's Agence Nationale de la Recherche. He is affiliated with France's Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Université de Montpellier, École Pratique des Hautes Études and Institut de Recherche pour le Développement.

Amandine Gamble 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.

Some of Australia’s biggest companies are planning for an unbearable climate future

by bpckle | Sep 1, 2026 | In the Media

Even as unprecedented fires and heatwaves rage across Europe, scientists track the retreat of Antarctic sea ice and a supercharged El Niño system heads our way, Australia’s largest companies are forecasting business-as-usual in a much hotter world.

Last year, Australia introduced mandatory company climate reporting. They must now disclose the climate “risks and opportunities” that may affect their prospects.

Several of Australia’s biggest energy and resource companies have now published new sustainability reports as part of annual financial reporting.

Their disclosures reveal the climate future they are planning for, and whether this is aligned with international science-based targets such as the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C warming threshold.

What we’re seeing is alarming.

Companies planning for an unbearable future

Most of these reports indicate big companies are developing strategies on a climate change “base case” – a representation of what they consider most likely to happen – of more than 2°C of warming. The future temperature rise they’re planning for is one scientists say would deliver an unbearably hot planet.

Some of Australia’s largest miners have followed this approach. Both Rio Tinto and BHP expect global temperature increases of more than 2°C by the end of the century.

Not every company reveals the increase in global temperature they are planning for. But even if they don’t, their disclosures show they’re not expecting temperatures to hold to 1.5°C.

Energy companies AGL and Origin Energy both express confidence their strategies and business models will remain robust, even if temperatures accelerate beyond 2.6°C warming. This increase would put the Australian economy, environment and community at severe risk.

Companies hold power

Companies often argue that governments are responsible for creating policy to address global warming. But this underestimates the power corporate leaders hold to shape Australia’s shared climate future through financial decisions.

For example, mining giant BHP expects demand for steelmaking coal to remain robust for decades, with customers from China, India and Southeast Asia. This underpins the valuation of its major export commodities, and appears to justify the lack of plans to scale down steelmaking coal production. However, this assumption sits uneasily with the fact these same countries have their own net-zero targets.

Similarly, Rio Tinto confirms “no portfolio adjustments” are made to its future production plans. Its central case estimate of 2.1–2.3°C of warming by 2100 assumes developing countries will miss or delay their stated net-zero targets, underwriting business-as-usual production for the company.

Disclosures out of step with science

However, the assumption that business-as-usual will be possible in a hotter world is out of step with the latest science. The Paris Agreement’s temperature goal was set in 2015 based on exhaustive scientific assessments that warming of more than 2°C would be dangerous, and limiting warming to 1.5°C was necessary to minimise climate risks.

Scientific knowledge about how much global warming is “safe” has exponentially increased. It reemphasises the need to keep to 1.5°C with “limited overshoot”. This means we can only exceed 1.5°C temporarily, and simultaneously need to be working to bring temperatures back down. Only then will we minimise irreversible changes such as sea level rise, the disappearance of coral reefs or vast sea ice loss at the poles.

Scientific best estimates find we can’t go over 1.5°C by more than 0.1–0.3°C (a “peak temperature” of 1.6–1.8°C) and still return warming to safe levels. Even then, the longer we stay above 1.5°C and the extent to which we exceed this threshold, the more devastating the outcome.

Is this legal?

Legally, there’s no issue with companies using a base case for planning that exceeds 2°C of warming. But this approach isn’t in line with Australia’s broader international legal obligations. Companies will likely face increased investor scrutiny or reputational blowback when they walk back climate commitments.

In July 2025, the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), confirmed 1.5°C is the temperature limit countries are aiming for. To meet their Paris Agreement promises, governments — including Australia — have to show the most ambitious action the country can realistically take to help keep warming under 1.5°C. Australia’s latest plan for a 62–70% emissions cut from 2005 levels was submitted in September 2025.

The court confirmed the Paris Agreement also requires governments to take action at home to cut emissions in line with the 1.5°C goal — including introducing rules for businesses operating in their countries. To follow international law, the Australian government needs to use every tool available to regulate the emissions of big companies, based on the best available science. Countries that don’t comply could be sued before the ICJ and ordered to pay compensation to other nations.

What about Australia’s climate policy?

Big companies in Australia contribute more than 30% of our domestic emissions. If we also include emissions from the fossil fuels some of these companies produce, it raises Australia’s global carbon footprint to around 4.5% of global fossil carbon dioxide emissions, second only to Russia. Making sure big companies do their bit to reduce emissions is essential for Australia to meet its climate targets.

This year, Australia is the “President of Negotiations” for COP31. This is an opportunity for Australia to show it’s doing all it can – internationally and in its own backyard – to support compliance with the Paris Agreement and accelerate climate action. From their new disclosures, it doesn’t seem that Australia’s biggest companies have got the memo.

Jacqueline Peel receives funding from the Australian Research Council for her Laureate Program on Global Corporate Climate Accountability, FL240100065. She is affiliated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), serving as a Coordinating Lead Author in Working Group III (mitigation) for the IPCC's Seventh Assessment Report.

Nina Araneta-Alana receives funding from the Australian Research Council under the Laureate Program on Global Corporate Climate Accountability, FL240100065.

Suzanne Varrall receives funding from the Australian Research Council under the Laureate Program on Global Corporate Climate Accountability, FL240100065.