Electric vehicles would cost more under a Coalition government, after Peter Dutton confirmed he would scrap a popular tax break for EV drivers in an apparent backflip that has caused confusion and anger among clean car advocates.
The initiative, which was introduced by the Albanese government in 2022, has meant if a person buys an EV priced under $91,387 through a novated lease program via their employer (when a lease is paid off through pre-taxed salary deductions) they do not have to pay fringe benefits tax (FBT) – even if the car is only for personal use.
In the dense jungle of New Guinea, April 1944, a patrol of American troops with vital military intel were surrounded by enemy troops when their radios stopped working.
Despite their immense size, species of prehistoric giant kangaroos from a site in Queensland were probably homebodies with a surprisingly small range compared to other kangaroos, according to new Australian research.
Protemnodon, which lived on the Australian continent between 5m and 40,000 years ago, was significantly larger than its modern relatives. Some species weighed up to 170kg, making them more than twice as heavy as the largest red kangaroo.
Snipers in helicopters have shot more than 700 koalas in the Budj Bim National Park in western Victoria in recent weeks. It’s believed to be the first time koalas have been culled in this way.
The cull became public on Good Friday after local wildlife carers were reportedly tipped off.
A fire burned about 20% of the park in mid-March. The government said the cull was urgent because koalas had been left starving or burned.
Wildlife groups have expressed serious concern about how individual koalas had been chosen for culling, because the animals are assessed from a distance. It’s not clear how shooting from a helicopter complies with the state government’s own animal welfare and response plans for wildlife in disasters.
The Victorian government must explain why it is undertaking aerial culling and why it did so without announcing it publicly. The incident points to ongoing failures in managing these iconic marsupials, which are already threatened in other states.
Hundreds of koalas were left starving or injured after bushfires in Budj Bim National Park a month ago.Vincent_Nguyen/Shutterstock
Why did this happen?
Koalas live in eucalypt forests in Australia’s eastern and southern states. The species faces a double threat from habitat destruction and bushfire risk. They are considered endangered in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.
Over time, this concentration becomes a problem. When the koalas are too abundant, they can strip leaves from their favourite gums, killing the trees. The koalas must then move or risk starvation.
If fire or drought make these habitat islands impossible to live in, koalas in dense concentrations often have nowhere to go.
In Budj Bim, Victoria’s Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Parks Victoria have tackled koala overpopulation alongside Traditional Owners by moving koalas to new locations or sterilising them.
But Budj Bim is also surrounded by commercial blue gum plantations. Koalas spread out through the plantations to graze on the leaves. Their populations grow. But when the plantations are logged, some koalas have to return to the national park, where food may be in short supply.
Plantations of blue gums are located near Budj Bim. Animal welfare groups claim logging has driven koala overpopulation in the national park.Anna Carolina Negri/Shutterstock
Animal welfare groups say logging is one reason Budj Bim had so many koalas.
It’s hard to say definitively whether this is the case, because the state environment department hasn’t shared much information. But researchers have found habitat islands lead to overabundance by preventing the natural dispersal of individuals.
So why was the culling done? Department officials have described the program as “primarily” motivated by animal welfare. After the bushfire last month, koalas have been left starving or injured.
Why shooters in helicopters? Here, the justification given is that the national park is difficult to access due to rocky terrain and fire damage, ruling out other methods.
Euthanising wildlife has to be done carefully
Under Victoria’s plan for animal welfare during disasters, the environment department is responsible for examining and, where necessary, euthanising wildlife during an emergency.
For human intervention to be justified, euthanasia must be necessary on welfare grounds. Victoria’s response plan for fire-affected wildlife says culling is permitted when an animal’s health is “significantly” compromised, invasive treatment is required, or survival is unlikely.
For koalas, this could mean loss of digits or hands, burns to more than 15% of the body, pneumonia from smoke inhalation, or blindness or injuries requiring surgery. Euthanised females must also be promptly examined for young in their pouches.
The problem is that while aerial shooting can be accurate in some cases for larger animals, the method has questionable efficacy for smaller animals – especially in denser habitats.
It’s likely a number of koalas were seriously injured but not killed. But the shooters employed by the department were not able to thoroughly verify injuries or whether there were joeys in pouches, because they were in the air and reportedly 30 or more metres away from their targets.
While the department cited concerns about food resources as a reason for the cull, the state’s wildlife fire plan lays out another option: delivery of supplementary feed. Delivering fresh gum leaves could potentially have prevented starvation while the forest regenerates.
What should the government learn from this?
The state government should take steps to avoid tragic incidents like this from happening again.
Preserving remaining habitat across the state is a vital step, as is reconnecting isolated areas with habitat corridors. This would not only reduce the concentration of koalas in small pockets but increase viable refuges and give koalas safe paths to new food sources after a fire.
Future policies should be developed in consultation with Traditional Owners, who have detailed knowledge of species distributions and landscapes.
This latter report pointed to South Australia’s specialised emergency animal rescue and relief organisation – SAVEM – as an effective model. Under SA’s emergency management plan, the organisation is able to rapidly access burned areas after the fire has passed through.
Victoria’s dense communities of koalas would be well served by a similar organisation able to work alongside existing skilled firefighting services.
The goal would be to make it possible for rescuers to get to injured wildlife earlier and avoid any more mass aerial culls.
Liz Hicks has previously received a Commonwealth Research Training Program stipend. She is a member of the Australian Greens Victoria, although her views do not reflect a party position or party policy.
Dr Ashleigh Best previously received a Commonwealth Research Training Program scholarship, which supported some of the research in this article. She is an inactive member of the Animal Justice Party, and previously volunteered with Wildlife Victoria.
As New Zealanders clean up after ex-Cyclone Tam which left thousands without power and communities once again facing flooding, it’s tempting to seek immediate solutions.
However, after the cleanup and initial recovery, careful planning is essential.
Research shows that following disasters, communities often demand visible action that appears decisive. Yet, these reactions can create more problems than they solve.
When high-impact weather events drive long-term policy decisions, we risk implementing changes that seem protective but actually increase the risk of future disasters or misallocate limited resources.
What New Zealand needs isn’t knee-jerk actions but thoughtful planning that prepares communities before the next storms strike. Risk assessments paired with adaptive planning offer a path forward to build resilience step by step.
Planning ahead with multiple options
The good news is that many councils in New Zealand have begun this process and communities across the country are due to receive climate change risk assessments. These aren’t just technical documents showing hazard areas – they are tools that put power in the hands of communities.
When communities have access to good information about which neighbourhoods, roads and infrastructure face potential risks, they can prioritise investments in protection, modify building practices where needed and, in some cases, plan for different futures. This knowledge creates options rather than fear.
A risk assessment is merely the first step. Adaptation plans that translate knowledge into action are the next, but the Climate Change Commission recently confirmed there is a gap, concluding that:
New Zealand is not adapting to climate change fast enough.
For many New Zealanders already experiencing “rain anxiety” with each approaching storm, simply naming the danger without offering a path forward isn’t enough. This is where adaptive planning becomes essential.
Adaptive planning isn’t about abandoning coastal towns tomorrow or spending billions on sea walls today. It is about having a plan A, B and C ready if or when nature forces our hand. Rather than demanding immediate, potentially costly actions, adaptive planning provides a roadmap with multiple pathways that adjust as climate conditions evolve. This is how we best manage complex risk.
Think of it as setting up trip wires: when water reaches certain levels or storms hit certain frequencies, we already know our next move. This approach acknowledges the deep uncertainty of climate change while still providing communities with clarity about what happens next.
Importantly, it builds in community consultation at each decision point, ensuring solutions reflect local values and priorities.
Several communities are already considering plans that combine risk assessment with several adaptation options.Getty Images
Success stories
Several New Zealand communities are already demonstrating how this approach works. Christchurch recently approved an adaptation strategy for Whakaraup? Lyttelton Harbour with clear pathways based on trigger points rather than fixed timelines.
In South Dunedin, where half of the city’s buildings currently face flood risks which are expected to worsen in coming decades, the city council has paired its risk assessment with seven potential adaptation futures, ranging from status quo to large-scale retreat. Rather than imposing solutions, they’re consulting residents about what they want for their neighbourhoods.
Similarly forward-thinking, Buller District Council has developed a master plan that includes potentially relocating parts of Westport in the future. It’s a bold strategy that acknowledges reality rather than clinging to false security.
Status quo feels safer than adaptation
These approaches aren’t without controversy. At recent public meetings in Buller, some residents voiced understandable concerns about property values and community disruption. These reactions reflect the very real emotional and financial stakes for people whose homes are affected.
Yet the alternative – continuing with the status quo – means flood victims are offered only the option to invest their insurance money wherever they like. This assumes insurance remains available, which is a misguided assumption as insurance retreat from climate-vulnerable properties accelerates.
However, while local councils are on the front lines of adaptation planning, they’re being asked to make transformational decisions without adequate central government support. A recent Parliamentary select committee report failed to clarify who should pay for adaptation measures, despite acknowledging significant risks.
Parliament continues to avoid the difficult questions, kicking the can further down the road while communities such as South Dunedin and Westport face immediate threats.
Local councils need more than vague guidelines. They need clear direction on funding responsibilities, legislative powers and technical support. Without this support, even the most detailed risk assessments become exercises in documenting vulnerability rather than building resilience.
Instead of demanding short-term fixes, residents should expect their councils to engage with these complex challenges. The best climate preparation isn’t about predicting exactly what will happen in 2100 or avoiding disaster. It is about building more resilient, cohesive communities that are prepared for whatever our changing climate brings.
Tom Logan is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow and the chief technical officer of Urban Intelligence. He receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and EU Horizons on risk assessment. He is affiliated with the International Society for Risk Analysis.
An ashen pallor and an eerie stillness all that remains where there should be fluttering fish and vibrant colours in the reefscape, one conservationist says
The world’s coral reefs have been pushed into “uncharted territory” by the worst global bleaching event on record that has now hit more than 80% of the planet’s reefs, scientists have warned.
Reefs in at least 82 countries and territories have been exposed to enough heat to turn corals white since the global event started in January 2023, the latest data from the US government’s Coral Reef Watch shows.
Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon be uninsurable. Yet, despite these escalating disasters — and a federal election looming — conversation around climate change remains deeply polarising.
But are people’s minds really made up? Or are they still open to change?
In research out today, we asked more than 5,000 Australians a simple question: what would change your mind about climate change? Their answers reveal both a warning and an opportunity.
On climate, Australians fall into six groups
Almost two thirds (64%) of Australians are concerned about the impact of climate change, according to a recent survey.
But drill deeper, and we quickly find Australians hold quite different views on climate. In fact, research in 2022 showed Australians can be sorted into six distinct groups based on how concerned and engaged they are with the issue.
At one end was the Alarmed group – highly concerned people who are convinced of the science, and already taking action (25% of Australians). At the other end was the Dismissive group (7%) – strongly sceptical people who often view climate change as exaggerated or even a hoax. In between were the Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged and Doubtful – groups who varied in belief, awareness and willingness to engage.
In our nationally representative survey, we asked every participant what might change their opinion about climate change? We then looked at how the answers differed between the six groups.
For those already convinced climate change is real and human-caused, we wanted to know what might make them doubt it. For sceptical participants, we wanted to know what might persuade them otherwise. In short, we weren’t testing who was “right” or “wrong” – we were mapping how flexible their opinions were.
Our views aren’t set in stone
People at both extremes – Alarmed and Dismissive – were the most likely to say “nothing” would change their minds. Nearly half the Dismissive respondents flat-out rejected the premise. But these two groups together make up just one in three Australians.
What about everyone in the middle ground? The rest – the Concerned (28%), Cautious (23%), Disengaged (3%) and Doubtful (14%) – showed much more openness. They matter most, because they’re the majority — and they’re still listening.
People with dismissive views of climate science are a small minority.jon lyall/Shutterstock
What information would change minds?
What would it take for people to be convinced? We identified four major themes: evidence and information, trusted sources, action being undertaken, and nothing.
The most common response was a desire for better evidence and information. But not just any facts would do. Participants said they wanted clear, plain-English explanations rather than jargon. They wanted statistics they could trust, and science that didn’t feel politicised or agenda-driven. Some said they’d be more convinced if they saw the impacts with their own eyes.
Crucially, many in the Doubtful and Cautious groups didn’t outright reject climate change – they just didn’t feel confident enough to judge the evidence.
The trust gap
Many respondents didn’t know who to believe on climate change. Scientists and independent experts were the most commonly mentioned trusted sources – but trust in these sources wasn’t universal.
Some Australians, especially in the more sceptical segments, expressed deep distrust toward the media, governments and the scientific community. Others said they’d be more receptive if information came from unbiased or apolitical sources. For some respondents, family, friends and everyday people were seen as more credible than institutions.
In an age of widespread misinformation, this matters. If we want to build support for climate action, we need the right messengers as much as the right message.
What about action?
Many respondents said their views could shift if they saw real, meaningful action – especially from governments and big business. Some wanted proof that Australia is taking climate change seriously. Others said action would offer hope or reduce their anxiety.
Even some sceptical respondents said coordinated, global action might persuade them – though they were often cynical about Australia’s impact compared to larger emitters. Others called for a more respectful, depoliticised conversation around climate.
In other words, for many Australians, it’s not just what evidence and information is presented about climate change. It’s also how it’s said, who says it, and why it’s being said.
Of course, the responses we gathered reflect what people say would change their minds. That’s not necessarily what would actually change their minds.
As climate change intensifies, so does misinformation — especially online, where artificial intelligence and social media accelerate its spread.
Misinformation has a corrosive effect. Spreading doubt, lies and uncertainty can erode public support for climate action.
If we don’t understand what Australians actually need to hear about climate change – and who they need to hear it from – we risk losing ground to confusion and doubt.
After years of growth from 2012 to 2019, Australian backing for climate action is fluctuating and even dropping, according to Lowy Institute polling.
Climate change may not be the headline issue in this federal election campaign. But it’s on the ballot nonetheless, embedded in debates over how to power Australia, jobs and the cost of living. If we want public support for meaningful climate action, we can’t just shout louder. We have to speak smarter.
Kelly Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Samantha Stanley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Abby Robinson, Amy S G Lee, and Zoe Leviston do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A group of Australian pet owners who say their dogs suffered adverse effects or died after receiving an osteoarthritis treatment are working to launch a class action, after a lawsuit was filed in the United States.
Australia’s climate and energy wars are at the forefront of the federal election campaign as the major parties outline vastly different plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle soaring power prices.
Meanwhile, misinformation about climate change has permeated public debate during the campaign, feeding false and misleading claims about renewable energy, gas and global warming.
This is a dangerous situation. In Australia and globally, rampant misinformation has for decades slowed climate action – creating doubt, hindering decision-making and undermining public support for solutions.
Here, we explain the history of climate misinformation in Australia and identify three prominent campaigns operating now. We also outline how Australians can protect themselves from misinformation as they head to the polls.
Misinformation vs disinformation
Misinformation is defined as false information spread unintentionally. It is distinct from disinformation, which is deliberately created to mislead.
However, proving intent to mislead can be challenging. So, the term misinformation is often used as a general term to describe misleading content, while the term disinformation is reserved for cases where intent is proven.
Disinformation is typically part of a coordinated
campaign to influence public opinion. Such campaigns can be run by corporate interests, political groups, lobbying organisations or individuals.
Once released, these false narratives may be picked up by others, who pass them on and create misinformation.
Climate change misinformation in Australia
In the 1980s and 1990s, Australia’s emissions-reduction targets were among the most ambitious in the world.
Despite this, Australia’s resource industry began a concerted media campaign to oppose any binding emissions-reduction actions, claiming it would ruin the economy by making Australian businesses uncompetitive.
These narratives were further exacerbated by false balance in media coverage, whereby news outlets, in an effort to appear neutral, often placed climate scientists alongside contrarians, giving the impression that the science was still unclear.
Together, this created an environment in Australia where climate action was seen as either too economically damaging or simply unnecessary.
What’s happening in the federal election campaign?
Climate misinformation has been circulating in the following forms during this federal election campaign.
1. Trumpet of Patriots
Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party ran an advertisement that claimed to expose “ the truth about climate change”. It featured a clip from a 2004 documentary, in which a scientist discusses data suggesting temperatures in Greenland were not rising. The scientist in the clip has since said his comments are now outdated.
The type of misinformation is cherry-picking – presenting one scientific measurement at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus.
Google removed the ad after it was flagged as misleading, but only after it received 1.9 million views.
2. Responsible Future Illawarra
The Responsible Future campaign opposes wind turbines on various grounds, including cost, foreign ownership, power prices, effects on views and fishing, and potential ecological damage.
However, a general lack of research into offshore wind and marine life has created uncertainty that groups such as Responsible Future Illawarra can exploit.
It has cited statements by Sea Shepherd Australia to argue offshore wind farms damage marine life – however Sea Shepherd said its comments were misrepresented.
The group also appears to have deliberately spread disinformation. This includes citing a purported research paper saying offshore wind turbines would kill up to 400 whales per year, when the paper does not exist.
3. Australians for Natural Gas
Australians for Natural Gas is a pro-gas group set up by the head of a gas company, which presents itself as a grassroots organisation. Its advertising campaign promotes natural gas as a necessary part of Australia’s fuel mix, and stresses its contribution to jobs and the economy.
The ad campaign implicitly suggests climate action – in this case, a shift to renewable energy – is harmful to the economy, livelihoods and energy security. According to Meta’s Ad Library, these adds have already been seen more than 1.1 million times.
Gas is needed in Australia’s current energy mix. But analysis shows it could be phased out almost entirely if renewable energy and storage was sufficiently increased and business and home electrification continues to rise.
And of course, failing to tackle climate change will cause substantial harm across Australia’s economy.
How to identify misinformation
As the federal election approaches, climate misinformation and disinformation is likely to proliferate further. So how do we distinguish fact from fiction?
Blocking sunlight could temporarily slow the climate crisis but the technologies remain highly controversial
UK scientists are to launch outdoor geoengineering experiments as part of a £50m government-funded programme.
The experiments will be small-scale and rigorously assessed, according to Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria), the UK government agency backing the plan, and will provide “critical” data needed to assess the potential of the technology. The programme, along with another £11m project, will make the UK one of the biggest funders of geoengineering research in the world.
On a stinking hot November day, seven years ago, Grace Vegesana and a handful of other young climate activists set up a small stage in a large square in Sydney’s CBD – and waited. Inspired by the first school striker for climate, Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, the high school students decided to organise their own rally.
Vegesana expected a hundred people to show up. Five thousand came. “It was like, oh my God, we’ve unleashed some kind of beast, people want more,” she recalls. In the months afterwards crowds doubled and then tripled.
The number of sick or injured wildlife is rising in Victoria, but the number of people able to help them is rapidly decreasing and carers say animals are being “left to die”.
President Donald Trump has issued an executive order that would block state laws seeking to tackle greenhouse gas emissions – the latest salvo in his administration’s campaign to roll back United States’ climate action.
Under Trump, the US has clearly abdicated climate leadership. But the US has in fact obstructed climate action for decades – largely due to damaging actions by the powerful fossil fuel industry.
In 20 years studying attacks on climate science and the powerful forces at work behind the scenes, I’ve come to think the United States is simply not going to lead on climate action. The fossil fuel industry has so poisoned the well of public debate in the US that it’s unlikely the nation will lead on the issue in our lifetimes.
Australia, on the other hand, has enormous potential.
I recently visited Australia from Harvard University for a series of publictalks. This nation is very close to my heart. I trained as a mining geologist and spent three years in outback South Australia, before returning to academia.
The vacuum Trump has created on climate policy provides a chance for other countries to lead. Australia has much more to gain from the clean-energy future than it stands to lose – and your climate action could be pivotal.
The climate crisis: a long time coming
Scientists first warned against burning fossil fuels way back in the 1950s. When the US Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, the words “weather” and “climate” were included because scientists had already explained to Congress that carbon dioxide was a pollutant with serious — even dire — effects.
In the late 1980s, scientists at NASA observed changes in the climate system that could only be explained by the extra heating effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The predictions had become reality.
The scientists informed their managers of the risk of catastrophic damage if the burning of oil, gas and coal continued unabated. They even suggested the company might need a different business model – one not so dependent on fossil fuels.
But managers at ExxonMobil made a fateful decision: to turn from information to disinformation. Working in tandem with other oil, gas and coal companies, as well as automobile and aluminium manufacturers, ExxonMobil launched an organised campaign, sustained over decades, to block climate action by casting doubt on the underlying science.
They ran ad campaigns in national and local newspapers insisting the science was too unsettled to warrant action. They created “astroturf” organisations that only pretended to be green, and funded “third-party allies” to argue that proposed remedies would be too expensive, cost jobs and damage the economy.
The company funded outlier scientists to publish papers claiming atmospheric warming was the result of natural climate variability. They pressured journalists to give equal time to “their side” of the story in the name of “balance”.
Over the next three decades, whenever any meaningful climate policy seemed to be gaining traction, the industry and its allies lobbied Congress and state legislatures to block it. So, neither Democratic nor Republican administrations were able to undertake meaningful climate action.
While people were dying in climate-charged floods and fires, the fossil fuel industry persuaded a significant proportion of the US population, including Trump, that the whole thing might just be a hoax.
Rise up Australia
In a matter of weeks after becoming president, Trump pulled out of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, shut down government websites hosting climate data, and withdrew support for research that dares to mention the word “climate”.
This has created a vacuum that other countries, including Australia, can step up to fill.
Few countries have more to lose from climate change than Australia. The continent has already witnessed costly and devastating wildfires and floods — affecting remote areas and major cities. It’s not unreasonable to worry that in coming years, significant parts of Australia could become uninhabitable.
Like the US, Australia has a powerful fossil fuel industry that has disproportionately influenced its politics. Unlike the US, however, that industry is based mainly on coal for export, which Australians do not depend on in their daily lives.
And Australia is truly a lucky country. It has unsurpassed potential to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.
More than 15 years ago, Australian researchers in the Zero Carbon Australia project offered a blueprint for how the country could eliminate fossil fuel use entirely. Since then, renewable energy has only become cheaper and more efficient.
Across Australia, the share of renewable electricity generation is growing. Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland are vying for second place after SA. It’s fascinating to watch the National Electricity Market balance supply and demand in real time, where a large proportion of the electricity comes from rooftop solar.
For decades, the fossil fuel industry has told the public our societies can’t manage without fossil fuels. Large parts of Australia have proved it’s just not so. The rest of the nation can follow that lead, and model the energy transition for the world. Here’s your chance.
Over the past two decades, Naomi Oreskes has received grant funding from various governments and non-government organisations to support the research upon which this piece is based. She serves on the board of The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which works to protect the integrity of climate science, and climate scientists, from politically motivated attacks. The Fund is a registered 501 c(3) non-profit organisation, meaning it does not engage in political activities. She is also an emerita board member of Protect our Winters, a 501 c (3) that works with the winter sports community to educate people about climate change and the threat it poses to winter sports. Naomi serves on the board of the Kann-Rasmussen foundation (Denmark), a non-profit foundation that works “to support the transition to a more environmentally resilient stable, and sustainable planet”.
Naomi currently serves as a consultant to a number of groups pursuing climate litigation in the United States, and recently submitted an expert report to the International Court of Justice on behalf of Vanuatu. She also receives speaking fees and book royalties for talks and publications on the history of climate science and climate change denial. Co-author, with Erik M. Conway, of Merchants of Doubt (2010) and The Big Myth (2023).
Potential danger to humans and wildlife from harmful pesticide discovered in fish at 10 times safety limit
Residues of the insecticide DDT have been found to persist at “alarming rates” in trout even after 70 years, potentially posing a significant danger to humans and wildlife that eat the fish, research has found.
Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, known as DDT, was used on forested land in New Brunswick, Canada, from 1952 to 1968. The researchers found traces of it remained in brook trout in some lakes, often at levels 10 times higher than the recommended safety threshold for wildlife.
Caring for a new puppy can be wonderful, but it can also bring feelings of depression, extreme stress and exhaustion. This is sometimes referred to as “the puppy blues”, and can begin anytime after the puppy arrives in the household.
physical exhaustion, due to all the feeding, training, cleaning, walks, management and sleep disruptions
emotional exhaustion
feeling depressed or guilty for not “doing enough” for the puppy
self-imposed perfectionist stress and feeling pressure to raise a puppy “the right way”
feelings of regret and doubt
constantly wondering if the puppy would be better off with someone else or being returned.
The good news is these feelings are generally temporary. Puppies have a number of difficult developmental states that need to be managed (each with their own unique challenges) – but these will pass as your puppy grows and settles in.
The bad news? It can be really tough, and can last weeks or months.
There is very little research into the puppy blues. But through interviews, surveys and longitudinal studies (where scholars track people’s experiences over time), researchers have begun piecing together what can help puppy owners survive these challenges.
Much like rearing children, puppy raising is hardest as a solo journey. Researchers highly recommend building a team around you and your puppy to help decrease the stress.
Seek help from parents, friends and family. Having people who you can call to puppysit and to lean on emotionally during tough times is a lifesaver for puppy owners.
Having a great local vet you trust is crucial (bonus points if you also get yourself a vet with further qualifications in animal behaviour). Chat to your vet if you are worried about your puppy’s behaviour or want to know more about force-free training.
Online communities have their place too. Seeing others go through (and survive!) similar challenges can be a great relief. These communities can also be a treasure trove of advice.
That said, remember there’s almost just as much bad advice as good online. Check with your vet if you’re unsure. The use of aversive training methods, such as smacking or yelling, is associated with more behavioural problems by the time your puppy is a year old.
And if you find yourself feeling really overwhelmed, don’t be afraid to chat to your GP about your mental health.
Make sure you have the right resources
Puppy care is full-time work. Working two full-time jobs leads to burnout. If possible, take time off work to help settle your new pet in. If your can’t, call on your village for help with puppysitting.
Consider how you can make use of long-lasting toys and safe spaces to keep your puppy entertained for a while without your input.
Long lasting chew toys, “snuffle mats” (which can be easily and cheaply made at home and can be used to hide food), and puzzle toys can also help your puppy learn to relax and settle on their own.
Play pens are also a godsend and allow you to step away or rest while they nap, eat or play.
Keep realistic expectations
There is no such thing as “perfect” when it comes to raising a puppy; chasing perfection will only lead to misery.
It can help to remember that puppies are babies. They are not supposed to know the cue to sit or stay yet, or to be able to focus on you for long during a training session.
When their teeth hurt, they’re going to grab the nearest item to chew on – which might be your hand, your shoe or your favourite sunglasses. Either way, babies are going to make mistakes, not because you’ve failed, but because their brains are too underdeveloped to do any better right now.
Training sometimes goes backwards – or out the window altogether. This is especially true when we hit new developmental periods. It’s normal and you’ve done nothing wrong (remember those underdeveloped brains!). If you’re concerned, seek professional advice from a vet.
Remember, none of the challenges will last forever. Try to enjoy the good moments, because they won’t last forever either.
Is kitten blues a thing?
While kitten blues has not been researched as much as puppy blues, many kitten owners in online forums anecdotally report similar feelings of overwhelm and exhaustion.
So it’s reasonable to assume this phenomenon exists and is likely very similar to its puppy counterpart. The advice in this article applies to both kittens and puppy owners.
Puppies and kittens are certainly not easy to raise.
But when you’re staring into those adorable eyes, wondering how this tiny creature who brings you so much love can also make you cry with exhaustion, remember: you’ve got this.
Susan Hazel has received funding from the Waltham Foundation. She is affiliated with the Dog and Cat Management Board of South Australia and the RSPCA South Australia.
Ana Goncalves Costa is affiliated with the Delta Institute and South Australian veterinary behaviour clinic Pawly Understood.
A video showing the slaughter of hundreds of dolphins in Solomon Islands has gone viral on social media, sparking heated debate in Solomon Islands and the broader Pacific about the ancient practice.
Australia’s biggest industrial climate polluter – Chevron’s Gorgon gas export plant in Western Australia – received the equivalent of millions of dollars in carbon credits from the federal government last year, despite increasing its emissions.
The revelation in government data last week has sparked calls for changes to the safeguard mechanism, the government policy applied to the country’s 219 largest industrial climate polluting facilities.
