Australia’s relationship with its regional neighbours could be in doubt under a Coalition government after two Pacific leaders challenged Opposition Leader Peter Dutton over his weak climate stance.
This week, Palau’s president Surangel Whipps Jr suggested a 2015 gaffe by Dutton, in which he joked about rising seas lapping at the door of Pacific islanders, had not been forgotten. Speaking at a clean energy conference in Sydney, Whipps said the Pacific’s plight was “not a metaphor or a punchline. It’s our fear and reality.”
And Tuvalu’s Climate Change Minister, Maina Talia, this month criticised Dutton for suggesting a joint Australia–Pacific bid to host global climate talks next year was “madness”. Talia said Dutton’s comments caused Pacific leaders to “question the nature of our friendship” with Australia.
Both Labor and Coalition governments have worked hard this decade to cement Australia as a security partner of choice for Pacific nations, as China seeks to expand its influence. Australia’s next government must continue this work by signalling an unwavering commitment to strong climate action.
What are the major parties offering on climate policy?
We are urging Australia – and whoever forms the next government – to take the next steps and stop approving new fossil fuel projects and accelerate the phase-out of coal and gas.
The Labor government has not agreed to the phase-out. But it has sought to improve Pacific ties through more ambitious climate action.
And last month, Dutton suggested the Coalition would ditch the Australia–Pacific bid to host the next United Nations climate summit, known as COP31.
How will this go down in the Pacific?
Australia has dramatically stepped up engagement with Pacific island countries in recent years. This has been guided by the foreign policy goal of integrating Pacific countries into Australia’s economy and security institutions.
But Pacific island leaders also expect Australia – the largest member of the Pacific Islands Forum – to seriously tackle the climate crisis. Should Australia fail on this measure, securing our place in the region during a time of growing strategic competition will become increasingly difficult.
Pacific leaders welcomed Australia’s plans to host the COP31 climate talks and agreed to work with this nation on the joint bid. If Dutton wins power and abandons the COP31 push, he could face a frosty reception when he meets with Pacific island leaders.
Palau, in particular, could embarrass Dutton on the global stage. It will host the Pacific Islands Forum meeting next year, weeks before the COP31 talks. This year, Palau also takes over as chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, an important negotiating bloc in global climate talks.
Countering China’s influence
Australia’s leadership in the Pacific is considered key to our national defence and security. But China’s growing power in the Pacific has weakened Australia’s standing.
A Coalition government is likely to continue some diplomatic measures initiated by the Albanese government, such as security agreements with Tuvalu and Nauru, and negotiating a new defence treaty with Papua New Guinea.
But the depth of feeling among Pacific leaders on climate action cannot be overstated. As global geopolitical tensions sharpen, Australia’s next moves on climate policy will be vital to the future of our Pacific relationship.
Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia
There has been little talk about how Australia’s economy will get to net zero. That’s a terrible reflection on the state of our politics
The Coalition has been forced to reassert its commitment to the Paris climate agreement after its energy spokesperson, Ted O’Brien, appeared to waver on the pledge on Thursday.
O’Brien faced off against the climate change and energy minister, Chris Bowen, at a debate in Canberra, weeks out from a federal election in which energy policy is emerging as a hot-button issue.
Labor, the Coalition, nobody in this country will be able to achieve the emission target set by Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. The difference between Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese is that Peter Dutton has been honest and upfront about that.
… go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Paris Agreement, and – in some circumstances – could constitute a breach of those obligations.
Tony Wood is the energy and climate change program director at the Grattan Institute. This article was originally published in the Conversation
Once floodwaters subside, talk of planned retreat inevitably rises.
Within Aotearoa New Zealand, several communities from north to south – including Kume?, Kawatiri Westport and parts of ?tepoti Dunedin – are considering future relocations while others are completing property buyouts and categorisations.
Planned retreats may reduce exposure to harm, but the social and cultural burdens of dislocation from land and home are complex. Planning, funding and physically relocating or removing homes, taonga or assets – and even entire towns – is challenging.
Internationally, research has focused on why, when and how planned retreats occur, as well as who pays. But we explore what happens to the places we retreat from.
Our latest research examines 161 international case studies of planned retreat. We analysed what happens beyond retreat, revealing how land use has changed following withdrawal of human activities.
We found a wide range of land use following retreat. In some cases, comprehensive planning for future uses of land was part of the retreat process. But in others we found a failure to consider these changing places.
Planned retreats have happened in response to various climate and hazard risks, including sea-level rise and coastal erosion, tsunami, cyclones, earthquakes, floods and landslides.
The case studies we investigated range from gradual transitions to sudden changes, such as from residential or business activities to conservation or vacant lands. In some cases, “sea change” is evident, where once dry land becomes foreshore and seabed.
Through our research, we identified global “retreat legacies”. These themes demonstrate how communities across the world have sought similar outcomes, highlighting primary land-use patterns following retreat.
The case studies show significant conversions of private to public land, with new nature and open-space reserves. Sites have been rehabilitated and floodplains and coastal ecosystems restored and reconnected.
Open spaces are used for various purposes, including as nature, community, stormwater or passive recreational reserves. Some of these new zones may restrict structures or certain activities, depending on the risk.
For example, due to debris flow hazard in Matat? in the Bay of Plenty, only transitory recreation or specific low-risk activities are allowed in the post-retreat environment because of the high risk to human life.
Planning and investment in new open-space zones range from basic rehabilitation (grassed sites) to established parks and reserves, such as the Grand Forks riverfront greenway which borders rivers in the twin US cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota. This area now hosts various recreational courses and connected trails as well as major flood protection measures.
Project Twin Streams has transformed former residential sites to allow rivers to roam in the floodplain.Wikimedia Commons/Ingolfson, CC BY-SA
Nature-based adaptations are a key function in this retreat legacy. For example, Project Twin Streams, a large-scale environmental restoration project in Waitakere, West Auckland, has transformed former residential sites into drainage reserves to make room for rivers in the floodplain.
Importantly, not all retreats require significant land-use change. Continued farming, heritage preservation and cultural activities show that planned retreats are not always full and final withdrawals from a place.
Instead, they represent an adapted relationship. While sensitive activities are relocated, other practices may remain, such as residents’ continued access to the old village of Vunidogoloa in Fiji for fishing and farming.
Social and economic legacies
Urban development in a small number of retreated sites has involved comprehensive spatial reorganisation, with planning for new urban esplanades, improved infrastructure and cultural amenities.
One example is the comprehensive infrastructure masterplan for the Caño Martín Peña district in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which involves communities living along a tidal channel. The plan applied a community-first approach to retreat. It integrated infrastructure, housing, open space, flood mitigation and ecological planning.
Alternatively, the decision to remove stopbanks and return the landscape to a “waterscape” can become a tourism feature, such as in the marshlands of the Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands. A museum is dedicated to the transformed environment.
Where there was no post-retreat planning or site rehabilitation, ghost towns such as Missouri’s Pattonsburg leave eerie reminders of the costs of living in danger zones.
Vacant and abandoned sites also raise environmental justice and ecological concerns about which retreat spaces are invested in and rehabilitated to avoid urban blight and environmental risks. Retreat sites may include landfills or contaminated land, requiring major site rehabilitation.
The 12 case studies from Aotearoa New Zealand demonstrate a range of new land uses. These include new open-space reserves, the restoration of floodplains and coastal environments, risk mitigation and re-development, and protection measures such as stopbanks.
Moving beyond retreat
Our research highlights how planned retreats can create a transition in landscapes, with potential for a new sense of place, meaning and strategic adaptation.
We found planned retreats have impacts beyond the retreat site, which reinforces the value of spatial planning.
The definition and practices of “planned or managed retreat” must include early planning to account for the values and uses the land once had. Any reconfigurations of land and seascapes must imagine a future well beyond people’s retreat.
Christina Hanna received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ng? ?kina o Te Ao T?roa and from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Endeavour Fund.
Iain White received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ng? ?kina o Te Ao T?roa, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission Toka T? Ake. He is New Zealand's national contact point for climate, energy and mobility for the European Union's Horizon Europe research program.
Raven Cretney received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ng? ?kina o Te Ao T?roa.
Pip Wallace 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.
Once floodwaters subside, talk of planned retreat inevitably rises.
Within Aotearoa New Zealand, several communities from north to south – including Kume?, Kawatiri Westport and parts of ?tepoti Dunedin – are considering future relocations while others are completing property buyouts and categorisations.
Planned retreats may reduce exposure to harm, but the social and cultural burdens of dislocation from land and home are complex. Planning, funding and physically relocating or removing homes, taonga or assets – and even entire towns – is challenging.
Internationally, research has focused on why, when and how planned retreats occur, as well as who pays. But we explore what happens to the places we retreat from.
Our latest research examines 161 international case studies of planned retreat. We analysed what happens beyond retreat, revealing how land use has changed following withdrawal of human activities.
We found a wide range of land use following retreat. In some cases, comprehensive planning for future uses of land was part of the retreat process. But in others we found a failure to consider these changing places.
Planned retreats have happened in response to various climate and hazard risks, including sea-level rise and coastal erosion, tsunami, cyclones, earthquakes, floods and landslides.
The case studies we investigated range from gradual transitions to sudden changes, such as from residential or business activities to conservation or vacant lands. In some cases, “sea change” is evident, where once dry land becomes foreshore and seabed.
Through our research, we identified global “retreat legacies”. These themes demonstrate how communities across the world have sought similar outcomes, highlighting primary land-use patterns following retreat.
The case studies show significant conversions of private to public land, with new nature and open-space reserves. Sites have been rehabilitated and floodplains and coastal ecosystems restored and reconnected.
Open spaces are used for various purposes, including as nature, community, stormwater or passive recreational reserves. Some of these new zones may restrict structures or certain activities, depending on the risk.
For example, due to debris flow hazard in Matat? in the Bay of Plenty, only transitory recreation or specific low-risk activities are allowed in the post-retreat environment because of the high risk to human life.
Planning and investment in new open-space zones range from basic rehabilitation (grassed sites) to established parks and reserves, such as the Grand Forks riverfront greenway which borders rivers in the twin US cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota, and East Grand Forks, Minnesota. This area now hosts various recreational courses and connected trails as well as major flood protection measures.
Project Twin Streams has transformed former residential sites to allow rivers to roam in the floodplain.Wikimedia Commons/Ingolfson, CC BY-SA
Nature-based adaptations are a key function in this retreat legacy. For example, Project Twin Streams, a large-scale environmental restoration project in Waitakere, West Auckland, has transformed former residential sites into drainage reserves to make room for rivers in the floodplain.
Importantly, not all retreats require significant land-use change. Continued farming, heritage preservation and cultural activities show that planned retreats are not always full and final withdrawals from a place.
Instead, they represent an adapted relationship. While sensitive activities are relocated, other practices may remain, such as residents’ continued access to the old village of Vunidogoloa in Fiji for fishing and farming.
Social and economic legacies
Urban development in a small number of retreated sites has involved comprehensive spatial reorganisation, with planning for new urban esplanades, improved infrastructure and cultural amenities.
One example is the comprehensive infrastructure masterplan for the Caño Martín Peña district in San Juan, Puerto Rico, which involves communities living along a tidal channel. The plan applied a community-first approach to retreat. It integrated infrastructure, housing, open space, flood mitigation and ecological planning.
Alternatively, the decision to remove stopbanks and return the landscape to a “waterscape” can become a tourism feature, such as in the marshlands of the Biesbosch National Park in the Netherlands. A museum is dedicated to the transformed environment.
Where there was no post-retreat planning or site rehabilitation, ghost towns such as Missouri’s Pattonsburg leave eerie reminders of the costs of living in danger zones.
Vacant and abandoned sites also raise environmental justice and ecological concerns about which retreat spaces are invested in and rehabilitated to avoid urban blight and environmental risks. Retreat sites may include landfills or contaminated land, requiring major site rehabilitation.
The 12 case studies from Aotearoa New Zealand demonstrate a range of new land uses. These include new open-space reserves, the restoration of floodplains and coastal environments, risk mitigation and re-development, and protection measures such as stopbanks.
Moving beyond retreat
Our research highlights how planned retreats can create a transition in landscapes, with potential for a new sense of place, meaning and strategic adaptation.
We found planned retreats have impacts beyond the retreat site, which reinforces the value of spatial planning.
The definition and practices of “planned or managed retreat” must include early planning to account of the values and uses the land once had. Any reconfigurations of land and seascapes must imagine a future well beyond people’s retreat.
Christina Hanna received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ng? ?kina o Te Ao T?roa and from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Endeavour Fund.
Iain White received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ng? ?kina o Te Ao T?roa, from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Endeavour Fund and from the Natural Hazards Commission Toka T? Ake. He is New Zealand's national contact point for climate, energy and mobility for the European Union's Horizon Europe research program.
Raven Cretney received funding from the national science challenge Resilience to Nature’s Challenges Kia manawaroa – Ng? ?kina o Te Ao T?roa.
Pip Wallace 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.
In 1938, zoologist Ellis Le Geyt Troughton mourned that Australia’s “gentle and specialized creatures” were “unable to cope with changed conditions and introduced enemies”.
The role of these “enemies” – namely, foxes and feral cats – in driving dozens of Australia’s animals towards extinction has solidified into a scientific consensus. This is a simple and plausible story: wily new predators arrive, decimating unwary native mammals.
In response, conservationists and governments have declared war on foxes and cats with large-scale trapping, shooting and poisoning campaigns.
But did foxes and cats definitely cause the extinction of animals such as the desert bandicoot, lesser bilby and the central hare-wallaby? Our new research shows the evidence base is nowhere near as strong as you might assume.
Feral cats are now found across almost all of Australia. But cats took decades to cover the continent.Mike Letnic/iNaturalist, CC BY-NC
What did we do?
We catalogued mammal species experts believe have either declined or gone extinct due to predation by foxes (57 species) and cats (80 species) and searched for primary sources linking foxes and cats to their decline. To assess the evidence, we then asked three simple questions.
1. Did extinctions follow the arrival of new predators?
A common claim is that extinctions followed fox and cat arrival and spread.
But is it definitely true? To find out, we compiled the last recorded sightings of extinct mammals and compared them to maps estimating the arrival of foxes and cats in the area. We included local extinctions (extinct in an area) and full extinctions, where the species is no more.
We found extinction records for 164 local populations of 52 species. Nearly a third (31%) of these records did not confirm the timeline that extinctions followed predator arrival. We found that 44% of the extinctions blamed on foxes and 20% on cats could have happened before predator arrival.
Records can be inaccurate. But our findings mean we can’t authoritatively state that foxes and cats were at the scene of these crimes. For instance, banded hare-wallabies now live only on two islands in Western Australia. They were last recorded on the mainland 4–30 years before foxes are known to have arrived.
Then there are examples of coexistence. The eastern barred bandicoot lived alongside cats on the mainland for more than 150 years before becoming extinct on the mainland, and the two species continue to live together in Tasmania.
2. Is there evidence linking foxes and cats to extinctions?
Our study found experts attribute predation pressure from foxes and cats as a reason why 57% of Australia’s threatened mammals are at risk of extinction.
For this claim to be based on evidence, we would expect to find ecological studies finding these links in most cases.
We found 331 studies and categorised each according to whether they contained predator and prey population data and if they found a link between introduced predators and a decline in the prey species.
For 76% of threatened species attributed to foxes and 80% for cats, we found no studies supporting this with population data.
Experts aren’t claiming foxes and cats are the main threat in all these cases. But when we analysed the data only for the species experts consider at high risk from foxes and cats, we found similar results.
For example, foxes and cats are ranked a “high” threat to mountain pygmy possums. We found anecdotes that foxes and cats sometimes eat these possums, but no studies showing they cause population decline.
Similarly, foxes are widely linked to the decline of black-footed rock-wallabies. But this claim came from poison-baiting studies which did not report data showing what happened to the fox population. This is important, because killing foxes does not necessarily reduce fox populations.
In 50% of studies reporting population data, there was no negative association with these predators. This further weakens the claim that foxes and cats directly drive extinctions.
For example, cats are considered a “high” threat to long-nosed potoroos. But population studies on these potoroos don’t support this. In fact, these small, seemingly vulnerable animals are able to live alongside feral cats.
By contrast, we did find one species – the brush-tailed rabbit rat – which had compelling evidence across all studies linking cats to its decline.
Long-nosed potoroos would be an appealing meal for foxes and cats. But these small marsupials have found ways to evade predators.Zoos Victoria, CC BY-NC
3. Do more introduced predators mean fewer threatened mammals?
If introduced predators cause extinctions, we would expect to find that higher predator numbers is associated with lower prey numbers (and vice versa). While correlations such as these don’t prove causation, they can give an indication.
We conducted a meta-analysis and found a negative correlation with foxes. The more foxes, the fewer threatened mammals.
This is the strongest evidence we found for introduced predators putting pressure on these species. But there are limitations – these findings would be typical for native predators and prey as well.
We found no evidence for a correlation with cats.
More lines of evidence
These aren’t the only lines of evidence. Making the strongest case for fox and cat pressure are studies finding extinct species often fall within a critical weight range – 35 grams to 5.5 kilos – which are good-sized prey for foxes and cats.
But these studies don’t explain why Australian animals would be uniquely vulnerable. For millennia, Australia’s mammals have lived alongside predators such as dingoes, Tasmanian devils, quolls and wedge-tailed eagles.
Conservationists have long believed Australia’s endemic mammals are naive or poorly adapted to survive alongside ambush hunters such as foxes and cats. But there’s no current evidence for this.
Our research has shown Australian rodents respond to foxes in the same way as do North American and Middle Eastern rodents, who evolved alongside foxes.
One line of argument goes further to suggest that foxes, cats and dingoes have “rewired” Australian ecosystems following the loss of the thylacine, Tasmanian devil (once common on the mainland) and the long-extinct marsupial lion.
What should we conclude?
We didn’t set out to prove or disprove the idea that foxes and cats drive extinctions. Instead, our study lays out the available primary evidence of historic records and studies to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
Sweeping claims have been made about Australia’s introduced predators. But when we analyse the evidence base, we find it ambiguous, weak and – in most cases – lacking.
Foxes and cats have been largely convicted by expert opinion which, while useful, can be prone to bias and groupthink.
So what did cause Australia’s mammal extinctions? The honest answer is we don’t know. It could be foxes and cats – but it could also be something else.
Arian Wallach receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Erick Lundgren receives funding from the Centre for Open Science & Synthesis in Ecology and Evolution at the University of Alberta
Despite announcements that there will be “no new transmission lines needed” under a Coalition government, modelling shows its plans require 6,500 kilometres of new lines.
A billion-dollar bet on nickel mining gave many New Caledonians hopes of economic prosperity and political independence. But after the market turned, the mine has left behind a ghost town full of broken hearts.
I’ve been wondering if I remember all my surprise encounters with animals in the wild.
I remember sitting totally still on a riverbank watching a platypus going about its business as the dusk descended, by a logging road on the boundary of Tasmania’s world heritage area. And a moose in the Yukon, blundering out of the scrub at full speed right in front of us, as terrified and surprised as we were. A huge thing, my vision filled with moose. It turned and kept bolting. And summer evenings camping on the Thredbo River where wombats make for strange silent sentinels, munching grass as humans rustle plastic and wrangle gas stoves, the fuss of cooking alfresco.
A major industrial gas company in Australia will shift its power use away from fossil fuels and instead meet nearly half its electricity needs across three states from solar.
BOC, owned by global gas and engineering company Linde, supplies speciality gases to large manufacturers, industry and oxygen to hospitals.
The Coalition has been forced to reassert its commitment to the Paris climate agreement after its energy spokesman Ted O’Brien appeared to waver on the pledge on Thursday.
O’Brien faced off against Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen at a debate in Canberra, weeks out from a federal election in which energy policy is emerging as a hot-button issue.
Under the landmark Paris deal, Australia has pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 43% by the end of the decade, compared to 2005 levels. O’Brien on Thursday said the Coalition would review the target if it wins office. He deflected a question on whether a Dutton government would remain a signatory to the Paris Agreement, saying the Coalition would “always act in the national interest”.
Within hours of the debate, the Coalition was forced to clarify O’Brien’s comments and reaffirm its commitment to Paris. But the Coalition appears intent on winding back the 2030 target if it is elected next month – a move that would weaken our bipartisan commitment to net zero by 2050 and go against the interests of the global climate.
The 2025 Climate and Energy debate | ABC NEWS.
Resetting the 2030 target
The Coalition has long disputed Labor’s claims that the 43% target would be met.
In June last year, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton claimed the Albanese government has “no hope of achieving the targets and there’s no sense signing up to targets you don’t have any prospect of achieving”.
In January this year, Dutton said a Coalition government would remain party to Paris, despite United States President Donald Trump’s move to withdraw his nation from the deal.
On Thursday, O’Brien confirmed a Coalition government would review the 43% target. In doing so, it would consider three factors: Australia’s emissions trajectory, the state of the economy and the Coalition’s suite of policies – including nuclear power and more gas.
O’Brien went on to say:
Labor, the Coalition, nobody in this country will be able to achieve the emission target set by Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. The difference between Peter Dutton and Anthony Albanese is that Peter Dutton has been honest and upfront about that.
O’Brien would not rule out withdrawing Australia from the Paris deal, but later released a statement saying the Coalition remained committed to the agreement.
Will Australia meet the 43% target?
During the debate, Bowen claimed Australia is “on track” to meet its emissions-reduction goal. He pointed to analysis by his department released late last year showing emissions are projected to be 42.6% below 2005 levels in 2030.
Australia will have to work hard to meet the target, with our emissions reductions having stalled since 2021. The government’s projection assumes it achieves its target of 82% renewable electricity generation by 2030 – possible but very challenging from about 45% today.
It also depends on two policies to reduce emissions outside electricity, neither of which have yet demonstrated their progress.
The first is the safeguard mechanism, which aims to reduce emissions from heavy industry. It began in mid-2023 but its results are not yet clear. Second is the new vehicle efficiency standard, introduced from January this year.
What if Dutton does walk back Australia’s Paris commitment?
Even if a Dutton government remained in the Paris Agreement, walking back on the 43% emissions target is problematic, for a number of reasons.
Most obviously is that the threat of dangerous climate change is real, and growing. The Paris deal aims to keep average global temperatures “well below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and ideally, limit warming to no more than 1.5°C.
But according to official data, Earth’s monthly global average temperature exceeded 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for 11 months last year. So meeting the Paris commitment is already looking shaky.
While the Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty, there has been much debate as to the real meaning of “legally binding”. Some argue that national commitments to reduce emissions are not legally binding, and can be revised in either direction. While a downward revision is liable to draw criticism, it could be a legally available option under the Paris Agreement. Transgressors don’t get kicked out of the club.
But any downward revision on the targets is a bad look on the global stage. University of Melbourne climate law expert Jacqueline Peel has argued that any moves by a future Coalition government to water down Australia’s 2030 target, or to submit a 2035 target weaker than our current pledges, would:
go against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Paris Agreement, and – in some circumstances – could constitute a breach of those obligations.
Where to now?
The Albanese government chose not to announce a 2035 target before the election. The Opposition says it won’t set a 2035 target until it’s in government.
That means voters will be left in the dark on this important issue as they head to the ballot box.
At the moment, the Coalition appears to be relying on its controversial nuclear power plan to meet the bipartisan goal of net-zero emissions by 2050. But analysts have warned the plan will lead to much more emissions between now and then.
Meanwhile, there is far more work to be done outside the energy sector – in agriculture, transport, industry and more – to meet Australia’s climate commitments.
Australia’s cost of living crisis has garnered much attention during the election campaign so far. There has been very little talk about how Australia’s entire economy will get to net-zero.
That’s a terrible reflection on the state of our politics. Ultimately, unmitigated climate change will be bad for the planet and very bad for Australia.
Tony Wood may own shares in companies in relevant industries through his superannuation fund.
There are an estimated 1 billion domesticated dogs in the world. Most are owned animals – pets, companions or working animals who share their lives with humans. They are the most common large predator in the world. Pet cats trail far behind, at about 220 million.
We are all too aware of the negative effects of cats, both owned and feral, on wildlife. Feral dogs too are frequently seen as threats to biodiversity, although dingoes can have a positive role. By contrast, our pet dogs often seem to get a free pass.
This is, unfortunately, based more on feelings than data. Our beloved pet dogs have a far greater, more insidious and more concerning effect on wildlife and the environment than we would like to be the case.
In our new research, we lay out the damage pet dogs do and what can be done about it.
Dogs are predators. They catch many types of wildlife and can injure or kill them. Their scent and droppings scare smaller animals. Then there’s the huge environmental cost of feeding these carnivores and the sheer quantity of their poo.
We love our pet dogs, but they come with a very real cost. We have to recognise this and take steps to protect wildlife by leashing or restraining our animals.
The predator in your home
Dogs are domesticated wolves, bred to be smaller, more docile and extremely responsive to humans. But they are still predators.
Pet dogs are responsible for more reported attacks on wildlife than are cats, according to data from wildlife care centres, and catch larger animals.
Pet dogs off the leash are the main reason colonies of little penguins are nearing collapse in Tasmania.
In New Zealand, a single escaped pet dog is estimated to have killed up to 500 brown kiwis out of a total population of 900 over a five-week period.
Once off the leash, dogs love to chase animals and birds. This may seem harmless. But being chased can exhaust tired migratory birds, forcing them to use more energy. Dogs can kill fledglings of beach-nesting birds, including endangered birds such as the hooded plover.
The mere presence of these predators terrifies many animals and birds. Even when they’re on the leash, local wildlife are on high alert. This has measurable negative effects on bird abundance and diversity across woodland sites in eastern Australia.
In the United States, deer are more alert and run sooner and farther if they see a human with a leashed dog than a human alone.
Several mammal species in the United States perceived dogs with a human as a bigger threat than coyotes.
Dogs don’t even have to be present to be bad for wildlife. They scent-mark trees and posts with their urine and leave their faeces in many places. These act as warnings to many other species. Researchers in the US found animals such as deer, foxes and even bobcats avoided areas dogs had been regularly walked compared to dog exclusion zones, due to the traces they left.
Beach-nesting birds such as hooded plovers are vulnerable to off-leash dogs, who can easily trample eggs, kill hatchlings or scare off the parents.Martin Pelanek/Shutterstock
Keeping dogs healthy and fed has a cost
The medications we use to rid our pet dogs of fleas or ticks can last weeks on fur, and wash off when they plunge into a creek or river. But some of these medications have ingredients highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, meaning a quick dip can be devastating.
Researchers have found when birds such as blue tits and great tits collect brushed-out dog fur to line their nests, it can lead to fewer eggs hatching and more dead hatchlings.
Then there’s the poo. In the US, there are about 90 million pet dogs, while the UK has 12 million and Australia has 6 million.
The average dog deposits 200 grams of faeces and 400 millilitres of urine a day. This translates to a tonne of faeces and 2,000 litres of urine over a 13 year lifespan. Scaled up, that’s a mountain of waste.
This waste stream can add to nitrogen pollution in waterways, alter soil chemistry and even spread diseases to humans and other wildlife. More than 80% of the pathogens infecting domesticated animals also infect wildlife.
Dogs largely eat meat, meaning millions of cows and chickens are raised just to feed our pets. Feeding the world’s dogs leads to about the same emissions as the Philippines and a land use “pawprint” twice the size of the UK.
No one likes thinking about this
People love their dogs. They’re always happy to see us. Their companionship makes us healthier, body and mind. Many farms couldn’t run without working dogs. We don’t want to acknowledge they can also cause harm.
Dogs, of course, are not bad. They’re animals, with natural instincts as well as the domesticated instinct to please us. But their sheer numbers mean they do real damage.
Many of us have a large dog-shaped blind spot. Little Brutus wouldn’t have done something like that, we think. But Brutus can and does.
Choosing to own a dog comes with responsibilities. Being a good dog owner means caring not just for the animal we love, but the rest of the natural world.
The authors 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.
As Labor continues to target 82 per cent renewables by 2030, the amount of wind and solar in regional communities will continue to scale up. But balancing community and environmental interests has been challenging for companies and governments.
Amazon, Google and Microsoft are building datacentres in water-scarce parts of five continents
Amazon, Microsoft and Google are operating datacentres that use vast amounts of water in some of the world’s driest areas and are building many more, the non-profit investigatory organisation SourceMaterial and the Guardian have found.
With Donald Trump pledging to support them, the three technology giants are planning hundreds of datacentres in the US and across the globe, with a potentially huge impact on populations already living with water scarcity.
It surprised many Australians when the Coalition announced a plan straight from the progressive side of politics: force large gas companies to reserve gas for domestic use – at a lower cost than they could sell it for overseas.
As a populist move during a cost-of-living election, it’s a good one. Australia’s gas producers sell 70% of gas extracted on the east coast overseas under long-term contracts, even as southeastern states such as Victoria face possible gas shortages. Western Australia has long had an effective policy requiring up to 15% of offshore gas to be reserved for domestic use.
After a fortnight’s delay, the Coalition has now publicly released the modelling behind its policy. Undertaken by Frontier Economics, the modelling indicates that reserving 50 to 100 petajoules of gas in the first year would cut wholesale prices by 23%. This would mean a 15% drop in prices for large-scale users – but only a 7% fall for household gas bills and a 3% fall in electricity bills.
This doesn’t sound like much, because it isn’t. Gas prices soared during the Ukraine war and haven’t yet returned to their pre-war levels. Labor has dubbed the plan “gaslighting”, and will rely instead on a gas policy released last year to open up more gasfields and build import terminals. Gas producers don’t like the Coalition’s plan, and neither does billionaire Liberal benefactor Gina Rinehart. Dutton’s plan isn’t crazy – it’s just not likely to make a big difference.
The Coalition has proposed what it calls an East Coast Reservation Scheme, with the goal of progressively decoupling Australia’s east coast gas market from the volatile international market.
It has two parts. First, it would require new exporters, in the first year of operation, to reserve an additional 50–100 petajoules for the domestic market. Second, it would create a gas security charge, to be imposed on gas producers seeking to export “additional” (non-contracted) gas on the international market.
This would give gas producers an incentive to sell non-contracted gas to the domestic market, because they would get greater profits selling in Australia, even at a lower base price.
Further, the policy would prevent gas producers from charging domestic buyers international prices, setting a competitive price.
In effect, the gas security charge is akin to a levy or a reverse tariff. The levy can be avoided if producers supply up to 100 petajoules to domestic markets. That’s about as much gas as New South Wales’ gas pipelines deliver each year – 101 petajoules (PJ) as of 2022–23, or the equivalent of 26 full liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers, which hold about 3.8 PJ on average.
What are the issues with this plan?
There are legitimate concerns. First, the policy does not directly address domestic gas pricing and won’t help with the cost of living crisis. Over time, it could create a more competitive domestic market, but the fact producers could make marginally more money selling gas on the domestic market doesn’t guarantee change.
Second, the policy does not directly address the looming gas supply crisis. That’s because existing gas producers would not be legally obliged to commit to more gas domestically – they could still export it. The obligation to commit an additional 50-100 petajoules to the domestic market only applies to gas exporters in their first year of operation.
If policymakers want to solve the supply crisis, they would be better served by imposing direct export controls in the form of a clear gas reservation mandate. This works, as Western Australia’s long experience shows.
How did we get here?
When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, it led to huge spikes in global gas prices and shortages in Europe as the world moved away from Russian gas.
In the 2010s, Australia had already been ramping up gas production. But in the wake of the Ukraine war, Australia became a major gas exporter. Producers traded as much gas as possible on the international market, selling it for over A$40/GJ. Meanwhile, Australia’s coal production was falling.
Domestic gas demand shot up, and prices went from $8 to $30 a gigajoule. In response, the Albanese government introduced an emergency price cap for the wholesale gas market, prohibiting producers from entering into supply contracts with domestic purchasers for prices above a cap, currently set at $12/GJ. While the cap did partly insulate domestic consumers, it was always intended as a temporary measure.
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recently predicted a gas supply shortfall of up to 40 petajoules in the southern states as early as September due to declining production in Victoria and South Australia as well as higher demand. Without access to uncontracted Queensland gas, supply will run very low. This is a significant energy security risk, and one the Coalition’s gas policy doesn’t directly address.
Victorian residents are more reliant on gas than other states – and shortfalls are looming.M-Production/Shutterstock
What’s next?
Australia is one of the world’s top three LNG exporters. The fact a gas giant could be facing domestic shortages is both unnecessary and embarrassing. Reaching this point represents decades of policy failure.
Reserving gas for domestic use works for the west coast, and it would work for the east. But the Coalition’s plan is not quite a gas reservation scheme. It doesn’t create a comprehensive reservation mandate and questions remain about its capacity to address domestic pricing and supply.
At present, it seems like a lot of effort without great benefit. Will households really notice their gas bill is 7% cheaper?
Samantha Hepburn 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.
Greens leader Adam Bandt claims the federal election offers “an opportunity for real change”, saying his party would use the balance of power in the next parliament to help deliver serious policy reforms.
In a speech to the National Press Club on Wednesday, Bandt outlined the party’s election priorities and said the poll represents:
A once-in-a-generation chance to create a country where everyone has a right to the basics – food, health, and a home. A safe climate and a healthy environment. An economy which puts people before the profits of the obscenely wealthy and the excessively profitable.
The Greens broke new ground at the last federal election, snatching three new lower house seats and winning the balance of power in the Senate. The gains suggested the Greens were moving beyond their roots as a party of protest, and becoming a true policy force.
But the Greens broadly failed to make the most of its greater political presence this term. In the next parliament, it should focus on building political capital and picking its battles more wisely.
Meagre parliamentary success this term
As a traditional party of protest, the Greens have historically tended to stick firmly to the party’s policy agenda rather than make major concessions to the government of the day.
However, as the new Labor government focused on delivering its mostly modest reform agenda this term, the Greens party was forced to negotiate on its demands, much as the Teals have done.
The Greens helped Labor pass its signature climate change policy, the safeguard mechanism, which seeks to limit emissions from Australia’s most polluting companies. In return, Labor agreed to the Greens’ call for a hard cap on emissions under the scheme. But it refused to bow to Greens demands for a ban on new gas and coal projects, and limiting the use of carbon credits.
The Greens were then tested by Labor’s housing agenda – specifically, two schemes to make buying or renting a home more affordable.
The Greens initially teamed up with the Coalition to block the laws, arguing they would drive up housing prices and give tax breaks to property developers. The party’s opposition was at odds with public opinion, including most Greens voters.
The party eventually waved the housing bills through in November last year without winning any concessions from Labor, and after burning much political capital.
The chastened Greens helped pass a flurry of other legislation late in 2024, including Reserve Bank governance reforms and a supermarket code of conduct. In return, Labor offered Greens fairly piecemeal concessions, including more money for social housing electrification and a ban on fossil fuel subsidies under the Future Made in Australia scheme.
The Greens also offered to help salvage Labor’s troubled proposal to reform Australia’s environmental protection laws. It shelved its calls for a “climate trigger” – which would force regulators to consider the potential climate damage of a proposal before it was approved. Instead, the Greens insisted only on stronger protections for native forests.
All this suggests the Greens party is yet to strike the right balance between pursuing its own policy agenda and supporting Labor to the extent that a healthy working relationship is achieved. So far, it has gained only meagre concessions, and its policy grandstanding has not worked.
Flare-ups outside parliament
Scoring political points outside parliament can be easier for the Greens than influencing policy within it.
The Gaza conflict triggered significant ruptures between the Greens and the pro-Israel movement. There were also reports that a new Muslim political movement may siphon votes from the Greens and hurt them electorally.
There is no ready formula, then, for the Greens to shore up – let alone expand – its vote outside parliament.
What’s next for the Greens?
The Guardian’s polls tracker suggests the Greens’ primary vote has increased since the 2022 election, from 12.3% to 14%.
However, the party faces several tough political contests to retain or extend the gains it won in 2022. And its disappointing results at recent elections in Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory suggest the party has its work cut out.
As ABC election analyst Antony Green has noted, Labor holds three seats with margins below 5% where the Greens have a chance. However, the Greens also hold seats on slim margins that Labor or another candidate could win.
The Greens’ lower-house gains at the last election came in the inner-Brisbane seats of Ryan, Brisbane and Griffith. The Greens will have to fight hard to retain all three next month.
The most recent polls suggest Labor will be returned by a narrow margin at the May 3 election – probably helped along by the return of United States’ President Donald Trump.
On Wednesday Bandt said the Greens “are within reach of winning seats right across the country and, in the minority government, we can make things happen”.
However, seven new Independents won lower house seats at the last election. Should that trend continue, and if Labor does need to form a minority government, the Greens may find themselves fighting for the balance of power on a crowded crossbench.
Picking fights or delivering policy?
If the Greens party wants to be seen as a serious political force, it must decide if its traditional political approach – hard-nosed policy opposition and picking political fights – is still the best strategy.
Bandt’s mentor, former Greens leader Christine Milne, got results from minority pacts with both sides of politics. She believed the Greens’ role was to build political capital and then, when an opportunity such as minority government arose, to spend that capital on achieving significant policy outcomes.
On Wednesday, Bandt indicated a willingness to work towards meaningful policy outcomes in the next parliament. He claimed the Greens were willing to compromise in the event of minority government, saying:
we understand the need to cooperate and to come up with an arrangement that forms stable, effective and progressive government […] We will go into any discussions with goodwill and with [an] open mind.
Kate Crowley 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.
The price of energy is a focus of the election campaign. We’ve asked the experts what they think are some of the solutions to help households with their bills now.
Extinction. In 1844 Ketill Ketilsson won the race to grab the last pair of great auks. They were nesting on Iceland’s Eldey Island. Millions of these penguin-like birds had been slaughtered for feather-stuffed quilts to keep Europe’s burgeoning human population warm. Ketilsson strangled the two but tripped over and broke their egg. Never mind, he won the reward being offered by museums in Copenhagen for the final specimens.
A perverse market rule on species had been established: the rarer a species gets, the more valuable it becomes. It came too late for those who killed the last dodo, moa or Steller’s sea cow – but look at the money now going into resurrecting mammoths and thylacines.
About 90% of the nuclear generation capacity the Coalition proposes to build would not have access to enough water to run safely, according to a report commissioned by Liberals Against Nuclear.
The report authored by Prof Andrew Campbell, a visiting fellow at the Australian National University, assessed nuclear energy’s water needs and the available supply across the seven sites where the Coalition has proposed new reactors.
A coral 'rope' nursery in the MaldivesLuca Saponari/University of Milan, CC BY-ND
Coral reefs are much more than just a pretty place to visit. They are among the world’s richest ecosystems, hosting about a third of all marine species.
These reefs also directly benefit more than a billion people, providing livelihoods and food security, as well as protection from storms and coastal erosion.
Without coral reefs, the world would be a much poorer place. So when corals die or become damaged, many people try to restore them. But the enormity of the task is growing as the climate keeps warming.
In our new research, we examined the full extent of existing coral restoration projects worldwide. We looked at what drives their success or failure, and how much it would actually cost to restore what’s already been lost. Restoring the reefs we’ve already lost around the world could cost up to A$26 trillion.
Bleached Acropora corals in the Maldives.Davide Seveso/University of Milan
When sea temperatures climb above the seasonal average for sustained periods, corals can become bleached. They lose colour as they expel their symbiotic algae when stressed, revealing the white skeleton underneath. Severe bleaching can kill coral.
Over the past 40 years, the extent of coral reefs has halved. As climate change continues, bleaching events and coral deaths will become more common. More than 90% of coral reefs are at risk of long-term degradation by the end of the century.
Dead corals in the Maldives following a bleaching event.Simone Montano/University of Milan
But by far the most common type of restoration is “coral gardening”, where coral fragments grown in nurseries are transplanted back to the reef.
The problem is scale. Coral restoration can only be done successfully at a small scale. Most projects only operate over several hundred or a few thousand square metres. Compare that with nearly 12,000 square km of loss and degradation between 2009 and 2018. Restoration projects come nowhere near the scale needed to offset losses from climate change and other threats.
Conservationists work to garden coral and help preserve these unique life forms.
Sky-high costs
Coral restoration is expensive, ranging from around $10,000 to $226 million per hectare. The wide range reflects the variable costs of different techniques used, ease of access, and cost of labour. For example, coral gardening (coral fragments grown in nurseries transplanted back to the reef) is relatively cheap (median cost $558,000 per hectare) compared with seeding coral larvae (median $830,000 per hectare). Building artificial reefs can cost up to $226 million per hectare.
We estimated it would cost more than $1.6 billion to restore just 10% of degraded coral areas globally. This is using the lowest cost per hectare and assuming all restoration projects are successful.
Even our conservative estimate is four times more than the total investment in coral restoration over the past decade ($410 million).
But it’s reasonable to use the highest cost per hectare, given high failure rates, the need to use several techniques at the same site, and the great expense of working on remote reefs. Restoring 10% of degraded coral areas globally, at $226 million a hectare, would cost more than $26 trillion – almost ten times Australia’s annual GDP.
It is therefore financially impossible to tackle the ongoing loss of coral reefs with restoration, even if local projects can still provide some benefits.
Rope nurseries nurture coral fragments until they’re ready to be planted out.Luca Saponari/University of Milan
Location, location, location
Our research also looked at what drives the choice of restoration sites. We found it depends mostly on how close a reef is to human settlements.
By itself, this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But we also found restoration actions were more likely to occur in reefs already degraded by human activity and with fewer coral species.
This means we’re not necessarily targeting sites where restoration is most likely to succeed, or of greatest ecological importance.
Another limitation is coral gardening normally involves only a few coral species – the easiest to rear and transplant. While this can still increase coral cover, it does not restore coral diversity to the extent necessary for healthy, resilient ecosystems.
Measuring ‘success’
Another sad reality is that more than a third of all coral restoration efforts fail. The reasons why can include poor planning, unproven technologies, insufficient monitoring, and subsequent heatwaves.
Unfortunately, there’s no standard way to collect data or report on restoration projects. This makes it difficult – or impossible – to identify conditions leading to success, and reduces the pace of improvement.
Succeed now, fail later
Most coral transplants are monitored for less than 18 months. Even if they survive that period, there’s no guarantee they will last longer. The long-term success rate is unknown.
When we examined the likelihood of extreme heat events immediately following restoration and in coming decades, we found most restored sites had already experienced severe bleaching shortly after restoration. It will be difficult to find locations that will be spared from future global warming.
Sometimes the young coral is bleached before the restoration project is complete.Davide Seveso/University of Milan
No substitute for climate action
Coral restoration has the potential to be a valuable tool in certain circumstances: when it promotes community engagement and addresses local needs. But it is not yet – and might never be – feasible to scale up sufficiently to have meaningful long-term positive effects on coral reef ecosystems.
Other conservation approaches such as establishing, maintaining and enforcing marine protected areas, and improving water quality, could improve the chance a coral restoration project will work. These efforts could also support local human communities with incentives for conservation.
Reinforcing complementary strategies could therefore bolster ecosystem resilience, extending the reach and success of coral restoration projects.
Corey J. A. Bradshaw receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Clelia Mulà receives funding from the Australian Institute of Marine Science.
Giovanni Strona 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.
