With much talk this week about the end of the Whitlam government, Liberal conservatives might do well to read Gough Whitlam’s 1967 speech to the Victorian Labor Party, at the start of his climb to power.

Like the Liberals now, federal Labor had been trounced at the 1966 election. Whitlam was the new leader, and he took on Victorian hardliners who put ideology ahead of electability.

“Certainly, the impotent are pure,” Whitlam told the delegates at the conference, in a line that echoed down the years.

The Liberal conservatives’ success in forcing their party to dump its commitment to the net zero emissions reduction target has been a triumph of ideology over pragmatism, worthy of those 1960s Labor zealots.

Walking away from the commitment is ill-judged and politically dangerous. It’s also unnecessary.

Many political players, including in Labor, don’t think net zero by 2050 is attainable. But the timeframe is a generation away. Given that, why is it so urgent to reject the target?

Especially when, as Liberal federal director Andrew Hirst told the party room on Wednesday, among voters net zero has become a “proxy” for action on climate. Hirst did talk about possible arguments that could be mobilised if net zero was dumped. For those listening, however, his message, based on research, was clear: ditching net zero was high-risk politics. The conservatives didn’t care.

But the party, with its moderates, had to be held together. On Thursday, when the Liberal shadow ministers met, the leadership stuck a tiny plaster on the gaping wound. Bottom line: commitment to the target is out, but if net zero happened to be achieved, that would be “a welcome outcome”.

The Liberals are in a dreadful state and a climate and energy policy that’s all over the shop can only worsen things. No one thinks they can return to power in under two elections. Even for that they’d have to pick up a significant number of seats in 2028.

At present, the Coalition is on 24% primary vote (in Newspoll). The Liberals will never do well with young voters, but to be competitive overall they have to at least make inroads with them. That’s to say nothing of the women’s vote, on which Labor has a stranglehold.

The Liberals have hardly any urban seats and, apart from Goldstein, the formerly Liberal teal seats stayed solidly independent at the last election.

Net zero resonates with young voters, women, urban dwellers and those in teal electorates, whether or not it is pie in the sky. By dropping it, the Liberals have delivered a slap in the face to these voters. They are saying, in effect, “you might have rejected us at two elections, but we still know better than you do”.

A commonsense voice came ahead of Wednesday’s meeting from Gisele Kapterian, who failed by a handful of votes in the traditional Liberal Sydney seat of Bradfield. It went to a teal. In an email to Liberals on Tuesday, Kapterian described herself as “a concerned Liberal, a technology executive, a former international trade lawyer, a millennial, and […] the former Liberal candidate in the most marginal seat in the country”.

She wrote, “In my experience, echoed throughout the most marginal, winnable, metropolitan seats, our party must remain firmly committed to the language of a ‘net zero’ emissions target as part of an energy policy that is differentiated from the ALP. Retreat is an electoral liability.

"My experience on the ground is that a credible, technology-focused climate policy is essential to securing the many discerning voters in key urban and suburban seats.”

What will all these constituencies take out of the new policy? That the Liberals don’t believe in net zero, that’s what. Not that they have found some great ways to bring down power bills.

And who is going to sell persuasively the messy new policy? Not Sussan Ley, who struggled with its contradictions at her news conference on Thursday. Far from being a conviction politician, Ley didn’t even give a personal view to Wednesday’s party meeting. Nor is the affable energy spokesman, Dan Tehan, likely to convince many people. He looks out of his depth.

The divisions in the party will remain obvious. Even if the moderates stay in line, their views are on the record because they have previously been talking their heads off – as have the conservatives.

The loud voices in the Nationals, who’ve had a massive win, leading the Coalition by the nose, will come across as clear and unconflicted. Can anyone miss the irony that Barnaby Joyce, thought to be on his way to One Nation, has had a triumphant hurrah?

To return to Whitlam: he led from the front and imposed himself on his party, even willing to risk expulsion. Ley is at the opposite end of the leadership spectrum.

Despite once having extolled net zero, Ley decided a while ago to go with the flow in the interests of preserving her job. Was there an alternative? A brave (maybe crazy brave) leader might have stepped out and argued for a position.

Yes, given the dominance of the conservatives (including in the party branches), she might have been rolled on the issue and, sooner rather than later, as leader. But at least she would have stood for something, and gone down fighting.

As for losing the leadership, most Liberals see that as inevitable – it’s only a matter of timing.

Some point out it would look bad to bring down the party’s first woman leader. Let it be recorded, however, that a couple of high-profile Liberal women are among those with political knives out for Ley. The front row of the conservative phalanx who marched into the party meeting comprised three women: Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Sarah Henderson and Jessica Collins.

The conservatives are in charge of the Liberal Party and, when it suits them, they will install a conservative leader. The problem for him (and it will be a him) is he will be operating in an Australian electorate that is progressive, both now and for the foreseeable future.

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

On Thursday, the Liberals reversed their commitment to net zero by 2050. While it’s impossible to predict precisely what this decision means for climate action in Australia, the policies and laws already in place suggest momentum will continue.

There’s no question the climate policies of opposition parties matter – especially for investor and business confidence. But understanding the policies and laws already in place helps understand where progress will happen regardless.

Just this year, Australia published a Net Zero Plan, set its 2035 target and published six sector plans that include electricity and energy, transport and agriculture. These set out the frameworks and investments already locked in that are guiding progress towards Australia’s targets.

Existing targets

Australia has already legislated federal emissions-reduction targets, with the states and territories also having their own commitments to net zero alongside interim targets. The federal opposition reversing support for achieving the net zero goal won’t change what is already in place. In addition, most other countries are still working towards the goal of net zero by 2050.

In both the House of Representatives and the Senate, those who support climate action are in the majority – Labor, the Greens and climate-progressive independents, including the “Teals”. In the lower house they form a strong majority.

Yes, new policies and laws will be required to achieve Australia’s climate targets. However, given the current Labor government has the numbers to pass legislation through the lower house and the Senate, with the backing of the Greens, the Coalition alone won’t be able to play a blocking role.

Transition gathering steam

The economic transition from fossil fuel power generation to clean technologies is already well underway. Yes, there have been headwinds in recent years, including in the United States, but the momentum is still there. And the main Australian industry groups – the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry – are all still calling for net zero by 2050.

Industry wants consistency and clarity to help finesse their investment and business strategies. This also provides the clarity needed for long-term decisions. It’s worth noting the Department of Treasury, under successive governments, has found that action to reduce emissions and manage climate risks is more attractive to international investment and expected to lower the cost of finance.

This was set out in the Treasury modelling that underpins the decision to set the 2035 target – Australia’s Net Zero Transformation: Treasury Modelling and Analysis. That is why interim targets and a clear timeline really matter.

Renewable energy is becoming much cheaper in Australia and globally, and is expected to become the majority of electricity generation within Australia as early as next year. It has already reached nearly an 80% share for short periods.

And it’s the detail of the transition that industry and investors are focused on. They want to know: is it cheaper to build renewable energy as coal-fired generators age and have to be shut down? What’s the cheapest way to provide energy in the years ahead? What about technology costs? What policies will drive investment?

There’s no question that industry and communities respond well when the major parties act together - across the different levels of government. But a multitude of factors affect investment far more than opposition policy.

Diplomatic shifts

Under the Paris Agreement, countries are expected to set interim emissions targets every five years. If countries backtrack or drop out, that can bring diplomatic and economic impacts, including with some of Australia’s key trade partners and neighbouring countries in the Pacific and South East Asia.

As an influential middle power, Australia can punch above its weight. Australia is also in the top 20 global emitters, and even moves much higher up the list if you add the emissions impacts of fossil fuel exports. So, what Australia does and says is important. At the moment the government is clear it wants to be seen as a good partner in supporting emissions reductions in the region, and that has been well received.

If Australia wins its bid to host COP31, it will need to demonstrate that a high-emitting economy is genuinely embarked on a transition. That the electricity sector is already above 40% share of renewables, at least in the connected grids, is a clear sign. The next step will be showing how Australia can make the most of its clean energy and mineral resources in a future economy that’s focused on net zero, rather than the economy of the past.

What now?

The clean energy transition isn’t only about having cheaper electricity or paying less for fuel. It’s about our health more generally. If you live in a well-insulated house that you can heat and cool at a reasonable cost, your health and welfare benefits.

For instance, our research shows that with climate-aligned home energy upgrades and appliance electrification, Australian households could save up to $2,000 a year, equating to average energy bills savings of as much as 50% per home.

The latest figures from the United Nations show how far the world has come. Without the Paris Agreement, the world was on track to reach about 4°C of warming above pre-industrial levels by 2100. To date, the commitments through the Paris agreement have reduced that to projections of limiting warming to 2.3–2.8°C. This is still above safe levels, but every fraction of a degree matters, for climate damage, for our health and our wellbeing.

It’s up to everyone who thinks climate action matters to ensure the public understands the economic, short- and long-term personal benefits a planned transition will bring.

Anna Malos, Climateworks Centre Country Lead, Australia, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This year’s fire season in Australia feels unpredictable. One week brings torrential rain, the next a burst of heat, followed by a sharp cold snap.

This kind of “climate whiplash” – rapid swings between wet and dry conditions – is making it harder to know when the landscape is safe and when it’s ready to burn.

The latest official forecast reflects that same uncertainty. While large areas are likely to experience wetter-than-normal conditions for the rest of spring, parts of inland Western Australia, South Australia and Victoria face an elevated risk of fire due to persistent soil dryness and above-average temperatures.

Even regions showing a “normal” outlook aren’t immune; catastrophic fires can still occur under the right mix of heat, wind and fuel dryness.

But what if we could see how dry the vegetation is in near real time before fires start? That’s now possible thanks to a publicly available tool implemented by Geoscience Australia.

This tool draws on more than a decade of research that began when I was a PhD student in Spain and has evolved thorough collaborations with colleagues at the Australian National University and emergency services.

It’s a glimpse into the future of bushfire management, where satellites and other technologies act like a nervous system for the continent, constantly sensing and responding to changes in the landscape long before smoke fills the sky.

As Australia faces longer, more erratic fire seasons, tools like this may help us all for staying one step ahead of the flames.

How do we measure fire danger?

Fuel moisture content is the percentage of water inside leaves and twigs compared with their dry weight. When it drops below a certain level, vegetation ignites more easily, burns hotter and spreads faster.

It is one of the key predictors of fire danger because, for example, it strongly influences whether a source of ignition such as a lightning strike stays small or grows into a fast-moving wildfire.

Traditionally, measuring fuel moisture content relies on cutting samples in the field and weighing them wet and dry. This is a precise but time-consuming method that can only cover small areas.

Satellite-based estimates have existed for years, providing valuable, continent-wide data for seasonal bushfire outlooks.

But their coarse resolution means they’re too broad for guiding local decisions such as planning prescribed or cultural burns and only a few of these earlier approaches were made operational.

Turning satellite light measurements into moisture maps

The new bushfire management tool my team helped developed fixes this problem.

It uses a machine-learning model trained on fuel moisture content estimates developed as part of a precursor tool – the Australian Flammability Monitoring System.

This older system produced continental fuel moisture content at 500-metre resolution every four days since 2001 using data from NASA’s MODIS satellite sensor. It was validated and calibrated using extensive field measurements and biochemical reference data.

This provided a solid foundation for the new model, which provides near-real-time, 20m-resolution maps showing how wet or dry vegetation is across the continent. It does so by drawing on satellite imagery from the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-2 satellites, updated every five days with historical coverage from 2015 onward.

The new version applies the same physical principles to higher-resolution imagery.

Water in leaves strongly absorbs radiation in the shortwave infrared region. This means dry vegetation reflects more light than hydrated, green plants. Meanwhile, as plants lose moisture, the amount of visible and near-infrared radiation they reflect also changes. Chlorophyll breaks down, leaf structure deteriorates, and the red and infrared light signals weaken.

By learning from these patterns, the model can infer how much water is inside the vegetation. This effectively turns satellite light measurements into maps of live fuel moisture across Australia.

To cross-calibrate cultural indicators of flammability, such as plant colour, scent and seasonal cues with satellite observations, we have collaborated with Indigenous fire practitioners.

Indigenous-led field surveys across New South Wales have confirmed strong alignment between these traditional indicators and satellite results.

This two-way learning strengthens both scientific and cultural understanding. It ensures national monitoring systems are informed by generations of Indigenous knowledge about landscape health. It also enhances fire practice and community resilience through cutting-edge Earth observation tools.

Seeing the danger long before it ignites

With every update, the tool provides a continent-wide snapshot of how flammable Australia’s vegetation is.

Thanks to its higher spatial resolution, it can reveal subtle gradients in vegetation dryness that coarser sensors simply miss. This helps fire agencies and Indigenous communities pinpoint where prescribed or cultural burns can be carried out safely – and where fuels remain too moist to ignite.

The data are also being used in insurance and risk modelling for new developments to quantify the number of “flammable days” in a given region.

Meanwhile, the CSIRO is also collaborating with the Bushfire Research Centre of Excellence to better represent changing fuel conditions in fire-behaviour models. As part of this effort, our new fuel moisture content product is being integrated into the CSIRO’s fire spread simulation model.

In bushfire management, the advantage lies in seeing the danger long before it ignites. As Australia’s fire seasons lengthen and the weather swings between extremes, knowing how wet or dry our landscapes are may become as important as forecasting heatwaves or storms.

This marks a shift from reacting to fires to anticipating and preventing them. Other projects, such as OzFuel, will accelerate this by filling other crucial gaps in sustained, high-resolution monitoring of fuel conditions across Australia.

The author acknowledges the many scientists, fire practitioners and Indigenous partners whose work made the new fuel moisture content tool possible, and thanks Geoscience Australia for its operational implementation.

Marta Yebra, Director, Bushfire Resaerch Centre of Excellence, Australian National University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Global fossil fuel emissions are projected to rise in 2025 to a new all-time high, with all sources – coal, gas, and oil – contributing to the increase.

At the same time, our new global snapshot of carbon dioxide emissions and carbon sinks shows at least 35 countries have a plan to decarbonise. Australia, Germany, New Zealand and many others have shown statistically significant declines in fossil carbon emissions during the past decade, while their economies have continued to grow. China’s emissions have also been been growing at a much slower pace than recent trends and might even be flat by year’s end.

As world leaders and delegates meet in Brazil for the United Nations’ global climate summit, COP30, many countries that have submitted new emissions commitments to 2035 have shown increased ambition.

But unless these efforts are scaled up substantially, current global temperature trends are projected to significantly exceed the Paris Agreement target that aims to keep warming well below 2°C.

Fossil fuel emissions up again in 2025

Together with colleagues from 102 research institutions worldwide, the Global Carbon Project today releases the Global Carbon Budget 2025. This is an annual stocktake of the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide worldwide.

We also publish the major scientific advances enabling us to pinpoint the global human and natural sources and sinks of carbon dioxide with higher confidence. Carbon sinks are natural or artificial systems such as forests which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they release.

Global CO₂ emissions from the use of fossil fuels continue to increase. They are set to rise by 1.1% in 2025, on top of a similar rise in 2024. All fossil fuels are contributing to the rise. Emissions from natural gas grew 1.3%, followed by oil (up 1.0%) and coal (up 0.8%). Altogether, fossil fuels produced 38.1 billion tonnes of CO₂ in 2025.

Not all the news is bad. Our research finds emissions from the top emitter, China (32% of global CO₂ emissions) will increase significantly more slowly below its growth over the past decade, with a modest 0.4% increase. Emissions from India (8% of global) are projected to increase by 1.4%, also below recent trends.

However, emissions from the United States (13% of global) and the European Union (6% of global) are expected to grow above recent trends. For the US, a projected growth of 1.9% is driven by a colder start to the year, increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, increased coal use, and higher demand for electricity.

EU emissions are expected to grow 0.4%, linked to lower hydropower and wind output due to weather. This led to increased electricity generation from LNG. Uncertainties in currently available data also include the possibility of no growth or a small decline.

Drop in land use emissions

In positive news, net carbon emissions from changes to land use such as deforestation, degradation and reforestation have declined over the past decade. They are expected to produce 4.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2025 down from the annual average of 5 billion tonnes over the past decade. Permanent deforestation remains the largest source of emissions. This figure also takes into account the 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon soaked up by human-driven reforestation annually.

Three countries – Brazil, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – contribute 57% of global net land-use change CO₂ emissions.

When we combine the net emissions from land-use change and fossil fuels, we find total global human-caused emissions will reach 42.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2025. This total has grown 0.3% annually over the past decade, compared with 1.9% in the previous one (2005–14).

Carbon sinks largely stagnant

Natural carbon sinks in the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems remove about half of all human-caused carbon emissions. But our new data suggests these sinks are not growing as we would expect.

The ocean carbon sink has been relatively stagnant since 2016, largely because of climate variability and impacts from ocean heatwaves.

The land CO₂ sink has been relatively stagnant since 2000, with a significant decline in 2024 due to warmer El Niño conditions on top of record global warming. Preliminary estimates for 2025 show a recovery of this sink to pre-El Niño levels.

Since 1960, the negative effects of climate change on the natural carbon sinks, particularly on the land sink, have suppressed a fraction of the full sink potential. This has left more CO₂ in the atmosphere, with an increase in the CO₂ concentration by an additional 8 parts per million. This year, atmospheric CO₂ levels are expected to reach just above 425 ppm.

Tracking global progress

Despite the continued global rise of carbon emissions, there are clear signs of progress towards lower-carbon energy and land use in our data.

There are now 35 countries that have reduced their fossil carbon emissions over the past decade, while still growing their economy. Many more, including China, are shifting to cleaner energy production. This has led to a significant slowdown of emissions growth.

Existing policies supporting national emissions cuts under the Paris Agreement are projected to lead to global warming of 2.8°C above preindustrial levels by the end of this century.

This is an improvement over the previous assessment of 3.1°C, although methodological changes also contributed to the lower warming projection. New emissions cut commitments to 2035, for those countries that have submitted them, show increased mitigation ambition.

This level of expected mitigation falls still far short of what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming well below 2°C.

At current levels of emissions, we calculate that the remaining global carbon budget – the carbon dioxide still able to be emitted before reaching specific global temperatures (averaged over multiple years) – will be used up in four years for 1.5°C (170 gigatonnes remaining), 12 years for 1.7°C (525 Gt) and 25 years for 2°C (1,055 Gt).

Falling short

Our improved and updated global carbon budget shows the relentless global increase of fossil fuel CO₂ emissions. But it also shows detectable and measurable progress towards decarbonisation in many countries.

The recovery of the natural CO₂ sinks is a positive finding. But large year-to-year variability shows the high sensitivity of these sinks to heat and drought.

Overall, this year’s carbon report card shows we have fallen short, again, of reaching a global peak in fossil fuel use. We are yet to begin the rapid decline in carbon emissions needed to stabilise the climate.

Pep Canadell, Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO Environment; Executive Director, Global Carbon Project, CSIRO; Clemens Schwingshackl, Senior Researcher in Climate Science, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich; Corinne Le Quéré, Royal Society Research Professor of Climate Change Science, University of East Anglia; Glen Peters, Senior Researcher, Center for International Climate and Environment Research - Oslo; Judith Hauck, Helmholtz Young Investigator group leader and deputy head, Marine Biogeosciences section at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Universität Bremen; Julia Pongratz, Professor of Physical Geography and Land Use Systems, Department of Geography, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich; Mike O'Sullivan, Lecturer in Mathematics and Statistics, University of Exeter; Pierre Friedlingstein, Chair, Mathematical Modelling of Climate, University of Exeter, and Robbie Andrew, Senior Researcher, Center for International Climate and Environment Research - Oslo

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Picture dusk falling somewhere in the Solomon Islands. A fisher’s skiff glides home using a whisper-quiet electric outboard motor. In the Cook Islands, a big battery steadies the island grid. In Papua New Guinea’s highlands, solar kits bring electric light to homes for the first time.

These aren’t prototypes – they’re already up and running across the Pacific. Put together, these stories of quiet change point to something bigger.

For decades, Pacific island countries have led the global fight on climate change. These nations are highly exposed to the damage from rising sea levels, acidifying oceans and bleached coral reefs. Pacific leaders helped secure the 2015 Paris Agreement and the global goal of holding warming to 1.5°C.

Now the Pacific is leading the way again. Island leaders have a bold plan to become the world’s first region powered entirely by renewables and energy storage.

The move isn’t symbolic. It’s extremely practical. Pacific nations spend an eye-watering percentage of their GDP (10–25%) buying fossil fuels to run power plants, generators and vehicles. Ending reliance on imports and becoming energy independent will bring major dividends. Despite widespread support, the Pacific’s clean energy transition has not yet taken off in earnest due to transport costs and gaps in financing, skills and regulation.

Leaders will formally release a renewable roadmap next week at the COP30 climate conference in Brazil. Pacific nations and Australia are bidding to host the next climate talks in 2026. Island leaders hope to leverage the global summit to attract investment in their own energy transition.

Slashing fossil fuel imports will save billions

Right now, Pacific countries spend A$9–14 billion a year importing diesel for generators and fuel for vehicles and boats.

Sharp falls in renewable costs mean solar and battery systems are now clearly cheaper than fossil fuels for electricity generation.

Even with the Pacific’s logistical challenges, installed costs for solar have fallen more than five-fold since 2010. The cost of grid-scale and home batteries is falling quickly.

Replacing diesel generation with solar and batteries would cost an estimated $3–4 billion. These costs would be quickly recouped, given annual savings would be around $610–840 million.

The biggest challenge will be financing for large-scale renewables, grid infrastructure and energy storage. Many outer islands can move ahead faster by replacing diesel generators with solar and batteries. A rapid shift to electric vehicles (EVs) and vessels is also possible. Government incentives have triggered rapid uptake of EVs and hybrids in Fiji. Electric outboard motors are also ready for prime time.

Cost savings would free up funds for essential infrastructure, health, education and climate resilience. Renewables represent a powerful development strategy for the Pacific.

Global renewable uptake is key to survival for Pacific nations

Individual Pacific countries have set ambitious renewable energy targets in national commitments under the Paris Agreement. Fiji plans to be powered 100% by renewables by 2035, while Tuvalu is aiming to get there by 2030.

These national goals can contribute to a regional target for 100% renewable energy. Pacific leaders have agreed to establish a Pacific Energy Commissioner to coordinate the transition.

Pacific island countries are not major polluters, contributing just 0.02% of global emissions. Cutting the region’s emissions will do very little to limit warming.

The importance of this new plan is showing 100% renewables is now doable.

As Vanuatu climate and energy minister Ralph Regenvanu states:

if we can manage the rapid transition of our energy systems in the Pacific Islands, it can be a beacon for the rest of the globe. Our survival depends on it.

Holding warming to 1.5°C is critical for low-lying atoll nations. Climate resettlement is already under way, as Tuvalu residents enter ballots to move to Australia while Fijian villages are relocating to higher ground.

Two years ago, nearly 200 countries agreed to triple global renewable capacity and accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels. Reaching this goal is crucial to keep 1.5°C within reach. Pacific nations can show the way. But their survival isn’t in their hands – it depends on the world following suit.

Next year’s climate talks could drive the change

For several years, Pacific nations and Australia have been bidding to host the 2026 COP31 climate summit. But Turkey has a rival bid. A final decision is expected next week.

As Palau President Surangel Whipps has said, hosting COP31 in the Pacific cannot just be about symbolism – it must demonstrate “tangible benefits” to Pacific peoples.

If the joint bid for COP31 gets up, Pacific leaders will be pressing for progress on their 100% renewable plan by seeking investors and technology partners.

The COP talks are more than climate negotiations – they’ve become the world’s biggest trade fair. Thousands of delegates will be looking to invest in renewable energy. More than 70% of investment in renewables in Australia comes from abroad and COP31 could attract finance for both Australia and the Pacific.

Palau will host regional leaders next year at the annual Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting. Whipps, the incoming chair, will focus on building a regional renewable Pacific partnership and is planning an investment meeting next year to help attract international investment ahead of COP31.

Some investment is likely to come from Australia, both private and public. Australia is rapidly replacing coal-fired power with renewables and storage at home and is already supporting Pacific clean energy projects. But Pacific leaders have also called on Australia to “stop approving new gas and coal projects” and stop subsidising fossil fuel production.

The Pacific’s plan to run on clean power makes clear sense on financial, energy security and climate leadership grounds. The question now is – will it happen?

Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney and Scott Hamilton, Adjunct Associate Professor in Engineering, Monash University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It sounds like a gardener’s holy grail: beautiful and practical plantings that can turn cities into green spaces with benefits for people and biodiversity.

Our Australia-first collaborative research has made this dream a reality. Woody meadows have transformed urban spaces in Australian cities by adding green beauty and colour in public spaces at a much lower cost than other approaches.

Ours is a collaborative research project that engages with urban land managers, designers and horticultural crews to research and trial woody meadows under real-world conditions. Their popularity reflects the huge demand to green our urban places in a cost-effective way.

After ten years of success, failure and constant experimentation, we can now share our insights into how woody meadows can be both beautiful and hardy.

What is a woody meadow?

A uniquely Australian concept, woody meadows are diverse, naturalistic plantings of native groundcover, shrubs and small trees. They are designed for maximum visual and ecological function, and are robust to heat and drought. A beautiful corridor for nature, they can cool cities and reduce stormwater runoff into waterways. They differ from naturalistic meadow-like plantings popular in Europe and America, which only contain flowering herbs and grasses.

Woody meadows mimic the structure of natural shrubland communities and include wattles, grevilleas, melaleucas, goodenias and correas for year-round flowering. They are planted densely into low-nutrient materials such as crushed scoria or sandstone (which exotic species don’t like). This promotes rapid canopy coverage and requires less weeding, fewer chemicals and lower maintenance costs.

Woody meadow plants are managed by coppicing – hard pruning to around 15 centimetres every two to four years. This maintains diversity and ensures dominant plant species don’t take over. It also mimics disturbances such as fire and storm damage and stimulates dense new growth and lots of flowers.

We have tested more than 300 Australian plant species and shown most species can resprout after coppicing. This means that plants can be tailored for different climates and site conditions without high risk of failure.

From little things…

Ten years ago, we planted two small plots of native plants in inner Melbourne. We wanted to find a novel and low-cost approach to urban greening.

From this single pilot project, the concept of woody meadows has grown exponentially. Our partners include transport agencies, water authorities, cemeteries, government agencies and councils. They have shared their successes and failures through a growing national Woody Meadow Network, established as part of this project.

There are now more than 30,000 square metres of woody meadows in 59 urban locations across southern Australia. These meadows are part of major infrastructure projects including Melbourne’s level-crossing removal project, Sydney’s metro rail project, and the East Subiaco redevelopment in Perth.

Australian cities are investing millions of dollars in urban green spaces. This has wide-ranging benefits for health and wellbeing, biodiversity, reducing pollution and tackling urban heating. But maintaining urban vegetation is expensive, leading to overly simple plantings that are dull and provide few benefits.

Living laboratories

The popularity of woody meadows reflects the huge demand for cost-effective ways to green urban areas.

Each meadow serves as a living laboratory, with data on plant performance and maintenance informing future designs. Historically, most public landscapes have been designed without considering maintenance, so involving horticultural crews and bringing their expertise into the design of woody meadows has been crucial to their success.

Installation costs for woody meadows are comparable to business-as-usual plantings of low-diversity, low-functioning monocultures such as massed plantings of strappy leaf plants such as Lomandra or Dianella species or shrubs. But they require 75% less maintenance over time. Their adaptable design has overcome barriers to planting in hostile urban sites and transport corridors.

Plant it yourself

If you are keen to plant a woody meadow of your own, we have condensed 15 years of research and testing into free Woody Meadow Guidelines outlining how to design, install and maintain them.

New woody meadow plantings can be registered on our website so we can continue to gather data on what works best.

Claire Farrell, Associate Professor (Green Infrastructure) School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne and Rachael Bathgate, Green Infrastructure Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Frogs need water. Almost all of the world’s 7,900 known frog species breed in fresh water. And when it rains, these amphibians erupt into a chorus of calls – croaks, trills, cheeps and bellows – to attract a mate.

So you would assume a flood represents a windfall for frogs, right? But our new research finds they can have too much of a good thing.

Climate change is fuelling extreme weather, so we examined the impact of bushfires and floods on Australian frogs. We were surprised to discover that, in some cases, floods may pose a greater threat to Australian frogs than fire. This challenges our assumptions about how climate change will affect frogs in the future.

In the winter of 2021, frogs across eastern Australia were mysteriously found dead in gardens, creeks and backyards. The Australian Museum got hundreds of concerned emails from members of the public. We were stumped at the cause of this mass die-off.

Clue to mass frog deaths

Frogs play a vital role in the natural world. They control insect populations and also act as food for countless other species. And frogs are an indicator for a healthy environment, so when they start dropping dead it’s very concerning.

Our team collected thousands of dead frog specimens to test them for disease, and worked with collaborators to look for pesticides and other chemicals that might be to blame. So far, we haven’t found the factor likely to be responsible. Now, four years later, we have another clue.

In our search for answers, we wondered about recent extreme weather events in eastern Australia. The Black Summer bushfires in 2019–20 burned 24 million hectares, with an estimated three billion animals killed or displaced.

These years of fire and drought were immediately followed by record-breaking La Niña-driven rainfall and floods in 2021 and 2022. In the wake of these extraordinary climatic events, we asked: how do bushfires and floods impact frogs? Intuition told us fires would be a bigger threat to animals with such an affinity for water, but this assumption hadn’t been tested.

Thousands of helpers

Studying the effects of extreme weather is notoriously difficult, due to the unpredictable nature of natural disasters. Scientists often lack the critical baseline data they need. Without time to plan for disasters, we frequently can’t mobilise quickly enough to capture the immediate after-effects of the event either, particularly across vast tracts of land.

However, tens of thousands of people across Australia use the Australian Museum’s free FrogID app to record calling frogs. So we had access to a database of call recordings from before and after the fires and floods in NSW. By examining relative frog species “richness” – the number of frog species calling at once in recordings – we could compare how frogs responded.

Contrary to what you might expect, the number of frog species remained stable in burnt areas after the fires. This is actually in line with previous research by our team that documented the impressive short-term persistence of many frog species after the black summer bushfires.

Although good news for frogs, the long-term consequences of fires remain unknown, particularly for rainforest frog species that are not well represented in the FrogID dataset. Ongoing monitoring will be needed to track this over time.

Too much water

The real surprise in our research was the impact of floods. It appears it is possible for frogs to have too much of a good thing when it comes to water. Frog species richness was significantly lower in flooded areas after the floods.

The most obvious responsible factor is floodwaters washing away frogs, including their eggs and tadpoles, and destroying sensitive frog breeding habitats. It’s also possible that floodwaters spread chemicals: a third of the dead frogs we tested after the mass frog deaths contained traces of pesticides.

The waterlogged habitats left in the wake of floods may have also created favourable conditions for the spread of the chytrid fungus. This pathogen is responsible for the devastating infectious disease chytridiomycosis. This affects the skin of amphibians, leading to symptoms like lethargy and excessive skin shedding. It causes mass mortalities and extinctions in populations worldwide.

A future of fires and floods

In a volatile Australian climate, we can expect more frequent and severe bushfires and floods.

This new research highlights the need for ongoing monitoring across Australia to track how frogs respond to increasingly extreme weather. With help from citizen scientists, we will be able to detect and respond to emerging threats whether they come in the form of fire, flood or fungus.

Most of Australia’s species have evolved alongside extreme weather. But the frequency and intensity of modern climate catastrophes are testing their resilience: they may not respond in the ways we expect.

In this rapidly changing world, gathering data on how our wildlife copes is essential. Citizen science projects like FrogID are vital in monitoring and managing Australia’s biodiversity into the future.

Eli Bieri, PhD Student, Australian Museum; UNSW Sydney and Jodi Rowley, Curator, Amphibian & Reptile Conservation Biology, Australian Museum, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The female of the species has devil-like black horns, and a taste for extremely rare pollen. But until now, this Australian native bee has never been officially named or identified.

My discovery of Megachile (Hackeriapis) lucifer, underscores the lack of knowledge and investment in Australia’s unique native bees.

Whilst considerable funding and attention has been focused on the introduced European honey bee, Apis mellifera, there are still hundreds of native bees that are yet to be identified and named.

How was this bee found?

This fascinating new megachile (or leaf cutter) bee was first discovered while on a surveying trip in the Bremer Ranges in the goldfields region of Western Australia in 2019.

I was conducting surveys for pollinators – such as bees, other insects, flies and wasps – of a critically endangered plant called Bremer marianthus, or Marianthus aquilonaris, which is only known in this region.

Sadly, as is common for many threatened plant species, the pollinators for this straggly shrub with blue-tinged white flowers were completely unknown. One of the native bees collected on this visit immediately caught my attention because the female had large devil-like horns protruding from her clypeus – the broad plate on the front of a bee’s head.

When I investigated, it was clear this wasn’t a species that had been found before. Whilst some native bees have horns or prongs, none have the large and slightly curved horns of this one. Comparing it with museum specimens, along with DNA barcoding, confirmed this species was new to collectors and to science.

DNA barcoding also revealed a male native bee I had collected at the site was her partner, but he lacked horns. This is the opposite of the situation in much of the animal kingdom, where the males are more likely to be amoured.

Bringer of light

When you discover a new species, you have the honour of choosing a name. The first new species of native bee I “described” (or scientifically identified) in 2022, Leioproctus zephyr, is named after my dog, Zephyr. For this new species, the horns meant the name Lucifer was a perfect choice.

Lucifer is also Latin for “light bringer”, and I hope this new species brings to light the wonders of our native bees.

Australia has more than 2,000 species of native bees. They help keep our ecosystems healthy and play a crucial role in pollinating wildflowers.

We need to understand native bees

This new native bee, Megachile lucifer, is only one of an estimated 500 native bees that are not described. Far more attention has been given to the introduced European honey bee Apis mellifera. Whilst the honey bee is important for crop pollination, this species is not threatened, and can in fact harm our native bees.

The truth is honeybees compete with native animals for food and habitat, disrupt native pollination systems and pose a serious biosecurity threat to our honey and pollination industries.

Currently, there no requirement to survey for native bees in areas about to be mined, farmed or developed. Even if they are found, any species that has not been officially identified it has no conservation standing, which is one reason why taxonomic research is so important.

Protect the pollinators

Megachile lucifer was collected on a flowering mallee plant that attracted thousands of native bees and other insects. In subsequent years of surveying this site, the mallee was not flowering, Megachile lucifer was not seen, and far fewer insects were recorded.

With no monitoring of native bees, we also don’t know how their populations are faring in response to threatening processes, like climate change.

More interest and investment into the taxonomy, conservation and ecology of native bees, means we can protect both them and the rare and precious plants they pollinate.

Kit Prendergast, Postdoctoral Researcher, Pollination Ecology, University of Southern Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It is early evening in Australia’s top end, and a hunter stalks its prey. Keenly alert, the northern quoll follows the sound of rustling in the leaf litter. It must be some kind of frog, the small carnivorous marsupial decides, and pounces. But the quoll is seized by an immediate pain in the mouth, and drops its prey. It’s already too late.

The rustling was not a frog, but a poisonous cane toad. The toad’s toxin has sprayed into the quoll’s mouth and within seconds the quoll is vomiting. Within minutes it is incapacitated and spasming as its heart fails. And 20 minutes later the quoll is dead.

This scene has played out countless times in the 90 years since invasive cane toads were released on the Queensland coast and hopped west to Australia’s tropical north. They were originally native to South America, and brought to Australia to control beetle pests in sugarcane. And they kill not only quolls and their kin, but other predators such as freshwater crocodiles, goannas, and snakes.

What do we have to lose?

The cane toad is one of Australia’s worst feral animal invaders. They have nearly completed their conquest of northern Australia and in the next couple of years they are expected to reach Broome on the west coast, and head south. Our work shows that without intervention, the destruction will continue, as toads invade Australia’s unique Pilbara region in the north of western Australia.

The Pilbara is an ancient rocky landscape, with some of the oldest geology in the world. Many species are found here and nowhere else. With abundant waterholes and rivers in stunning rocky gorges, the Pilbara would be perfect habitat for cane toads.

Our research outlines what will happen if toads arrive in this unique landscape. It finds that with no intervention, cane toads will likely invade a further 27 million hectares, including almost all of the Pilbara, and spread further south towards Shark Bay.

A blow to animals and culture

Cane toads arriving in the Pilbara would cause populations of about 25 species of reptiles and mammals to crash in numbers. These include ten species of goanna, nine small marsupial predators like the Kaluta and northern quoll, three snakes, two blue-tongue skinks and one bat. For endangered northern quolls and vulnerable ghost bats, the Pilbara is the last toad-free stronghold. Several endemic goannas, blue tongue skinks and marsupial predators will likely join the threatened species list.

Many of these species are culturally important to the Traditional Owners of Country for stories, songlines and bush tucker. Toad invasion of the Northern Territory, for example, led to lost bush tucker such as goanna, crocodile, blue-tongue skink. It also meant increased reliance on store-bought food, and a loss of skills and knowledge around hunting activities where Elders spent time with younger generations.

Overall, it’s a bleak prospect if toads spread into the Pilbara. The good news is that there is an opportunity to avoid this future.

A wicked problem

Many people have attempted to solve the cane toad problem, via cracking its genetic code, teaching native animals not to eat toads and even putting the creatures on the menu.

None of these methods have stopped the toad invasion across the tropical north of Australia. There has simply been too much permanent water in the landscape that toads use as habitat.

But the situation is not the same in Western Australia. South of Broome, toads will hit a natural “bottleneck” where the Great Sandy Desert meets the ocean, on Karajarri and Nyangumarta country. This narrow stretch of naturally dry country represents a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to halt the toads’ progress further down the west coast.

Plumbing, not rocket science

Water is the toads’ Achilles heel. In the dry season, toads must sit in water every two to four days to stay alive. In the bottleneck between the Kimberley and the Pilbara, almost all permanent water sources are human made. And these create a connected watery tendril for invasion. Making these water sources inaccessible to toads by creating a “Toad Containment Zone” means toads cannot use these as stepping stones through this dry part of the country.

A collective of scientists, pastoralists and Traditional Owners has proposed to create this zone by toad-proofing cattle water sources (by upgrading ground-level water sources to tanks and troughs) in a 150 kilometre long by 50 kilometre wide stretch of country. This solution would create a “toad fire-break”. The containment zone covers three times the distance that toads travel each year, so every wet season toads will infiltrate the north of the zone but as the water dries up, they will perish in the dry season.

Bang for buck

Effective containment would prevent toads from accessing the water-abundant Pilbara and beyond, protecting 27 million hectares of Western Australia.

This is not a new idea – it’s been subject to 15 years of scientific rigour that shows preventing toads accessing water is the most effective way to stop them. It’s also one of the cheapest solutions: managing pest species after they have established is expensive and ineffective, and we are much better off preventing their spread.

Judy Dunlop, Research Fellow in Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University; Ben Phillips, WA Premier's Science Fellow, Curtin University, and Tim Dempster, Professor, Marine Biology and Aquaculture, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

If you live in a big city, finding a charger for your electric vehicle (EV) isn’t hard. But drive a few hours in any direction and the story changes.

For most regional Australians, the nearest public charger is still a detour, not a stop on the way. And for anyone planning a long road trip, the chargers along the route fade for hundreds of kilometres at a time.

A new interactive EV charging monitor I helped develop shows, for the first time, just how uneven the network really is. This map refreshes daily, pulling live information from the Open Charge Map database and plotting every public charger in the database across the nation.

When we overlay those chargers with population data, a clear pattern emerges: we’ve built a strong urban network, but a patchy national one.

Only about a third of Australia’s towns have a charger within 20 kilometres. Zoom in closer and the gap widens: more than two-thirds of towns have no charger within 5 kilometres.

Looks good on paper

Nationally, most Australians live close to a charger. By population, about 88% of people are within 5 kilometres of one, 93% within 10 kilometres, and 97% within 20 kilometres.

On paper, coverage looks good. But look at it from the town’s point of view, and the picture flips: most places still lack a charger, even if most people don’t.

It’s a subtle but important distinction. Around 90% of Australia’s urban centres have fewer than 10,000 residents. These are the small regional towns and rural communities that fill the spaces between cities. They account for a small share of the population but a large share of the country’s geography.

Nationwide, Australia now has around 1,250 public charging sites offering nearly 3,800 charge ports.

More than half of these are fast chargers (above 50 kilowatts). About a third are medium-speed chargers. The rest are slow chargers typically found at destinations or wall outlets.

That balance might look healthy. But most of the fast sites are concentrated in cities and along the eastern seaboard, leaving vast inland gaps.

Per capita access is even starker: across Australia there are only about one to two chargers for every 10,000 people.

On long regional routes, the gaps are impossible to miss. Between Melbourne and Darwin, for example, there are stretches of highway hundreds of kilometres long without a single fast charger.

These are the real “charging deserts” – areas where geography, cost and low traffic volumes still make investment difficult to justify.

And even when chargers exist in these areas, they can be slow, or offline.

Voluntary and inconsistent reporting

The EV charging monitor draws on open data, and that comes with a big caveat.

Reporting to the Open Charge Map is voluntary. Some operators update their sites frequently. Others don’t. Each charger’s “status” can tell us whether it’s listed as operational, partial, or down, but it doesn’t reveal uptime – how often a charger is available and working.

Internationally, some countries already require major EV charging networks to meet published reliability standards. In the United Kingdom, rapid public charging networks must maintain at least 99% uptime and provide transparency on performance.

In Australia, there’s no national requirement for public reporting of charger uptime. A 98% reliability target applies to chargers built with federal funding, but for the rest of the network, reporting remains voluntary and inconsistent. The next step is to make reliability a shared measure – not just a promise from individual companies, but a national benchmark drivers can trust.

How does Australia compare internationally?

Other countries have set clearer rules for how far drivers should be from a fast charger. Across Europe, new regulations require sites at least every 60 kilometres along major highways. The United States funds chargers every 50 miles (about 80 kilometres) on key corridors.

New Zealand’s public network aims for coverage roughly every 75 kilometres for more than 97% of state highways, and a public charger in most towns with more than 2,000 people.

Against those yardsticks, Australia’s patchy regional network still has long stretches where chargers are hundreds of kilometres apart.

The road ahead

The pattern suggests two separate challenges. First, keep expanding charger coverage in regional areas to make every major route practical for EV travel. Second, lift reliability and reporting standards so drivers can depend on the network once it’s there.

A national backbone is a logical start: a fast-charging site at least every 150 to 200 kilometres along priority corridors, later tightening to every 100 kilometres.

This work is already underway through state programs such as Queensland’s Electric Super Highway and New South Wales’ regional charging rollout. But there’s still no consistent national standard for uptime, open access, or data reporting.

Regional support will matter too. Many small towns won’t attract private investment until there’s a guaranteed level of demand. Co-funding through state or federal grants can bridge that gap, especially where the local economy depends on tourism.

A single fast charger in a country town can unlock a chain of benefits for local businesses as passers-by “fill up on the way”.

The next frontier isn’t just installing more chargers – it’s installing them where they’ll make the biggest difference to confidence and coverage.

Hussein Dia, Professor of Transport Technology and Sustainability, Swinburne University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It was the news that rippled around the nation – and then the world: at least three hours of free grid-supplied electricity for Australian households, every day.

The new Solar Sharer program announced by Federal Minister for Energy Chris Bowen would require retailers to offer at least three hours of free power daily during the sunniest period to homes with smart meters. It would begin next year in New South Wales, south-east Queensland and South Australia.

On the surface, this seems like a win. Australia now has so much solar that wholesale power prices are often very cheap or even negative during the sunniest periods with abundant supply.

But there’s a problem. Wholesale supply is only part of the cost. Mandating free retail power during some hours will require cross-subsidy of these other costs. Under Bowen’s plan this will inevitably raise prices for other customers and it is likely to destroy the rooftop solar market. There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

What’s wrong with free power?

Minister Bowen’s plan borrows heavily from energy offers in the market now, which include three free hours of power.

Bowen’s policy will be delivered through the Default Market Offer, a unique regulated retail plan which retailers in Queensland, NSW and South Australia are obliged to offer. If you don’t choose a market offer, you will be placed on the default offer.

There’s nothing new about free electricity from the grid. Consumers can choose their electricity retailer in NSW, Victoria, South Australia and much of Queensland. In these states, it’s been possible for over a decade to find offers with free electricity at certain times. These deals typically offered free power for an hour a week, and usually on the weekend. Few customers chose them.

But in 2023, OVO Energy started offering a “three for free” deal with free power from 11am to 2pm daily. I was one of their first customers, and I calculated OVO would make a loss on me given I used the free power to charge my electric vehicle. Other retailers such as Globird and Red Energy have followed suit since AGL bought OVO’s Australian arm in 2024.

Power prices outside the free hours have roughly doubled since I took up OVO’s offer two years ago. But it’s still worthwhile for me as a way to charge my EV for nothing.

These offers make most sense for EV owners, as few customers can shift most of their consumption to the free period.

From market to regulation

Minister Bowen’s move might be seen as a form of mandatory expansion of these niche retail offers. But changing a niche to a mainstream offer will bring drastic change.

In the electricity market, retailers offering “three for free” deals recoup the costs of supplying “free” electricity by increasing prices charged in the “non-free” hours. These costs include the network use, renewable energy subsidies, generation costs and internal costs and margins which make up about 75% of the average bill.

To make his offer widely attractive, Bowen will pressure the Australian Energy Regulator to avoid significantly increasing power prices at other times in the default market offer. Otherwise, substantially higher prices outside the sunny period would discourage consumers and mean Solar Sharer would remain a niche product, just like existing three-for-free offers.

If retailers have to offer free power and keep their prices down at other hours, they will have to make up the difference in higher prices paid by all their other customers. Someone has to pay for the free lunch.

Bowen has form here, as he previously intervened in the regulator’s determination of default offer prices.

Hobbling rooftop solar?

Over the past 20 years, solar feed-in tariffs have fallen off a cliff as millions of Australians have added panels and solar system costs have collapsed.

This means the main reason to go solar is no longer exporting power to the grid, but rather to consume as much produced power as possible to avoid buying from the grid.

If Bowen’s policy comes into effect, it will hobble the market for the installation of rooftop solar. There’s little point installing solar if grid-supplied power is free at the times when most of the rooftop solar production occurs.

Will Australia’s four million existing solar homes be worse off? Not necessarily. Existing panels are a sunk cost, so households will likely continue using them as before.

But existing solar home owners may see this as a breach of trust, having spent thousands of dollars going solar to avoid pricey power from the grid – encouraged by ministers, including Bowen, to do this.

Will more Australians install household batteries to soak up free power? That’s unlikely. The government’s home battery subsidy only applies when paired with rooftop solar. If regulation undermines the economics of rooftop solar, battery-backed solar will be less attractive too.

Out of the blue

It’s not clear the government considered the wider effects of the policy before announcing it. Last week’s announcement took the industry by surprise. Australian Energy Council CEO Louisa Kinnear said retailers were “disappointed the Government didn’t consult with us ahead of time”.

The move is a sharp reversal of the retail pricing policies put in place when the energy market was created almost 30 years ago. These longstanding policies sought to ensure prices reflect costs, at least in regulated retail offers.

Australians love rooftop solar. It’s now the biggest source of clean electricity in Australia, growing even as fewer wind and solar farms proceed. The last time a politician tried to undermine rooftop solar was over a decade ago. Now we have a federal Labor minister who is an avowed fan of rooftop solar putting forward a policy which will effectively strangle it.

Bowen has backed himself into a corner. Making free electricity widely available will undercut the economics of rooftop solar and raise prices for other customers. Is this really what he intends?

Bruce Mountain, Professor and Director, Victoria Energy Policy Centre, Victoria University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When Britain abolished slavery in its empire in 1833, it paid the equivalent of hundreds of billions today in compensation – not to the enslaved, but to the slave owners. It was an imperfect, morally uneasy compromise, but it helped achieve a historic transition that had seemed impossible.

Today, as the world struggles to phase out fossil fuels, many doubt such a transformation is still possible. Emissions keep rising, the Paris agreement isn’t properly enforced and powerful corporations continue to mislead the public and lobby against meaningful change.

Yet slavery was once seen as immovable. It was an institution that was accepted for thousands of years – far longer than fossil fuel-powered capitalism. Slavery was a significant source of wealth for many, and the rich and powerful opposed abolition. Yet it was abolished.

My colleague Nathan Wood and I recently published an academic paper on climate change and the lessons from the abolition of slavery. Based on our work, as a thought experiment, let us imagine a future where effective climate action unfolds the way slavery abolition once did. What might that look like?

Leadership and ‘persuasion’

Future historians might not point to a single moment of global unity, with all nations coming together to act as one. Rather, they’ll point to one nation – or a coalition – that took the lead. These early leaders might combine diplomacy, bribery and perhaps even the threat of military force or economic sanctions to “persuade” other countries to follow suit.

That’s how Britain pushed for the end of the slave trade: with a mix of idealism and hard power, with naval patrols and trade sanctions. A global fossil fuel phase out may unfold in a similarly non-ideal way.

Bottom-up pressure, top-down resistance

In this thought experiment, change will not start with governments. Rather, the demand for action will come from the bottom up. Activists will demand change and there will be huge public support but, at the same time, the rich and the powerful will continue to defend the status quo, lobbying against the introduction of stricter legislation.

The slavery abolition movement followed that pattern, with broad public support yet fierce opposition from those with most to lose. In Britain, slave owners were even compensated with £20 million (equivalent to “40% of state expenditure in 1834”) to secure their agreement to the loss of “their” property.

Something similar could happen in the climate fight. Perhaps fossil fuel companies will one day receive financial compensation to ease the transition away from fossil fuels – not because it is deserved, but rather as a pragmatic compromise.

The law as a tool for change

Legal action would also play a pivotal role. Governments and corporations will be (and, indeed, are already being) taken to court.

Abolitionists used the law in much the same way. A good example is a famous case in which enslaved Africans revolted and seized control of the ship La Amistad. The Africans were ultimately freed after reformers highlighted the contradiction between the idea of natural rights for all humankind in the US Declaration of Independence, and laws that allowed people to be private property.

As the historian David Brion Davis noted: “It was this contradiction that helped the reformers to pass laws for very gradual slave emancipation.” The Paris agreement, often dismissed as toothless, could gain real power through litigation in a similar way.

Why this thought experiment matters

Of course, this is not a real prediction. It is a thought experiment. Imagining that climate action will mirror the history of the abolition of slavery doesn’t guarantee that this is what will happen. But the comparison is valuable for several reasons.

It shows that historical precedent matters. Looking at what worked in the past can help us imagine what might work now. Massive moral change really has happened before, even despite entrenched interests working against it. As such, the example of the abolition of slavery offers hope.

It’s also realistic. Global cooperation would be ideal, but history suggests that change will be messier, potentially with some unpalatable compromise or confrontation.

The comparison poses some hard ethical questions. Is it ever justifiable to compensate fossil fuel companies? What forms of international pressure are morally acceptable?

The thought experiment can also sharpen our strategy. If this imagined future is unpalatable – if we’re ultimately not willing to send hundreds of billions to BP, Exxon and co – then it may motivate people to work for better solutions.

Perhaps most importantly, comparing slavery with climate change shows us that individual action still matters. You may feel powerless and want to know what you can do now. The history we have looked at suggests two things: support climate action publicly and, if you can afford it, provide financial support to groups like environmental law charity ClientEarth.

Abolishing slavery was messy and the strategy taken left many uneasy. Perhaps, when the time comes, significant action to mitigate climate change will involve similar controversies. But flawed solutions may be better than none.

Rob Lawlor, Lecturer in Applied Ethics, University of Leeds

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.