The deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu has now been found in a second state, South Australia, after earlier being identified in Western Australia.

Authorities have confirmed three seabirds have died of the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 virus. It is too early to know if H5N1 has spread beyond these animals to other wildlife or livestock in Australia. But it appears very much a matter of when, not if, this happens.

Globally, H5N1 has already devastated wildlife populations. In Australia, this deadly virus could greatly disrupt ecosystems and push our most threatened species even closer to extinction.

Why is H5N1 so dangerous?

The H5N1 strain of bird flu spreads through contact with bodily fluids such as saliva and faeces, infected animals or contaminated environments. It can also be transmitted through scavenging by species that feed on infected carcasses.

Since 2021, the H5N1 strain has killed millions of the world’s wild birds, mammals and poultry. This is because it can spread faster than other HPAI strains – including between mammals – and move between continents via migratory birds.

However, it’s hard to predict how H5N1 will affect our wildlife and ecosystems. This strain of the virus is not yet established in Australia. And many of our species are endemic – meaning they’re not found anywhere outside Australia – so we don’t have the data needed to reliably predict how H5N1 may affect them.

Threatened species most at risk

For threatened species, an H5N1 outbreak could be catastrophic. And a mass mortality event could be the final straw that finishes off a species. This is especially true if a population is already in decline, is geographically restricted or gathers to breed during certain seasons.

After the initial outbreak passes, populations may rebound through breeding and immigration. However, an extreme drop in numbers can create a genetic bottleneck, leading to rapid, substantial loss of genetic diversity. This, in turn, can threaten a population’s long-term health.

Since detecting H5N1 in Australia, authorities have understandably focused on protecting Australia’s spectacular birds – including the threatened regent honeyeater and orange-bellied parrot.

What’s received less attention are our iconic but increasingly threatened mammals. This includes the egg-laying platypus, native rodents such as the rakali and numerous marsupial species. In the United States, the virus has already done widespread damage to native rodents such as squirrels and voles, and the marsupial Virginia Opossum. It may well do the same to Australia’s mammals.

Carnivorous marsupials such as endangered Tasmanian devils and quoll species are also at risk, as their hunting and scavenging may expose them to infected carcasses.

Kangaroos, wallabies, possums and bandicoots can also scavenge and eat meat, meaning they could come in contact with H5N1. Species that live near shore birds in coastal and island habitats – including endangered mainland eastern barred bandicoots and threatened quokkas – are even more at risk.

The H5N1 strain could also prove deadly to our Australian sea lion and black swan populations. Black swans appear particularly susceptible to H5N1, which may be because they evolved in the isolated island continent of Australia. Unlike other swan species, they lack certain genetic traits that might help their immune systems fight the H5N1 virus.

Long-term damage to ecosystems

Beyond individual species, H5N1 has the potential to greatly disrupt and devastate Australia’s ecosystems.

An H5N1 outbreak in predator species could see prey populations surge. If a local dingo population is wiped out by the virus, the kangaroos, wallabies, feral goats and other herbivores they prey on could rapidly increase in numbers. This could lead to overgrazing, which in turn would deprive other animals of food and shelter.

In freshwater and marine environments, an H5N1 outbreak could see many birds die in and around waterways in a short period. Nutrients from the bird carcasses could pollute waterways if not cleaned up, worsening water quality and oxygen levels and potentially causing widespread fish kills.

So, what can we do?

Compared to other countries and continents, Australia has had longer to prepare for an H5N1 outbreak.

The federal government has so far invested A$113 million to bolster our H5N1 response. This money will go towards disease surveillance, invasive species control, captive breeding programs and efforts to monitor wildlife health.

But we can also help stop the spread of H5N1 on an individual level by:

• immediately reporting any sick or dead animals to the Emergency Animal Disease hotline on 1800 675 888 or organisations such as Wildlife Health Australia

• not touching native wildlife

• only feeding birds in backyards, never in the wild, and following strict hygiene measures such as cleaning water baths weekly and opting for hanging bird feeders

• keeping dogs and cats away from wildlife, animal faeces and especially dead carcasses.

The arrival of H5N1 in Australia is not cause for panic, as this outbreak is yet to unfold. But we must be extra vigilant in how we observe and interact with wildlife and nature. The future of our most vulnerable species depends on it.

Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University

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

On a remote beach near Esperance, Western Australia, two sick seabirds have brought the bird flu crisis to Australia.

Testing has confirmed highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1 in a brown skua and a giant petrel. Both are species of seabirds commonly found in the Southern Ocean.

H5N1 is a type of avian influenza, or bird flu, caused by an influenza A virus. The strain has been confirmed as HPAI H5N1 clade 2.3.4.4b, a globally circulating strain that can spread rapidly. Over the past five years, this strain of the virus has killed millions of wild animals and poultry.

These are the first confirmed detections of this strain in Australia. But the coming weeks will tell us whether these are isolated cases, or the start of a wider outbreak.

Spreading far and wide

Since 2021, the HPAI H5N1 strain of bird flu has spread through every continent except Australia. Overseas, it has devastated wildlife and caused major losses in poultry. This strain has also repeatedly spilled over into mammals including dairy cattle, seals and sea lions.

This strain of H5N1 is a different challenge to the bird flu outbreaks Australia has seen before. That’s because this strain can infect a much wider variety of species and spreads more quickly than other strains, including between mammals and across continents.

Transmission occurs through close contact with infected animals or contaminated environments, including scavenging of carcasses. This is why birds living in large colonies such as gannets, terns and albatrosses are most vulnerable. Tasmanian devils and other scavengers are also more exposed to the virus.

For humans, the current risk is low. Human infections are rare and most cases involve direct or indirect exposure to infected animals or contaminated environments. Examples include dairy farms, live poultry markets or beaches with sick or dying wild birds and marine mammals.

How did it get to Australia?

The species of the two confirmed bird flu cases are the first clue to how the virus reached our shores. Brown skuas and giant petrels are Southern Ocean seabirds who fly across huge distances and may scavenge contaminated carcasses.

Their detection in Western Australia suggests the virus likely reached mainland Australia through Southern Ocean wildlife movements, rather than the northern migratory shorebird routes.

Our research shows migratory wildlife, including seabirds, have spread this virus thousands of kilometres across the Southern Ocean from South America since 2023.

Genetic sequencing of the virus will be essential to show how closely the virus in these birds is related to viruses from Heard Island, Antarctica, South America or elsewhere.

A devastating disease

In the United States, this virus has decimated the country’s poultry and dairy industries. It has led to the mass culling of commercial flocks, both to contain the virus and prevent price hikes for consumers.

At this stage, no H5N1 cases have been detected on Australian poultry or dairy farms. However, poultry producers now must follow government guidance on maintaining biosecurity standards. This involves minimising contact between domestic birds and wild birds, protecting feed and water sources and immediately reporting unusual illness or deaths.

Also at risk are Australian fur seals and colony nesting seabirds such as terns, gannets, and albatrosses. Tasmania’s endemic shy albatross and culturally significant yula, or short-tailed shearwater, are also vulnerable to the virus.

Freshwater birds such as ducks are another concern, as they can spread influenza viruses through water. For critically endangered birds such as orange-bellied parrots, even a few bird flu deaths can put the entire species at risk.

So, what can we do?

Given Australia was the last H5N1-free continent, we’ve had time to prepare.

Since 2024, a dedicated national taskforce has led the country’s response to a potential H5N1 outbreak. This taskforce – jointly led by the National Emergency Management Agency and the federal agriculture, environment and health departments – has conducted outbreak exercises and increased surveillance across Australia.

This preparation must now become action. Surveillance should expand around seabirds, wetlands, scavengers, marine mammals, backyard poultry and commercial poultry. Positive samples should be sequenced quickly to map how the virus may spread. Wildlife managers need plans for vulnerable wildlife populations before they get exposed.

Beyond surveillance, there are other tools we can use. In the United States, researchers are trialling bird flu vaccination in seals as a way to protect endangered Hawaiian monk seals. If our outbreak worsens, Australia should consider similar options for highly vulnerable wildlife, such as fur seals, black swans and other native birds.

The public can help authorities contain the spread of H5N1 by reporting any sick or dead birds or marine mammals to the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline on 1800 675 888. It’s best to note the location and share any photos taken from a safe distance. The public should also avoid touching sick or dead animals, and keep dogs away from any carcasses.

Jane Younger, Senior Lecturer in Southern Ocean Vertebrate Ecology, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania

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

The deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu has been found in seabirds in two Australian states.

But don’t be fooled by the name: this virus also rapidly infects other animals. It has caused havoc in poultry farms and backyard chicken flocks in the northern hemisphere. And it can also infect, and even kill, cats.

Domestic pet owners, particularly homes that keep backyard chicken flocks, should be on alert for signs of this highly infectious virus. Now is the time to think about how you will respond.

A deadly strain of the virus

I have been working on the H5N1 since 2004. In more than two decades it has evolved into a highly infectious “zoonotic” disease – able to jump between several animal species and occasionally to humans.

The tipping point occurred in the United States in 2023–24, when the virus was transmitted from wild birds into poultry farms and high-density dairy farms in Texas, Kansas, Michigan and Idaho. Transmission has also occurred between cattle and cats, with cats feeding on infected cow colostrum (the first milk after a mammal gives birth), and some later dying.

In the past three years, we have seen many cases in Peru, Chile and southern Antarctica, including the deaths of thousands of seal pups on Heard Island.

How long has it been here?

Initially, Australian authorities were concerned the virus would come predominantly from the north during the annual migration of migratory shorebirds. There was uncertainty about whether sick birds would be strong enough to fly here from far-off Antarctica.

But two of the sick birds in Western Australia and South Australia were found alive. Given this virus was first identified on June 20, it’s possible it arrived in Australia much earlier since these species tend to make their way from the sub-Antarctic region from March onwards.

It makes sense this virus has arrived in winter – it is most easily transmitted during cold weather. In China we saw it typically emerge around Chinese New Year – a time when low temperatures coincide with high demand for poultry for celebratory meals.

How quickly can it move from wild birds?

The World Organisation for Animal Health tracks where the virus is reported for different countries (WAHIS).

Analysing this data, we find it takes between 2 and 6 weeks, on average, for the virus to move into poultry species following the first report in wild birds. Of course, this differs according to the comprehensiveness of a country’s surveillance and the level of data aggregation provided by different countries reporting to the system.

For example, considering data reported between 2020 and 2024 in Denmark, it took a little more than three weeks between finding the virus in wild birds and reporting it in poultry.

In Australia, and considering data from other countries it is possible we will see outbreaks in poultry in the next 4–5 weeks. This obviously depends on the role bridging species will play on bringing infection into Australian poultry facilities, as well as the level of biosecurity of Australian poultry husbandry systems. Everyone is on high alert, and state and federal agriculture departments have ramped up surveillance and public messaging for producers and the public.

In the past few years, an avian influenza surveillance system has tested the faeces of wild birds at nesting sites to watch for the virus. Now this surveillance is likely to be expanded to include poultry. Testing will also be informed by farmers, producers and backyard chicken owners reporting suspected illness.

What’s the risk to my household pets?

Poultry

The risks are very real. When this virus ends up in a densely housed commercial farm, mortality rates of close to 100% are likely. The greatest risk of exposure is when free-range hens spend some time outdoors and are exposed to contact with wild birds. This is the same for backyard chickens.

If you have a flock of chickens, keep them housed as much as possible. “Bridging species” like crows, magpies and other urban birds can bring infection into backyard flocks.

Keep an eye on your chooks and monitor their health for lethargy and neurological signs. If you notice a bird seems disoriented or unwell you should call the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline on 1800 675 888.

If warranted, a biosecurity officer will come and take nasal swabs and bird droppings away to be tested. In the meantime, you will be asked not to move your poultry and to keep them housed.

Unfortunately, all poultry in a farm or backyard flock where H5N1 infection is identified will have to be euthanised.

This virus can infect humans, though it is rare. Do not approach the bird or animal, just call the hotline on 1800 675 888. If there is a need to move the animal, wear gloves and a PPE mask, and dispose of them carefully afterwards.

Cats

Evidence from the US suggests cats are at much greater risk of severe disease than dogs. Where cats ingested contaminated material, such as milk from cattle, there were fatalities. Australian cat owners should be vigilant about what their cat is “investigating” outside, including dead birds.

Dogs

The evidence for serious illness is not as strong as cats. We know they can be exposed, but they don’t seem to be an at-risk species. Other terrestrial carnivores, such as skunk and foxes, have shown neurological illness and respiratory distress. We will have to watch the dingo population closely, because they scavenge on dead wild birds.

Caged birds

Caged birds such as budgerigars are unlikely to come into contact with wild birds. But if this is possible, and there are signs of illness, these should be reported.

Emergency Animal Disease Hotline – 1800 675 888

Ricardo J. Soares Magalhaes, Professor, School of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland

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

On Saturday, a suspected case of deadly H5 bird flu, also known as high pathogenicity avian influenza (HPAI) H5N1, was confirmed in a brown skua.

This large seabird was found in Cape Le Grand National Park near Esperance, about 700 kilometres south-east of Perth in Western Australia.

The virus is also suspected to have affected another seabird, a southern giant petrel, found at the same area.

Following the initial testing, samples collected from these birds were sent to the CSIRO to confirm the first Australian cases of H5N1, specifically the clade 2.3.4.4b H5N1 lineage. Avian influenza viruses are categorised by subtype (creating the H and N number combination, here H5N1) and specific clades within the H5 subtype.

This virus has devastated wildlife populations in other continents, and this could be the start of a long push to protect Australian birds and wildlife in Australia.

Where did this virus come from?

Avian influenza viruses, of which HPAI H5N1 is just one kind, have been around for millenia. In the vast majority of cases they cause no disease in birds. These strains are referred to as low pathogenicity avian influenza viruses.

However, in 1996 one of these viruses evolved to become disease causing, and since then, this HPAI H5N1 has caused severe disease in poultry, and has become endemic in poultry. With chickens now forming about 70% of all birds worldwide, this is a critical reservoir where the virus continues to evolve.

The devastating effect of HPAI H5N1 is unfortunately not limited to poultry. Since 2021, HPAI H5N1 has caused a global animal pandemic, with enormous consequences for wildlife in all continents. It has killed millions of wild birds and caused significant drops in the global population of some species. It has also spread into wild and domestic mammals, with various species of seals particularly affected.

How it spreads

Part of the challenge in controlling HPAI H5N1 is that it can spread through a wide range of transmission pathways. For example, the virus typically spreads through faeces, especially when in water. Imagine infected ducks in a pond, where the pond water acts as a conduit to infecting other ducks which are feeding or cleaning themselves.

It can also be spread through direct contact and aerosol transmission, particularly in poultry farms. And it is spread through predation and scavenging, where animals like foxes maybe eat the carcasses of infected birds they find.

While it has so far been found in more than 400 different bird species, the spread of HPAI H5N1 in the northern hemisphere is facilitated by freshwater dabbling ducks. Dabbling duck species feed predominantly at the surface of the water, sometimes even grazing on land.

Importantly, ducks have very limited signs of disease when infected with HPAI H5N1, and appear to be able to continue to migrate while infected, allowing them to potentially spread the virus long distances.

Overall, this virus has been devastating for wild birds. For example, 33–47% of all adult northern gannets died in 2022 due to HPAI H5N1. On subantarctic Heard Island, 13,000 baby southern elephant seals died due to HPAI during the 2025–26 summer.

Why has it taken so long to reach Australia?

Despite being in Asia since the 1990s, and in Antarctica since 2024, HPAI H5N1 has not been detected in Australia until now. This is likely because there are no duck species which routinely migrate between Australia and Asia, nor are there ducks that migrate through Antarctica.

Despite the lack of ducks in Antarctica, the virus did arrive there in the summer of 2023–24, and subsequently spread thousands of kilometres through the subantarctic in the summer of 2024–25. Available evidence suggests birds like gulls, skuas and giant petrels may have taken on the role of long distance virus carriers in the Antarctic and subantarctic.

The various species of skuas and giant petrels that breed in Antarctic waters go on to roam the Southern Ocean, also venturing into the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans during the southern hemisphere winter. While rarely seen on our shores, these species are not too far offshore, looking for food and occasionally gathering in large groups.

Now that HPAI H5N1 has been found on mainland Australia, it will not necessarily establish itself and spread across the continent into other birds and mammals, including livestock.

Given that skuas and giant petrels are marine rather than freshwater species, and do not occur on land in large numbers outside the breeding season, there is still a chance that it may not spread further.

The biggest risk is that infected, sick birds are eaten or scavenged by native birds and mammals, which could transmit the virus to ducks.

Try to stop the spread

Once in ducks, the likely spread of the virus increases dramatically, and the outlook would be grim.

But for now, we are a few critical steps away from that happening. Continued surveillance and testing, being led by Western Australia, is critical to reveal the extent of the virus and whether it has spread to local animals.

Vigilance is key – do not touch or take sick animals into your care. Rather, report suspected cases immediately to the Emergency Animal Disease Hotline on 1800 675 888.

For farmers or people who own chooks, its critical to follow guidelines provided by government departments and report any suspicious mortality.

Marcel Klaassen, Alfred Deakin Professor and Chair in Ecology, Deakin University; Meagan Dewar, Lecturer, Biological Sciences. Institute of Innovation, Science and Sustainability, Federation University Australia, and Michelle Wille, Senior research fellow, The University of Melbourne

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

Ten Australians – including a firefighter, First Nations leaders and young people – are bringing their concerns about the nation’s coal and gas exports to the United Nations.

On Tuesday, the group lodged a complaint with the UN Human Rights Committee, claiming the Australian government is failing to protect them from climate harms.

They argue Australia’s continued exports are inconsistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, as set out in the Paris Agreement.

This case spotlights Australia’s role as a major . And it’s the first case of its kind to go to the UN since the world’s highest court – the International Court of Justice – ruled countries have a legal obligation to protect the climate and prevent harm to the climate.

Last month, Australia supported a UN resolution backing the Court’s ruling.

So what is this case about? And why does it matter?

Relying on fossil fuels

Australia is the world’s second largest fossil fuel exporter, behind Russia. Our total fossil fuel exports generate around 3.5% of global carbon emissions annually.

Australia’s state and federal governments are continuing to approve and subsidise new coal and gas projects, most of which are for export. However, every approval increases global carbon emissions.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, every additional tonne of carbon emitted adds to global warming. For example, research shows Woodside’s Scarborough gas project in Western Australia could lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone, and may expose 516,000 people to unprecedented heat. Woodside has said the project “is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets”.

Despite growing concern about fossil fuel exports and emissions, authorities generally don’t give much weight to export-related climate harms when deciding to approve or reject fossil fuel projects.

Who is involved in this case?

The current case involves ten people making a claim against the government. These include First Nations leaders, people with disability, young people and a firefighter.

Each person says they have experienced climate harms, ranging from bushfires and extreme heat to flooding, rising sea levels and algal blooms. The First Nations claimants say extreme heatwaves have limited their ability to maintain certain cultural practices, such as engaging in controlled cultural burning. Floods have also displaced them from their traditional lands.

The case is now before the UN Human Rights Committee. This committee is made up of 18 independent human rights experts and checks whether signatory nations are upholding the terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is a key human rights treaty that Australia signed in 1972.

If this committee finds that Australia has breached the terms of this treaty, it can make recommendations to ensure Australia meets its obligations. While these recommendations are not legally binding, they carry weight.

What are they claiming?

The claimants have told the UN that Australia’s continued support for fossil fuel exports is inconsistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C, as set out in the Paris Agreement.

They are making three main claims to support this:

1. the climate emergency has already harmed the claimants, and these harms will get worse in the future

2. Australia’s fossil fuel exports have and will materially contribute to climate change

3. by continuing to produce fossil fuels for export, Australia has breached its obligations under international law to prevent significant and foreseeable climate harms.

The claimants will also argue Australia’s actions breach multiple human rights obligations. These include failing to respect and protect Australians’ rights to life, privacy, family and home life, and culture.

Yet to unfold

In this historic case, the claimants want to establish a clear link between human rights and Australia’s fossil fuel exports.

They have told the committee that climate harms such as extreme heat, bushfires, floods, and sea-level rise directly threaten the right to life by increasing the risk of serious injury or death.

For First Nations communities, climate harms also disrupt connection to Country and prevent communities from sharing traditional knowledge on Country, undermining the right to culture.

This case is unfolding in the wake of last year’s International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion. The court found that a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is needed to enjoy human rights. The court also recognised all states have a binding legal obligation to prevent significant harm to the climate.

Where to next

If this case is successful, the Australian government could be held responsible for climate harms caused to Australians by its fossil fuel exports.

The committee may also recommend Australia phase out its fossil fuel exports. This would expose Australia’s export industries to increased domestic and international scrutiny.

This case has the potential to shape future climate litigation, as well as government policy.

Maria Nawaz, Project Lead, Australian Climate Accountability Project at the UNSW Australian Human Rights Institute, UNSW Sydney and Gillian Moon, Senior Visiting Fellow and Research Lead, UNSW Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney

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

There is ongoing turmoil in the native forest logging industry, as revealed in the ABC’s Four Corners program that aired last night.

The evidence presented was unambiguous: the native forest logging industry has been in financial, social, and environmental decline for decades.

Yet it continues to be financially supported by federal and state government subsidies that are detrimental to the economy, environmental integrity and the efficient spending of taxpayer dollars.

Logging is banned on public land in Victoria. However, Four Corners revealed Victorian sawmills are sourcing wood from native forests in Tasmania, at taxpayer expense.

This is not in the public interest. Instead, governments should facilitate the restoration and protection of native forests.

Is there demand for native forest wood?

Advocates for the native forest logging industry claim that Australians have an insatiable appetite for hardwood, from species like mountain ash and alpine ash.

But government forestry products data tells a different story.

It shows sawn hardwood timber consumption has declined dramatically. In 2001-2002, about 1.4 million cubic metres was consumed, compared with 318,000 cubic metres consumed in 2024-25. This is close to an 80% decline.

In comparison, softwood sawn timber – cut from trees like pine – dominates the sawn timber market, producing an annual average of 4.2 million cubic metres over the same period.

In places like Victoria, over 80% of the wood removed in native forest logging was made into white copy paper. Yet demand for this product has declined – dropping 66% in the last 20 years. Australia’s consumption of white copy paper peaked at approximately 1.8 million tonnes in 2007-08, before falling sharply to around 660,000 tonnes by 2023-24.

Will we just import more hardwood timber?

Industry representatives said on Four Corners that without native forest logging, Australia would import vast amounts of hardwood timber.

However, this is not the case. According to government data, dressed and rough hardwood sawn timber imports have fallen from a combined total of 150,000 cubic metres in 2004-05 to 47,000 cubic metres in 2024-25 – a decline of nearly 70%.

In contrast, Australia has been a net exporter of sawn hardwood timber since 2022-23, and for the years 2008–2011 and 2013–2015. This means that as a nation we have exported more hardwood timber than we have imported.

Australia is actually a net exporter by volume of most wood products, but these are of lower value, such as unprocessed logs. In 2024-25, Australia imported only 1,000 cubic metres of unprocessed hardwood and softwood logs. In contrast, it exported 1.4 million cubic metres of these logs and nearly 4.7 million tonnes of woodchips.

However, Australia imports more high value-added wood products than what it exports. For example, in 2024-2025, Australia imported 1.1 million cubic metres of engineered wood products, but exported only 319,000 cubic metres of the same kind of products. Engineered wood products include veneers and cross laminated timber.

The large amounts of exported low value wood products versus the imports of high value-added wood products in lower volumes is one of the main reasons why Australia has a trade deficit in wood products.

Why was the forest industry closed in Victoria?

Forest industry advocates have questioned why the native forest logging industry was closed in Victoria. There are several reasons. A key one is the government-owned forestry company VicForests routinely made large net losses.

For example, its annual reports show a $60 million loss in 2022-2023, and $54 million loss in 2021–22.

In addition, forests in Victoria were heavily overlogged. Our research has found the vast majority of mountain ash and alpine ash forest across the Central Highlands of Victoria has been either severely disturbed and fragmented by clearfell logging or high severity fire (and often both).

The Victorian native forest logging industry also had large numbers of regulatory breaches for its industrial operations and ongoing impacts on biodiversity.

Has Victoria really stopped native forest logging?

The Four Corners program showed footage of wood being trucked from Tasmanian forests across Bass Strait to be processed in Victorian mills in the towns of Heyfield and Powelltown.

Following the Victorian government’s announcement it would stop native forest logging on public land, it committed $1.5 billion of taxpayer funds to support the transition away from native forest logging in Victoria.

The Heyfield mill is 49% owned by the Victoria government. Hence, although the Victorian government says it has stopped logging, taxpayer funds are being used to cut forests in Tasmania and process them through the Heyfield and the Powelltown mills. Transition funds have been allowed to flow into native forest logging rather than out of it.

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan rejected the suggestion Victoria was shifting logging pressure to Tasmania, saying the government was backing workers and regional communities. “We’ll always look at ways to back workers, particularly in these small rural communities where companies like this one, they’re a big and important source of income and support for that area”, she told the ABC.

An end to native logging

As researchers working on forests, we have collected and read reports from roughly one inquiry or review into the native forest logging industry in Australia almost every year since the end of World War II.

No matter how much public money, suggestions for change and reform or recommendations for value-adding, the industry simply cannot survive without massive subsidies and handouts from government. It has been like this for decades.

The taxpayer should not be expected to keep propping an industry that loses so much money. It is time to terminate contracts, cease handouts, and fully close the native forest logging industry in Australia. Instead, we should transition to a well managed plantation-only forestry sector – as New Zealand did in 2002.

David Lindenmayer, Distinguished Professor of Ecology, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University and Chris Taylor, Research Fellow, Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University

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

It is illegal to use paraquat in at least 74 jurisdictions worldwide, including the European Union, China, Malaysia, Brazil and, most recently, the US state of Vermont.

But today, Australia’s chemical regulator gave this effective but highly toxic herbicide the green light.

After a nearly 30-year review, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) finally decided paraquat can continue to be used on Australian farms.

It will have to be used at reduced rates and can no longer be applied with backpack sprayers, only in enclosed systems.

There’s no doubt paraquat is dangerous. It’s a Schedule 7 poison that is acutely toxic to humans if touched, swallowed or inhaled. Farmers have to be exceptionally careful in how they handle it.

Health advocacy groups and neurologists called for an outright ban on paraquat over concerns longer-term exposure could be linked to Parkinson’s disease.

Why is Australia so dependent on this chemical? As our recent research shows, the reasons are simple. Generic imported paraquat is cheap and effective, and there are few alternatives given the way we currently farm. Ironically, paraquat is largely imported from China, where its domestic use is banned.

How did Australia get here?

For broadacre Australian farmers who grow crops such as wheat, oats, chickpeas, canola and soybeans, paraquat is an essential tool. It is used to kill broadleaf and grassy weeds on no-till farms. No-till practices have been widely adopted in Australia to minimise soil disturbance, but require chemical weed control.

Paraquat also works on weeds that have become resistant to other major herbicides, such as glyphosate. Farmers often use these two herbicides together to effectively manage weeds.

This reliance is partly due to developments in the pesticide industry (a term covering herbicides, insecticides and fungicides). Until recently, this industry was dominated by large multinational European and American companies who sold patented (more expensive) and off-patent products.

But in the last two decades, Chinese manufacturers have ramped up cheap generic products. The global industry is now dominated by Chinese state-owned and private enterprises producing off-patent and far cheaper pesticides.

Tax rebates and other government incentives have helped companies such as Rainbow, Wynca, Adama, Yangnong and Syngenta China to become the world’s leading agrochemical companies. In 2006, Australia imported around 10% of its pesticides (by value) from China; by 2025 that figure was almost 50%.

The rise in generic pesticides has led to more product availability. The 2015 China-Australia Free Trade Agreement removed tariffs on pesticide imports, making imports easier. Australia’s regulatory agency doesn’t require a full assessment to register new products with approved active ingredients.

As a result, there are now 121 products containing paraquat registered in Australia, sold under names such as Rainquat, Gramoxone and Spraytop. While individual supply chains are difficult to trace, our research shows the chemicals in these products appear to be almost exclusively produced in China. The two leading agricultural chemical retailers in Australia, Nutrien and Elders, now have their own low-cost generic labels, sourcing generic formulations from China.

As one of the interviewees for our research told us: “there are less and less commercially attractive options outside of China these days… when I was in the business 20 years ago, we had a lot of material coming out of Europe. There’s almost nothing in Australia that comes out of Europe.”

What would happen if paraquat was banned?

Prior to the APVMA’s announcement, many Australian farmers and agronomists were worried about a total ban on paraquat given the lack of readily available, affordable and effective replacement herbicides.

If paraquat was off the table, Australian farmers would have had to rely more heavily on non-chemical strategies, such as rotating crops and growing crops more densely to crowd out weeds.

A change like this would likely cause significant short-term disruption as farmers grapple with how to make it work. It could reduce yield and make food more expensive, though a lot of these crops are produced for export.

With heightened attention on the APVMA’s decision, now is a chance to rethink our deep dependence on pesticides to grow our food – especially those which can severely damage our health.

It is worth thinking about how we could farm without paraquat. Supplies of cheap, generic chemicals are not guaranteed. Chinese authorities have been reducing production volume in recent years. When faced with external crises, Chinese authorities tighten fertiliser export controls to protect Chinese farmers from price rises. They could decide to do the same for pesticides.

For now paraquat will continue to be used on Australian farms. But with an uncertain future, it is worth figuring out how we can best farm without it.

Sarah Rogers, Associate Professor of Geography, The University of Melbourne; Sonia Graham, Future Fellow in Human Geography, University of Wollongong, and Zoe Ju-Han Wang, Senior Lecturer in Human Geography, James Cook University

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

The honeybee mite, Varroa destructor, finally breached Australia’s biosecurity defences four years ago, and is here to stay. Even more concerning, our standard treatments – such as specialised pesticides – are already failing.

What does this mean for Australians, and what can we do about it?

Roughly the size of a pinhead, the parasitic mite is regarded as the most destructive pest of honeybees worldwide. It feeds on bees, weakening colonies and causing their collapse.

For decades, Australia was the only continent free of the mite. That changed in 2022, when Varroa was detected in sentinel hives at the Port of Newcastle, New South Wales.

An ambitious eradication campaign was launched, but abandoned by 2023. Today, Varroa is established across much of Australia’s eastern and southern states. The focus has shifted from eradication to management, and we now face a new threat – treatment-resistant mites.

Varroa is more than just a beekeeping problem. Managed honeybees underpin a significant portion of Australian agriculture, contributing about A$14 billion annually. More than 30% of food production depends on pollination from bees. When bee colonies collapse, the effects ripple through food production, farm profitability and ultimately food prices.

Native pollinators also play an important role, but they cannot fully replace managed honeybees for many large-scale crops.

This makes the health of honeybee populations critical to both food security and biodiversity.

Chemical control is under pressure

Controlling Varroa is costly and labour intensive for both commercial and backyard beekeepers. Current strategies rely heavily on chemical miticides – a type of pesticide engineered to control mites. These fall into two broad groups.

“Hard” miticides, such as formamidines (amitraz or Apivar) and pyrethroids (Bayvarol), are synthetic chemicals designed to kill mites quickly. “Soft” miticides, including formic acid, oxalic acid and thymol, are naturally derived compounds that tend to linger less in the environment.

While these treatments can suppress mite populations, they’re not a long-term solution. Varroa is well known to evolve resistance, and pyrethroid- and amitraz-resistant Varroa mites have already been found in Australia less than four years after the mite’s arrival.

A new generation of pest control

As conventional treatments falter, researchers are exploring new technologies. One of the most promising is RNA interference, or RNAi. RNA is a molecule found in all living organisms that helps control how genes are expressed.

RNAi is a natural process where small RNA fragments “switch off” specific genes, blocking the production of essential proteins the pests need to survive. The RNA fragments can be delivered to bees via sugar syrup. This then gets distributed through the hive and Varroa are exposed either by feeding or absorption.

RNAi pesticides are designed to be species specific, meaning they’re unlikely to cause harm to other organisms. This makes them more desirable than chemical pesticides that can have widespread effects on beneficial insects, the environment and even human health if not applied correctly.

RNAi treatments are also unlikely to give rise to genetic resistance. This is because resistance usually involves single-point changes in the gene sequence, while these treatments target larger gene segments. RNAi is also exceptionally safe because it don’t linger in the environment as much as a chemical pesticide might.

Furthermore, RNAi doesn’t create genetically modified organisms, because the RNA fragments don’t become part of the host genome.

Not just theoretical

RNAi pesticides are no longer theoretical. In 2025, the United States approved the first RNAi-based Varroa treatment, marketed as Norroa. This product targets a gene essential for mite reproduction, effectively acting as a form of “birth control” that reduces population growth within hives.

However, Norroa has its limitations. Because it suppresses reproduction rather than killing mites outright, it’s most effective when mite numbers are low. In heavily infested colonies, it can’t reduce populations quickly enough to prevent collapse.

Research is now focused on making RNAi more effective and adaptable. One key question is which genes to target. Many current research approaches focus on “housekeeping” genes – ones essential to mite biology and therefore survival. But these are often similar across species, raising the risk the treatment could kill other species we don’t want to wipe out.

Our research group is exploring an alternative strategy to target genes involved in the mite nervous system or muscles. These are the same systems affected by existing miticides, but RNAi would provide greater specificity.

A pest like no other

Varroa is the latest in a long line of invasive pests to reach Australia. But its impact is unusually far-reaching, touching agriculture, ecosystems and food supply.

The situation is already serious. Beekeepers are facing rising costs for miticides (which may or may not work) and hive losses, and treatment options are narrowing.

Yet there is also a window of opportunity, and Australia can still take proactive steps to manage Varroa effectively. Norroa and similar emerging RNAi treatments are not yet available for use in Australia, and would need to receive approval from the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).

Investment in research, including next-generation tools like RNAi, will be critical. So too will be coordinated management strategies, monitoring, and support for beekeepers adapting to this new reality.

The alarm bells are ringing. But with the right mix of innovation and action, we still have a chance to protect Australia’s bees and safeguard this billion-dollar industry.

Kate Mounsey, Associate Professor and Program Coordinator, Biomedical Science, University of the Sunshine Coast; Lucy R Miles, Higher Degree by Research PhD Student, Novel Biopesticides, University of the Sunshine Coast; Robert J Harvey, Professor of Pathophysiology, Associate Dean (Research) School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast, and Roy Barkan, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast

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

When we think of bees, we often think of flowers. The more flowers the better, right? Well, not exactly. Like us, bees need to consume specific nutrients in suitable amounts and combinations.

So, the mere presence of flowers doesn’t necessarily mean the bees are getting nutritionally adequate food.

This matters because climate change is altering both the quantity and nutritional composition of pollen and nectar. At the same time, what nutrition the bees need is likely shifting, too. This creates rapidly moving goalposts – it’s increasingly difficult for bees to find and consume the right nutrients they need to reproduce, develop and survive.

In our new paper published in Current Opinion in Insect Science, we argue these changes are unlikely to affect all bees equally. Currently, most of what we know about bee nutrition comes from highly social species such as honeybees or bumblebees.

Yet most bees, including many native Australian species, are solitary or communal (group living but with no queens and workers). They might experience the nutritional landscape and nutritional stress in very different ways.

Understanding these differences is crucial for predicting which bees are most vulnerable under climate change.

Not all bees will encounter nutritional stress

One way to better understand vulnerability to nutritional stress is to think about the traits that shape how different bees interact with their environments. These include:

• how far they can forage
• how flexible their diets are
• whether they live alone or in groups
• how large those groups tend to be.

These traits can influence whether bees even encounter nutritional stress in the first place.

For example, a species with a large foraging range and a broad diet might live in a nutritionally poor landscape, but still be able to travel far enough, or combine pollen from different flowers, to meet its nutritional requirements. In contrast, species with narrower diets or shorter foraging ranges might have fewer opportunities to balance their diets.

Native stingless bees, such as Tetragonula carbonaria, generally forage over shorter distances than honeybees. This could make them more dependent on the nutritional quality of nearby flowers and more vulnerable to a changing climate.

Living in a group may help a little

Once nutritional stress occurs, other traits will determine how this stress is buffered and absorbed.

T. carbonaria, for instance, live in colonies with workers that collect food and share resources. This kind of social organisation can buffer short-term changes in the environment. Even if their foraging range is small, and one floral resource declines for a season, a colony might be able to shift foraging effort, draw on stored resources, or distribute food among nestmates and brood.

But despite potential buffering, poor nutrition can still impact social species. This can show up as fewer offspring, slower colony growth, smaller workers, weaker immunity, or reduced ability to cope with other stressors, such as heat or pesticides.

Solitary bees might have fewer safety nets

Solitary bees, by contrast, will likely face different problems when it comes to nutritional stress. Many native bees, such as blue banded bees (Amegilla chlorocyanea, pictured below), don’t benefit from the support of a colony.

A single female must find a nest, collect pollen, lay eggs and provide food for her offspring. Under predictable conditions, this can be a very effective way of interacting with the environment.

However, if the right flowers are missing, bloom too late, or produce pollen containing different nutrients to what the bee has evolved to expect, the effects could be more immediate: fewer nests, smaller offspring, fewer daughters and lower chance of survival.

In these species, the condition of one female can shape the next generation, so poor nutrition might lead to rapid population declines. This means the timing and quality of floral resources are likely to be especially important for many of our native bees.

How we can help our native bees

To accurately predict how species respond to climate change, future studies will need to connect floral nutrition with bee performance in real landscapes. Most importantly, we need to include a diverse range of bees with different social lives and traits in these studies.

For now, there are still practical steps we can take to support our native bees at home. Rather than simply planting more flowers, we need to be more deliberate about what we plant.

Native plants are of course important, but we should plant them in diverse mixes, to account for variability in nutritional availability and timing.

The same applies to nesting habitats. Many native bees will not use a hive or a bee hotel. Some need bare or lightly disturbed ground; others use stems, wood or existing cavities.

So avoid the urge to over-manage every patch of ground – leave some bare earth and dead branching stems in your roses and other plants. This will make your garden or landscape more useful to more bees, so we can help support them in this rapidly changing world.

Brooke Zanco, Postdoctoral Researcher, The Pollinator Futures Research Centre, Macquarie University and Carmen da Silva, Macquarie University Research Fellow, The Pollinator Futures Research Centre, Macquarie University

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

Australia is home to unusual mammals not found anywhere else – consider the platypus, Tasmanian devil or the red kangaroo.

But did you know our understanding of this continent’s incredible mammalian diversity is still incomplete?

We have discovered a new species in one of Australia’s cutest and fiercest mammal groups: planigales. And we also unearthed a second new planigale species, from a 100-year-old specimen held in a Swedish museum.

In the past five years alone, there have been 20 new mammals added to Australia’s mammal species list. So how is it we are still discovering new species of mammals in the 21st century? Let me explain.

Tiny, ferocious marsupials

But first, what is a planigale?

Planigales are the world’s smallest marsupials. Some species weigh just over two grams (the same as a couple of paper clips) and are about half the size of a house mouse.

With flattened heads, planigales can squeeze themselves into cracks and crevices to hide from predators and extreme weather conditions. They are tiny but fearsome predators that emerge at night to hunt for insects, spiders and vertebrates, such as small lizards and even young mammals. They generally live in varied habitats that overlay cracking clay soils in central and northern Australia.

Because planigales are so small, with subtly varying shades of brown fur, they are very difficult to tell apart. They are also difficult to catch, weighing so little that conventional small metal box traps are often not effective. We have to dig holes called “pitfall” traps instead. Most species live in remote areas, so it has been difficult to understand their diversity until now.

New mammal species awaiting discovery

There are several reasons we are still discovering new mammals in Australia.

First, many mammal species have suffered declining populations, and are now very difficult to find. Also, we are using more advanced technologies to help us tell mammals apart, including sophisticated genetic methods.

But over time, perhaps what has changed most is the amount of information we can draw on. Museum collections hold more than 200 years of specimens and data — an irreplaceable scientific record that helps us recognise species we may no longer detect in nature.

It was through studies of marsupial genetics we first realised the number of planigales in Australia was likely an underestimate.

A small number of genetic samples we previously studied suggested there were probably undescribed species of planigales in Australia. But we needed to gather more samples to work out exactly where they lived.

To do this, we partnered with organisations that survey for mammals in remote Australia, such as Australian Wildlife Conservancy, and pored over museum collections for extra genetic samples. This way, we gathered hundreds of genetic samples of planigales and were finally able to work out if there were more species in this group.

A planigale hiding among the rocks

In 2017, a genetic study first identified a unique planigale found in Kakadu National Park, in the Northern Territory. These results were based on only two genetic samples from preserved specimens held in the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory.

We exhaustively checked more than 2000 planigale specimens held in Australian museums and found a single specimen that matched the existing two. It was in the Queensland Museum, collected during the 1970s.

These three planigale specimens, two males and one female, are genetically distinct from all other planigale species and have their own unique appearance. They are large (well, for a planigale) with dark grizzled fur and a very long tail – longer than other planigale species.

And they were found in an unusual location, on top of a rocky plateau. Most other species of planigales tend to live in swampy habitats, or areas with heavy clay soils.

These factors confirmed we were dealing with a new species. We described it [https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlag082] as the Arnhem plateau planigale, Planigale petrophila (meaning “rock-lover”). Since it is only known from three specimens, we urgently need to do more work to determine whether it is rare or under threat of extinction.

But wait, there’s more

And that’s not all. During our study, we found specimens thought to represent a known species, Planigale ingrami, in the Kimberley region of Western Australia, were genetically distinct from those in the NT, Queensland and South Australia, even though they looked very similar.

This genetic information indicated these specimens were a “cryptic” species – something that can be identified by genetics but is difficult to tell apart based on appearance alone. By consulting historical research papers, we found these Kimberley planigales were in fact already described more than 100 years ago from a specimen collected in Australia that ended up in Sweden. With help from curators at the Swedish Museum of Natural History, we were able to confirm this old specimen matched the new ones from the Western Australian Museum.

We have called this the Kimberley planigale –Planigale subtilissima– as most of its range occurs in the Kimberley. Unlike the Arnhem plateau planigale, Kimberley planigales have been detected frequently by Australian Wildlife Conservancy and partners on recent surveys, so there is less concern for their future.

From five to nine species

Our work has so far added four new species of planigales to Australia, as we had previously identified the orange-headed Pilbara planigale and the cracking-clay Pilbara planigale.

This has increased the diversity of this group of tiny mammals in Australia to eight species in total, with an extra one known in Papua New Guinea.

It makes you wonder – how many more planigales and other mammals are out there waiting to be recognised?

This work would not have been possible without the help of my colleagues Linette Umbrello (WA Museum), Kenny Travouillon (WA Museum), Mike Westerman (La Trobe University), Mark Blacket (Agriculture Victoria), Skye Cameron (Australian Wildlife Conservancy) and Eridani Mulder (formerly Australian Wildlife Conservancy), and funding from the Australian Biological Resources Study and the Queensland University of Technology.

Andrew M. Baker, Associate Professor in Ecology and Environmental Science, Queensland University of Technology

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

For decades, the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin have been heavily regulated by dams and irrigation networks. As a result, the volume of water entering the ocean is about 60% smaller than 100 years ago. But nature broke through during massive floods over the summer of 2022–23, when heavy rains filled the Basin’s waterways.

The threshold for a flood on the Murray is when the daily water flow at the Victoria-South Australian border reaches 50 gigalitres a day. This flood reached 168 gigalitres a day – the largest in 66 years. A colossal plume of muddy floodwater reached 40 kilometres out from the Murray mouth into the Southern Indian Ocean.

For marine creatures, this was a dramatic event. What did it do to their ecosystems? To find out, we compared marine animals living directly inside the flood plume with those living further away in normal saltwater.

Our new research found the flood delivered a burst of nutrients into the ocean. We estimate more than 200,000 tonnes of organic carbon were carried out to sea between July 2022 to June 2023 – 29 times more than the same period in 2020–21.

This organic carbon came from the Basin’s rivers and their floodplains, and included large numbers of common carp. Millions of juvenile carp — a highly destructive, invasive freshwater fish — were flushed into the open sea.

Because carp cannot survive in saltwater, they perished en masse. Dead carp piled up on local beaches at astonishing densities of up to 7 kilograms per square metre. In marine rock pools more than 20km from the river mouth, we saw the local crab species such as the purple mottled shore crab and the reef crab having a field day.

How the river fed the sea

These nutrients from the Murray provided a substantial boost to the middle of the ocean food chain. Scavengers such as crabs, and smaller fish such as yellow-eye mullet, were the main beneficiaries. They were feeding on scraps of organic matter, including dead carp, washed in from the Murray River.

We estimate a whopping 35% of the tissues of these animals came from the organic matter carried by the flood in the months afterwards.

Australasian snapper also benefited. These slow-growing larger fish frequently swam in and out of the flood zones. They preyed on smaller fish and crustaceans that had been eating food rich in nutrients from the flood. This means the floodwaters gave snapper and other predators a longer-term boost, effectively storing more of the land and river nutrients in the ocean food web.

How to trace nutrients from a flood

It’s not easy to trace what happens to nutrients from a river once they wash into the ocean. But it can be done.

Every environment has a unique chemical fingerprint, which is reflected inside the tissues of its animals. When nutrients from rivers arrive, they impart part of this fingerprint to the residents of the ocean who eat them – you are what you eat.

We can detect this by testing the muscles of marine animals for these fingerprints.

Ocean water has a uniform sulfur signature. But the crabs we caught inside the flood plume had a very different sulfur signature, which meant they were eating land and river-based food (the carp).

Crabs usually scavenge detritus without much food value. But the crabs inside the flood plume had a heavily enriched nitrogen signature – another sign they had switched to eating dead carp. The crabs had effectively been bumped up a level on the food chain.

Did the nutrient pulse fuel the algal bloom?

In March 2025, a large and long-lasting harmful algal bloom developed off the coast of South Australia. The bloom killed many different marine species in large numbers.

Could the nutrient pulse from floodwaters have fuelled it? The bloom has been linked to a marine heatwave and nutrient-rich seasonal upwelling currents. The 2022–23 Murray River floods have also been proposed as a potential contributor. But this connection remains speculative because of the lag time of 18–24 months and a lack of continuous data collection.

Better monitoring after floods would help us understand whether there is a link.

Rivers matter to the sea

We can see floods not as a waste of water, but as a restoration of longstanding connections between ecosystems disrupted by human control of the river. Our research shows the benefits of these flood events aren’t restricted to land and river ecosystems – they give a major boost to surrounding oceans as well.

Floods are important for the long-term health and resilience of our coastal ecosystems and fisheries, though more research is necessary to fully understand these connections.

Paul McInerney, Principal Research Scientist in Ecosystem Ecology, CSIRO; Brenton Zampatti, Principal Research Scientist in Aquatic Ecology, CSIRO, and Darren Giling, Senior Research Scientist in Aquatic Ecology, CSIRO

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

It is only June, and Europe is already baking through its second extreme heatwave in two months. Temperatures have topped 44 degrees Celsius in parts of the continent. Heat alerts are now in place for several countries, with six at the most severe red level.

France placed 72 of its 96 departments under red alert, and at least 40 people have drowned trying to escape the heat.

In Spain, temperatures peaked at 45.1°C, with 101 heat-related deaths in May alone, the highest ever recorded for the month.

The UK broke its all-time June temperature record. Cities are closing schools, power grids are buckling, and hospitals are reporting a surge in heat-related emergencies.

None of this should have been a surprise. Europe is the fastest-warming continent on Earth, heating at roughly twice the global average, and scientists have been warning for decades that human-made climate change would make extreme heat more frequent and more severe. Current projections expect the next five years to shatter even more records, making this the “new normal”.

The summers European residents grew up with no longer exist, and extreme heat is no longer an anomaly, but the new baseline. This means the question now is no longer whether extreme heat will return, but whether European cities can survive it.

A climate disaster that isn’t treated like one

Extreme heat kills more Europeans than any other climate hazard.

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), over 175,000 people die every year from heat-related causes across the continent.

Despite the numbers, extreme temperatures have not been treated with the same urgency as other disasters, such as storms, wildfires, or floods. Most governments are still improvising, and there is no coordinated response to extreme heat, as it is still treated as a weather inconvenience rather than a life-threatening hazard.

However, this framing is starting to shift. At COP30, the United Nations office for Disaster Risk Reduction (NDRR) launched a new Extreme Heat Risk Governance Framework. It formally recognised extreme heat as one of the most deadly and least managed climate threats. Although this framework is a step forward, decades of fragmented policies, short-term crisis thinking, and chronic underinvestment in public services have left Europe dangerously exposed.

As a result, every summer that passes without meaningful progress is another summer that will cost lives.

Europe is not built for this

A recent report by the UK’s Climate Change Committee argued that the country is built for a climate that no longer exists, warning that temperatures exceeding 40°C are becoming increasingly common. The same could be said of virtually every European country. Cities were designed for a different era with concrete roads, pavements, and buildings that absorb and trap heat rather than deflect it, turning urban areas into furnaces that run four to six degrees warmer than their surroundings.

Some cities are already responding. For instance, Paris has pledged to plant 170,000 trees in public spaces, and Marseille is depaving historic plazas and mapping shaded walking routes.

Other countries are also taking action by replacing standard pavement with cool surfaces and reflective road paint, rethinking building codes, and redesigning public spaces with passive cooling in mind. However, none of it touches the underlying problem. Europe is still largely powered by fossil fuels, and its food systems, housing and transport networks all carry a heavy carbon cost.

The EU’s greenhouse gas footprint amounts to around 9 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent per person per year, well above the global average of roughly 5 tonnes.

Progress is being made, but not fast enough. Train travel is still more expensive than flying on many routes, building codes still allow new construction that will soon be uninhabitable, and cooling centres, shaded public corridors, and proactive outreach to elderly people living alone remain the exception rather than the rule.

Heat action plans exist in some cities, but few are legally binding, and fewer still have the budgets to match their ambitions.

Individual action matters, but it cannot substitute for the systemic changes that only governments and institutions can deliver. Eating less meat or flying less makes a difference at scale, but the clock will not stop running unless emissions are cut at the source.

Adaptation and mitigation need to happen together, and neither can wait.

The window is narrowing

The EU is preparing a climate resilience strategy due at the end of 2026, which is expected to introduce legally binding rules and monitoring tools to coordinate action across member states. It is a step in the right direction. But as this week’s heatwave has made clear, the gap between what is being planned and what is already happening on the ground is widening fast.

The question is not just how to respond to the next heatwave, but how to govern, finance, and rebuild for a continent that is already living in a different future.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Júlia de Freitas Sampaio, Postdoctoral researcher, University of Luxembourg

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

American farmers are expected to plant several million fewer acres of corn in 2026 than they did in 2025, as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz throttles a key fertilizer trading corridor, along with the energy and raw materials needed to produce and transport fertilizer.

The closure is disrupting deliveries of about one-third of the world’s traded agricultural fertilizers. Fertilizer prices are rising, and farmers worldwide are cutting back on fertilizer use or shifting to less fertilizer-intensive crops.

Corn is one of the most fertilizer-intensive and widely grown crops in the United States, but the disruption extends far beyond a single crop or a single nation.

These changes are often discussed as a threat to global food supplies – and they are.

But as researchers who study agricultural nutrient cycles and nutrient pollution of our waterways, we suspect that the picture is more complicated, and in some ways more hopeful, than the headlines suggest.

That is because decades of farmers using more fertilizer than they needed have quietly built up large reserves of nutrients in the soil, which crops can draw on, even when farmers aren’t applying fertilizer. Indeed, research has shown that in highly intensive agricultural systems, fertilizer application can be cut substantially with little to no effect on crop yields.

A legacy of overuse

For decades, farmers in the United States and around the world have steadily increased the amount of fertilizer they use, seeking to produce enough crops to feed a growing population. Despite several years of encouragement to apply less, farmers consistently apply more nitrogen and phosphorus than their crops actually need, our research suggests.

The nutrients that are not taken up by plants accumulate in soils, providing large stores of nitrogen and phosphorus long after they were first applied. They also leach into groundwater or run off into rivers and lakes, driving dangerous algal blooms, coastal dead zones and greenhouse gas emissions.

But in the current crisis, they may also serve an unexpected purpose.

Latent nutrients in the ground

As shortages and price hikes force farmers to use less fertilizer, crops may be able to draw on legacy nutrient reserves already in the ground.

Our analysis of phosphorus use across U.S. croplands found that in parts of the central Midwest and livestock-dominated regions in the East, soil phosphorus reserves are large enough to maintain crop production levels without as much new fertilizer.

In these nutrient-saturated systems, reductions in fertilizer applications can lower costs and reduce environmental losses without proportionately reducing production. Applying less also means fewer nutrients running off into rivers and streams.

Nutrient distribution

The current shortage may also help shift where farmers find fertilizer.

Livestock produce manure that is high in both nitrogen and phosphorus, which makes excellent fertilizer. It can even be processed into a slurry with an even richer mixture of nutrients in anaerobic digesters, which generate electricity as a byproduct of their chemical reactions.

Processing more manure in digesters, and delivering that slurry to crop farmers, could reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign fertilizer supplies.

The limits of resilience

The details are important. Not every farm or field has enough leftover nutrients to maintain yields with less fertilizer, and the buffers that do exist in some fields will not last indefinitely. In parts of the world where the soil is low in nutrients, such as regions of sub-Saharan Africa, improving access to fertilizers remains essential for increasing food production and supporting livelihoods.

In places where nutrients have accumulated over decades of intensive use, the soil may serve as a buffer against losses in yield, at least for some amount of time, though exactly how much will vary with each field. The current growing season may provide opportunities to discover how strong that buffer is, and whether reducing fertilizer applications improves downstream water quality.

Kimberly Van Meter, Associate Professor of Geography, Penn State and Nandita Basu, Professor and Tier I Canada Research Chair of Global Water Sustainability and Ecohydrology, University of Waterloo

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

When the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool turned green with algae just days after a US$15 million renovation, the U.S. government scrambled for chemicals and expensive technical solutions to fix the iconic landmark.

Trying to kill algae with chemicals is a common response when community ponds or other water features go green. But as a scientist who studies freshwater ecology, I can tell you there are better solutions that cost far less, last longer and carry less risk of harm to pets and wildlife.

Rather than battling against nature, these alternatives work with nature for long-term solutions.

What went wrong on the National Mall

The algal bloom that turned the Reflecting Pool a vibrant green shouldn’t have been a surprise.

The pool is big, more than a third of a mile long and around 165 feet wide. But it’s shallow, meaning it warms up quickly in the sun. When it was repainted “American flag blue” during the renovations in spring 2026, the new color darkened the pool, and darker colors absorb more heat.

On top of those conditions, the pool was refilled with water from the nutrient-rich tidal basin of the Potomac River. The combination of warm water and nutrients created prime conditions for algae to bloom, turning the water pea soup green.

As the national conversation over the Reflecting Pool shifts to political finger-pointing, an important environmental question deserves careful scrutiny: What is the best approach to maintain water quality in a case like this, whether for a national monument or a community water feature or pond?

Trying to chemically or mechanically remove algae can damage the structure of a water feature and may harm species in the water that could actually help solve the problem.

Importantly, chemical and mechanical solutions are only temporary fixes. When the Reflecting Pool is drained and filled again, there’s a good chance that algae will bloom again.

Natural algae control

Limnologists – scientists like me who study inland water bodies – have spent many decades learning why lakes and ponds turn green and how to clear them up.

Often, nutrient-rich waters fueled by fertilizer runoff from farm fields or sewage from cities are the sources that stimulate algal growth.

However, natural ponds also host grazing zooplankton, which eat algae. For example, a type of zooplankton called Daphnia, known as water fleas because of the way these tiny crustaceans swim, can control algae by consuming it before it becomes a pea soup nuisance. Thus, a thriving Daphnia population can help maintain good water quality in a lake, pond or community water feature, even when nutrient levels spike.

In addition to being highly effective grazers, Daphnia have another superpower – they can evolve rapidly. Urban waterbodies are often harsh environments with a variety of challenges, including high temperatures, low levels of dissolved oxygen, and pollutants. Daphnia can adapt to tough conditions, making these creatures an ideal source of algae control in many urban ponds.

Rooted aquatic plants are also useful for algae control in ponds because they absorb nutrients. Thus, shallow ponds with thick beds of aquatic plants can often resist algal blooms when nutrient levels rise.

Why draining might not be the best solution

One downside to draining and refilling a pond or urban water feature to try to clean it is that doing so resets the aquatic ecosystem, erasing the signature of any past evolution that has taken place.

Imagine Daphnia in a shallow pond that experiences periodic heat waves throughout the summer. Through repeated exposure to high temperatures, natural selection favors heat-resistant genotypes that can thrive in an urban pond.

Daphnia and other grazing zooplankton can also evolve resistance to some types of cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, which produce compounds that are toxic to people and pets. Daphnia that evolve resistance to those toxins can help control harmful cyanobacterial blooms.

If a Daphnia population that evolved to tolerate warm temperatures, low oxygen levels or cyanotoxins is removed, the new population likely won’t be ready to handle those local challenges. This evolutionarily naive population will perform poorly in its new environment, reducing its effectiveness at controlling algal blooms.

As a result, traditional mechanical and chemical approaches may actually work against the goal of minimizing algae in ponds and other water features.

Nature-based solutions

The use of Daphnia to control algal blooms is just one example of solving environmental challenges with nature-based solutions.

Growing urban forests to provide cooling and improve air quality to help reduce the need for more energy-intensive air conditioning is another example. Maintaining urban wetlands can help reduce flooding, protect property and recharge groundwater more effectively and for less money than building and maintaining levees. Coastal marshes similarly reduce erosion, buffer storm surges and support fisheries.

All these urban ecosystems protect biodiversity and support human health and well-being.

From national landmarks to city parks and backyard ponds, projects of all sizes can take advantage of nature-based solutions. While each specific project is unique, some general principles apply.

Ecosystems are most resilient when they are diverse and connected. So, it is beneficial to use a variety of species and genotypes and provide corridors that support the movement of organisms and their beneficial genes.

Urban climates are changing rapidly, so it helps to use species and genotypes that will thrive under future conditions, including rising temperatures.

Not every solution has to be engineered

The hubbub over the Reflecting Pool holds a mirror up to assumptions about how to solve pressing environmental challenges. The idea of just engineering one’s way out of any environmental crisis has limits.

Understanding ecology and nature’s mechanisms of ecosystem resilience can achieve sustainable solutions that benefit both nature and people.

Eric Palkovacs, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz

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

Growing evidence suggests that excessive outdoor lighting at night may be harming wildlife.

For generations, rural communities worked to the rhythms of daylight and darkness. Today, the amount of harsh light switched on at nightime is having profound consequences for many living things.

Agricultural properties are often remote and vulnerable to equipment or livestock theft. In response, many landowners have now installed security floodlights, powerful halogen beams, and unshielded external LEDs to illuminate yards overnight.

The North York Moors National Park, an international dark sky reserve in the north of England, has been working with farmers to reduce the impact of artificial light on the natural environment.

The initiative is about ensuring that lighting is used in the right place, at the right time, and at the appropriate intensity. This might involve installing downward-facing fixtures, reducing glare through shielding, or switching to warmer-coloured lighting that is less disruptive to wildlife.

The best places to start trying to reduce bright nighttime lights are those rich in wildlife, and farms in the park are often in the darkest areas.

Since 2021, the national park has worked with more than twenty farms in key dark sky locations, with many more projects in development.

Carefully designed lighting systems can use shielded or motion-activated lighting, which reduce impact on wildlife.

How does it affect the environment?

Over-illumination disrupts complex regional ecosystems, extending daylight artificially and changing the behaviour of animals that depend on natural darkness. Research suggests that light pollution caused by humans, harms ecosystems because of the critical role light has on the timing of biological systems, which artificial light disrupts.

The damage extends from the soil upward. Scientific research indicates that pressures on ecosystems due to habitat loss, pesticides, invasive species and light pollution could create a devastating decline in the insect population, with a knock-on effect on the food chain.

Benefits for farms?

There’s also evidence that suggests that changing lighting could help farms. This light disruption affects crucial agricultural allies. Moths, which serve as vital nocturnal pollinators, are heavily affected, alongside bats facing shrinking feeding grounds. Bats can help farmers control insect pests.

Artificial light exposure also alters vital plant cycles, for instance, and light at night can affect plant growth.

Small changes, such as switching to down-facing lights, can lead to significant environmental improvements.

Changing lighting around farms could also open up new tourism opportunities. Farms that also operate as B&Bs, for instance, can flag to tourists that they are part of a dark skies friendly community programme. This is an accreditation scheme for businesses that improve their lighting systems in accordance with international dark sky standards.

While UK national park authorities have powers to enforce planning restrictions on lighting, in places outside national parks, the UK lacks a comprehensive national regulatory framework to govern rural skyscapes.

The lesson in North Yorkshire and beyond is not that farms should switch off their lights. It is that lighting can be used responsibly to contribute to the stewardship of one of the countryside’s most valuable resources: the natural night sky.

Jenny Hall, Associate Professor in Tourism and Events, York St John University and Brendan Paddison, Professor of Tourism Geographies, York St John University

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

Larger areas contain more species. This is one of the most ironclad laws of ecology, which explains why large natural areas usually receive higher priority in conservation strategies. In fragmented landscapes, this logic has also led small forest fragments to be seen as environments of lower value for biodiversity.

But would it be possible to increase the number of species in a forest fragment without increasing its size?

Our study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that this is possible. When the surrounding landscape is favourable and more helpful, small forest fragments can support far more bird species than would be expected based solely on their size.

Fragmented forest landscapes

Forest landscapes modified by human activities are composed of forest fragments of different sizes surrounded by other types of environments. Collectively this is called the matrix. This matrix can be terrestrial, such as cattle pastures, crops and urban areas, or aquatic, such as hydroelectric reservoirs.

In addition to the matrix, the surroundings of the fragments may also include arborescent vegetation (a type of vegetation made up of scattered trees and/or tree-like shrubs and ferns), riparian (riverside) forests, and nearby fragments. Together, the matrix and the different types of vegetation form the surrounding landscape of forest fragments.

The contribution of the surrounding landscape

To understand the role of the surrounding landscape, we compiled data from nearly 2,000 bird species recorded in more than 1,000 tropical and subtropical forest remnants distributed across 50 landscapes in 17 countries in the Americas, Africa and Asia. The study compared forest fragments surrounded by terrestrial matrices modified by cattle ranching, agriculture and urbanisation with forest islands formed by hydroelectric reservoirs.

Reservoir islands represent an extreme fragmentation scenario due to the ecological hostility of the matrix. By comparing them with forest fragments surrounded by land-based matrices, we were able to measure how much changing the matrix (from water to land) can increase the number of bird species in forests of the same size.

Using satellite imagery, we also calculated the amount of tree-like vegetation surrounding forest remnants at different distances ranging from 50 to 2,000 metres. This allowed us to identify how far from the forest the increase in tree-like vegetation makes its greatest contribution to bird species.

Improving the surrounding, increasing biodiversity

Fragments surrounded by terrestrial matrices had more species than reservoir islands. This difference in species number increases as fragment area decreases. For example, a one-hectare forest fragment may contain more than twice as many species as islands of the same size.

The amount of tree-like vegetation surrounding forest remnants also matters. In both fragments and islands, more trees in the surrounding landscape — especially within a 300-metre radius — meant fewer local extinctions. The benefit is even greater for forest-dependent birds, which are the most sensitive to forest fragmentation.

How species perceive the environment

Birds living in forest fragments do not necessarily stay within these spaces. The greater the amount of tree-like vegetation in the surroundings, the more species can move between fragments and feed on resources available in the matrix, such as insects and flower nectar.

But the ability of birds to fly does not necessarily ensure free movement through the matrix and between neighbouring forest areas. Some species adapted to living under the shaded forest environment tend to avoid exposure to open environments. In addition, many species move through the forest interior without the need for long flights. Therefore, even dirt roads can limit bird movement between neighbouring fragments.

Bird movement across the landscape is important. If certain species become locally extinct in one forest fragment, they may one day arrive from another fragment. For this recolonisation process to occur, two conditions are necessary: species must be able to cross the matrix, and there must be nearby fragments or vegetation along the way, such as scattered trees and forests along riverbanks that facilitate movement between more distant fragments.

Surrounding landscape is more important for smaller fragments

In large fragments, species find enough food, shelter, and space to survive. In small fragments, however, space and resources may be insufficient to sustain several bird populations. But when birds can use resources outside the fragment and reach other forest areas, they begin to use an area larger than the fragment’s boundaries. This is why small fragments with a favourable surrounding landscape can support more species.

And most forest fragments are small. Fragmented forest landscapes in tropical and subtropical regions are overwhelmingly composed of small fragments. In the Atlantic forest of South America, 80% of forest fragments are smaller than 5 hectares. This means that biodiversity depends on a favourable surrounding landscape to ensure its survival in the small forests that remain.

Implications for conservation

Small increases in the number of trees and tree-like vegetation within a 300-metre radius of fragments can significantly reduce species loss. This means that local actions can generate real gains for biodiversity: planting trees, restoring riverside forests, recovering degraded areas, and expanding agroforestry systems — such as coffee and cocoa plantations — can make productive landscapes more favourable to wildlife.

In a world where natural habitats continue to shrink, this is a message of hope.

Protecting forests and other natural habitats is and will continue to be the central strategy for biodiversity conservation. However, our study shows that conservation does not need to stop at forest boundaries. By combining forest protection with improvements to the surrounding landscape, we can increase the conservation value of forest fragments, especially small ones, which are by far the most common in landscapes modified by human activities.

Size is crucial, but it is not everything: what lies outside the forest fragment also determines how many species live inside it.

Anderson Saldanha Bueno, Professor, Instituto Federal Farroupilha (IFFar); Carlos A. Peres, Professor of Tropical Conservation Ecology, University of East Anglia, and Chase Mendenhall, Conservation Scientist

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

Most people know that heat waves can be dangerous. What they may not realize is that the heat indoors can be much worse than outdoors.

When the power goes out and air conditioning stops, a house starts to function like a greenhouse. Heat enters through windows and walls and has nowhere to go. Air stagnates.

Within hours, indoor temperatures can climb well above what the thermometer shows outside, especially on upper floors and in rooms with south-facing windows. Over longer periods, especially if temperatures don’t cool off overnight, conditions can become lethal.

Most heat-related deaths occur indoors. When a heat dome sent temperatures soaring in the Pacific Northwest in 2021, 98% of the more than 600 deaths in British Columbia happened inside homes. Washington and Oregon also saw high numbers of deaths in homes that lacked air conditioning.

In Europe, where only 1 in 10 households have air conditioning, heat waves killed an estimated 60,000 people in 2022 and 47,000 in 2023, largely inside buildings never designed for these temperatures.

People of all ages are at risk in heat waves like these. I spent eight years at the University of Texas at Austin studying how buildings respond to extreme heat. In a recent study, my team assessed the heat risk in every single-family home in Austin.

We found that even younger, healthy adults face far more risk than they realize.

How hot is too hot for a human body?

Your body maintains a core temperature of about 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (37 degrees Celsius). To cool down, it pushes blood to the skin and sweats. But when air temperature is high, that convective cooling weakens. When humidity is also high, sweat cannot evaporate.

If the body has no way to release heat, core temperature rises. If the core temperature increases past about 104 F (40 C), the body’s thermoregulation starts to fail. Past 109 F (42.8 C), death becomes likely.

What makes indoor heat especially dangerous is that it does not let up at night in homes that lack air conditioning. Outdoor temperatures typically drop after sunset, and someone outside can get a few hours of recovery. But a poorly insulated home that has been absorbing heat all day releases that heat slowly, keeping indoor temperatures elevated through the night. A person inside the home never gets a break.

After two or three nights of this, even healthy people start to be at serious risk for heat-related illnesses.

Why homes heat up more than people expect

People tend to underestimate indoor heat for a few reasons.

One is that the thermostat typically sits on one wall in one room. It does not tell what the temperature is in an upstairs bedroom or near a sun-facing window. In older, underinsulated homes, the actual felt temperature can exceed 90 F (32.2 C) even when a thermostat reads 75 F (23.9 C). The hot walls, ceilings and windows can radiate heat directly onto your body.

Another reason is that people assume all homes respond to heat the same way. However, a newer home with double-pane windows and good insulation acts like a thermos, keeping heat out for a longer time. An older home with single-pane windows and cracks in the walls heats up fast.

Two houses on the same street, exposed to the same outdoor conditions, can have completely different temperatures inside. And in a blackout, where neither home has cooling, those differences can become a matter of life and death.

What we found in Austin

Our study combined two datasets. From Austin’s tax appraisal records, we pulled basic property information, such as the year the home was built, the size and the number of stories for each of the city’s 213,000 single-family homes. We then matched each home to the most similar energy simulation models in a U.S. Department of Energy database that contains thousands of detailed, physics-based building energy models representing the U.S. residential building stock.

Using those models, we simulated each building’s indoor temperatures over time during a three-day heat wave and power outage with outdoor temperatures above 110 F (43 C).

We found that 85% of homes got hot enough to pose a significant risk of death for an elderly occupant. But what surprised us was the risk to younger people.

Under today’s climate conditions in Austin, about 15% of homes already have the potential to get hot enough without air conditioning to pose serious heat risks to healthy adults. Under future warming scenarios, that number jumps to as high as 65% if average summer highs reach 104 F (40 C). Further, climate projections for Austin show that heat waves will double in frequency by the end of the century.

We found three types of buildings and accompanying risks:

• Resilient homes, which are newer and well insulated, tended to have temperature and humidity conditions that would be survivable for an elderly occupant throughout the simulated heat wave with blackout.

• Critical-risk buildings, which are mostly older homes, became dangerous almost immediately.

• And then there was the middle group – homes where temperatures rose slowly during the simulated blackout, day by day, possibly giving occupants a false sense of security until it was too late.

Texas has already seen conditions like our case study’s – a heat wave paired with a power outage. In 2024, a derecho knocked out power for nearly 900,000 Houston households while the heat index climbed to 100 F (37.8 C). Seven weeks later, Hurricane Beryl cut power to 2.6 million homes, leaving them without power for over three days, with temperatures over 90 F (32.2 C).

What you can do to stay safe

If you can’t get cooling at home, there are steps you can take that can help.

Move to the lowest floor of your home, where it will be coolest. Close the blinds and curtains on sun-facing windows. Drink water constantly to stay hydrated, which is essential for regulating body temperature.

If you’re facing a blackout, be sure to also check on elderly neighbors, especially those living alone. You can also try to find a public cooling center; many cities now open them during heat emergencies.

Longer term, upgrades such as reflective window film, attic insulation and lighter-colored roofing can reduce how much a home heats up. After the 2021 heat dome, British Columbia’s coroner recommended updating building codes to address heat.

Our own findings point in the same direction: We propose that new homes should be required by building codes to maintain conditions in which at least light physical activity remains possible for all occupants for at least 72 hours during a power outage.

As summers get hotter with climate change and blackouts become more frequent, the risks of people suffering heat illnesses will only continue to rise.

Zoltan Nagy, Professor of Building Services, Eindhoven University of Technology

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

Heat is no longer a future climate risk. It is already here.

Across continents, high temperatures are being pushed higher by forces acting at once: human-caused warming, very warm oceans, dry soils, slow-moving high-pressure weather systems and El Niño conditions that have now developed in the tropical Pacific.

El Niño is a natural warming of part of the tropical Pacific that can shift weather patterns around the world. It is not the cause of climate change, but when it develops in a climate already warmed by greenhouse gas pollution, it can add another push to global temperatures and regional extremes.

The science is clear. Greenhouse gases have raised the baseline, so heatwaves now begin from a warmer starting point. Record ocean heat adds more energy to the climate system. Dry ground can intensify heat, because less of the sun’s energy goes into evaporating water from soil and plants, and more goes into heating the air.

Weather patterns decide where that heat lands. A “heat dome” happens when a high-pressure system settles over a region. Air sinks, clouds are suppressed and temperatures can climb for days. The danger grows when nights remain hot, because bodies, buildings and infrastructure get little chance to cool.

El Niño’s effects vary by region and season, so it will not explain every heatwave in 2026. But it is now being added to long-term warming, and that combination can raise the risk of more extreme heat, drought or heavy rainfall in some regions, including parts of Asia, Australia and the Americas.

In the UK, Kew Gardens reached 35.1°C in late May, provisionally breaking the national May temperature record for the second day in a row. The previous record, before the 2026 heat, was 32.8°C, reached in 1922 and 1944.

Elsewhere, the same pattern is visible. Spring 2026 was the hottest spring recorded in France since records began in 1900. In the United States, March 2026 was the warmest March on record for the contiguous US (the lower 48 states). India’s meteorological service issued an extended heatwave outlook into early July for parts of northern, central and eastern India, while China’s National Climate Center has forecast above-normal summer temperatures, especially in southern China and Xinjiang in the north west. In Australia, Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales have just had one of their ten warmest autumns on record.

Heat kills

Heat often kills without leaving obvious damage behind: it pushes bodies past what they can tolerate.

High temperatures can cause dehydration, strain the heart, worsen kidney disease and aggravate respiratory illness. Heat can also affect mental health and increase distress. Older people, babies, people with chronic illness, outdoor workers and those living alone are among those at higher risk.

Hot nights make heatwaves more dangerous because the body has less chance to recover. Research has linked high nighttime temperatures with increased heat-related deaths. In an overheated bedroom, care home or hospital ward, strain can continue for hours.

The death toll from heat is large, but often underestimated because heat may worsen existing illness rather than appear as the sole cause of death. A 2025 European analysis estimated 62,775 heat-related deaths in Europe in 2024 alone. The Lancet Countdown reports that heat-related deaths among older people have risen sharply, and that hundreds of thousands of people now die globally each year from heat.

Heat also puts pressure on the systems people rely on. Hospitals fill faster. Care homes become harder to cool. Rail lines buckle. Roads soften. Rivers warm and water quality declines. Electricity demand rises as people use fans and air-conditioning, while low river flows can affect water quality and supply. A power cut can disrupt cooling, transport, water systems, shops, hospitals and communications.

What helps during a heatwave

People can reduce risk, especially if they act before they feel ill.

Cool the body early: drink water regularly, use shade, take cool showers and put wet cloths on the skin. People who have been told to restrict fluids because of heart failure, kidney disease or another medical condition should follow medical advice about how much to drink.

Avoid being outside in the hottest part of the day where possible. Outdoor workers, athletes and people who travel on foot need particular protection.

Keep homes cooler before they overheat. Close curtains or blinds during the day, especially on windows facing the sun. Open windows after sunset if it is cooler outside than inside. Sleep in the coolest room available.

Check on people at higher risk. Do they have water, shade, medication, a way to get help and somewhere cooler to go if home becomes unsafe?

Take official warnings seriously. Follow heat-health alerts, local weather warnings and public health advice. Have a simple plan for medicines, transport, pets, food, drinking water and somewhere cooler to go if needed.

Seek urgent medical help if someone becomes confused, faints, has a seizure, collapses, has very hot skin, has a very high temperature, or does not improve after being moved somewhere cooler and cooled down.

Inequality and infrastructure

Personal precautions save lives, but they cannot make unsafe housing safe, cool a badly ventilated care home or protect outdoor workers without changes to working conditions.

Heat risk is shaped by inequality. People without trees, insulation, ventilation, secure work, clean water or affordable energy are less able to avoid exposure, cool their homes or recover after extreme heat. The same pattern applies between countries: communities that have contributed least to climate change are often disproportionately affected, because they have fewer resources for adaptation, healthcare, infrastructure and disaster response.

Adapting to heat has to be collective: cooler housing, shaded streets, heat-resilient hospitals, reliable water systems, worker protections, public cooling spaces and early warning systems that reach the people who need them.

Heat and drought are increasingly linked emergencies. Heat increases demand for water and electricity. Drought can reduce supply. Together, they can create failures across health, transport, food, water and energy. Water, health, energy and climate planning need to be connected, because stress in one system can quickly spread to another.

The next heatwave will be reported as weather. It should also be understood as a test of housing, healthcare, infrastructure and public protection. A hotter world is already here. The question now is how many heat-related deaths and system failures governments are prepared to accept as normal.

Ian Williams, Professor of Applied Environmental Science, University of Southampton

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

The Caspian Sea, the largest inland body of water on Earth, is shrinking. Not fluctuating, not entering another natural cycle, but shrinking.

For decades, scientists and policymakers treated changes in the Caspian as part of the basin’s natural variability. Water levels in the sea have always risen and fallen.

But our new study shows something far more troubling: the current decline is increasingly driven by human decisions to dam and divert rivers, and by fragmented decision-making across five countries that border this body of water.

Using satellite observations together with ground-based hydrological records from rivers across all five shoreline states (Iran, Russia, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan), we found that flow into the Caspian Sea has declined sharply over the past three decades.

The main reason is not declining rainfall. In fact, rain over the Volga Basin, which supplies roughly 80% of the Caspian’s inflow, has slightly increased. That finding matters because it overturns one of the most common assumptions surrounding the Caspian crisis. The common narrative has been straightforward: climate change increases evaporation, rainfall declines, and the sea shrinks.

Climate change certainly plays a role: our analysis confirms that evaporation across the Caspian has increased significantly as regional temperatures rise. But evaporation alone explains only about 40% of the observed water loss since the mid-1990s.

The remaining decline points overwhelmingly toward human activity. The Volga River has been heavily engineered for decades. Dams, reservoirs, use for irrigation, industrial consumption and navigation systems have fundamentally altered the hydrology of the basin).

Water that once flowed naturally into the Caspian is increasingly intercepted upstream. One critical but rarely discussed example is the Volga–Don canal system, which links the Caspian basin to the Black Sea through Russia’s internal waterways. Geopolitically and economically, the canal is strategically valuable. But it diverts water away from the Caspian system.

The cumulative effect is now visible from space. Since the mid-1990s, the Caspian Sea has lost roughly 24,000km² of surface area, an area approaching the size of Sicily. Water levels have fallen by about two metres.

The shallow northern Caspian, ecologically one of the most productive parts of the sea, is drying particularly rapidly. This matters because the northern Caspian is not empty water. It is a critical ecological zone supporting fisheries, wetlands, migratory birds and spawning grounds for sturgeon, the ancient fish species that produce most of the world’s caviar.

Threats to shipping

As water retreats, ecological stress intensifies. Our study also detected a long-term rise in chlorophyll-a concentrations in the northern Caspian, a key indicator of algal activity and declining water quality. In plain terms, the sea is becoming warmer, shallower and increasingly nutrient-rich: ideal conditions for harmful algal blooms.

This is not merely an environmental story. The Caspian region sits at the centre of major energy and trade corridors linking Europe and Asia). Russia’s north-south transport routes and China’s international development plan, the Belt and Road Initiative, plus offshore oil infrastructure and regional shipping networks all depend on the Caspian remaining navigable and stable.

Falling water levels threaten ports, shipping lanes and coastal infrastructure. Declining depths reduce cargo capacity and increase transport costs. What appears initially as an environmental issue gradually becomes an economic constraint.

The Caspian Sea region

Political problems

Then there is the political dimension. Unlike oceans, inland seas cannot rely on global circulation to buffer local mismanagement. Their survival depends directly on the behaviour of neighbouring states. And the Caspian is surrounded by countries with competing strategic interests, uneven governance systems and limited transparency over their water use.

That fragmentation has become one of the greatest risks facing the sea. Although regional agreements exist, including the 2018 Aktau Convention (formally the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea), there is still no comprehensive and enforceable system governing water allocation, hydrological monitoring or ecological protection across the basin. Data sharing remains limited. Water withdrawals are often opaque. Environmental management is fragmented.

This resembles a pattern seen repeatedly across modern environmental crises: governments prefer to discuss climate change because it externalises responsibility. It allows leaders to portray ecological decline as an unavoidable planetary process.

But the Caspian story is more uncomfortable than that. It is also a story about political choices. Rivers were dammed. Water was diverted. Wetlands were degraded. Pollution controls remained weak. Oil and gas development expanded while ecological safeguards lagged behind. Economic growth consistently outranked hydrological sustainability.

The danger is not simply that the Caspian shrinks, but that ecological thresholds may be crossed – beyond which, recovery becomes extraordinarily difficult.

The Aral Sea, the world’s fourth largest lake, demonstrated how quickly collapse can accelerate once a chain reaction begins. Exposed lakebeds generate dust storms. Fisheries collapse. Salinity rises. Biodiversity crashes. Local climates shift. Economic systems unravel around the drying basin.

The Caspian has not yet reached that stage – but the warning signs are becoming increasingly visible.

There is still time to slow the trajectory. However, doing so would require something historically rare in the region: long-term coordination that prioritises hydrological stability – safeguarding the sea’s natural water balance and keeping water levels from dropping past a dangerous point of ecological collapse – over short-term extraction and geopolitical competition.

This would mean transparent water accounting – the open tracking and sharing of data on exactly how much water each nation is pulling from the feeding rivers for agriculture and industry. It would mean negotiated environmental flow releases from upstream reservoirs, and recognition that the Caspian is not simply an energy corridor or a shipping route, but a fragile water system.

Nature eventually imposes consequences on societies that ignore those limits. The Caspian Sea is beginning to deliver that message.

Nima Shokri, Executive Co-Director, Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH), United Nations University; Technical University of Hamburg and Amir AghaKouchak, Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering and Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine

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

When colleagues and I found microplastics in hedgehog droppings, we wanted to know where they were coming from. One answer was surprisingly close to home: pet food.

The story began in 2021, when we collected 189 hedgehog faeces samples from residential gardens and rehabilitation centres across the UK. We found plastic in 19% of them. Despite being one of Britain’s best-loved wild animals, and now officially listed as “near threatened”, no one knew hedgehogs were ingesting microplastics.

To understand where these microplastics were coming from we decided to investigate their diet. Naturally, the European hedgehog eats invertebrates, including beetles, snails, slugs, earthworms, caterpillars and woodlice, so we started by looking at these. Colleagues and I analysed thousands of invertebrate and soil samples from 51 sites in Sussex, UK. We found plastics were widespread across different species and land types.

Next, we wanted to understand if pet foods fed to European hedgehogs in rehabilitation centres and residential gardens contained microplastics. In the UK, many rehabilitation centres treat a high number of sick or injured mammals each year.

Research suggests that food left out by people is the single biggest reason European hedgehogs visit residential gardens. Many hedgehogs have even become reliant on it, especially during the autumn and winter.

Often, this means commercially available cat, dog, or hedgehog food. To determine the levels of plastic contamination in pet foods colleagues and I selected 38 brands to test across different price categories, food types (wet and dry), and target animals (cat, dog, and wild hedgehog). We purchased six retail units of each product and took a random 1g sample from each tin, sachet, tray, or bag. Our study was recently published in the journal Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry.

We found microplastics in 29 of the 38 pet food products we tested. In 18 products, contamination appeared in more than one retail unit. Although plastic was found across the products tested, those in the “value” price category had more positive samples.

Dry food contained more plastic per gram, but animals typically eat much larger portions of wet food. As a result, wet food may lead to greater overall microplastic intake. For example, based on the average levels we found in wet dog food samples, a large dog such as a Labrador could ingest around 313 microplastic particles per day.

Compared with studies of human food, we found that pet food had higher levels of microplastics. This is likely due to ingredient quality. For example, of the 21 products which contained animal derivatives, 19 had at least one plastic-positive sample, and 13 had at least two.

What does this mean for pets and wildlife?

All this suggests that pet foods may be an important source of microplastics for pets and wild hedgehogs (and other mammals).

We still know relatively little about the health effects of microplastics in pets and wildlife, and we did not test the health impacts in our research. However, there is a growing body of evidence from laboratory studies that it leads to issues with fertility, organ functionality, and overall health.

Given both this uncertainty and how common these particles were in the pet food we tested, reducing contamination at the manufacturing stage would be a good precaution.

That’s why the government should mandate microplastic testing for processed food manufacturers, bringing them under the same strict regulatory safety checks used for other chemical contaminants. As consumers, we should be able to purchase affordable food that is good for our pets and wild mammals, while not causing a detrimental effect on the environment.

Emily Thrift, PhD Candidate and Doctoral Tutor in Ecology, University of Sussex

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