The United Nations latest report on climate change released this week finally acknowledged what many climate scientists, environmental leaders and organisations already knew - that limiting the increase in the world's temperature by only 1.5°C (the Paris Agreement) was already lost.
The Report states that the most optimistic scenario for the climate will see a temperature rise peak at 1.8°C above pre-industrial levels. Most other scenarios that have been modelled predict higher peaks with even more disasterous results. This result will deliver a hell-on-earth living environment unless effective counter-measures are enabled notably decreasing the temperature increase.
Above 1.5°C, the impacts on the planet will intensify with every extra fraction of a degree and with every year. The anticipated impacts (some of which already occur) include intensified extreme weather, ecosystem loss, submersion of the Small Island Developing States as well as low-lying coastal cities. Other impact include severe damage to human health, food production, water supplies, the environment in general, cities, infrastructure and correspondingly to economies.
The Report further warns that crossing irreversible tipping points becomes increasingly likely with the magnitude and duration of higher temperatures. In some measure this is already visible in parts of the world and will only accelerate. The tipping points include destabilisation of major ice sheets, degradation of the Amazon rainforest and disruption of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (the significance of this change relates to the regulation of the climate itself as that current moves warm surface water North and cold deep water South).
The UN attributes this situation to years of inaction and warns that only returning the increase in temperature to below 1.5°C can provide an hope of mitigation. This is putting it mildly.
Black holes
are often imagined as a single type of cosmic object, however in reality they exist across an
enormous range of masses and environments. At the extreme end are supermassive
black holes, found at the centres of galaxies and containing millions or
even billions of times the mass of our Sun. The concept of scale has to be fully re-imagined when examining the universe.
Three
remarkable examples are TON 618, M87* and Sagittarius A*. All
three are supermassive black holes, but they differ enormously in size,
distance and activity.
TON 618 — The Colossus
TON 618 is
among the most massive black holes known thus far and it lies at the heart of an
extraordinarily luminous quasar—a phenomenon produced when matter
falling towards a supermassive black hole releases enormous amounts of energy.
The black hole itself cannot be seen. Instead, the brilliant environment
surrounding it as material is drawn into the black hole's gravitational
influence is what can been viewed.
TON 618 —
essential facts
Category: Extremely massive supermassive black hole powering a quasar
Estimated mass: Approximately 40 billion times the mass of the Sun
Distance: Approximately 18.2 billion light-years in present-day
comoving distance
Light-travel time: Approximately 10.8 billion years
Estimated event-horizon diameter: Approximately 160 billion kilometres
Equivalent scale: About 1,070 times the Earth–Sun distance
Significance: One of the most massive black holes known
It's
estimated event-horizon scale is itself difficult to comprehend. If placed at
the centre of Earth's Solar System, it would extend far beyond the orbit of Pluto.
M87* — The Black Hole that has been imaged
At the
centre of the giant elliptical galaxy Messier 87 lies another
extraordinary supermassive black hole: M87*. M87* became famous in 2019 when
the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration produced the first image of a
black-hole shadow. The image showed the glowing material surrounding the black
hole and the dark region created by its extreme gravitational field. M87* is
also associated with a spectacular relativistic jet, extending thousands
of light-years into space.
M87* —
essential facts
Category: Supermassive black hole at the centre of a giant elliptical galaxy
Estimated mass: Approximately 6.5 billion times the mass of the Sun
Distance: Approximately 55 million light-years
Estimated event-horizon diameter: Approximately 38 billion kilometres
Equivalent scale: About 257 astronomical units
Special significance: First black hole to have its shadow directly imaged
Additional feature: Powerful relativistic jet extending thousands of light-years
M87*
demonstrates an important principle of black-hole astronomy: although the black
hole itself is relatively compact compared with its host galaxy, its influence
can extend across enormous distances.
Sagittarius A* — The Black Hole at the Heart of Earth's Galaxy
Sagittarius
A*, usually abbreviated to Sgr A* is the supermassive black hole at the centre
of the Milky Way, approximately 26,000 light-years from Earth. Compared with
TON 618 and M87*, Sagittarius A* is surprisingly small, yet four million solar
masses concentrated into such a compact region still produce an extraordinary
gravitational environment. Unlike TON 618, Sagittarius A* is currently
relatively quiescent. It is not behaving as a brilliant quasar, although gas,
dust and stars are constantly interacting with its powerful gravitational
field.
Sagittarius
A* — essential facts
Category: Supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way
Estimated mass: Approximately 4.3 million times the mass of the Sun
Distance: Approximately 26,000 light-years
Estimated event-horizon diameter: Approximately 25 million kilometres
Equivalent scale: About 0.17 astronomical units
Activity: Relatively quiescent compared with an active quasar
Special significance: Close enough for astronomers to study individual stars orbiting
around it
Sagittarius
A* is therefore the closest opportunity for Earth's astronomers to study a supermassive black hole in
detail.
Three Black Holes — One Extraordinary Phenomenon
The
differences between these three objects are staggering.
Sagittarius
A* contains approximately 4.3 million solar
masses.
M87* contains approximately 6.5 billion—more than 1,000 times the mass of
Sagittarius A*.
TON 618, with an estimated 40 billion solar masses, contains roughly 10,000
times the mass of Sagittarius A*.
All
three belong to the same fundamental astronomical category: supermassive
black holes.Sagittarius
A* is the comparatively quiet giant residing at the centre of our own galaxy.
M87* is a much larger black hole whose environment produces a spectacular
relativistic jet—and whose shadow humanity has now imaged. TON 618 represents
the extreme end of the scale: a colossal black hole powering one of the
Universe's most luminous quasars.
These three
objects offer three extraordinary perspectives on the same phenomenon. They are among the most extreme objects
produced by nature—places where gravity becomes so powerful that space, time
and light itself behave in ways that challenge the understanding of
reality.
The world is set to miss the 1.5°C global warming target, and plans are underway for UN climate talks in the Pacific and Turkey.
Climate mitigation – reducing or preventing greenhouse emissions – was once treated as the only legitimate response to global warming. In comparison, climate adaptation – trying to adjust to global warming – was seen as a form of defeatism, or worse, hubris.
But that taboo has long since lifted: our collective failure to prevent climate change means adaptation is now an essential part of climate policy.
Similarly, attitudes to actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere have undergone an evolution. While there are reasons to doubt whether carbon removal can work at scale, Australia’s “net zero emissions” plans rely on these interventions.
Now, the taboo surrounding another controversial form of climate intervention – solar radiation modification
(SRM) – appears to be lifting.
What is solar radiation modification?
SRM refers to large-scale technological interventions that reflect a small amount of sunlight back into space, thereby lowering global temperatures. Increasingly called the more benign term “climate stabilisation”, the proposed methods include space mirrors – satellites equipped with large reflective surfaces – and cloud brightening, where microscopic particles are sprayed into clouds to make them more reflective.
The most commonly discussed SRM technique is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) – the release of particles into the upper atmosphere to recreate the cooling effects observed following volcanic eruptions.
SRM is so controversial it’s sometimes called the “Voldemort of climate policy”. While it could reduce global temperatures, it does not limit carbon emissions, and the ecological effects of deployment are uncertain.
Some critics are worried a potential techno-fix will deter mitigation efforts. Others point out the risks of “termination shock”: once implemented, ending SRM would cause abrupt temperature rise. Scientific research suggests the strong warming experienced since 2023 is likely a case of inadvertent termination shock. When new fuel regulations reduced sulphur dioxide emissions from international shipping, the rapid warming that followed revealed this pollution had, incidentally, been cooling the planet.
At present, SRM inhabits an international and domestic policy vacuum. Many scholars advocate for a ban on both research and deployment, saying these technologies “play God” with nature. We argue a ban on research is no longer tenable.
Why challenge the taboo?
The case for taking SRM seriously does not usually rest on enthusiasm for the technologies, but on global warming’s grim reality. We are approaching planetary tipping points such as significant polar sea ice retreat, the death of the Amazon rainforest and widespread coral reef loss. SRM advocates say it should be viewed as a complement, not an alternative, to mitigation: a means of limiting the extent and duration of temperature overshoot while decarbonisation continues.
Government appetite for this approach is limited and patchy. When the UN Environment Assembly discussed a Swiss proposal for SRM research in 2024, countries could not agree even on whether and how to regulate research in this area. Countries such as Japan and Saudi Arabia pushed for ongoing research, while vulnerable Pacific and African countries argued against any language that risked endorsing the practice.
Nowhere is the politics of SRM more volatile than the United States. One group of Republicans reject the climate change “hoax” but is so convinced SRM is already happening that many Republican states have criminalised it. Some think tanks advocate SRM as a way to defend “American Weather Sovereignty”. NASA has an exploratory program investigating space-based reflective dust clouds. For now, the Trump administration has not chosen a side, but it’s easy to imagine a future administration unilaterally blocking, or implementing, SRM.
If we don’t challenge the SRM taboo, self-interested actors are poised to fill the policy vacuum. Elon Musk has recently spoken out in favour of SRM, while ventures such as the US-Israeli startup Stardust are pursuing research without public oversight.
What is Australia’s position?
Australia has no policy on SRM research or deployment, but federal government funds have supported related research into local interventions, including the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP). This trialled the world’s most respected marine cloud brightening research over the Great Barrier Reef.
Existing environmental and climate law might regulate risks posed by small-scale research, but does not consider the larger risks of eventual deployment. With the exception of some ad hoc efforts, SRM research is not subject to any dedicated ethics framework.
The planetary scale of SRM impacts means we urgently need research to consider the geographic distribution of benefits and harms from any deployment, and the security implications of unilateral deployment by any state or private actor.
What should Australia do?
As a trusted middle power, Australia is well positioned to help lead discussions on the future of SRM. At a minimum, Australia should assess the potential impacts of various options on Australia’s climate, agricultural production and natural environment, and develop a public position on research.
Waiting until a foreign government or well-resourced private actor forces the issue would leave Australia reacting to decisions made elsewhere. Instead, we should prepare for the surprises a fast-moving, under-governed field is likely to produce.
As temperature overshoot becomes an inevitability, SRM is emerging as a new element of international climate policy whether we like it or not. We do not argue anyone should deploy SRM, but that we should break the taboo and enable responsible scientific research and public deliberation.
The United Nations has made the grim prediction that our planet now sits in the “danger zone” of extreme weather. That’s based on data suggesting the current El Niño will break all previous records.
El Niño is a naturally occurring weather phenomenon that drives variations in temperature and winds across the Pacific Ocean and influences weather around the globe.
So what’s behind this potentially record-breaking El Niño? And how might it affect weather across the globe?
An exceptional El Niño
Scientists track El Niño activity using temperature data from the tropical Pacific Ocean near the equator. Historically, this involved measuring how high or low temperatures were across this region.
However, scientists and weather organisations – including Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology – now use a relative index. Instead of simply measuring temperatures, this relative index accounts for any background warming due to climate change. This makes it much easier for scientists to identify how intense an El Niño is in a warming climate.
The current El Niño stands out for two main reasons.
Extra early
El Niño typically peaks in the period between November and January, but this one is already unusually warm this early in the season and is yet to peak during summer.
Extra hot
Recent data shows the relative index for August were 2.3°C above average, stronger compared to other El Niño years. In Australia, El Niño years tend to coincide with hotter and drier conditions. However, every El Niño is different and can lead to different impacts. However, this El Niño will lead to record breaking global temperatures in 2027.
Bleached coral on the Great Barrier Reef outside Cairns. El Nino leads to warmer ocean temperatures that can trigger bleaching.Brett Munroe Garner/Getty
How is it affecting the world’s weather?
This historic El Niño is already altering weather around the globe.
We see its most direct and severe impacts in countries surrounding the Pacific Ocean. Indonesia, for example, just this month was battling massive wildfires. Scientists understand the current El Nino is a major driver of these increasingly fierce blazes.
El Niño is also reshaping how and where cyclones form. Satellite pictures reveal there are currently four active tropical cyclones in the Pacific, from near Japan to as far away as Hawaii. This is extremely unusual. El Niño typically boosts cyclone activity in the eastern and central Pacific by carrying warmer water to those regions. Usually we only see one or two such cyclones.
In Australia, we are slightly more removed from the effects of El Niño. However, we can expect to feel its presence more strongly as we head into spring.
The Bureau of Meteorology’s seasonal forecast suggests Australia has so far had a textbook response to El Niño. Temperatures are rising – up to an unseasonable 37°C this week in parts of northern Australia – and conditions are getting drier. Much of eastern and central Australia can expect an unusually dry spring and summer, potentially heightening bushfire risk.
However, a record-breaking El Niño will not necesssarily trigger catastrophic bushfires in Australia. Consider three of the last strong El Niño we’ve experienced. In 1982, a robust El Niño coincided with drought-like conditions. In contrast, during the El Niño years of 1997–98 and 2015–16, some parts of Australia received drenching rain while other regions barely registered any moisture.
What may lie ahead
The intensifying El Niño will likely exacerbate the consequences of climate change.
As El Niño strengthens, countries around the world will be forced to grapple with increasingly extreme weather. Tragically, the most disadvantaged will be the hardest hit, with nearly 50 million people in vulnerable communities likely to be pushed into acute hunger. Farmers across the globe face more unpredictable weather, from crop-destroying floods in South America to severe drought in parts of Africa.
To protect the world’s people and ecosystems, governments must invest in robust research. We urgently need more modelling capability to identify which regions will be worst affected by the strengthening El Niño. This is particularly true for Australia, where a lack of understanding of how climate change on top of a strong El Niño will affect local conditions.
This record-shattering El Niño is already compounding the destructive effects of climate change. But it may be just the catalyst we need to finally abandon fossil fuels and curb our world-warming emissions.
Artificial intelligence (AI) systems vary widely in terms of capability, users and mixed integration with other platforms. The media and the industry itself are open to a level of hype and promotion, making comparisons between systems very difficult. The list below provides a simple summary of the main 12 AI systems in use today with whatever level of information that can be gleaned from various sources with large data gaps. There are other smaller models such as Mistral, GLM and Cohere Command which would be listed below the top 12. Many AI models are now China-based rather than in the West.
The Large Language Models (LLMs) and products are -
ChatGPT (OpenAI): approx 1 billion active weekly users and the largest standalone AI assistant at present.
Llama 4 (Meta AI): 1.2 billion monthly active users across Meta's apps. Mostly this AI is embedded in WhatsApp/Instagram/Messenger rather than as a standalone chat model.
Gemini (Google): around 950 million active monthly users on the standalone app. Separately, Gemini powered AI overviews reach over 2 billion monthly users through integration with Google Search.
Microsoft Copilot: (GPT based + Microsoft) around 420 million monthly active users across all operating systems. This is expanding to Copilot being bundled with Microsoft 365 and operating systems.
DonBao (Byte Dance): approx 260 million monthly active users. This is an increase of 300% from 2025. This is China's top consumer AI app.
Ernie Bot (Baidu): Monthly active users has passed 200 million however it is tied to Baidu Search.
DeepSeek (Deepseek): around 130 million users at the end of 2025. Majority of users are located in China although the AI model has a broad global fooprint.
Qwen (Alibaba): This AI model has now exceeded 100 million active monthly users and has a strong presence in China and in the open-weight AI community.
Claude (Anthropic): estimates on users vary widely depending on the source and method of estimation. The range is between 70 and 250 million users per month. This is the fastest growing Western AI assistant with a year-on-year growth of a staggering 855%.
Perplexity: approx 45 million monthly active users. This model is predominantly an AI first search and answer engine rather than an LLM chat system.
Grok (xAI): No reliable standalone figure as this AI model is often connected via X's social media platform which has hundreds of millions of users. Grok can be used as a standalone model without using X.
Kimi (Moonshot AI): a more recent AI model launched this year and still gaining traction. A Chinese AI app it is significantly smaller than the other AI models and its number of users is only in the tens of millions in China.
A later blog article will cover ranking by capability of AI systems.
The fact that some of Australia's largest companies are planning for a climate that is 2C higher than the industrial baseline should send a strong message of the precarious situation that the world now occupies. Regardless of climate change deniers or governments that fail to address the climate crisis, large corporates have assessed the situation and arrived at a devastating conclusion. This article provides the detail -
Some of Australia’s biggest companies are planning for an unbearable climate future
Several of Australia’s biggest energy and resource companies have now published new sustainability reports as part of annual financial reporting.
Their disclosures reveal the climate future they are planning for, and whether this is aligned with international science-based targets such as the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C warming threshold.
What we’re seeing is alarming.
Companies planning for an unbearable future
Most of these reports indicate big companies are developing strategies on a climate change “base case” – a representation of what they consider most likely to happen – of more than 2°C of warming. The future temperature rise they’re planning for is one scientists say would deliver an unbearably hot planet.
Some of Australia’s largest miners have followed this approach. Both Rio Tinto and BHP expect global temperature increases of more than 2°C by the end of the century.
Not every company reveals the increase in global temperature they are planning for. But even if they don’t, their disclosures show they’re not expecting temperatures to hold to 1.5°C.
Energy companies AGL and Origin Energy both express confidence their strategies and business models will remain robust, even if temperatures accelerate beyond 2.6°C warming. This increase would put the Australian economy, environment and community at severe risk.
The assumption that business-as-usual will be possible in a hotter world is out of step with the latest science.Cuhrig/Getty
Companies hold power
Companies often argue that governments are responsible for creating policy to address global warming. But this underestimates the power corporate leaders hold to shape Australia’s shared climate future through financial decisions.
For example, mining giant BHP expects demand for steelmaking coal to remain robust for decades, with customers from China, India and Southeast Asia. This underpins the valuation of its major export commodities, and appears to justify the lack of plans to scale down steelmaking coal production. However, this assumption sits uneasily with the fact these same countries have their own net-zero targets.
Similarly, Rio Tinto confirms “no portfolio adjustments” are made to its future production plans. Its central case estimate of 2.1–2.3°C of warming by 2100 assumes developing countries will miss or delay their stated net-zero targets, underwriting business-as-usual production for the company.
Disclosures out of step with science
However, the assumption that business-as-usual will be possible in a hotter world is out of step with the latest science. The Paris Agreement’s temperature goal was set in 2015 based on exhaustive scientific assessments that warming of more than 2°C would be dangerous, and limiting warming to 1.5°C was necessary to minimise climate risks.
Scientific knowledge about how much global warming is “safe” has exponentially increased. It reemphasises the need to keep to 1.5°C with “limited overshoot”. This means we can only exceed 1.5°C temporarily, and simultaneously need to be working to bring temperatures back down. Only then will we minimise irreversible changes such as sea level rise, the disappearance of coral reefs or vast sea ice loss at the poles.
Scientific best estimates find we can’t go over 1.5°C by more than 0.1–0.3°C (a “peak temperature” of 1.6–1.8°C) and still return warming to safe levels. Even then, the longer we stay above 1.5°C and the extent to which we exceed this threshold, the more devastating the outcome.
Is this legal?
Legally, there’s no issue with companies using a base case for planning that exceeds 2°C of warming. But this approach isn’t in line with Australia’s broader international legal obligations. Companies will likely face increased investor scrutiny or reputational blowback when they walk back climate commitments.
In July 2025, the world’s highest court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), confirmed 1.5°C is the temperature limit countries are aiming for. To meet their Paris Agreement promises, governments — including Australia — have to show the most ambitious action the country can realistically take to help keep warming under 1.5°C. Australia’s latest plan for a 62–70% emissions cut from 2005 levels was submitted in September 2025.
The court confirmed the Paris Agreement also requires governments to take action at home to cut emissions in line with the 1.5°C goal — including introducing rules for businesses operating in their countries. To follow international law, the Australian government needs to use every tool available to regulate the emissions of big companies, based on the best available science. Countries that don’t comply could be sued before the ICJ and ordered to pay compensation to other nations.
What about Australia’s climate policy?
Big companies in Australia contribute more than 30% of our domestic emissions. If we also include emissions from the fossil fuels some of these companies produce, it raises Australia’s global carbon footprint to around 4.5% of global fossil carbon dioxide emissions, second only to Russia. Making sure big companies do their bit to reduce emissions is essential for Australia to meet its climate targets.
This year, Australia is the “President of Negotiations” for COP31. This is an opportunity for Australia to show it’s doing all it can – internationally and in its own backyard – to support compliance with the Paris Agreement and accelerate climate action. From their new disclosures, it doesn’t seem that Australia’s biggest companies have got the memo.
In recent weeks, wildfires have ravaged Europe amid record-breaking heat and drought. These fires posed an immediate threat to life, forcing the evacuation of over 300,000 people across France, Spain and Portugal. Rivers across Europe have also hit record low water levels.
These developments have highlighted a deadly legacy of past conflict: unexploded bombs and other munitions.
Fires in southern France exposed a previously unidentified cache of 400 French and German shells from the second world war. The ammunition detonated in the heat of the fire, forcing authorities to clear the area before residents could return.
Dropping water levels have also revealed unexploded munitions in the Netherlands, Hungary, and Slovakia.
But fires and drought in Europe are only the latest reminder of an enduring problem that affects millions worldwide.
Explosive remnants of war
Since the first world war, numerous conflicts have ravaged the world, scarring the landscape and littering battlefields with unexploded, abandoned, or otherwise discarded munitions.
Known as explosive remnants of war (ERW), unexploded munitions posed a continuing threat to an estimated 100 million people across 60 countries in 2025.
ERW includes two categories of ordnance. The first is unexploded ordnance (UXO), which are explosive weapons that failed to detonate when they were first deployed. The second is abandoned explosive ordnance (AXO), left behind after a conflict.
The bomb located in Budapest would be classed as an unexploded ordnance, but the cache that detonated amid the Gironde fires appears to fall into the latter category.
Both can include a variety of different munition types, from artillery shells and mortars to grenades and large bombs dropped from aircraft.
Beyond these, landmines are another key explosive contaminant. Landmines are not legally classed as explosive remnants of war because they are deliberately placed during conflict. Yet their extensive use in conflicts globally makes them one of the key explosive contaminants of conflict.
What countries are affected?
After the second world war, European countries worked quickly to remove the landmines that had been put in place during the conflict. In the Netherlands alone, almost 1.4 million mines were cleared between May and November 1945. A similar number were laid by German forces in Denmark, which cleared most of its known minefields by the end of 1945.
As of 2024, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Denmark are all classed as having completed mine clearance.
Yet globally at least 57 states and other areas remain contaminated by antipersonnel landmines as of October 2025. Many of these are in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
Among the countries most contaminated by landmines are Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Iraq, Türkiye, Ukraine, and Western Sahara.
Some were laid during the second world war. This includes minefields placed by both Allied and Axis forces across Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia as part of the North Africa campaign.
Subsequent conflicts also led to extensive minefields being laid. For example, the Vietnam War left nearly 20% of the country contaminated by landmines — an area the size of Tasmania. Decades of conflict left neighbouring Cambodia heavily contaminated, while the Iran-Iraq War left millions of unmarked mines littering the border regions.
Identifying the exact number of countries contaminated by remnants of war is more difficult, with any place that has seen conflict potentially affected. While a country can be deemed free of landmine contamination, it may still be faced with the risk of remnants of war.
In the first world war alone, more than 700 million shells and mortar bombs were fired across the Western Front. An estimated 140 million of these failed to detonate. Each year, Belgian and French farmers routinely collect these and other UXO as part of what is known as the Iron Harvest.
Closer to home, remnants of war from the second world war continue to kill and maim those who encounter them. This includes an Australian killed while handling a mortar shell in the Solomon Islands, with several UXO also located across Darwin in recent years.
Broader implications
According to the Land Mine Monitor, more than 6,000 people were killed or injured by landmines and remnants of war in 2024. Most of these casualties were civilians, with reported casualties spanning no fewer than 52 countries.
The primary danger relates to the detonation of landmines and remnants of war, but the threat they pose goes beyond safety and physical harm.
These risks are exacerbated by increasingly frequent and extreme weather and natural disasters driven by climate change. Flood events can relocate and unearth landmines and other remnants, while wildfires can detonate them unexpectedly.
Meanwhile, dropping water levels in rivers and lakes can expose civilians to greater risk of harm by allowing access to contaminated riverbeds that would otherwise be inaccessible.
This is also not a historical issue. Anti-personnel mines are still being used in conflicts such as the war in Ukraine, and several European nations have withdrawn from a treaty designed to prohibit their use.
Military-led operations are working to clear remnants of war in many places, including Pacific island countries. However, these recent events are a reminder of the ongoing threat of remnants of war and landmines, and the need for an integrated approach that recognises and responds to the broader risks and challenges they pose.
The United Nations latest report on climate change released this week finally acknowledged what many climate scientists, environmental leaders and organisations already knew - that limiting the increase in the world's temperature by only 1.5°C (the Paris Agreement) was already lost.
