Environment - Climate change - large companies see a hotter world as the reality

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

Andrew Merry/Getty

Jacqueline Peel, The University of Melbourne; Nina Araneta-Alana, The University of Melbourne, and Suzanne Varrall, The University of Melbourne

Even as unprecedented fires and heatwaves rage across Europe, scientists track the retreat of Antarctic sea ice and a supercharged El Niño system heads our way, Australia’s largest companies are forecasting business-as-usual in a much hotter world.

Last year, Australia introduced mandatory company climate reporting. They must now disclose the climate “risks and opportunities” that may affect their prospects.

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.

Jacqueline Peel, Professor of Law, The University of Melbourne; Nina Araneta-Alana, Research fellow, Laureate Program on Global Corporate Climate Accountability, The University of Melbourne, and Suzanne Varrall, Research Fellow, Laureate Program on Global Corporate Climate Accountability, The University of Melbourne

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

International Relations - the threat of old military munitions

 

Landmines and remnants of war pose a serious threat, and more needs to be done to solve it

Nicole Townsend, UNSW

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.

Studies have shown their presence can restrict access to arable lands, impact soil and water quality, affect food security and diversity, and stunt economic development.

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.

Nicole Townsend, Lecturer in War Studies, UNSW

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

Dolly Parton 1946 -2026

 

Jolene, I Will Always Love You and 9 to 5: the genius of Dolly Parton in three songs

Jason Kempin/Getty Images

Wendy Hargreaves, University of Southern Queensland

The world has lost a music legend in Dolly Parton, who has died at 80 after a “brief battle” with cancer. She’s remembered for her twanging country vocals, decades of hit recordings, Grammys, Emmys and a liberal splash of acting.

But the biggest legacy Parton leaves is her songwriting, and three songs define her more than any others.

Jolene, I Will Always Love You and 9 to 5 are not just memorable Parton songs – they are integral to popular music history. They show a skilful musician who knew how to blend the story of lyrics with the drama of music.

Like many songwriters, Parton had things to say. What makes her contribution notable was when her lyrics told a story, and her music matched it.

Jolene

In Jolene, released in 1974, Parton’s lyrics capture the torment of watching your lover flirt with someone else.

It’s a powerful human experience – particularly for women despairing over how easily the next pretty young thing grabs male attention. Parton’s desperate begging for Jolene not to take her man “even though you can” is comfortingly raw and honest.

The song’s lyrics are a startling contrast to the common songwriting themes of the time about finding or losing love – such as The Carpenters’ Close to You (1970), Stevie Wonder’s You are the Sunshine of My Life (1972) and Carole King’s It’s Too Late (1971).

Instead, Jolene sits on the precipice of change, telling a vivid story of how seeing a stunning young woman can make another woman insecure.

Musically, the chords pound out an appropriately bleak minor key, ascending to higher chords with each dramatic call of the name “Jolene”. Accompanying the vocals sits an intriguing, rapid-fire, finger-picking guitar, performed in the recording studio by session musician Chip Young. It keeps an incessant motion that not only adds tension but draws admiration for skilful playing.

I Will Always Love You

I Will Always Love You was also released in 1974 and – remarkably – possibly was written on the same day as Jolene.

This song shows Parton’s ability to once again blend story and music in an excellent pairing. The fear pumping through Jolene is replaced by the grief of farewelling a deep love because, while love endures, it is not always enough of a reason to remain in a relationship.

Again, Parton captures a more sophisticated theme than the excitement and wonder of love. She knows that love can mean letting go.

The lyrics are sparse and the story of “bittersweet memories” is sketchy, but Parton once again nails the essence of human experience. We don’t need the details of what happened to relate with our own painful farewells.

The elongated singing of the word “I” translates almost as a cry of agony in Whitney Houston’s extraordinary cover version.

The chord progression Parton chose to underpin the chorus is one of the most familiar, hit-producing patterns in popular music history. It appears in songs ranging from Stand By Me (1961), Blue Moon (1934), Crocodile Rock (1973) and Every Breath You Take (1983).

But Parton’s usage is unique: the melody and lyrics don’t move with the progression. Instead, the melody holds one single note (with a few embellishments) and lets the chords do the work.

9 to 5

Parton wrote the song 9 to 5 for the movie of the same name in 1980, in which she starred alongside Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin. It needed to match the vibe to describe the bustle of a working week.

To achieve this, Parton swapped her previously drawn out lyrics of love for the relentless patter describing the morning routine. Here Parton uses clever imperfect rhymes such as matching “kitchen” and “ambition” to sell the story.

The melody in the verse rises with each cluster of words, building the energy like the start of the day she describes. The chorus nails the hook by changing the rhythm, to let the phrase “9 to 5” ring out.

In 9 to 5, Parton moved away from love songs to a feminist theme that belted out the injustices of working tirelessly in a work place like any other employee yet not able to get a “fair promotion”. The description of the “rich man’s game” and how “they never give you credit” highlights workplace inequalities that are sadly still prevalent today.

Wendy Hargreaves, Academic in the School of Education and Creative Arts, University of Southern Queensland

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

Climate change - marine heatwaves cooking the oceans

The impact of marine heatwaves is most publicly visible and recognised in the coral reef systems across the planet. Yet the impact is far wider and damaging across the marine environment as this article covers -

Marine heatwaves are cooking our ocean ecosystems – and will only become more common

Canva, Pixabay, The Conversation, CC BY-NC-SA

Sina Pinter, The University of Western Australia and Nicole L. Jones, The University of Western Australia

You may have heard reports of fish die-offs or seen photos of hauntingly bleached coral.

Those are just two signs a marine heatwave has swept through the sea.

Marine heatwaves happen when the ocean remains abnormally hot for an extended period. While they may be invisible from the shore, their impacts can wreak havoc underwater – killing various kinds of coral, seagrass and fish.

As climate change continues to warm the ocean, marine heatwaves will only become more frequent and severe. While we cannot stop these marine disasters happening, we can work to better understand them and reduce their impacts on vulnerable ocean ecosystems.

---

CC BY-NC-ND

Our climate is rapidly warming, dramatically reshaping weather around the globe. In this three-part series, we explore a range of emerging climate phenomena and consider how to respond to their destructive effects.

---

The science of marine heatwaves

Marine heatwaves are naturally occurring weather patterns that can form when hotter water near the surface of the ocean doesn’t mix with cooler water below. This is most common when conditions are hot, dry and windless. However, marine heatwaves can also develop when unusually strong currents carry extra heat from the tropics to colder ocean areas.

To identify a marine heatwave, scientists measure ocean temperatures and compare those observed ocean temperatures with the historical average temperature – the baseline or “normal” temperature of that location at a specific time of year.

Marine heatwaves occur when the ocean is hotter than 90% of historical temperature records. To be considered a heatwave, this abnormal heat must last for at least five consecutive days.

Ocean temperatures vary according to local conditions. Given marine heatwaves are measured in relation to a region’s normal seasonal ocean temperatures, they can happen anywhere and at any time of year. For example, a water temperature of 25°C at Western Australia’s Ningaloo Reef might not seem warm for that tropical area. However, 25°C in the waters around Tasmania would be considered extreme.

Terrestrial heatwaves follow the same logic as marine heatwaves. But a land-based heatwave only needs to last three days to be classified as a heatwave. Minimum night and maximum day temperatures must also be unusually hot.

An underwater disaster

Given marine heatwaves can happen in any part of the ocean, all marine ecosystems are at risk.

However, marine species cope in different ways. Those that are mobile, such as fish, can swim to cooler waters. In contrast, coral, kelp or bottom-dwelling creatures such as sea urchins can’t relocate. This means they are directly impacted by marine heatwaves. For example, they may struggle to reproduce due to heat stress. They also suffer indirect impacts, such as a lack of food if species further down the food chain are wiped out by a marine heatwave.

On land, marine heatwaves can be economically and culturally devastating for coastal communities. They can cost fisheries, aquaculture businesses and tourism operators billions of dollars in lost income. Marine heatwaves may also damage culturally significant sites, as in the case of Shark Bay, a World Heritage-listed marine ecosystem off the WA coast. They may also destroy blue carbon habitats. These are ocean-based habitats, such as mangroves and seagrass, that absorb carbon and help cool the planet.

In February 2011, a massive compound heatwave – where a marine and a terrestrial heatwave happened together – decimated ecosystems across WA. On land, it killed trees and caused the endangered cockatoo population to crash. Beneath the sea, it triggered widespread coral bleaching in the Pilbara, Ningaloo and Houtman Abrolhos Islands regions.

In September 2024, another marine heatwave swept through the waters off the coast of WA lasting several months. It was the state’s longest, largest and most severe marine heatwave ever. It killed about half of the coral in the North West Shelf region.

Most recently, sea surface temperatures have surged during the 2026 European summer, in some places by up to 5°C higher than average. This threatens marine ecosystems across the Mediterranean Sea, North Sea and Baltic Sea.

Worse under climate change

Marine heatwaves are a natural part of our planet’s variable climate system.

But climate change means they are becoming more common and severe. They are also lasting longer. The ocean’s thermal baseline – or the natural temperature of the ocean – is rising due to climate change. This means any temperature fluctuations compound the effects of this background warming.

Other climate drivers, including the El Niño and La Niña climate patterns, can also intensify marine heatwaves. In Australia, El Niño typically warms the waters off the east coast, heightening the risk of severe marine heatwaves there. La Niña tends to push warm water towards the west coast, driving extreme ocean temperatures off WA.

However, because of climate change, large-scale climate patterns like El Niño and La Niña are no longer necessary to trigger marine heatwaves. This means even the slightest change in these climate drivers might bring extreme heat to either coast.

Where to from here

To better understand the factors that drive marine heatwaves, we need further research that analyses changes in air and ocean currents. We should also prioritise research investigating the sub-surface ocean. Satellites monitor the surface but many severe marine heatwaves remain hidden underwater, devastating marine life without detection.

The most important step to reduce the impacts of marine heatwaves is to cut greenhouse gas emissions, limiting further ocean warming. At the same time, researchers are exploring other ways to help ecosystems adapt. These include introducing thermal tolerant species to vulnerable regions. Marine cloud brightening, which aims to temporarily reduce ocean heating by making clouds more reflective, is another option being investigated.

We must also invest in modelling to predict when future marine heatwaves may hit. Early warning systems are also vital to ensure fisheries and conservation zones can prepare for these increasingly common underwater disasters.

Sina Pinter, PhD Candidate in Ocean Dynamics, The University of Western Australia and Nicole L. Jones, Professor of Physical Oceanography, The University of Western Australia

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

Climate change - the new terminology of 'climate whiplash'

 

‘Climate whiplash’ is not simply a buzzword, but a symptom of a warming planet

Pexels, Canva, The Conversation, CC BY-NC

Linden Ashcroft, The University of Melbourne

What flashes to mind when you hear the word “whiplash”?

Perhaps you picture someone’s head rocking back and forth during a car crash – a jarring and often painful experience. Climate whiplash is no different.

Scientists use the terms “weather whiplash” and “climate whiplash” to describe dramatic swings between different kinds of extreme weather. And as the world continues to warm, research suggests these whiplash events will only become more common and severe.

---

CC BY-NC-ND

Our climate is rapidly warming, dramatically reshaping weather around the globe. In this three-part series, we explore a range of emerging climate phenomena and consider how to respond to their destructive effects.

---

Not just buzzwords

In general, the term weather whiplash refers to abrupt weather changes that happen on a daily to weekly scale. For example, a downpour may immediately follow a heatwave, or temperatures could be freezing one day and baking hot the next.

At the start of 2026, the Otways region in southern Victoria experienced weather whiplash. In the space of two weeks, a huge bushfire gave way to a record-breaking flood and then an historic heatwave.

Climate whiplash is sometimes used to describe these rapid shifts. However, because climate relates to the long-term average of weather, climate whiplash more accurately describes changes on a monthly to annual scale. Another term scientists use is “climate volatility”.

The current drought afflicting the United Kingdom is a prime example of climate whiplash. After an unusually wet start to the year, parts of the UK endured their driest July on record, with farmers struggling to keep their crops and pastures alive.

Researchers and emergency responders are increasingly concerned by “compound disasters”, which include whiplash events. These occur when multiple kinds of extreme weather collide, and can happen at the same place and time or back-to-back. This compounding makes the events much more destructive than any single disaster.

A temperamental country

In Australia, we are all too familiar with both climate and weather whiplash.

From year to year, our rainfall can swing violently between soaking wet and alarmingly dry. In fact, Australia’s precipitation patterns are among the most variable on Earth. This is largely due to temperature seesaws in the nearby Indian and Pacific Oceans that affect weather patterns and moisture availability over Australia.

Parts of Australia are also known for their temperamental temperatures. Melbourne, for example, is famous for cycling through four seasons in one day. This happens most often when hot air from Australia’s arid centre is shoved out of the way by cold air from Antarctica. This air-mass replacement leads to remarkable drops in temperature, otherwise known as a cool change.

Overseas, the United States and continental Europe are other whiplash hotspots, particularly for rapid temperature changes. In these parts of the northern hemisphere, the jet stream that keeps polar air up near the Arctic can wiggle and weaken, allowing freezing temperatures to spill out onto temperate regions.

Are things getting more ‘whiplashy’?

Research reveals whiplash-like weather is increasing in frequency and intensity.

Globally, extreme temperature variability and sudden swings from wet to dry or dry to wet are becoming more frequent and intense.

What’s more, computer simulations reveal these trends will only worsen if we keep heating the planet by adding more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. A major reason for this is climatic extremes are more dramatic than they were when our planet was cooler. Heatwaves are hotter, heavy rainfall is heavier and droughts are even drier.

Research suggests a warming planet is altering the speed and behaviour of the weather systems that drive these extremes. For example, the polar regions are warming faster than the tropics, particularly in the northern hemisphere. This uneven warming reduces the temperature change between the equator and the poles, which in turn weakens large-scale wind and pressure patterns that are driven by these temperature differences.

Why whiplash matters

Rapidly changing weather places immense strain on our communities, ecosystems and emergency services.

Quick shifts between hot and cold temperatures affect human health and whole economies. Dramatic shifts between wet and dry conditions have been found to damage soil health, increase water contamination and fuel fast-moving bush and wildfires.

The phrases weather and climate whiplash give scientists another way to communicate just how extreme our weather is becoming. They also enable emergency responders and health services to better plan for back-to-back extremes, and communicate with vulnerable communities.

Weather and climate whiplash may sound like buzzwords. But these terms are a visceral expression of a worrying reality: the more we keep burning coal, oil and gas, the more chaotic and dramatic our weather will become.

Linden Ashcroft, Senior Lecturer, Climate Science and Science Communication, The University of Melbourne

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

Environment - Mangrove swamps are improving despite climate change

 

The world’s mangrove forests are bouncing back. That’s good news for our coasts and climate

talented young photographer/Getty

Catherine Lovelock, The University of Queensland

Mangroves are perplexing plants.

They breathe through their roots, appear to stand on stilts and grow best in hot, salty seawater drawn in and out by the tide.

Historically, mangrove forests have been dismissed as inhospitable places to avoid and have been extensively cleared. But these fascinating trees are now gaining attention for how they support biodiversity, store carbon and buffer the effects of storms, cyclones and tsunamis.

Since 1984, scientists have been monitoring the growth and geographical reach of mangrove forests using satellites. And for the first time, these unique ecosystems are expanding at a faster rate than they are declining.

So what’s driving this? And could it help curb climate change?

Mangroves thrive in coastal environments, where the tide comes in and out. Vicki Smith

Why mangroves matter

Mangrove forests were long viewed as largely expendable places. Research shows people were quick to convert them into rice paddies, oil palm plantations and aquaculture operations. Some were even used as rubbish tips.

However, mangrove forests are now recognised as a vital part of our coastal environments. They provide habitat for a wealth of plants and animals including fish such as barramundi and giant shovelnose rays, reptiles such as seasnakes and even mammals such as the proboscis monkey and water mouse. They are crucial carbon stores, locking up roughly four times more carbon than other land-based forests. Mangroves can also shelter coastal communities and ecosystems from natural disasters by reducing the risk of flooding and erosion.

From an economic perspective, mangrove forests allow millions of fishers to earn a living as well as supporting commercial fisheries. These forests are also of immense cultural value to First Nations communities, many of which associate mangroves with certain religious gods or cultural practices.

Mangrove seedlings growing in the tidal flats of the Narrawallee estuary in NSW. lynnebeclu/Getty

Mangroves are bouncing back

For decades, mangrove forests have been systematically cleared and destroyed. Between the 1980s and 2010, we lost more than 12,000 square kilometres – an area the size of Jamaica – of mangroves worldwide. That means there are far fewer mangroves that can trap harmful greenhouse gas emissions and slow the effects of climate change.

However, this trend may be reversing. A recent study analysed four decades of global data documenting the reach and growth of mangroves. It had three key – and somewhat surprising – findings.

Mangroves are rebounding despite climate change

Human-induced climate change is putting immense pressure on our mangrove forests. It is driving more severe and frequent droughts and storms that can damage or kill mangroves. It is also accelerating sea level rise, potentially drowning mangroves.

This study shows the world’s mangrove forests are rebounding, even as our planet rapidly warms. Since 2010, they have expanded by more than 2,000 square kilometres.

Importantly, the reasons for this vary between regions. Before 2010, Myanmar and Indonesia were hot-spots of mangrove loss. But this trend has now stabilised, with policymakers strengthening the laws around mangrove protection following the catastrophic 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and 2008 cyclone Nargis.

Australia’s mangrove forests are also expanding. However, research suggests this is because mangroves are increasingly growing on floodplains. Rising sea levels allow tides to reach further inland, creating the salty conditions in which mangroves thrive.

In some places – such as where mangroves regenerate in unused aquaculture ponds – this shift inland is positive. In northern Australia, however, it threatens to degrade freshwater ecosystems and is an urgent concern for Traditional Owners.

Mangroves are shifting closer to the sea

This new study suggests mangroves are increasingly growing on newly formed mud flats.

This is counter intuitive because rising sea levels should, in theory, restrict mangrove growth. It may be happening because rivers are carrying soil and sand from deforested areas to the coast, creating new habitat for mangroves.

This demonstrates the resilience of mangrove ecosystems. However, it seems mangroves aren’t regenerating rapidly in the coastal regions where they once thrived – an indicator of successful restoration.

Mangroves are expanding and retreating at the same time

The authors of this study also examined trends in mangrove degradation.

Degradation occurs when mangrove canopies become less dense – a sign they are not as healthy as before. The researchers point to human activities, such as harvesting or pollution, and extreme weather as the main factors driving mangrove degradation.

However, exact causes will differ between regions.

Mangroves have very recognisable roots. Dulyanut Swdp/Getty

More work needed

The expansion of the world’s mangrove forests is promising – and perhaps unexpected – news. However, we can’t be complacent. Current evidence suggests mangrove forests are still thinning overall, putting coastal ecosystems and climate action efforts at risk.

To combat this trend of mangrove degradation, we should support policies that strengthen mangrove protection and restoration.

Organisations such as the Global Mangrove Alliance and Mangrove Breakthrough are also raising the profile of these fascinating ecosystems.

Further research is needed to monitor the varying impacts of climate change on mangroves.

Mangroves at Cullendulla Creek Nature Reserve, New South Wales at low tide. Simon McGill/Getty

Catherine Lovelock, Professor of Biology, The University of Queensland

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

Environment - H5N1 bird flu - survival insights needed

 

We don’t know how well threatened species fight off bird flu – but we need to

Katherine Belov, University of Sydney and Carolyn Hogg, University of Sydney

Lethal bird flu is now spreading in Australia. This is bad news for many native species.

New federal government analysis suggests close to one in five Australian bird and mammal species is at high, very high or extreme risk. But this risk assessment omits something vital – how genetically well-equipped the species is to fight the virus.

While species such as black swans are likely to be very hard-hit, others such as wild ducks are expected to be less affected. One reason for this is different immune systems – some are more or less able to fight the virus. But there’s a more significant factor – how much variation there is in key immune system genes across populations.

Right now, we don’t have an overview of which threatened species are at highest risk based on this. If we urgently create a national immune-risk map for species at risk, we can act to protect those in most danger.

Black swans are likely to be hard hit by bird flu, unlike wild duck species. The difference lies in their immune systems. irmaferreira/Getty

Why immune gene variations matter

When a virus enters an animal’s body, its immune system must first detect it, then respond. Key immune genes help determine if an animal fights off infection, becomes seriously ill or dies.

Different individuals will have slightly different immune responses based on variations at different immune genes. Some variants will allow an individual to survive the virus, and others won’t. This is why diversity in these genes is critical across the species.

Large wildlife populations often have a wide array of variants at each immune gene. This acts as biological insurance – when a new disease arrives, some individuals will be more able to survive. But if a species becomes threatened and its population falls, it’s likely to lose much of this protective diversity.

If the remaining individuals share similar vulnerabilities, a lethal disease such as H5N1 bird flu could be enough to push the species closer to extinction.

Threatened species are often immunologically fragile

Australia’s wildlife faces threats such as habitat loss, climate change, invasive species, pollution and disease. These threats not only reduce population size – they erode genetic diversity.

Small, fragmented populations may have enough genetic diversity to look viable in the short term. But when a new disease arrives, they may lack the breadth of variation at the immune genes needed to survive the new disease. This is a large, hidden vulnerability.

The orange-bellied parrot is a species that worries us deeply. The small, migratory parrot is one of Australia’s most endangered birds. Just 86 birds are left in the wild, with a few hundred more in captive breeding populations.

Our previous research found the parrot has suffered a dramatic loss of genome-wide diversity over the past century – including variation in immune genes.

If H5N1 infects these parrots, they may lack the immune gene variants needed to buffer the species against severe disease.

Many orange-bellied parrots are being reared in captive breeding programs. Outback to Coast/Getty

Tasmanian devils are similarly at risk. These iconic marsupials have critically low immune gene diversity due to population bottlenecks over the past 5,000 years. This left them vulnerable to the contagious devil facial tumour disease, which saw populations plummet with local declines of 95%, and an estimated 80% decline across Tasmania since the disease arose in the 1990s. Our preprint research shows facial tumour disease is still eroding immune gene diversity.

These scavengers are likely to be exposed to bird flu by eating carcasses, and we know which devil populations eat seabirds. The question will be whether devils have enough immune variation to respond to H5N1.

How a national immune-risk map could help

While we know how some species are likely to respond to the virus, the picture is far from complete.

We could fill in the blanks quickly, using DNA samples held in museums or from animals in zoos to generate genomic data on many more species.

We could then analyse immune gene variation across different populations of each species to measure how diverse they are. This approach could reveal populations that have lost important immune variants and may be particularly vulnerable to bird flu.

The Threatened Species Initiative, has collected this data for more than 125 threatened species. But there are hundreds more threatened animal species for which we have no data and no samples.

If we worked quickly to create a national immune-risk map, wildlife managers could focus surveillance, vaccination and protection efforts on the populations likely to be at most risk.

Importantly, they could establish new captive populations before the virus arrives, using breeding programs to maximise immune fitness and keep inbreeding to a minimum.

This is not science fiction. We led immune-guided conservation work in Tasmanian devils, where data on immune genes shape decisions around breeding. The end result: devil joeys with stronger immune systems.

If we use this approach for more at-risk species, we could better protect wildlife from bird flu and future diseases.

No time to waste

Responses to wildlife diseases are often reactive. Animals start dying in large numbers and then we investigate. This approach will be much too slow to respond to the fast-moving H5N1 strain.

Australia has world-leading wildlife genomics expertise, valuable museum and zoo collections, threatened species recovery programs and growing genome resources.

What’s missing is a coordinated way to translate immune gene data into practical action.

It’s not too late. But we have to act fast to identify species and populations with low immune diversity and roll out measures before irreversible losses occur.

Katherine Belov, Professor of Comparative Genomics, University of Sydney and Carolyn Hogg, Professor of Biodiversity & Conservation and Co-Lead, Australasian Wildlife Genomics Group, University of Sydney

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

Environment - Bird Flu H5N1 - managing the threat

 

Powerless against bird flu? Not entirely. Here are 8 ways to help protect Australia’s birds and mammals

Philip Thurston/Getty, CC BY

John Woinarski, Charles Darwin University; Euan Ritchie, Deakin University, and Stephen Garnett, Charles Darwin University

The deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu has now spread from migratory birds to infect resident Australian birds. Clusters of dead birds have been found in several locations. The virus will inevitably infect other wildlife, most notably mammals.

Death rates range from 75-100% in poultry and some wild bird species. There’s great uncertainty about how big the death toll will be over both the short and long-term. Native species such as the black swan are highly vulnerable, while others may prove more resilient.

Based on overseas experience, we can expect many thousands, if not millions, of Australian birds, and large numbers of mammals, to perish. Poultry will likely become infected, while some beloved pets may die.

Overall, the populations of many Australian species will likely plummet. Some threatened species will move closer to extinction, and relatively safe species could become threatened. As the virus spreads through widespread species such as silver gulls, white ibis, pigeons, ducks and crows, many of us will be confronted by wildlife deaths close to home.

Facing a threat like this can make us feel powerless. But there are actions we can take.

Blow after blow for wildlife

Over the 2019-20 summer, megafires incinerated forests and wildlife. In 2025, the lethal South Australian algal bloom denuded large marine areas.

The prospect of yet another hammer blow to wildlife is haunting and emotionally triggering for conservationists, wildlife carers and people who love nature.

To date, the official messaging asks us to watch for, report and record sick birds and mammals. This is important, but it risks leaving the community feeling disempowered witnesses to catastrophe. The situation is far from hopeless. Now is the time to act.

What can be done?

Following overseas work on ways to reduce the toll, we have come up with eight actions.

1. Tackle other threats to give species a fighting chance

While federal, state and territory response plans are not public, what we do know suggests a focus on controlling threats other than bird flu, especially for species that are threatened.

For example, locally eradicating predators such as cats and foxes could give more individuals a chance to get through the first wave of bird flu. Banning duck hunting could also reduce one threat to wildlife.

Working to reduce other threats such as feral cats will boost resilience to the virus at a species level. Pictured: a cat stalking a red-tailed tropic-bird chick on Christmas Island. Janos Hennicke, CC BY

2. Secure insurance populations

Threatened birds and mammals with populations in captivity provide some security. We can boost these insurance populations by increasing their genetic diversity and the number of individuals kept.

For at-risk species without these populations, we may have to collect wild animals before infection reaches them (where practical). Zoos may offer the most protection, but there’s scope to translocate species (such as northern quolls) to safer wild places.

3. Vaccinate species at risk

New Zealand authorities are already giving vaccines to birds at risk. To date, Australia is not doing so, though policymakers are exploring the option. Limited trials in mammals have been undertaken in the United States.

Wild animals have to be caught, given the vaccine, and recaptured for a booster 4-6 weeks later. This is challenging but often feasible. In the US, authorities captured and vaccinated endangered Californian condors, then released them back to the wild.

We need to explore new vaccines, especially for mammals.

4. Widen monitoring

We need good monitoring to track the spread, understand whether our efforts have helped and plan future actions. Monitoring will show what the virus has done to species, track viral mutations and assess survival rates.

For many seabirds and waterbirds, existing programs give us good estimates of current population size. This will let us estimate declines and any recoveries. But we don’t have robust estimates for other at-risk bird and mammal species. This gap needs to be rapidly filled with funding for targeted monitoring. Citizen scientists can also help.

Citizen scientists can play a key role in monitoring population declines and – hopefully – recovery through platforms such as iNaturalist and Birdata. Renee Mead, CC BY

5. Expand research

Much Australian fauna is very distinct from species overseas, meaning lessons learned elsewhere won’t necessarily apply. We need to know which species are most vulnerable, which species spread the virus most effectively, whether survivors have compromised immune systems and how much genetic diversity has been lost.

6. Slow the spread

The virus spreads rapidly in contaminated water and through the movements of infected birds and mammals. Even so, we can slow the spread. In some situations, authorities can remove sick or dead animals to reduce the chance of scavenging birds and animals eating them and contracting then spreading the virus.

Some areas may need to be closed to the public to reduce infection risks through disturbance or contamination. It may be necessary to shut down some water sources or make them less attractive to waterfowl, who are often good carriers of the virus. Poultry farmers will need to control water sources too, to avoid attracting infected birds.

7. Involve interested groups

Authorities must ensure community members, land-owners, First Nations groups and conservationists are involved in creating response plans. Bird flu is a shared problem. Governments cannot respond alone.

8. Look for some silver linings

This virus will likely have dire consequences for many species. But it could also kill introduced predators and scavengers such as feral pigs, cats, foxes and common mynahs.

Time to act

The damage this virus will do isn’t set. We can shape some outcomes. We believe this package of actions could help avert the worst future for Australian birds and mammals – and encourage their recovery.

Acknowledgements: Ecologist Tanya Loos provided helpful feedback.

John Woinarski, Professor of Conservation Biology, Charles Darwin University; Euan Ritchie, Professor in Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, School of Life & Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, and Stephen Garnett, Professor of Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University

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