Christmas each year entails the giving of gifts to family and friends with a common assumption that presents are to be opened on Christmas Day under the Christmas tree. Its also often assumed that the giving of gifts relates to the Biblical story about the three wise men (or Kings) who brought gold, frankincense and myrrh as homage to the baby Jesus at his birth.
As with all religious festivals and customs, the giving of gifts has a mixed origin and dates back to Ancient Rome and gift-giving during the Winter solstice celebrated during the holiday of Saturnalia. This practice started to change with early Christianity where gifts were exchanged on New Year's Day. Prior to the Protestant Reformation, gifts were assumed to be to the benefit of local rulers however this also changed to be a practice of gift-giving to children following the Reformation.
Most of the current practice dates from the 19th Century where Christmas Eve was established as the date for the giving of gifts.
Threats relating to technology, disinformation, economic security and foreign interference are overshadowing traditional security concerns in Australians’ minds, according to data released by the Australian National University National Security College.
More than 12,000 people were asked across two surveys, in November last year and July this year, to rate the seriousness of 15 potential threats over the next decade.
Combining the categories of “major” and “moderate” the five most serious concerns were rated in July 2025 as:
the use of artificial intelligence to attack Australian people and businesses (77%)
a severe economic crisis (75%
disruption to critical supplies due to a crisis overseas (74%)
the deliberate spread of false information to mislead the Australian public and harm their interests (73%), and
a foreign country interfering in Australia’s politics, government, economy or society (72%).
Climate change rated sixth (67%), although a high proportion of people (38%) rated it as a “major” threat. This was second only to threats relating to AI (40%).
The possible threat of Australia being involved in military conflict came in seventh (64%).
Anxiety about security issues is increasing. In July half the respondents agreed with the statement “I am worried about Australia’s national security”. This was an 8% rise between November 2024 and July.
Over that time, threat perceptions increased across all 15 possible threats that were asked about.
The table below shows the threat perceptions of about 6000 Australians in July.
Threat Perceptions July 2025
The November 2024 research also asked, from a list of four, what Australians want to nation to prioritise in the next five years.
The leading priority was safe and peaceful communities, nominated by 35%. When second preferences are included, this rises to 64%.
This priority ranked top across a wide range of demographics, including age, gender, cultural background, education , income and location.
The survey found three other national priorities rated in this order:
.. upholding Australia’s democratic rights and freedoms (23%)
.. strengthening Australia’s security (15%).
The research also included more than 300 interviews across Australia.
The consultations found national security was “consistently framed as being about the peaceful continuity of everyday life”.
National priority for the next 5 years (%)
NSC head Professor Rory Medcalf said: “On the one hand, Australians know what they want to protect, especially in terms of peace, safety, community, democracy and prosperity, On the other hand, they recognise that a complex set of rapidly emerging threats can put these cherished priorities at risk.”
The full research results will be released early next year.
The ANU National Security College is a joint initiative of the federal government and the university.
The College undertook the community consultations as an independent research initiative.
Sentinel Owl uses AI applications (such as ChatGPT or GPT-5) for the generation of graphics and other images only. Actual factual content in blog postings is either originally researched and written or republished under license from reputable sources.
Microplastics are defined as being plastic particles less than 5 mm in size and have permeated/infiltrated
nearly every part of the environment, including food, water, and air. Multiple recent
studies published in peer-reviewed journals such as Nature Medicine and Environmental
Science & Technology have shown mounting concern about their potential
impacts on human health as well as the survival of multiple species of wildlife on the planet.
The use of plastics remains almost out of control despite effects to reduce the use of soft plastic shopping bags and plastic drinking straws. As a result the contamination from microplastics has become both widespread and continuing.
Exposure pathway
Humans are exposed to microplastics primarily
through:
Ingestion: Found in seafood, bottled water, salt, and even vegetables.
Inhalation: Airborne microplastics from synthetic textiles and urban dust.
Dermal
contact: Though less studied, skin exposure may occur
via some types of cosmetics or contaminated water.
The biological effects of microplastic exposure
Once inside
the body, microplastics can interact with tissues and cells in several harmful
ways:
Inflammation and oxidative stress: Studies show that microplastics can trigger immune responses and
generate reactive oxygen species, leading to cellular damage.
Disruption of gut microbiota: Ingested microplastics may alter the composition of intestinal
flora, affecting digestion and immunity.
Translocation to organs: Nanoplastics (smaller than 1 µm) can cross biological barriers
and accumulate in organs such as the liver, kidneys, and brain.
Physical and chemical hazards of microplastics
Microplastics
are not inert and these substances carry:
Additives: Plasticizers, flame retardants, and stabilizers that may be
endocrine disruptors.
Adsorbed pollutants: Persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and heavy metals that bind
to plastic surfaces.
Physical abrasiveness: Their shape and size can cause mechanical irritation in tissues.
A 2025
review in Nature Medicine highlights several key findings:
Microplastics have been detected in human
blood, placenta, and lung tissue.
The toxicity depends on polymer type,
particle size, shape, and surface chemistry.
The presence of a biocorona, layer of proteins and biomolecules that forms around microplastics, can
influence how the body reacts to them.
Despite continuing research on microplastic infilration, there remains considerable knowledge gaps. Long term exposure and chronic impact studies, dose-reponse relationships including level of toxocity, and population-level epidemiogical data do not exist. In the interim, the only action that people can take is to reduce their reliance on plastic - whether this be in food storage items, utensils, bottles and when cooking (including microwave heating of plastic food trays).
Summer’s here and after a wet spring in many parts of Australia, mosquitoes are out in force. Insect repellent has become a routine requirement for time outdoors.
But how safe are they? And do we really need them?
The swelling and itchiness usually resolves in a few days. But scratching can result in secondary infection, especially for young children, if dirt and germs from underneath the fingernails get into the sore.
A mosquito bite can also cause disease. Not all diseases are life-threatening but they can be severely debilitating.
These diseases are a risk in most parts of Australia. Even cooler regions such as Victoria and Tasmania have mosquito-borne diseases which can be seriously debilitating.
Australian health authorities regularly review the recommendations for insect repellent use. But the range of formulations filling our supermarket shelves can change from summer to summer.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) assesses insect repellents for their safety and effectiveness. Packaging should clearly display an APVMA registration number, along with directions for safe use and any required warnings, on their label.
Products sold as mosquito repellents in Australia must be registered with the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.Cameron Webb (NSW Health Pathology & University of Sydney), CC BY
What’s in popular mozzie repellents?
The most widely available active ingredients are diethyltoluamide (DEET), picaridin and oil of lemon eucalyptus (OLE).
Research and reviews from scientists and health authorities show mosquito repellents are a safe and effective way to prevent mosquito bites if used as recommended.
Scientists investigate each active ingredient to determine whether it’s safe. DEET has been the subject of many studies. Picaridin and oil of lemon eucalyptus haven’t been used for as long and haven’t been as thoroughly studied as DEET, but remain among those recommended by health authorities in Australia and overseas.
However, even if a product has been deemed safe, it is important to follow the directions for use on label. There will always be a risk if products are ingested in large quantities or intentionally misused.
What about babies and young children?
Most mosquito repellent formulations in Australia are registered for use on children over 12 months of age, although not all formulations list a specific age restriction.
International studies have shown that DEET and picaridin are safe for children. Recommended age limits for some mosquito repellents vary between countries and product type. In the United States, for example, there is no age limit for the use of DEET, while oil of eucalyptus is recommended only for children over three.
A 2024 study reviewing reports of adverse outcomes from mosquito repellent use concluded DEET was the preferred insect repellent for children, as it was the safest and offered long-lasting protection against biting mosquitoes when used as directed. The researchers noted other active ingredients may provide similar protections but more assessments were required to determine their safety.
Mosquito bites can be annoying but also lead to illness.A/Prof Cameron Webb (NSW Health Pathology & University of Sydney)
Tips for parents of babies and young children
Always be guided by the current recommendations of the APVMA and limit the use of DEET-based repellent from 12 months. Check the label before using mosquito repellent on children.
When you’re applying repellent, ideally apply it to your hands, then rub it on their skin. If you’re using a spray, apply it carefully and never directly onto a child’s face.
Unlike sunscreens, which have a SPF rating, there isn’t a single measure with which to compare the different formulations of mosquito repellents and their effectiveness.
“Heavy duty” or “tropical strength” formulations often contain the same active ingredients as those known as “kid friendly”, but in higher doses that last longer.
Lower concentrations still offer good mosquito bite protection, they just need to reapplied more often.
The secret to getting the best protection is to ensure mosquito repellents are applied correctly. Whether you use a cream, lotion, gel, roll-on, pump-spray or aerosol, make sure all exposed skin is covered. Reapply after swimming, sweaty exercise, or if it has rubbed off.
Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor, School of Medical Science & Sydney Infectious Diseases Institute; Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney
In various lifestyle magazines and health journals, the benefits of daily walking have often been cited with varying distances and number of steps mentioned. Good evidence and factual information is missing from many of the published articles leaving the reader wondering, how much should I do ? Research does exist and a summary of findings reveals there are some recommended step counts by age group -
Children and teens: 10,000 - 14,000 steps per day for growth and fitness (this would include playing sports so the number of steps would be easily achieved),
Adults under 60 years of age: 8,000 - 10,000 steps per day for optimal cardiovascular and metabolic health,
Adults over 60 years of age: 6,000 - 8,000 steps per day to reduce chronic disease and maintain mobility. The estimation of 3,000 steps per day to reduce the risk of Alzeheimers from the Harvard University study is also valid in this context.
Overall large scale studies have shown that 7,000 steps per day is an optimum level linked to significant reductions in mortality risk. This matches with epidemiologists' recommendations, highlighting a range of 6,000 - 8,000 steps as a method for reducing dementia risk with significant protection against memory and cognitive functional decline.
Around 56 million years ago, Earth suddenly got much hotter. Over about 5,000 years, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere drastically increased and global temperatures shot up by some 6°C.
As we show in new research published in Nature Communications, one consequence was that many of the world’s plants could no longer thrive. As a result, they soaked up less carbon from the atmosphere, which may have contributed to another interesting thing about this prehistoric planetary heatwave: it lasted more than 100,000 years.
Today Earth is warming around ten times faster than it did 56 million years ago, which may make it even harder for modern plants to adapt.
Rewinding 56 million years
Plants can help regulate the climate through a process known as carbon sequestration. This involves capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via photosynthesis and storing it in their leaves, wood and roots.
However, abrupt global warming may temporarily impact this regulating function.
Investigating how Earth’s vegetation responded to the rapid global warming event around 56 million years ago – known formally as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (or PETM) – isn’t easy.
To do so, we developed a computer model simulating plant evolution, dispersal, and carbon cycling. We compared model outputs to fossil pollen and plant trait data from three sites to reconstruct vegetation changes such as height, leaf mass, and deciduousness across the warming event.
The three sites include: the Bighorn Basin in the United States, the North Sea and the Arctic Circle.
We focused our research on fossil pollen due to many unique properties.
First, pollen is produced in copious amounts. Second, it travels extensively via air and water currents. Third, it possesses a resilient structure that withstands decay, allowing for its excellent preservation in ancient geological formations.
A shift in vegetation
In the mid-latitude sites, including the Bighorn Basin – a deep and wide valley amidst the northern Rocky Mountains – evidence indicates vegetation had a reduced ability to regulate the climate.
Pollen data shows a shift to smaller plants such as palms and ferns. Leaf mass per area (a measure of leaf density and thickness) also increased as deciduous trees declined. Fossil soils indicate reduced soil organic carbon levels.
The data suggest smaller, drought-resistant plants including palms thrived in the landscape because they could keep pace with warming. They were, however, associated with a reduced capacity to store carbon in biomass and soils.
In contrast, the high-latitude Arctic site showed increased vegetation height and biomass following warming. The pollen data show replacement of conifer forests by broad-leaved swamp taxa and the persistence of some subtropical plants such as palms.
The model and data indicate high-latitude regions could adapt and even increase productivity (that is, capture and store carbon dioxide) under the warmer climate.
A glimpse into the future
The vegetation disruption during the PETM may have reduced terrestrial carbon sequestration for 70,000-100,000 years due to the reduced ability of vegetation and soils to capture and store carbon.
Our research suggests vegetation that is more able to regulate the climate took a long time to regrow, and this contributed to the length of the warming event.
Global warming of more than 4°C exceeded mid-latitude vegetation’s ability to adapt during the PETM. Human-made warming is occurring ten times faster, further limiting the time for adaptation.
What happened on Earth 56 million years ago highlights the need to understand biological systems’ capacity to keep pace with rapid climate changes and maintain efficient carbon sequestration.
How many daily steps does it take to reduce the risk of serious disease and promote good health ? Apparently for some age groups, its less than originally thought. The oft-quoted 10,000 daily steps has long been unmasked as being based on no evidence or science at all but rather a Japanese marketing campaign. Recent studies with actual research and using live subjects concluded around 9,000 steps per day was optimum for good health.
A study from Harvard University has since found that older people and particularly those at risk of developing Alzheimer's disease require only 3,000 steps per day. The study team led by Wai-Ying Yau analysed physical activity data from 296 cognitively healthy people aged between 50 and 90 years of age. Using a step-tracking device and brain imaging to obtain a baseline measurement of misfolded proteins (tau and beta-amyloid) that are suspected of causing Alzheimers, the subjects were measured every two to three years for a period of between 3 and 14 years. The researchers found that the levels of accumulation of misfolded tau was substantially slowed by taking between 3,000 and 5,000 steps per day. The exercise had no effect on beta-amyloid however this protein is less implicated in causing Alzheimers than tau. Between 5,000 and 7,500 steps per day was even more effective with a reduction in cognitive decline of 54 per cent compared to being inactive.
Why is this exercise so effective ? The hypothesis is that exercise reduces inflammation which is associated as a key factor in Alzheimers. Blood flow is also boosted to the brain and levels of protective hormones are increased.
It wasn’t a comfortable process for the tens of thousands of delegates trying to hash out progress on climate change on the edge of the Amazon in Belém, Brazil. I experienced the challenges of the United Nations COP30 climate talks firsthand.
Delegates were hot and sweaty. Tech and aircon didn’t always work. Both flood and fire disrupted negotiations over the fortnight of negotiations. It drove home how climate change feels. But despite the discomfort, some progress was made.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva dubbed it the “COP of Truth”. Delegates did not shy away from the urgency of the moment as climate change intensifies and emissions continue to climb.
Progress was made on funding climate finance and adaptation to the changes already emerging. But efforts on ending reliance on fossil fuels faltered in the face of strong resistance by fossil fuel powers. Much progress in Belém happened outside the main talks.
So what did COP30 deliver?
At one stage it looked like COP30 might crack the hardest nut in climate policy – reaching agreement on phasing out fossil fuels. Nations agreed two years ago that it was necessary to move away from fossil fuels. But no plan had yet been devised to get there.
Brazil had a plan: build support for a roadmap to phase out fossil fuels, championed by President Lula and pushed strongly by Environment Minister Marina Silva. It drew support from more than 80 countries, including major fossil fuel exporters such as Norway and Australia. Anticipating pushback, Brazil worked to boost support outside the main talks before bringing the plan in.
It didn’t work. By the end of COP30, all mention of a fossil fuel roadmap had been scrubbed from the text of the final outcomes, following fierce pushback from countries such as Russia, Saudi Arabia and India and many emerging economies.
Instead, countries agreed to launch “the Global Implementation Accelerator […] to keep 1.5°C within reach” and “taking into account” previous COP decisions. This initiative will be shepherded by the Brazilian COP30 Presidency and the leaders of next year’s COP31 talks, Turkey and Australia.
President Lula vowed to continue advocating for a fossil fuel roadmap at the G20. Colombia and the Netherlands will hold a conference on fossil fuel phaseout in April 2026. The COP30 decision text also makes reference to a “high-level event in 2026” which could take place in the Pacific. Without blockers of consensus at these meetings, a coalition of willing countries could make real progress in setting timelines and exchanging policy ideas for fossil fuel phase-out.
Brazil’s Environment Minister Marina Silva emerged as a quiet force working to build support for the first roadmap to phase out fossil fuel extraction and use.Aline Massuca/COP30, CC BY-NC-ND
The decision to develop a just transition mechanism was welcomed as a win for workers and communities. The new mechanism’s purpose will be to increase international cooperation, technical assistance, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing as countries shift towards a low carbon global economy.
Efforts to boost financing for climate adaptation bogged down, reflecting the trade-offs over fossil fuels.
These funds are meant to help nations most exposed to severe climate damage, usually poorer and with low emissions. These nations led the charge for a tripling of climate finance by 2030 from the US$40 billion (A$62 billion) agreed at COP26 four years ago. But the agreed text merely “calls for efforts to at least triple adaptation finance by 2035”, which pushes out the timeframe and has no funding baseline.
Funding for tropical forests
One of Brazil’s own initiatives, the Tropical Forest Facility, achieved greater success, securing US$9.5 billion (A$14.7 billion) in funding pledges – a COP record.
The trust fund for rainforests is designed to provide resources to arrest global deforestation and protect Indigenous lands, including in the Amazon’s vital carbon sink.
The success of these deforestation initiatives points to the effectiveness of the COP’s Action Agenda, aimed at spurring on climate action outside formal negotiations and including commitments from business, investors and civil society. As formal negotiations bog down, these bypasses may end up replacing negotiations in driving progress.
American absence
Ahead of COP30, analysts feared the ongoing attacks on climate action by the Trump administration would undermine the international negotiations.
But by summit’s end, the disappearance of the world’s biggest historical emitter and largest economy from negotiations had taken its toll.
Developing countries from the African group of negotiators argued better metrics and plans would be meaningless without funding to implement them. Traditionally, the US has been a major funder. No longer.
The US decision to turn its back on climate action created a subdued atmosphere. New finance pledges were broadly underwhelming, likely due to the dampening effect of the US retreat.
China’s negotiators focused most of their energy in pushing back on European trade measures targeting high-emissions products.Antonio Scorza/COP30, CC BY-NC-ND
Early on, many hoped renewables and clean tech giant China might fill the leadership void. China’s clean tech exports last year were enough to cut overseas emissions by 1%. The huge industrial power produces almost 32% of the world’s carbon emissions. These emissions have plateaued, in turn suggesting global emissions may now have peaked.
But China showed reluctance to take up the mantle, preferring to remain focused on its own domestic energy transition. Chinese negotiators spent most of their energy pushing back against new European trade measures targeting emissions-intensive production.
It was left to some of the smallest nations, Indigenous peoples and civil society to lead calls for sticking to the science, ramping up urgency and accelerating the rollout of solutions. An estimated 70,000 people marched in the streets of Belém, staging a mock funeral for fossil fuels. It was an important affirmation of widespread public support for climate action.
What legacy?
As the UN’s climate Executive Secretary Simon Stiell said midway through COP30, nations had to “give a little to get a lot”.
Many countries will be reflecting they gave a lot but got very little. The biggest winners were, yet again, the world’s petrostates who successfully frustrated attempts to address fossil fuels.
Questions will inevitably be asked over whether these consensus-based talks are fit for purpose, given they can be gamed by blockers.
For many, COP30 will be regarded as a failure on fossil fuels and addressing major gaps between national pledges to cut emissions and what’s needed to hold warming to 1.5°C.
This is true. But another view would be that these talks made real progress on important areas despite considerable challenges.
Negotiators from 194 countries showed up and continued to talk and work together to tackle the worsening crisis. Nearly half of those countries have shown they’re ready to begin weaning themselves off fossil fuels through their support for the phase-out roadmap. They don’t have to wait for a UN consensus to act. Fossil fuel exporters only have power while other nations buy and rely on their products.
The world’s climate talks are now clearly moving away from arcane negotiations to the pressing real-world challenges of doing the work. In a rapidly warming world, all issues are becoming climate issues.
The world’s carbon emissions continue to rise. But 35 countries show progress in cutting carbon
Global fossil fuel emissions are projected to rise in 2025 to a new all-time high, with all sources – coal, gas, and oil – contributing to the increase.
At the same time, our new global snapshot of carbon dioxide emissions and carbon sinks shows at least 35 countries have a plan to decarbonise. Australia, Germany, New Zealand and many others have shown statistically significant declines in fossil carbon emissions during the past decade, while their economies have continued to grow. China’s emissions have also been been growing at a much slower pace than recent trends and might even be flat by year’s end.
As world leaders and delegates meet in Brazil for the United Nations’ global climate summit, COP30, many countries that have submitted new emissions commitments to 2035 have shown increased ambition.
But unless these efforts are scaled up substantially, current global temperature trends are projected to significantly exceed the Paris Agreement target that aims to keep warming well below 2°C.
Together with colleagues from 102 research institutions worldwide, the Global Carbon Project today releases the Global Carbon Budget 2025. This is an annual stocktake of the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide worldwide.
We also publish the major scientific advances enabling us to pinpoint the global human and natural sources and sinks of carbon dioxide with higher confidence. Carbon sinks are natural or artificial systems such as forests which absorb more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than they release.
Global CO₂ emissions from the use of fossil fuels continue to increase. They are set to rise by 1.1% in 2025, on top of a similar rise in 2024. All fossil fuels are contributing to the rise. Emissions from natural gas grew 1.3%, followed by oil (up 1.0%) and coal (up 0.8%). Altogether, fossil fuels produced 38.1 billion tonnes of CO₂ in 2025.
Not all the news is bad. Our research finds emissions from the top emitter, China (32% of global CO₂ emissions) will increase significantly more slowly below its growth over the past decade, with a modest 0.4% increase. Emissions from India (8% of global) are projected to increase by 1.4%, also below recent trends.
However, emissions from the United States (13% of global) and the European Union (6% of global) are expected to grow above recent trends. For the US, a projected growth of 1.9% is driven by a colder start to the year, increased liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports, increased coal use, and higher demand for electricity.
EU emissions are expected to grow 0.4%, linked to lower hydropower and wind output due to weather. This led to increased electricity generation from LNG. Uncertainties in currently available data also include the possibility of no growth or a small decline.
Fossil fuel emissions hit a new high in 2025, but the growth rate is slowing and there are encouraging signs from countries cutting emissions.Global Carbon Project 2025, CC BY-NC-ND
Drop in land use emissions
In positive news, net carbon emissions from changes to land use such as deforestation, degradation and reforestation have declined over the past decade. They are expected to produce 4.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2025 down from the annual average of 5 billion tonnes over the past decade. Permanent deforestation remains the largest source of emissions. This figure also takes into account the 2.2 billion tonnes of carbon soaked up by human-driven reforestation annually.
Three countries – Brazil, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo – contribute 57% of global net land-use change CO₂ emissions.
When we combine the net emissions from land-use change and fossil fuels, we find total global human-caused emissions will reach 42.2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in 2025. This total has grown 0.3% annually over the past decade, compared with 1.9% in the previous one (2005–14).
Carbon sinks largely stagnant
Natural carbon sinks in the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems remove about half of all human-caused carbon emissions. But our new data suggests these sinks are not growing as we would expect.
The ocean carbon sink has been relatively stagnant since 2016, largely because of climate variability and impacts from ocean heatwaves.
The land CO₂ sink has been relatively stagnant since 2000, with a significant decline in 2024 due to warmer El Niño conditions on top of record global warming. Preliminary estimates for 2025 show a recovery of this sink to pre-El Niño levels.
Since 1960, the negative effects of climate change on the natural carbon sinks, particularly on the land sink, have suppressed a fraction of the full sink potential. This has left more CO₂ in the atmosphere, with an increase in the CO₂ concentration by an additional 8 parts per million. This year, atmospheric CO₂ levels are expected to reach just above 425 ppm.
Tracking global progress
Despite the continued global rise of carbon emissions, there are clear signs of progress towards lower-carbon energy and land use in our data.
There are now 35 countries that have reduced their fossil carbon emissions over the past decade, while still growing their economy. Many more, including China, are shifting to cleaner energy production. This has led to a significant slowdown of emissions growth.
Existing policies supporting national emissions cuts under the Paris Agreement are projected to lead to global warming of 2.8°C above preindustrial levels by the end of this century.
This is an improvement over the previous assessment of 3.1°C, although methodological changes also contributed to the lower warming projection. New emissions cut commitments to 2035, for those countries that have submitted them, show increased mitigation ambition.
This level of expected mitigation falls still far short of what is needed to meet the Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming well below 2°C.
At current levels of emissions, we calculate that the remaining global carbon budget – the carbon dioxide still able to be emitted before reaching specific global temperatures (averaged over multiple years) – will be used up in four years for 1.5°C (170 gigatonnes remaining), 12 years for 1.7°C (525 Gt) and 25 years for 2°C (1,055 Gt).
Falling short
Our improved and updated global carbon budget shows the relentless global increase of fossil fuel CO₂ emissions. But it also shows detectable and measurable progress towards decarbonisation in many countries.
The recovery of the natural CO₂ sinks is a positive finding. But large year-to-year variability shows the high sensitivity of these sinks to heat and drought.
Overall, this year’s carbon report card shows we have fallen short, again, of reaching a global peak in fossil fuel use. We are yet to begin the rapid decline in carbon emissions needed to stabilise the climate.
At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month in 1918, the guns on the Western Front in Europe fell silent as the Armistice commenced and the First World War ended. Between 9 million and 13 million people had died with around a third of them with no known grave.
In 1919, one year after the Armistice, the Allies designated this day in November for the commemoration of those lost.
Along with delegates from all over the world, I’ll be heading to the United Nations COP30 climate summit in the Brazilian Amazon city of Belém. Like many others, I’m unsure what to expect.
This year, the summit faces perhaps the greatest headwinds of any in recent history. In the United States, the Trump administration has slashed climate science, cancelled renewable projects, expanded fossil fuel extraction and left the Paris Agreement (again). Trump’s efforts to hamstring climate action have made for extreme geopolitical turbulence, overshadowing the world’s main forum for coordinating climate action – even as the problem worsens.
Climate talks are never easy. Every nation wants input and many interests clash. Petrostates and big fossil fuel exporters want to keep extraction going, while Pacific states despairingly watch the seas rise. But in the absence of a global government to direct climate policy, these imperfect talks remain the best option for coordinating commitment to meaningful action.
Here’s what to keep an eye on this year.
A smaller-than-usual COP?
A persistent criticism of the annual climate summits is that they have become too big and unwieldy – more a trade show and playground for fossil fuel lobbyists than an effective forum for multilateral diplomacy and action on climate change. One solution is to deliberately make these talks smaller.
The Belém conference may end up having a smaller number of delegates, though not by design so much as logistical headaches.
Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva backed the decision to invite the world to the Amazon to display how vital the massive rainforest is as a carbon sink. But Belém’s remote location on the northeast coast, limited infrastructure and shortage of hotels have seen prices soar, putting the conference out of reach for smaller nations, including some of the most vulnerable. These constraints could undermine the inclusive “Mutirão” (collective effort on climate change) sought by organisers.
Many delegates will sleep on ships at the Belem climate talks. Pictured is Curupira, a figure from Brazilian folklore and the COP30 mascot.Gabriel Della Giustina/COP30, CC BY-NC-ND
Show me the money
Climate finance is a perennial issue at COP meetings. These funding pledges by rich countries are intended to help poorer countries reduce emissions, adapt to climate change or recover from climate disasters. Poorer countries have long called for more funding, given rich countries have done vastly more damage to the climate.
At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan last year, a new climate finance goal was set for US$300 billion (~A$460 billion) to be raised annually by developed countries by 2035, with the goal of reaching $US1.3 trillion (~A$2 trillion) in funding from both government and private sources over the same period.
To deliver the second goal, negotiators laid out a “Baku to Belém” roadmap. The details are due to be finalised at COP30. But with the US walking away from climate action and the European Union wavering, many eyes will be on China and whether it will step into the climate leadership vacuum left by developed countries. The EU has only just reached agreement on a 2040 emissions reduction target and an “indicative” cut for 2035.
Climate finance will be the priority for many countries, as worsening disasters such as Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica and Typhoon Kalmaegi in the Philippines once again demonstrate the enormous human and financial cost of climate change.
The latest UN assessment indicates the need for this funding is outpacing flows by 12–14 times. In Belém, poorer countries will be hoping to land agreement on greater finance and support for adaptation. Work on a global set of indicators to track progress on adaptation – including finance – will be key.
Brazilian organisers hope to rally countries around another flagship funding initiative set to launch at COP30. The Tropical Forests Forever Facility would compensate countries for preserving tropical forests, with 20% of funds directed to Indigenous peoples and local communities who protect tropical forest on their lands. If it gets up, this fund could offer a breakthrough in tackling deforestation by flipping the economics in favour of conservation and protecting a huge store of carbon.
2035 climate pledges
Belém was supposed to be a celebration of ambitious new emissions pledges which would keep alive the Paris Agreement goal of holding warming to 1.5°C. Nations were originally due to submit their 2035 pledges (formally known as Nationally Determined Contributions) by February, with an extension given to September after 95 per cent of countries missed the deadline.
When pledges finally arrived in September, they were broadly underwhelming. Only half the world’s emissions were covered by a 2035 pledge, meaning the remaining emissions gap could be very significant. Australia is pledging cuts of 62–70% from 2005 emissions levels.
That’s not to say there’s no progress. A new UN report suggests countries are bending the curve downward on emissions but at a far slower pace than is needed.
How negotiators handle this emissions gap will be a litmus test for whether countries are taking their Paris Agreement obligations seriously.
Rise of the courts
Even as some countries back away from climate action, courts are increasingly stepping into the breach. This year, the International Court of Justice issued a rousing Advisory Opinion on states’ climate obligations under international law, including that national targets have to make an adequate contribution to meeting the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. The court warned failing to take “appropriate action” to safeguard the climate system from fossil fuel emissions – including from projects carried out by private corporations – may be “an internationally wrongful act”. That is, they could attract international liability.
It will be interesting to see how this ruling affects negotiating positions at COP30 over the fossil fuel phase-out. At COP28 in 2023, nations promised to begin “transitioning away from fossil fuels in energy systems”. If countries fail to progress the phase-out, accountability could instead be delivered via the courts. A new judgement in France found the net zero targets of oil and gas majors amount to greenwashing, while lawsuits aimed at making big carbon polluters liable for climate damage caused by their emissions are in the pipeline.
An Australia/Pacific COP?
A big question to be resolved is whether Australia’s long-running bid to host next year’s COP in Adelaide will get up. The bid to jointly host COP31 with Pacific nations has strong international support, but the rival bidder, Turkey, has not withdrawn.
If consensus is not reached at COP30, the host city would default back to Bonn in Germany, where the UN climate secretariat is based.
Outcome unknown
As climate change worsens, these sprawling, intense meetings may not seem like a solution. But despite headwinds and backsliding, they are essential. The world has made progress on climate change since 2015, due in large part to the Paris Agreement. What’s needed now on its tenth anniversary is a reinfusion of vigour to get the job done.
