August 2026

LOCAL

1) Media articles published since the last newsletter. 

05/06/26 - Who Needs an Energy Strategy?  Tom Powell.

"....it is more than a little disconcerting to learn that the Prime Minster has recently abandoned an earlier commitment to develop a national energy strategy. Apparently, he feels that a national energy strategy would be nothing more than an exercise in “bumper stickers and Post-it notes”. Instead, they released an Energy Package policy statement which focuses on “market-based solutions” along with a modest tightening of regulations.
But look where relying on energy markets has got us. Consider the global fossil fuel market that we are entirely dependent upon. Petrol prices have gone through the roof due to another war over oil. Yet, the government still plans to push through an LNG terminal that we are meant to pay for in our electricity bills. How is this a market-based solution? Or is it rather a case of corporate welfare for the dying NZ gas industry?"

03/07/2026 - Hey Politicians: Are you listening?  Marg O'Brien.

"But the hardest part of the crisis might be not only managing what’s happening now, but also understanding and preparing for what is to come. Problems compound, and treating each localised crisis as independent of the root cause, our use of fossil fuels, will lead us forward blindly. The issue now is what more can be done, and by whom? In a time when collaboration is called for and many are wanting their concerns heard, I am left with the thought that there is only one question to be asked of politicians: Are you listening? 
As we face the future, we want to know how your policies will best protect the rights of our future generations? We need to be assured that you are intent on preserving the earth’s liveability for our children, our grandchildren and their grandchildren." 

01/08/2026 - Ensuring Food for Marlborough.   Tom Powell.

"So, what can we do to make sure there is food on the table in the event of a crisis?
For starters, we can start growing more of our own food. This means encouraging growing food, in back yards, in community gardens and in local farms. Although local government funding is tight right now, Marlborough District Council could help by setting aside suitable council land for community gardens, easing rates and zoning restrictions on market gardens and hosting support for food growing and community forums on local food sources.
Fifty years ago, before the wine industry started, Marlborough was a food basket of orchards, commercial vegetable gardens and grain crops. With the change in market demand and some vineyards now being removed, good food-growing land is becoming available again.
Planting this up would help our food security in the future and also give locals an alternative to expensive supermarket prices."

29/08/2026 - Bad advice dished out on climate warming modelling. Tom Powell.

"Last month, the Minister for Climate Change, Simon Watts, wrote to the nation’s councils stating that they should not use climate warming worst-case scenarios (in this case, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate modelling scenario called SSP5-8.5) in adaptation planning for climate risks.   This is inappropriate, short-sighted advice.
The intent of the Minister is clear; that councils should not spend more on adaptation for climate-driven disasters than absolutely necessary.  
This puts councils in a tough spot.  If they spend too much, they get blamed by the Minister for “gold plating” climate resilience projects.  If they spend too little, they get blamed for not putting in enough effort to ensure their work will survive the next climate disaster.  All this said, New Zealand spends much more money on recovery after climate disasters than on resilience, even though studies show money spent on resilience is much better spent.  In essence, central government is telling councils not to overbuild the guard rail but instead keep paying for the ambulance waiting at the bottom of the cliff."

Here is a copy of the letter that Simon Watts sent to all councils around NZ. It's interesting to have a read of the full text of what he is saying.

Here are links to copies of the full articles if you can't access them on the websites - Who needs an Energy Strategy? -
Hey Politicians: Are you Listening? - Ensuring Food for Marlborough - Bad advice dished out on climate warming modelling.

2) Climate Truth or Hysteria. 

This editorial with an unknown author published in the July 25th Weekend Express is well worth a read if you missed it. Here is an extract from it. 

"The weather is worsen­ing at the same time that we have a Gov­ern­ment that has seemed res­ist­ant to cli­mate change mit­ig­a­tion. The gen­eral dir­ec­tion has been clear dur­ing the past three years, from the dump­ing of the Clean Car Dis­count to pre­vent­ing law­suits against green­house gas emit­ters.

There was another example of bad tim­ing when Local Gov­ern­ment Min­is­ter Simon Watts wrote to may­ors, coun­cils and regional coun­cils last week to urge them not to “gold-plate” their cli­mate ini­ti­at­ives by build­ing for worst-case scen­arios at rate­pay­ers’ expense.

Wel­ling­ton mayor Andrew Little called the missive from Watts both “sur­pris­ing” and “tone deaf” as it reached his desk only a few months after dev­ast­at­ing floods hit the cap­ital. There were scarcely believ­able pic­tures of cars float­ing in sub­merged streets in sub­urban Ber­ham­pore, and there was one fatal­ity."

3) Marlborough District Sea Level Rise Assessment.

Here is a follow up to Item 3 in the May newsletter about the Sea level Rise (SLR) assessment presented to MDC earlier this year.
You can now access the dynamic SLR map on the MDC website Smart Maps page. The first page has useful explanatory information about using the map. You will see a small "map" icon at the top right of the page. Click on that and it will open the dynamic map where you can choose increments of SLR and observe the modeled inundation impacts around Marlborough coastlines.
If you wish to know more about this topic then you can read my report to the CKM meeting outlining what we learned at our meeting in June with MDC staff members Pere Hawes and Jamie Sigmund. 

4) August 20th Environment and Planning Committee reports.

There were seven different reports presented at this meeting that will be of interest to some readers of this newsletter. I compiled a long report for the September 6th CKM meeting with comments and summaries of the different reports so please download a copy if you are interested. For more detail you can download and read the full reports in the August 20th Agenda download for the E&P committee from the MDC website.

The reports were as follows - 

• Planning and Natural Environment Bills - This was reporting back on MDC's submission to the Select Committee and progress with the two Bills.
• Climate Change Response Amendment Bill - This report raises the question whether MDC should make a submission to the Select Committee.
• Assessment of the Impact of Climate Change and Sea Level Rise on Groundwater - This is an important follow up to the Sea Level Rise assessment I reported on in the last newsletter and in Item 4 above.
• High Intensity Rainfall Design System (HIRDS) 2025 Update - This report provides info about the updated modelling for high intensity rainfall events.
• Wairau Catchment Flood Frequency Assessment 2025 - This is the first comprehensive update of flood frequency information for the Wairau River Catchment since 1993.
• Climate Change & Adaptation Action Plan 2024/25-2027/28 Progress Report - This is an important update on the Action Plan released last year. 
• Proposed Marlborough Climate Change Impact Assessment - This proposal, identified as a strategic gap by the Climate Change Working Group, is an important initiative and another critical step towards improving long term planning decisions.

NATIONAL

5) The Reality of Everything.

The Reality of Everything Symposium was a one-day, in-person event held in Wellington on June 26th. It brought together leading experts who gave a range of short sharp talks of around 12 minutes each on a range of topics. The aim of the organisers was to  lay out what is actually happening on our planet and to help build the foundations for informed, collective action and stimulate conversation about our shared future.

Some of the speakers and topics were - 

• Mike Joy - The Polycrisis.
• Jonathon Boston - An Uninsurable Future?
• Ganesh Ahirao and Morgan Edwards - Unleashing Public Finance. 
• Dr Mahina-a-Rangi Baker - White Supremacy and the Polycrisis.

They say on their website - 

An Interruption to Normal Programming. We face multiple, interconnected crises: climate change, energy descent, economic instability, food and water insecurity, public health pressures, and democratic strain. Without a shared understanding of this reality, meaningful action is impossible.

You can watch the expert briefing videos on their website. 

The symposium was modeled on a similar event held in London last year called The Emergency Briefing. There were 10 diverse presentations you might be interested to check out.

6) Green Steel - Hydrogen steelmaking to set up demo site.

A newly formed Kiwi start-up called CullBeck announced that it raised $20 million in venture capital funding to build a hydrogen-based steelmaking demonstration plant directly adjacent to NZ Steel's Glenbrook Steel Mill. This is a pretty exciting development which could be a game changer if it is viable at scale. Maybe there won't be a need to mine the Denniston Plateau for steel making coal?

"Globally the iron and steel industry is responsible for producing 2.6Gt of CO2, or 7% of the world’s total CO2 emissions. In New Zealand, steel and iron production is the single largest industrial source of CO2 emissions, representing 55% of industrial emissions and around 5% of total gross emissions. While our knowledge of materials and process control have drastically improved since the Iron Age, the underlying chemistry has stayed largely the same.

Researchers at Victoria University Wellington— Te Herenga Waka and Robinson Research Institute have demonstrated how hydrogen can be used instead of coal during the steelmaking process, potentially eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from New Zealand’s steel industry. Producing iron currently relies on the use of coal to generate a reaction. Coal is used as both the chemical reducing agent and the thermal fuel to heat the reactor, resulting in the emission of large quantities of CO2.

Replacing hydrogen for coal, Dr Chris Bumby and his team have demonstrated the hydrogen-ironmaking reaction in a custom built fluidised-bed reactor, which reacts New Zealand ironsand with hydrogen gas at temperatures up to 1000⁰C, to produce very high-purity iron. As the hydrogen reactor is entirely electrically heated, it could be powered by New Zealand’s renewable electricity, ensuring that the entire process does not emit carbon dioxide. Lab-scale testing of this tech proved successful, showing it could react local New Zealand ironsand with hydrogen gas to create high-purity iron. Crucially, the process compressed a traditional 8-to-12-hour coal reduction timeframe down to just two minutes, while emitting only water instead of CO2."

You can check out the full article on the Wellington Uni Ventures website and also listen to an interview with Kathryn Ryan on RNZ.

7) Call for new climate insurance levy. 

A leading climate academic warns a mandatory public insurance levy will be needed to protect homeowners from looming catastrophic events. As the Government drafts a Climate Adaptation Bill based on independent recommendations given last year, home insurance premiums have already increased 40 per cent over the past two years, raising fears coverage will soon become unaffordable or entirely unavailable. Jonathan Boston, Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at Victoria University, lays out these critical challenges in his new book, Insuring the Future.

If you want to know more you can listen to this interview on RNZ.

8) Anne Salmond: A tale of two leaders.
Two contrasting outlooks for the future society NZ can become bring into sharp relief the issues facing the country in the leadup to the election. 

This very good article written by Dame Anne Salmond and published on the Newsroom platform provides some very good food for thought about some of the failings of our political leaders and system and focuses on the imperative for some of the old power to let go and pass on the authority to the younger generation who will be the ones who have to live with the consequences of action or inaction taken today.
Dame Anne shares an excellent quote from the Maori Queen Te Arikinui. Wise words from someone as young as she is - "I see indigenous peoples standing firmly in the truth of who we are. I see a growing recognition that the systems we have relied on are reaching their limits. The economies built on taking without renewing exhaust both the land and its people. This is not new knowledge. Our accountability to those not yet born is not just tradition. It is governance."

I recommend reading the full article on the Newsroom platform.

9) Governmental Greenwashing? Adding some much needed context to the New Zealand Government’s statements at climate negotiations.

Lawyers for Climate Action have provided an excellent analysis of the totally inadequate actions by this government to meet our Paris Agreement NDC commitments. 

The Government has stated that it plans to close the gap by prioritising domestic action and exploring options for international cooperation. But there are clear reasons to doubt this. “Prioritising domestic action” is not an accurate reflection of the Government’s actions. As just a few examples, over the past 18 months, the Government has:

•  Wound back the Clean Car Standard and other transport mitigation policies;
•  Made decisions that have caused the NZU price in the NZ ETS to fall sharply, including removing the requirement that the NZ ETS settings “accord” with our Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs.) The Climate Change Commission subsequently reported that they have received “universal  feedback [that] this announcement had undermined market participants’ confidence in the Government’s commitment to the NZ ETS” and that it was part of a wider series of earlier decisions that market participants “perceived as weakening other aspects of climate policy”;
• Introduced new fossil fuel subsidies and doubled down on procuring an LNG Import Facility. 

And exploring options for international cooperation seems to be an ambitious understatement of the action the Government actually needs to take:  The Government has pointed to three letters of intent and memoranda of understanding with Indonesia, Viet Nam and the Philippines as the basis for its “international cooperation.” However, these actions appear very unlikely to cover the estimated $4.4 - $5.0 billion cost of offshore mitigation that New Zealand would need to meet the projected abatement gap.  

Given these "significant costs," the obvious question is: what has the Government actually done beyond "exploring options for international cooperation"? Has any money been appropriated to purchase offshore mitigation? Treasury's answer, in the 2026 Budget documents, is telling: the Government "has not communicated a sufficiently specified plan to purchase offshore mitigation…to create a valid expectation…that it will do so." In other words, on Treasury's own assessment, there is presently no credible plan to close the gap by either domestic action or international cooperation. 

The Government itself has also made its intention clear: last year, the Minister of Finance stated that New Zealand would not be sending “billions of dollars” offshore, and last week, the Prime Minister stated that “...we ain’t shutting down farms and we certainly aren’t sending billions of dollars offshore.”

Therefore, the choice that is being presented, of domestic actions versus offshore mitigation, is not the choice that the Government has been making. Instead, they appear to be pursuing neither. 

Why does this matter?

Under Article 4 of the Paris Agreement, parties must pursue domestic mitigation measures with the aim of achieving the objectives of those contributions. As clarified by the International Court of Justice last year, this obligation is one of conduct, requiring a stringent due diligence standard. In our view, ruling out material offshore mitigation while simultaneously dismantling domestic policy, without any credible alternative plan to close the gap, is not consistent with our international obligations. The consequences of falling short are no longer purely reputational, including: 

• Trade implications: The EU–NZ Free Trade Agreement includes provisions linking the effective implementation of the Paris Agreement to trade access. A material failure to implement the Paris Agreement exposes New Zealand exporters to the prospect of trade measures. 
• Inter-state legal exposure: In its July 2025 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice confirmed that breaches of international climate obligations can give rise to state responsibility, including the prospect of inter-state proceedings. That is no longer a theoretical risk.                         

Check out the full analysis on the LCANZI website. We should be thankful for the excellent work done by groups such as LCANZI. They have done two other very informative reports connected to the last two points above, that are well worth reading if you're interested in understanding these issues better.

One is the report  - Proposed LNG Terminal funding & $200M gas co-investment likely breach trade deals.
The second is - The ICJ Advisory Opinion: Governments have to act.

GLOBAL 

10) A strategy to protect whales can limit greenhouse gases and global warming.

This article was published on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) website. Not quite where I expected to find it when I went looking for information about this topic after watching a documentary about whales where this significant benefit was referred to. It's more fascinating info about how we have many choices. Do we want to rebuild a viable biosphere and hence help ourselves and all our other fellow species survive? If we were wanted to help increase whale numbers and therefore carbon sequestration, as explained in the article, then we would have to choose to eat less wild fish. We would have to choose to reduce overfishing and dare I say it stop harvesting krill in the Antarctic. Depleting an essential foundation of the marine food chain doesn't seem like a smart idea to me. 

Here is some basic information about the nutrient recycling resulting from the "Whale Pump". Fostering this process is what I would call a no-brainer!

Whales feed on iron-rich krill and fish in the deep ocean, then return to the surface to breathe, digest, and excrete.

• Fecal Plumes: Their excrement forms massive, buoyant plumes of nutrients rich in iron and nitrogen.
• Feeding the Carbon Engine: These nutrients fertilize the sunlit surface waters, triggering massive blooms of phytoplankton (microscopic marine plants).
• Atmospheric Carbon Capture: Phytoplankton absorb solar energy and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere via photosynthesis. Collectively, phytoplankton capture roughly 40% of all global CO2 emissions. When whales increase phytoplankton populations, they dramatically scale up the ocean's carbon-capture capacity.

Many whale species undertake immense annual migrations from nutrient-rich polar feeding grounds to nutrient-poor tropical calving grounds. As they travel, they shed skin, urinate, and excrete wastes along the way. This redistributes vital nutrients across barren sections of the ocean, effectively planting the seeds for phytoplankton growth in regions that would otherwise be marine deserts.

When a whale dies of natural causes, its massive carcass sinks to the very bottom of the ocean floor, an event known as a whale fall.

• Centuries of Storage: The carbon stored within the whale's massive, protein- and lipid-dense body is transferred to the deep sea.
• Sequestration: Because the deep ocean floor experiences extreme pressure, low temperatures, and minimal currents, this carbon is securely locked away out of the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of years.
• Deep Ecosystem Support: A single whale fall provides a localized surge of energy and organic matter that sustains unique deep-sea ecosystems and scavengers for decades.

The authors of the article also look at the economic benefits of taking proactive action to boost whale numbers and reach some important conclusions.

Coordinating the economics of whale protection must rise to the top of the global community’s climate agenda. Since the role of whales is irreplaceable in mitigating and building resilience to climate change, their survival should be integrated into the objectives of the 190 countries that in 2015 signed the Paris Agreement for combating climate risk.

International institutions and governments, however, must also exert their influence to bring about a new mindset — an approach that recognizes and implements a holistic approach toward our own survival, which involves living within the bounds of the natural world. Whales are not a human solution—these great creatures having inherent value of their own and the right to live—but this new mindset recognizes and values their integral place in a sustainable ocean and planet. Healthy whale populations imply healthy marine life including fish, seabirds, and an overall vibrant system that recycles nutrients between oceans and land, improving life in both places. The “earth-tech” strategy of supporting whales’ return to their previous abundance in the oceans would significantly benefit not only life in the oceans but also life on land, including our own. 

With the consequences of climate change here and now, there is no time to lose in identifying and implementing new methods to prevent or reverse harm to the global ecosystem. 




























11) Why Too Much Efficiency Makes Us Fragile.

There is increasing talk and information happening in Aotearoa, and around the world, focused on building resilient communities. A recent webinar hosted by Nate Hagens titled "Why Too Much Efficiency Makes Us Fragile" gave Lesley and I much food for thought. I included an item in the May 2024 newsletter (item 13) with information about the book written by Daniel Brooks and Salvatore Agosta titled "Surviving the Anthropocene: A Darwinian Guide."  In the webinar Olivier Hamant covers similar ground. His explanations were succinct and uplifting, as they helped us to really grasp why it is so important for humans to understand the critical difference between being efficient and being robust. A simple explanation is that a resilient system bounces back quicker after a disruption but a robust system has built in redundancies that provide alternative pathways for proceeding.
We can manage without robustness a lot of the time, as evident in our increasingly dysfunctional and disrupted world but when the large fluctuations inevitably arrive it is the robust communities/species that manage best, just as has happened with evolution over millennia. 

"Olivier is a French biologist and biophysicist whose work combines plant science and civilizational thought. He serves as Director of Research at the French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment, teaches at the École Normale Supérieure de Lyon, and directs the Institut Michel Serres – an interdisciplinary institute focused on ecological transition. Hamant’s work is centralized around the idea that modern civilization has confused “performance” with “fitness” by prizing efficiency/optimization/specialization/maximum output. This is in direct contrast to most living systems, which rarely optimize for these characteristics – instead, living systems survive because they are robust, or able to maintain their identity despite unpredictable disturbances."

I came away from the 85 minute webinar feeling that understanding this concept and then taking actions to build robustness in our local, national and global communities is critical for humanity in the decades ahead. It is a radical and critical departure from our current operating system with its "just in time" global supply lines and an unhealthy obsession with achieving maximum output. It also helped me better understand my ongoing unease with the strong focus in our free market world on the rights of the individual and property rights. Robust societies have to be symbiotic and cooperative entities where protecting the value of the commons is paramount unlike the dominant neoliberal system we are currently subjected to. When humans are permanently in "performance" mode this results in burnout, both individually and planetary. The evidence is there for all to see. We have to build robust societies where improvisation is valued higher than efficiency because in times of disruption we are better able to adapt to what is happening in the moment. I see a simple example here in Marlborough that is probably reflected in many communities. Robust food and energy systems are critical and yet our system does not place a high value on achieving this. We have a lot of grape vines growing in our wonderful soils using water from our nationally important aquifer but don't even produce enough quantity and variety of food to meet the needs of Marlborough. We currently have an electricity supply system that disincentivises energy robustness and incentivises efficiency and reducing costs but in a major disruption the lights would go out in Marlborough as we don't have enough of our own production and storage. These things will only change if enough people start to value robustness over efficiency. 

So I highly recommend making the time to sit down and absorb what is on offer in this webinar. Remember to turn on "subtitles", as Olivier's strong French accent can be hard to follow at times. 

Here is the introduction to the webinar that might pique your interest. 

"For decades, modern civilization has treated efficiency as an unquestioned good: the leaner, faster, and more optimized anything is – from supply chains to your morning routine – the better. But emerging systems science argues that this obsession with performance is actually making humanity more brittle. What if the over-optimization baked into our economies, our agriculture, our institutions, and even our own bodies is at the root of our shared predicament, and how can nature’s intelligence show us a different way? In this episode, Nate is joined by biologist and biophysicist Olivier Hamant to explore why living systems prioritize robustness over performance, and what that means for a civilization built almost entirely in the opposite direction. Olivier distinguishes performance (efficacy plus efficiency) from robustness (the capacity to remain stable and viable despite fluctuation), and he points out that nature rarely selects for the most efficient organism; it selects for the most adaptable one. Together, Nate and Olivier also trace how cheap, abundant energy allowed human societies to substitute the "safety net" of resource abundance for the safety net that living systems actually rely on: diversity, redundancy, and cooperation. As the twenty-first century moves from an era of stable averages into an era of volatility and standard deviation, Olivier argues that the path forward likely isn't degrowth or continued growth, but a third way: economies and institutions designed to be robust and adaptable to risk, rather than avoid it. What wisdom have we forgotten for the sake of maximizing material output and efficiency? How has our search for optimization affected our quality of life, and what do we risk by continuing down this same path? Most importantly, could balancing our focus on performance and robustness be the key to reframing our relationship with the entire Earth, bringing more stability, rest, and meaning to our lives?" 

12) Urban collapse: what cities teach us when systems fail.

My twin sister who lives in Australia recently sent me this article published on the website of Dr Jean Renouf, who lives in the same area as her in Northern N.S.W. Dr Renouf has had a wide range of experiences living in situations of major disruption and collapse of formal systems and has some very interesting insights to share, as a result. He runs workshops to share his knowledge and help educate people about ways to "live, adapt and lead responsibly amid sustained disruption". The information he shares is complementary to that in the previous item, as it encourages the robustness required to manage our lives in this increasingly disruptive world. 

Below is a brief outline. I highly recommend reading the full article. It's not all negative or pessimistic, as you might expect. 

In brief: Cities rarely collapse by emptying out. More often, the systems that make ordinary life possible become unreliable while most people stay where they are. Drawing on what I witnessed in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein, Haiti after the 2010 earthquake and the Central African Republic during periods of armed insecurity — alongside wartime Sarajevo, post-Katrina New Orleans, crisis-stricken Beirut, declining Detroit and Havana during Cuba’s Special Period — this article looks at how people recreate movement, shelter, markets, security, information and governance when formal systems fail. Their improvisations can preserve life, but they also redistribute power. The question is not only how resilient our communities are, but what kind of order emerges when the old systems stop working — and what we can do now to shape it.

Here are some further brief words about his work - 

"Over the past two decades I’ve worked in disruption contexts ranging from war zones and complex emergencies overseas to frontline emergency response in Australia. Much of my work has been shaped by the growing reality of climate disruption and the need for organisations and communities to adapt deliberately rather than react repeatedly. At the same time, I remain engaged with the broader pressures reshaping institutions — technological acceleration, geopolitical volatility and psychosocial risk. Across these domains, the question that continues to guide my work is simple: How do we live, adapt and lead responsibly amid sustained disruption?

I treat resilience as capability, built deliberately over time - consistency over intensity. In practice, resilience depends on three foundations working together:

• Leadership: strategic and systems-thinking, effective presence, judgement under pressure, decision-making under uncertainty, adaptable, human-centred, clear prioritisation and communication.
• Relationships: coordination, trust, shared situational awareness, and the human dynamics that allow teams to act as one system.
• Systems: strategy, institutional design and governance that integrate foresight, risk and decision architecture across organisations and sustain performance under extended strain.

This is where systems thinking and strategic foresight become practical tools. They help organisations map dependencies, anticipate second-order effects, and prepare for cascading disruption rather than single events. These approaches also shape my writing and public speaking on how we live and lead amid structural disruption. In practice, disruption often reveals structural weaknesses that routine operations conceal. When handled well, those moments become inflection points for learning and deliberate adaptation rather than decline."

If you do decide to read Jean's full article on his website you might also be interested to check out the next posting from August 19th titled "Leading together in polycrisis: influencing what’s next for thriving, not just surviving" written by Liz Skelton.

The article opens with these words -

"Polycrisis is not a set of separate emergencies but tangled ones, and leadership approaches that try to solve climate, inequality, polarisation and institutional distrust one at a time miss what connects them. Drawing on three decades in social change work and current PhD research at ANU's School of Cybernetics, this piece from guest author Liz Skelton argues that navigating polycrisis calls for a different kind of leadership: relational, courageous, often invisible work of building trust and sitting through uncertainty rather than pretending stability is still on offer. The aim is a stance of ruthless realism paired with relentless optimism, one that can hold both what is being lost and what still makes thriving possible."

And the article ends with these four questions - 

• Do your strategies, policies and future plans assume the illusion of stability and certainty? What would be required to explore and challenge these assumptions?
• What is needed to create conditions for navigating increasing disruption and crises to enable ongoing thriving?
• If you explored leadership through the lens of working with “ruthless realism and relentless optimism”, what would anchor your work and what would need to be let go of?
• What relationships do you consider you/ your organisation/community to be part of and accountable to? What/who else may you be in relationship with or accountable to that is missing or seen as marginal?

13) Three articles keeping you up to date on Antarctic research. 

Core workshop findings indicate past Ross Ice Shelf collapse and West Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat.

This sort of research fascinates me. It was released in the middle of July this year. Analysis of a 228m Antarctic sediment core retrieved by an Earth Sciences New Zealand co-led team last summer supports initial observations made in the field – the core holds a record of an open marine environment, far closer to the centre of West Antarctica than has been seen before. 

"Analysis of a 228m Antarctic sediment core retrieved by an Earth Sciences New Zealand co-led team last summer supports initial observations made in the field – the core holds a record of an open marine environment, far closer to the centre of West Antarctica than has been seen before. It’s a surprise to find these signs of an open marine environment. We have records with similar material from closer to the modern ice shelf edge, this is the first time we've recovered such a strong indication that the ice sheet retreated at a location so close to the centre of West Antarctica,” says Professor Levy. The next steps will be to determine what the local temperatures were at the time that there were these open water conditions, and to understand the processes that led to the ice shelf collapse and ice sheet retreat.  

Dr Grant says that coming face to face with this visible evidence of past ice retreat is a stark reminder of the impacts of a warmer climate. “It really sends it home that this isn’t something that’s another world away. It’s something that a warming climate is capable of producing.” 

Check out the full article on the Earth Sciences website. This sort of research can help us understand better what possible scenarios there might be with Antarctic ice melt, particularly in West Antarctica. The implications are huge. Current IPCC projections are for 1 metre of SLR by 2100. I would not be surprised if those living in 2100 will look back and wonder at our conservative projections from this period. 

Models warn Thwaites Glacier could rival entire Antarctic ice loss by 2067.

This second article is relevant to the West Antarctica topic and was published recently on the Phys.org website. "Research from the University of Edinburgh used satellite-calibrated ice sheet models to map the multi-decade trajectory of the glacier. They found the glacier is currently losing ice five times faster than it did in the 1990s. The study projects that by 2067, Thwaites Glacier alone could be shedding 180 to 200 gigatonnes of ice per year. This volume of ice loss from a single glacier is roughly equivalent to the net mass loss of the entire Antarctic ice sheet today." 

How waves, ponds and green algae are accelerating sea ice melt in Antarctica.

This third article describes research looking at feedback loops in the process of summer sea ice melt caused by algae and wave ponds. Again, fascinating stuff if you're interested in what scientists get up to Antarctica.

14) ECB official warns climate crisis poses growing threat to ‘core financial stability’.

"A senior policymaker at the European Central Bank has said the climate emergency and the breakdown of nature poses a dramatically growing risk to the global economy.

Frank Elderson, a member of the ECB’s executive board, said the eurozone lender of last resort was stepping up its monitoring of the financial risks linked to the destruction of “ecosystem services”, which are nature-related processes or assets that support human activity. 
“I did interviews [previously] saying, you know, if you destroy nature, you destroy the core on which our economies depend. And that got people’s attention. This is not some kind of a flower-power, tree-hugging exercise. This is core economics. This is core financial stability, core price stability.”

This stuff is so basic to the viability of human survival on planet earth. It's not like it's a new revelation is it? It's public knowledge that we've passed 7 or the 9 defined Planetary Boundaries. Will anyone take it seriously because it's from someone at the ECB or will we just carry on our merry way until the global economy really breaks? I think I'm getting more cynical as each year goes by with THE ECONOMY being the number one thing to focus on and the viability of the biosphere coming a distant second. It's all back to front! 

Check out the full article in The Guardian. 

15) An equal and habitable world is possible’: academics set out sweeping vision for planetary survival.

Here is another article in a similar vein with an optimistic perspective. A recently released "global report provides an alternative to climate breakdown, political extremism and economic tensions." It is visionary and optimistic that humanity can do things differently. It is sometimes hard to imagine in our current highly disrupted world with an economic system obsessed with growth and seemingly ignorant of the real environment and resource constraint threats looming in the headlights. But it is encouraging that there are people who persist in trying to do things differently and build a brave new world. We know crisis can breed new thinking and community solidarity so who's to say what the future might hold?

Humanity can raise living standards, reduce inequality and keep global heating within a 2C rise, according to a sweeping vision for planetary survival. The report by the World Inequality Lab (WIL) aims to be the most comprehensive attempt yet to navigate the polycrisis that is pushing the world toward climate breakdown, political extremism and ever greater economic and social tension.
It offers a set of bold policy proposals, including hefty wealth taxes on billionaires, sharp reductions in working hours, a change in diets and a shift of investment from materially intense sectors, such as industry and mining, to education and health.

If these and other measures are taken, the report says, the incomes of 89% of the world’s population would double by 2100 and global heating would be kept below 2C above the preindustrial average. The authors say their vision provides a positive alternative to the grim projections from far-right techno extractivists, nationalists and billionaires who claim the future will inevitably bring more fossil fuels, climate disruption and inequality.

“There’s a huge cultural, intellectual, political battle that is going on. And we all have a role to play,” said Thomas Piketty, a co-director of the WIL and a professor at the Paris School of Economics.“The ideology which we see with [Donald] Trump and all the little Trumps that we have all across Europe and all across the world is simply not going to deliver. At the end of the day we’ll have to come to this kind of cooperative redistribution of resources and power because the alternative will simply lead to disastrous outcomes both on the environment, on the climate, but also on social grounds.The Global Justice Report, published on Thursday, tries to overcome the shortcomings of mainstream approaches to the polycrisis, including the overly materialistic emphasis of traditional leftist parties, the questionable efficacy of the economic degrowth proposed by many ecologists and the lack of social impact studies by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.At its core is the concept of sufficiency – the idea that people can enjoy a prosperous, healthy life without constantly striving to consume or accumulate more material possessions that degrade the natural world on which all life depends.
Jason Hickel, a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona and a visiting senior fellow at LSE, said: “It’s an important and timely intervention. All of this is technically feasible to achieve – we can have good lives for all within planetary boundaries – but it will require organised political struggle to make it happen.”

Check out the full article on The Guardian website.

16) The Beehive Microgrid Model: Mobile Solar+Storage in New Orleans

Here's an innovative project happening in the US that could be replicated here - A Beehive Microgrid consists of a “Hive”—a grid-connected microgrid powered by solar and energy storage (solar+storage)—and “Bees”—a group of mobile solar+storage trailers. Bees are charged and stationed at the Hive. In preparation for severe weather or during a power outage, the Bees can be deployed throughout a region to provide services such as Wi-Fi, electrical outlets for charging phones and other devices, refrigeration for food and medication, and to serve as a hub for volunteers or medical providers. When there are no disasters or power outages to respond to, the solar+storage systems can generate economic benefits, such as utility bills savings, and the Bees can be deployed to power outdoor community events like concerts and picnics.
 
Check out the full article on the Clean Energy Group website. 

17) Two recent blogs from James Hansen.

For the science nerds out there James has recently sent out two blogs about the building El Nino. The critical point he is making in the first blog is highlighted in these two sentences - "Beware the “surprise” record high being blamed on an extreme El Nino on top of global warming otherwise consistent with IPCC estimates. Instead, record warmth provides additional evidence of high climate sensitivity and increased net climate forcing in the past decade." This is a central factor in the debate about climate sensitivity. I have included some basic information about this debate in the next item in this newsletter. 

Beware Media Hype. It’s Not the El Nino!

Abstract. Emerging climate extremes should draw public attention to human-caused climate change. We expect unusual sea surface temperature (SST) and global warming the rest of this year to make 2026 hotter than 2024, despite 2024 being a peak El Nino year, while 2026 is only the lead-in year of an emerging El Nino. Beware the “surprise” record high being blamed on an extreme El Nino on top of global warming otherwise consistent with IPCC estimates. Instead, record warmth provides additional evidence of high climate sensitivity and increased net climate forcing in the past decade. These two factors are driving an unusual increase in global SSTs with major consequences. If you bear with our discussion to the end, you will find some possible good news.

Unfortunately, there was a fly in the ointment. IPCC’s overwhelming focus on GCMs and global warming of the past century resulted in one dominant constraint on the models: the need to obtain global warming of about the observed magnitude. However, there were two uncertain parameters: climate sensitivity and the unmeasured aerosol forcing. The basis for believing that the aerosol forcing was unchanging during 1970-2005 was the fact that the estimated sulfur content of fossil fuels burned in that period was nearly constant and sulfate aerosols are the dominant human-made aerosol. If the aerosol forcing were simply due to reflection of sunlight by the aerosols per se, constant aerosol forcing would have been a good approximation. However, much, probably most, of the aerosol forcing is via the effect of aerosols on clouds, and that effect is very nonlinear. Adding aerosols to a pristine atmosphere has more effect on clouds than adding aerosols to already heavily polluted air. Prior to 1970, the U.S. and Europe were the main sources of increasing aerosols, but in the next few decades emissions there began to decline as emissions rose in Asia and as ship traffic became extensive over a greater ocean area. Thus, aerosol forcing became stronger.

Super-Duper El Nino and the Bigger Problem.

Abstract. The ongoing El Nino is already the strongest in the modern record. However, increasing global climate anomalies, poleward shifting of climate zones, increased rainfall extremes, more rapid flash droughts and fires, and marine heat waves are a result of accelerating human-made global warming. The abnormal El Nino strength is itself likely human-driven.
The El Nino has blossomed. It is off the charts. Usual measures of El Nino have blown past prior record levels in the period with good data, even though maximum effects are still several months in the future. Our preferred metric, the heat anomaly in the upper 300 meters of the Equatorial Pacific Ocean (Figs. 1, 2), already exceeds the 1997-98 super El Nino.

If you like seeing the information in graphs here are two of significance. The first shows the Global surface temperature and the exponential change in the trendline over the last 10 years or so (baseline is 1880-1920 period). We will need a few more years of data to see if this trend continues but it is clearly of concern. The second shows the sea surface temperature in the equatorial Western Pacific, which is the critical driver of El Nino weather patterns.

---

If you wish to check out the full blogs you will find them on James Hansen's website.

18) The Climate Sensitivity Debate. 

"Climate sensitivity" is referred to regularly in scientific literature so I thought some readers might find it useful including this item, which provides some basic information about what climate sensitivity is and why there is some debate about how high or low it might actually be. 

Climate sensitivity is a measure of how much the Earth's average surface temperature will warm if the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere doubles. It is almost always calculated using a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) from pre-industrial levels and helps scientists estimate how severe future global warming will be based on human emissions.

Scientists look at climate sensitivity through two primary lenses:
    • Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS): The total, long-term warming after the atmosphere and oceans have completely            stabilized. This process takes centuries.
   • Transient Climate Response (TCR): The quicker, immediate warming we will experience at the exact moment CO₂ levels          finish doubling. 

A higher climate sensitivity means the planet is highly reactive to greenhouse gases, leading to harsher temperature spikes. A lower sensitivity means the planet warms more slowly, giving humanity more time to adapt.

In its Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), the IPCC narrowed its "likely" ECS range to 2.5°C–4.0°C, establishing 3.0°C as its best estimate. 
Former NASA scientist James Hansen and his co-authors published two high-profile studies titled "Global Warming in the Pipeline" and "Global Warming has accelerated" demonstrating that the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 4.8°C ± 1.2°C. In subsequent work, Hansen consistently simplified and summarized this finding as a best estimate of 4.5°C, which is exactly 50% higher than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) baseline. Hansen and his team subsequently published a summary paper titled "Seeing the Forest for the Trees" which is worth a read if you want more detail of their research.

It is critical for our leaders and decision makers to understand what climate sensitivity is and to realise that there is debate about how high it actually is. The difference between 3.0°C and 4.5°C is significant and the implications for future planning could be major. Forewarned is forearmed as they say. If you're interested in a deeper look at this debate I've put together a document with more information that you can download.  

19) Fehinti Balogun - raising awareness for where the climate crisis meets the class crisis.

This RNZ interview with Mihirangi Forbes was a great listen. I identified a lot with the world perspective of Fehinti.  He highlights how the impacts arising from the climate crisis and environmental overshoot disproportionately fall on the world's poor and dispossessed. It may be uncomfortable for some to listen to but it is necessary if we are to make changes in our society that address global inequality.

BAFTA-nominated British-Nigerian actor Fehinti Balogun has a busy schedule - having appeared on our screens in edgy British dramas like I May Destroy You and Down Cemetery Road, tred the boards all over London and even had a walk-on appearance in the blockbuster Dune: Part One. But alongside all of that, he’s also in the spotlight as a climate activist, co-creating the Green Rider initiative which sees actors call for their sets to make sustainable decisions, and touring a film combines spoken word, rap, theatre, animation, and scientific facts, offering audiences a reflective and participatory experience.

He has conceived, written and performed an important film which will be shown at next month’s WORD Christchurch Festival followed by a vital climate kōrero with Fehinti (appearing digitally), Tāme Iti (Ngāi Tūhoe), Dr MahMah Timoteo and Paora Tapsell (Ngāti Whakaue, Ngāti Raukawa). Can we save the planet without addressing social inequality? In this screening, Fehinti tells the story of how, as a young Black British man, his path has been forever changed by what he’s learnt about our planet. Using hip-hop and spoken word, Can I Live? is an energising and uplifting new digital performance and a call-to-arms to anyone curious about what we can do to help. In the face of a sense of helplessness about the climate catastrophe, Can I Live? is an outstretched hand, inviting audiences to recognise they are not alone - and that through understanding the issues and connecting with the many powerful activists around the globe driving change, we can find a sense of hope for the future. 

20) The ocean has shielded us from the worst of climate change. Now it is running a fever.

This article in the Guardian provides a good clear explanation of the role the oceans play in absorbing the excess heat caused by GHG's, and the new threat to the infrastructure required to continue monitoring this important data. I've also put together some information about the threats to the Argo (referred to in the article) and OOI measuring buoys. These buoys are essential for good climate research, particularly right now with the growing Super El Nino occurring. 

The U.S. contribution to the global Argo program is currently in severe jeopardy. A five-year National Science Foundation (NSF) grant that funded the deployment of 500 advanced Biogeochemical (BGC) Argo floats expired. Program leaders submitted a renewal proposal to maintain the fleet, but the Trump administration has left the funding in limbo, refusing to respond to the grant request for over 20 months. Because these floats have a rigid 5-year battery life, climate researchers warn that the administration's administrative freeze means the fleet will begin dying off and thinning out without replacements, effectively ending active U.S. support for expanding the array.
The administration also issued an outright directive to physically dismantle a parallel ocean network—the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). In May 2026, the NSF announced plans to descope the program and actively dispatch ships to pull more than 900 deep-sea sensor buoys out of the water across the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. However, that specific directive triggered an immediate uproar. Bipartisan lawmakers and oceanographers heavily criticized the decision, calling the removal of the tracking buoys a "direct threat" to coastal safety. The U.S. Senate passed the "Save Our Sensors" measure by unanimous consent, legally blocking the federal government from using funds to decommission the maritime network. On June 18, 2026, the National Science Foundation officially reversed course, halting the removal of the OOI buoys "effective immediately." While the physical removal of the moored OOI buoys was stopped by Congress, the robotic Argo float program remains under operational threat due to the administration's broader push to slash NOAA and climate science budgets.

21) Have we got enough resources for the Renewable Revolution?

There is plenty of information around documenting the amazing rapidly rising uptake of renewable energy and electrification around the globe. I've been interested in global supplies of the essential minerals required to feed the renewable revolution, in particular copper. So here is some information to provide readers with some food for thought. Are we expecting too much from Papatuanuku in our insatiable quest for the energy required to maintain modern lifestyles? Do those of us in the developed world in particular need to lower our expectations and live simpler lifestyles so others can simply live?

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has officially warned that the near-term copper supply outlook has "worsened considerably." The warning was issued in the IEA Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2026. It highlights a critical midstream bottleneck that is exacerbating an already tight global copper market and warns that global copper supply from existing and planned projects will fall 25% short of demand by 2035, driven by soaring electrification and AI data center needs. The near-term outlook has worsened due to sulphuric acid supply shocks and logistical bottlenecks, despite an 8% rise in mining.
 
A severe global shortage of sulphuric acid now directly threatens over 15% of global primary copper production. This primarily affects operations using Solvent Extraction-Electrowinning (SxEW) acid leaching to extract copper from crushed ore. The primary drivers are geopolitical. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off roughly half of the global seaborne sulphur trade. Compounding this, China has instituted a strict ban on sulphuric acid exports through the end of the year. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Chile are facing the highest risk. Some mine sites have reported that their acid inventories have dwindled to just 30 to 60 days.

This supply shock arrives as the market is still recovering from severe mining disruptions. In 2025, events like the Grasberg mudflow and Kamoa-Kakula flooding wiped out 1.5 million tonnes of supply. Despite some new project additions in Zambia and Peru, the IEA projections indicate that primary copper supply will still remain 25% short of 2035 global requirements. Driven by demands from power grids, EVs, and data centres,  global copper prices have skyrocketed by roughly 46% compared to this time last year in response to the tightening data, trading near record highs above $14,000 per tonne.

In South America where some of the world's largest copper mines exist, copper supply is under severe strain due to an aggressive mix of extreme weather, fatal safety shutdowns, structural grade declines, and labor tensions on top of the global shortage of sulphuric acid. As the world’s dominant copper-producing region, the compounding disruptions in Chile and Peru have forced major miners to slash their production targets, severely worsening the global supply deficit.

The Conversation published an article "Global copper demand outstrips supply, threatening electrification and industrial growth"  on this topic earlier this year which provides more useful information.

22) Scientists detect a surprising shift in human blood as atmospheric CO2 rises.

This item is from Bill McKibben's blog. It is about a thought provoking discovery by researchers from The Kids Research Institute in Australia and published on the Science Daily website.

I cannot tell you what this new scientific data really means—but you have to admit it’s interesting:

Rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be leaving a measurable imprint inside the human body. Researchers analyzing more than two decades of U.S. health data found that blood bicarbonate levels have climbed about 7% since 1999, while calcium and phosphorus have declined—changes that closely track increasing atmospheric CO2.

At the very least, this should cause us to do a little…reflecting - 

Humans evolved when atmospheric CO2 concentrations were approximately 280 to 300 ppm. During the past decade, atmospheric levels have risen by an average of about 2.6 ppm each year, while 2024 alone saw an increase of 3.5 ppm. Fellow Author Dr Phil Bierwirth, a retired environmental geoscientist affiliated with the ANU Emeritus Faculty, emphasized that the study does not establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship. However, he said the consistency of the changes across a large population warrants attention.

“I actually think that what we are seeing is because our bodies are not adapting,” Dr Bierwirth said. “It appears we are adapted to a range of CO2 in the air that may now have been surpassed. The normal range maintains a delicate balance between how much CO2 is in the air, our blood pH, our breathing rate and bicarbonate levels in the blood. As CO2 in the air is now higher than humans have ever experienced, it appears to be building up in our bodies. Maybe we can never adapt such that it is vitally important to limit atmospheric levels of CO2.”

---