My conclusion - it doesn’t suit the government to clarify this because then they’d have to seriously take on the fossil fuel companies, don’t you think? But I don’t understand why the Greens aren't doing more

The only provision in the Climate Change Act is that if the Environment Minister approves a development that will significantly increase emissions, they have to tell the Climate Change Minister. That’s it! What a joke

the relationship between the Climate Change Act and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act is not clear (and does not seem to be clarified in proposed changes to EPBC Act). It’s not a conspiracy as such but it really suits the interests of fossil fuel producers!

There is confusion in Australia (and internationally) about the relationship between climate change and environment protection. It’s not really a basic conceptual confusion (anyone can understand the problem really) but a confusion in legislation and regulation eg in Australia

forest protection is good but in the bigger picture the lack of clarity around climate change and its impact on natural environments is a huge problem both in Australia and internationally. It’s no good having forest protection in the Act if the forests are just going to burn

I - and members of the group - were so surprised to see such a healthy and vigorous plant. Maybe we white settlers haven’t stuffed everything - maybe there’s hope for us all. So nice in the week that a treaty between First Nations and settlers is concluded here

Took my U3A (University of the third age) Climate Change - Living Well and Sustainably group to the community garden for our last meeting of 2025 and pulled this up to show them an indigenous food plant that was a staple for First Nations.

It’s a very good article but The Guardian (presumably a sub-editor rather than Graham Readfearn) seems to be referring to the female scientist, Zoe Richards, who is quoted at length in it as ‘he’ in the intro. Please do better @theguardian.com cc @readfearn.bsky.social

Otherwise you will get a rash of people saying ‘Solar has stopped growing!’ Etc etc

need to be careful in use of terminology around ‘growth’ vs ‘rate of growth’. if something has been growing at an ’increasing rate’ and then slows down to grow at a ‘steady rate’, it is still growing (eg diagonal line vs exponential curve)

Sorry but I think that answer is a bit confusing - shouldn’t it be ‘the rate of growth has been continuously increasing but the IEA assumes the increase will stop and it will grow at a steady rate from now to 2035’ (I know more complicated but I think more correct?)

Siri in my iPhone used to ‘think’ my name was Andrew (possibly because he was first in my contacts) and my grandkids used to delight in asking it unanswerable questions so it would say ‘I can’t answer that Andrew’
Moral: if it can be outsmarted by a 5yo it’s not that smart

I don’t see Bowen there for Australia - not a surprise I guess - but I fervently hope this will put pressure on the Australian government to develop their own road map away from fossil fuels - including exports!

This is so sadly true - there is an entire industry (or multiple industries) built around ‘oh isn’t it awful being a woman’ - as you say it’s good to talk freely about problems but we don’t have to be defined by them

I’ve been doing this fancy nut loaf thing which is not at all dry the last couple of years - I substitute mushrooms or other nuts for the chestnuts (though you could get tinned etc) otherwise do the recipe much as is
www.gazoakleychef.com/recipes/fest...

The whole debate in #AusPol could be so much more realistic if we reported emissions directly and LULUCF separately.