Seven of the nine planetary boundaries have now been crossed. Civil society calls for major reform of COP meetings. Big banks fund Australian deforestation. China leaving USA behind in the energy transition.

Ocean acidification exceeds another safe planetary boundary

The concept of planetary boundaries, first proposed in 2009, identifies nine crucial Earth-system processes that, functioning as they have in recent millennia, collectively create a safe environment where humans can thrive and establish complex civilisations. However, the functioning of each system has a measurable boundary beyond which the “sweet spot” for human existence is threatened. The nine boundaries relate to climate change, biodiversity loss, interference with the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, stratospheric ozone depletion, global freshwater use, change in land use, chemical pollution, air pollution and ocean acidification.

The oceans have been absorbing about 30% of the CO2 that humans have been pumping into the atmosphere and this has increased the water’s acidity. The change in pH (a fall of about 0.1 pH units from just above 8) may seem minor but it is not of purely academic interest as it represents a 30% increase in acidity – the science nerds among you will remember that the pH scale is logarithmic. This affects the physiology, growth, reproduction, habitats, food webs and survival of many marine organisms. Animals with shells and skeletons of calcium carbonate such as corals, crustaceans and molluscs are particularly vulnerable to the change. More acidic water also adversely influences wild and farmed sources of human food.

The 2009 paper on planetary boundaries found that three boundaries had already been crossed. A fourth was added in 2015 and in 2023 the number increased to six. A seventh, the average global level of acidification of the oceans, has now changed by more than 20% compared with the pre-industrial level and consequently has moved beyond the boundary of its safe zone.

The researchers emphasise that the level of ocean acidification naturally varies regionally and understanding pH changes in polar and coastal areas and at different depths must complement attention on the global average. They also recommend that the boundary be halved to 10% and note that only low CO2 emissions will keep at least some parts of the ocean below the current boundary by 2100. Even then, it’s likely that in some areas the acidification of the ocean will exceed 40%.

This is yet more evidence that our addiction to fossil fuels is destroying the stable environment that humanity has enjoyed since the last Ice Age and that global warming is not the only consequence that threatens our health and survival.

Reforming the dysfunctional climate COP meetings

The Paris Agreement of December 2015 was the high-water mark of achievement for the UNFCCC’s COP process, with success due in no small measure to the skill, energy and commitment of three individuals: Christiana Figueres, Ban Ki-moon and the COP21 president Laurent Fabius. Regrettably, since then the COP meetings have progressively degenerated into little more than trade shows for petrostates and the fossil fuel industry. International progress on rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to keep global warming under the agreed 1.5 or 2oC has failed to emerge.

More than 200 civil society and Indigenous groups have now issued a statement calling for major reforms that focus on the overall COP process (points 1-5) and the attributes required of host countries (points 6 and 7):

1. Switching to majority-based decision making. The current consensus requirement for approval effectively gives every large nation a veto and produces commitments that are weak, ambiguous, unmonitored and unenforceable.
2. Stopping “corporate capture” of the meetings. End the corporate sponsorship of COP meetings and the undue influence exerted during negotiations by fossil fuel states and companies and those with large carbon footprints.
3. Making negotiations open and transparent, including access to relevant documents.
4. Improving nations’ compliance with fulfilling the promises they make through incentives for action and penalties for failure.
5. Ensuring that the UNFCCC strengthens collaborations with intergovernmental groups working on intersecting crises such as air pollution, plastic pollution and loss of biodiversity.
6. Awarding COP hosting rights only to countries with a demonstrated, genuine commitment to climate action and a good human rights record.
7. Ensuring that climate and human rights activists and journalists have access to simple, equitable visa application systems to enter COP host countries and are free to congregate, observe and report proceedings, express their views and protest peacefully.

If I were deciding where the 2026 COP were to be held, I fear Australia would struggle to convince me about the last two points.

Which banks are funding Australian deforestation?

Australia is the only developed country classified as a deforestation hotspot and our banks are funding much of the destruction.

The Australian Conservation Foundation investigated 100 cases of deforestation linked to major banks through mortgages during the 12 months to July 2024. In several cases, mortgages were issued during or just after a bout of land clearing by the borrower and 42 instances are likely to have been Matters of National Environmental Significance that should have been but weren’t referred to the Commonwealth Government for approval.

Across the 100 cases, just over 24,000 hectares were cleared, with three banks, NAB, Rabobank and CommBank, funding the most bulldozers:

ACF is asking supporters to tell their bank that they need to do better by:

• Adopting a policy to eliminate deforestation from lending portfolios. (In December 2025, Westpac will become the only bank to have a no-deforestation commitment.);
• Investing in expertise and geospatial data to monitor nature-related risks associated with the funds they lend and improve their due diligence;
• Encouraging bank customers in high-risk sectors to transition to nature-positive operations.

Hot air in Washington, but no wind farms in China

In an Independence Day address, President Trump remarked that: “Wind. It doesn’t work, I will tell ya, aside from ruining our fields and our valleys and killing all the birds, and having very, being very weak and expensive. All made in China.

 “You know I noticed something, that, with all the windmills that China sends us — where we waste our money, because it’s the most expensive energy — I see that, you know, they make about 95% of ’em, the wind turbines, I have never seen a wind farm in China! Why is that? Somebody check that out.”

Lots of people came to the President’s aid and did indeed check that one out. Here are a few more facts that he can ignore.

China controls clean energy manufacturing...

China’s predominance in clean energy manufacturing is set to continue. In 2024, mainland China was responsible for 76% of global clean energy factory investment.

China exports the future while the US looks back

Since 2023, Chinese companies have announced US$168 billion of foreign investments in clean energy manufacturing, generation and transmission. If you go to the link, you can hover over each of the circles on the map below to see details of each investment. Chinese investments in solar and battery plants in the US alone total more than US$13 billion. Chinese investments in Australia have been about US$4.5 billion.

China is leading the world in the installation of clean energy technology and its exports are helping Asia and Europe, in particular, make the green transition. In contrast, the US is trying to maintain the dominance of fossil fuels both at home and overseas. 

About 6% of bus sales globally were electric in 2024. The figure was 66% in China but, with far fewer buses, Denmark (72%), Finland (57%) and Netherlands (48%) are also rapidly electrifying their fleets.

Public buses, school buses, coaches and the like produce about 5% of global transport-related greenhouse gas emissions.

New ALP MPs update

Last week, I reported that only two of 18 new Labor MPs considered the environment and/or climate change to be a personal priority for their first three years in parliament. Last Saturday, 5 July, The Saturday Paper provided information about nine of the remaining new Labor MPs – three of them nominated the environment, climate change or clean energy as a priority.

So, just five of 27 new ALP caucus members, fewer than 20%, consider the environment and climate to be a current priority. This seems to tells us one or both of two things. First, the new members are simply reflecting the general population’s concern about but reluctance to attach any priority or urgency to the climate and environment. Second, regardless of their personal views, the new chums have read the writing on the wall and see advocating too strongly on these matters as a poor career move in the current parliamentary Labor party.

How governments convert healthy carbon to dangerous carbon

In this six-minute video, Bob Debus, former NSW Minister for the Environment, shows us the destruction wrought by state-sanctioned logging in Glenbog State Forest, 50km west of Bega, NSW. Bob also describes the value of native forests for the conservation of nature and for combating climate change, the stupidity of governments pursuing carbon credits and the need to end native forest logging now.

https://johnmenadue.com/post/2025/07/environment-ocean-acidification-has-left-the-safe-zone-for-humans/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

SEE ALSO: 

Why Is Every Natural Disaster Being Politicized?

William L. Anderson/MISES INSTITUTE

Even while the search for missing people in flood-ravaged Texas continues, the politicized invective has come from the Left. Perhaps the most shocking comments came from Dr. Christina B. Propst—a Houston-based pediatrician who mocked the victims and their families because she perceived some of them might have voted for Donald Trump. Propst—who was fired by her employer—posted on Facebook:

May all visitors, children, non-MAGA voters and pets be safe and dry. Kerr County MAGA voted to gut FEMA. They deny climate change. May they get what they voted for. Bless their hearts.

Sade Perkins—who had been appointed to her position by Houston’s former mayor—posted the following quote on social media:

I know I’m going to get cancelled for this, but Camp Mystic is a white-only girls’ Christian camp. They don’t even have a token Asian. They don’t have a token Black person. It’s an all-white, white-only conservative Christian camp. If you ain’t white you ain’t right, you ain’t gettin’ in, you ain’t goin’. Period.

(Actually, a look at the Camp Mystic website shows that the camp has black camp counselors, and counselors often are drawn from former campers. No doubt, when the camp was founded 99 years ago, it would have been all-white, but the camp has changed with the times, as one would expect.)

Besides cheering on the multitude of deaths, others on the Left blamed the Trump administration, claiming that recent cuts in National Weather Service staff left people vulnerable to the floods by not giving them enough warning, something Connor O’Keeffe covered in a recent article. All of this leads to the question of why people are politicizing natural disasters, and the politicization is not limited to the Left. For example, during the Los Angeles wildfires early this year, many conservatives blamed DEI for the carnage without taking into account the many factors that led to the out-of-control fires in the first place.

In the past, political accusations were made about the government’s response to the natural disaster once it happened. In August 1992, during the presidential campaign, Hurricane Andrew, the “strongest and most devastating hurricane on record to hit South Florida,” Democratic Candidate Bill Clinton immediately accused the George H.W. Bush administration of malfeasance by not doing enough to help Andrew’s victims. Given that the federal government’s emergency agency, FEMA, was not set up to do mass relief, one can imagine the confusion that followed the Bush administration’s attempts to provide relief. Clinton, not surprisingly, won Florida and the presidential election.

(James Bovard, in his book about the Clinton years, Feeling Your Pain, devotes a chapter to how Clinton used FEMA to score political points and to buy votes. If there is ground zero for politicizing natural disasters, it would be the Clinton presidency.)

When Hurricane Katrina slammed into New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities and communities, the public had come to believe that the federal government—and only the federal government—could rescue an entire city and its inhabitants. The efforts of the George W. Bush administration would never have been successful even had FEMA done everything right, as the task was too large for a single government agency. However, even by the Bush administration’s low standards, the response to Katrina was abysmal and destroyed President Bush’s political reputation.

But Katrina unleashed another kind of political infestation dealing with natural disasters: the role of climate change. While he didn’t directly claim Katrina was the result of global warming, former Vice-President Al Gore intimated it was in his documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” The introduction of climate change into American politics has been the catalyst in the modern politicization of natural disasters, and especially weather events.

Accompanying the modern doctrines of climate change is the underlying belief that there is a state solution to this supposed problem. Furthermore, every major weather event—from the flooding in Western North Carolina and East Tennessee last year to the deadly flooding on the Guadalupe River in Texas—is claimed to be the result of climate change, so those who might question this narrative are deemed responsible for it happening.

As one who has followed every US presidential election since 1960, there was a time when someone running for president and promising to create conditions conducive to creating better weather would have been laughed off the podium. Today, (as we saw with Christina B. Propst’s unfortunate social media post) those who might support political candidates who show some skepticism about the apocalyptic claims made by environmentalists are worthy of death—and plenty of people will cheer on your demise.

For that matter, climate change is not only blamed for rain-fueled disasters, but also for disasters that occur when there is too little rain, such as last January’s wildfires in Los Angeles that devastated whole communities. To doubt the modern culture’s views on climate change is to doubt the efficacy of science itself, according to climate activists. Thus, activists argue, if the earth is warming because of the use of fuels such as oil, natural gas, and coal, then it is up to governments around the world to force the use of technologies that can create electric power without burning fuels, and that requires a political “solution.”

At this point, people who believe such political narratives believe that a vote for candidates who support the use of state power to prohibit the burning of oil, gas, and coal and who want to use government to build and promote alternative energy sources such as wind and solar is also a vote for better weather. One is tempted to say that a vote for pro-alternative energy candidates is a vote against floods, droughts, and wildfires. Likewise, a vote for political candidates who are skeptical of the current climate narratives or who are against using state power to force energy changes are seen as pro-flooding and pro-wildfires, candidates who want people to drown in floods and burn up in wildfires.

Given this set of attitudes, it is not much of a leap from voting for Donald Trump to being responsible for both the flooding and the death toll in Texas. This is not a logical position, by any means, but nonetheless it now is acceptable in many Democratic Party circles and has become virtually an article of religious faith by leftists.

The flash point of this discussion is the Green New Deal, which was the crown jewel in Joe Biden’s policy initiatives. As I noted in an article earlier this year, there is a huge disconnect between the ambitious goals they had to supplant fuel-burning electric power plants and gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles with electric cars and trucks, along with “renewable” energy and the ability to meet these goals. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that making these huge changes will have even an insignificant impact on climate.

To support the Green New Deal, according to the activists, is to want a better earth and fewer floods, hurricanes, and wildfires. However, anyone who might question the efficacy of Biden’s environmental initiatives does so with malice aforethought, as even the act of questioning such things is tantamount to wanting LA to burn down and people to be swept away in floods.

When I taught at Frostburg State University several years ago, one of my colleagues told me that had Gore won the 2000 election, there would have been no Hurricane Katrine because Gore would have stopped global warming which was responsible for the storm. Believing something like this requires either an imagination that most of us don’t have or one simply has become unattached to factual thinking.

But we must remember that millions of people believe something like what my friend said to me. These are people who hold to a faith in the political process that is well beyond the ability of even the best and most level-headed scientists to counter. Once people like Al Gore declared (and got people to believe) that we can reverse climate change by empowering the state to levels well beyond anything we have had in our history, then it was inevitable that even weather events would become grist for the political mill.

https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-every-natural-disaster-being-politicized

WHEN A DORK LIKE DONALD TRUMP GOES ALL OUT ON COAL, GAS AND OIL AGAINST RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, ONE CAN SEE THAT WEATHER EVENTS HAVE BEEN POLITICISED SINCE SCIENCES STARTED TO HAVE A GRIP ON WHAT ACTIVATES WEATHER PHENOMENONS. FROM VOLCANIC ASHES TO THE BATTLE OF WATERLOO, THE WEATHER HAS INTERFERED WITH POLITICAL HISTORY — AND MORE RECENTLY WITH A CERTAIN POLARISATION ABOUT THE SUBJECT. 

THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING HAS BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR MORE THAN ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY SEVEN YEARS. THE SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF PAST EONS ALSO TELL US ABOUT THE CLIMATIC TRENDS OF THESE TIMES (including those that lead to the sequestration of coal and oil). THESE STUDIES ALSO CAN DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN NATURAL AND HUMAN INDUCED TRENDS IN "CLIMATE CHANGE"

THAT SOME PEOPLE (say Dr. Christina B. Propst) USE DRAMATIC WEATHER EVENTS TO ABUSE DEAD AND INJURED "NON-BELIEVERS" IN GLOBAL WARMING IS BEYOND THE PALE.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE MISES INSTITUTE DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE "THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING"... 

THE MISES INSTITUTE IS AN ECONOMIC BASED FREE-TRADE SYSTEM WITH LITTLE (NIL/zero/NADA) UNDERSTANDING OF THE SCIENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING (The Mises Institute thinks it is a hoax).

GUS LEONISKY HAS WORKED WITH MANY SCIENTISTS ON THIS SUBJECT SINCE 1979 AND CAN CATEGORICALLY THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND ANTHROPOGENIC.

GUS ALSO STUDIED WEATHER AND WEATHER PREDICTION IN THE 1950S FOR GERMAN AIRCRAFTS.

BEYOND THIS, WE HAVE DONE MORE SIMPLE EXPOSéS ON THIS SITE: SEE: 

https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/33287

THE POINT IS NOT THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS INDUCED BY HUMAN ACTIVITIES, BUT ABOUT WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT... AS EXPLAINED MANY TIMES ON THIS SITE, DUE TO THE DELAYS BETWEEN CAUSES AND EFFECTS, WHAT WE DO NOW WON'T HAVE MUCH EFFECT IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT WILL MITIGATE THE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS OF GLOBAL WARMING DOWN A FEW NOTCHES WITHIN A HUNDRED YEARS OF SO...

THE PRESENT TREND IS FOR MORE CATASTROPHIC EVENTS LIKE FLOODS IN TEXAS AND THE ALGAL BLOOMS ALSO MENTIONED HERE. DAILY, MANY PACIFIC ISLAND NATIONS REMIND US ABOUT NOTICEABLE SEA LEVEL RISE... REDUCING THE SYSTEMS OF STUDYING GLOBAL WARMING AND OF WEATHER PREDICTION (A PASS-TIME BY D J TRUMP IS TO MAKE HIS OWN SILLY PREDICTION ABOUT HURRICANE PATHS) WILL NOT IMPROVE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S COMING NEXT. OUR OWN ESTIMATE IS THAT BY 2032, THERE WILL BE WEATHER EVENTS OF FEROCIOUS CHARACTER AND SOME LONG PERIODS OF HEAT BEYOND WHAT HUMANS CAN ENDURE. 

TEMPERATURES IN EUROPE HAVE HIT RECORD HIGH THIS YEAR... TILL THEN (2032) PREPARE FOR MORE OF THIS.

SEE ALSO: 

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

A royal commission is needed to tackle the long-term effects of the devastating algal bloom off South Australia's coast that has killed countless sea creatures and is damaging industries, the state's opposition says.

The call comes as the impact of the bloom continues to spread, with mussel farming sites around Port Lincoln shut down after shellfish toxins were detected in the area.

The "precautionary closure", which came into effect on Wednesday, has suspended mussel harvesting at the Boston Bay, Bickers Island, Lower Eyre and Proper Bay sites, according to the Department of Primary Industries and Regions (PIRSA).

The opposition said a royal commission would allow thorough examination of the causes and consequences of the Karenia mikimotoi bloom — as well as the responses so far, potential health impacts, and steps to prevent a repeat of the current crisis.

"What we're calling for is for a royal commission to investigate in an independent way what exactly has caused this algal bloom, and what could we better do to make sure that it is managed and to ensure it doesn't happen again."

Mr Tarzia said the estimated cost of "a few million dollars" was a "small price to pay".

Attorney-General Kyam Maher poured scorn on the proposal, suggesting it was a waste of money to investigate what was "almost universally accepted by scientists to be caused by climate change".

"We've already announced half a million dollars in fee relief for the fishing industry and we've said we're looking at doing more," he said.

Last week, the government announced what it described as an "initial investment" of $500,000 to support the state's commercial fishing sector.

Commercial fisher Andrew Pisani, from Stansbury on Yorke Peninsula, said what had been announced so far was "just not going to be enough".

"Stansbury is ground zero. We're 70 days in now — 70 days — and we need some help, help now," he said.

"We're not making any income there at all.

Opposition primary industries spokesperson Nicola Centofanti called on the government to waive fishing licence fees "from July onwards".

"We've got commercial fishermen, aquaculture businesses, tourism businesses that are literally on their knees," she said.

"[They] need not just short-term support but they need a medium-to-long-term plan.

"This is an ecological and economic disaster."

Port Wakefield fisher Justin Cicolella said the impact at the northern end of Gulf St Vincent had, until now, not been as bad — but there were signs that was changing.

"Ongoing support's probably going to have to be there. We've all got young families and rely on a certain amount of money coming in each week," he said.

Fellow Port Wakefield fisher Bart Butson said he was "not sure" if a royal commission was the answer, but that securing a sustainable fishery was of "foremost" importance.

"I wake up at night thinking, 'How long can we catch some fish for?'" he said.

"It's just beginning to bite now. We've seen the squid in our area disappear … and that makes up 30 per cent of our wage, of our catch."

The push for a royal commission comes after the Greens called for a state-based inquiry and urged the federal government to declare the bloom a national disaster.

The state government said it had already established a working group made up of government agencies including PIRSA to better understand the bloom.

"We're keen to make sure we're having the best scientists look at what's happening and making sure that the funds are directed at those who are affected, not going to lawyers for a royal commission," Mr Maher said.

The government last week shut down several Lower Eyre Peninsula mussel farming sites, on a temporary basis, because of shellfish toxins linked to the bloom.

The site closures prevent the sale and movement of bivalve molluscan shellfish from the area.

PIRSA said the closures impacted two producers: Yumbah Mussels Holdings and Deedah Oysters. 

The former employs about 75 people, with its parent company saying the closures have caused "uncertainty for our staff, suppliers and our customers".

Both Yumbah Aquaculture and PIRSA said there was no public health risk and mussels already on the market were safe to eat.

The closures come after PIRSA's regular testing of shellfish harvesting sites detected brevetoxins — neurotoxic shellfish poisons that can affect oysters, mussels and scallops, according to SA Health.

If consumed, they can cause symptoms including vomiting, diarrhoea and stomach cramps.

"They have detected brevetoxin which is a neurotoxin that is associated with the Karenia species and therefore they cannot allow the sales of the mussels," Environment Minister Susan Close said.

"This is obviously very serious.

"What's likely is that we've got a dominant Karenia mikimotoialgal bloom but some other varieties of Karenia in there, and we've seen a couple of instances now where that's shown up."

Ms Close said she was "hopeful" that the affected businesses would be "able to survive at least a short period without lay-offs".

Asked how long the shutdown would last, Ms Close said PIRSA would rely on "clear test results" to determine when products could be sold again.

"They will be frequently testing in order to get mussels back on the shelf once they are safe," she said.

Yumbah Aquaculture chief executive David Wood said the harvesting suspension was expected to last "at least four weeks".

He said local brevetoxin levels remained within the relevant safety threshold, but added: "Yumbah takes no risks with food safety."

"While current levels pose no threat to consumers, further assessment is required due to this testing feedback timing, and the suspension is expected to last at least four weeks," he said in a statement.

The shellfish shutdown is the latest in a series of economic disruptions caused by SA's algal bloom.

In May, PIRSA also suspended shellfish harvesting operations around Stansbury and Port Vincent on Yorke Peninsula due to increased brevetoxin levels, forcing the quarantine of up to 10 million oysters.

Mr Wood said the impact on fisheries was "unprecedented".

"This situation brings uncertainty for our staff, suppliers and our customers.

"We're working closely with our teams to understand the implications and provide support, continuing to back each other through this challenging time."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-13/algal-bloom-royal-commission-call-amid-mussel-farm-impact/105525088

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/act/ocean-treaty?

Overfishing, plastic pollution, rising temperatures, and habitat destruction are pushing marine life to the brink. In The Ocean: A Journey with David Attenborough, viewers are invited to witness the wonders of the ocean, from its deepest trenches to its vibrant coral reefs. 

The film is not just a visual spectacle but also an urgent call for action.

“This is the story of our ocean. And how we must write its next chapter together. For if we save the sea, we save our world. After a lifetime of filming our planet, I’m sure that nothing is more important.”

-David Attenborough

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.