Snipers in helicopters have shot more than 700 koalas in the Budj Bim National Park in western Victoria in recent weeks. It’s believed to be the first time koalas have been culled in this way.
The cull became public on Good Friday after local wildlife carers were reportedly tipped off.
A fire burned about 20% of the park in mid-March. The government said the cull was urgent because koalas had been left starving or burned.
Wildlife groups have expressed serious concern about how individual koalas had been chosen for culling, because the animals are assessed from a distance. It’s not clear how shooting from a helicopter complies with the state government’s own animal welfare and response plans for wildlife in disasters.
The Victorian government must explain why it is undertaking aerial culling and why it did so without announcing it publicly. The incident points to ongoing failures in managing these iconic marsupials, which are already threatened in other states.
Hundreds of koalas were left starving or injured after bushfires in Budj Bim National Park a month ago.Vincent_Nguyen/Shutterstock
Why did this happen?
Koalas live in eucalypt forests in Australia’s eastern and southern states. The species faces a double threat from habitat destruction and bushfire risk. They are considered endangered in New South Wales, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory.
Over time, this concentration becomes a problem. When the koalas are too abundant, they can strip leaves from their favourite gums, killing the trees. The koalas must then move or risk starvation.
If fire or drought make these habitat islands impossible to live in, koalas in dense concentrations often have nowhere to go.
In Budj Bim, Victoria’s Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action and Parks Victoria have tackled koala overpopulation alongside Traditional Owners by moving koalas to new locations or sterilising them.
But Budj Bim is also surrounded by commercial blue gum plantations. Koalas spread out through the plantations to graze on the leaves. Their populations grow. But when the plantations are logged, some koalas have to return to the national park, where food may be in short supply.
Plantations of blue gums are located near Budj Bim. Animal welfare groups claim logging has driven koala overpopulation in the national park.Anna Carolina Negri/Shutterstock
Animal welfare groups say logging is one reason Budj Bim had so many koalas.
It’s hard to say definitively whether this is the case, because the state environment department hasn’t shared much information. But researchers have found habitat islands lead to overabundance by preventing the natural dispersal of individuals.
So why was the culling done? Department officials have described the program as “primarily” motivated by animal welfare. After the bushfire last month, koalas have been left starving or injured.
Why shooters in helicopters? Here, the justification given is that the national park is difficult to access due to rocky terrain and fire damage, ruling out other methods.
Euthanising wildlife has to be done carefully
Under Victoria’s plan for animal welfare during disasters, the environment department is responsible for examining and, where necessary, euthanising wildlife during an emergency.
For human intervention to be justified, euthanasia must be necessary on welfare grounds. Victoria’s response plan for fire-affected wildlife says culling is permitted when an animal’s health is “significantly” compromised, invasive treatment is required, or survival is unlikely.
For koalas, this could mean loss of digits or hands, burns to more than 15% of the body, pneumonia from smoke inhalation, or blindness or injuries requiring surgery. Euthanised females must also be promptly examined for young in their pouches.
The problem is that while aerial shooting can be accurate in some cases for larger animals, the method has questionable efficacy for smaller animals – especially in denser habitats.
It’s likely a number of koalas were seriously injured but not killed. But the shooters employed by the department were not able to thoroughly verify injuries or whether there were joeys in pouches, because they were in the air and reportedly 30 or more metres away from their targets.
While the department cited concerns about food resources as a reason for the cull, the state’s wildlife fire plan lays out another option: delivery of supplementary feed. Delivering fresh gum leaves could potentially have prevented starvation while the forest regenerates.
What should the government learn from this?
The state government should take steps to avoid tragic incidents like this from happening again.
Preserving remaining habitat across the state is a vital step, as is reconnecting isolated areas with habitat corridors. This would not only reduce the concentration of koalas in small pockets but increase viable refuges and give koalas safe paths to new food sources after a fire.
Future policies should be developed in consultation with Traditional Owners, who have detailed knowledge of species distributions and landscapes.
This latter report pointed to South Australia’s specialised emergency animal rescue and relief organisation – SAVEM – as an effective model. Under SA’s emergency management plan, the organisation is able to rapidly access burned areas after the fire has passed through.
Victoria’s dense communities of koalas would be well served by a similar organisation able to work alongside existing skilled firefighting services.
The goal would be to make it possible for rescuers to get to injured wildlife earlier and avoid any more mass aerial culls.
Liz Hicks has previously received a Commonwealth Research Training Program stipend. She is a member of the Australian Greens Victoria, although her views do not reflect a party position or party policy.
Dr Ashleigh Best previously received a Commonwealth Research Training Program scholarship, which supported some of the research in this article. She is an inactive member of the Animal Justice Party, and previously volunteered with Wildlife Victoria.
As New Zealanders clean up after ex-Cyclone Tam which left thousands without power and communities once again facing flooding, it’s tempting to seek immediate solutions.
However, after the cleanup and initial recovery, careful planning is essential.
Research shows that following disasters, communities often demand visible action that appears decisive. Yet, these reactions can create more problems than they solve.
When high-impact weather events drive long-term policy decisions, we risk implementing changes that seem protective but actually increase the risk of future disasters or misallocate limited resources.
What New Zealand needs isn’t knee-jerk actions but thoughtful planning that prepares communities before the next storms strike. Risk assessments paired with adaptive planning offer a path forward to build resilience step by step.
Planning ahead with multiple options
The good news is that many councils in New Zealand have begun this process and communities across the country are due to receive climate change risk assessments. These aren’t just technical documents showing hazard areas – they are tools that put power in the hands of communities.
When communities have access to good information about which neighbourhoods, roads and infrastructure face potential risks, they can prioritise investments in protection, modify building practices where needed and, in some cases, plan for different futures. This knowledge creates options rather than fear.
A risk assessment is merely the first step. Adaptation plans that translate knowledge into action are the next, but the Climate Change Commission recently confirmed there is a gap, concluding that:
New Zealand is not adapting to climate change fast enough.
For many New Zealanders already experiencing “rain anxiety” with each approaching storm, simply naming the danger without offering a path forward isn’t enough. This is where adaptive planning becomes essential.
Adaptive planning isn’t about abandoning coastal towns tomorrow or spending billions on sea walls today. It is about having a plan A, B and C ready if or when nature forces our hand. Rather than demanding immediate, potentially costly actions, adaptive planning provides a roadmap with multiple pathways that adjust as climate conditions evolve. This is how we best manage complex risk.
Think of it as setting up trip wires: when water reaches certain levels or storms hit certain frequencies, we already know our next move. This approach acknowledges the deep uncertainty of climate change while still providing communities with clarity about what happens next.
Importantly, it builds in community consultation at each decision point, ensuring solutions reflect local values and priorities.
Several communities are already considering plans that combine risk assessment with several adaptation options.Getty Images
Success stories
Several New Zealand communities are already demonstrating how this approach works. Christchurch recently approved an adaptation strategy for Whakaraup? Lyttelton Harbour with clear pathways based on trigger points rather than fixed timelines.
In South Dunedin, where half of the city’s buildings currently face flood risks which are expected to worsen in coming decades, the city council has paired its risk assessment with seven potential adaptation futures, ranging from status quo to large-scale retreat. Rather than imposing solutions, they’re consulting residents about what they want for their neighbourhoods.
Similarly forward-thinking, Buller District Council has developed a master plan that includes potentially relocating parts of Westport in the future. It’s a bold strategy that acknowledges reality rather than clinging to false security.
Status quo feels safer than adaptation
These approaches aren’t without controversy. At recent public meetings in Buller, some residents voiced understandable concerns about property values and community disruption. These reactions reflect the very real emotional and financial stakes for people whose homes are affected.
Yet the alternative – continuing with the status quo – means flood victims are offered only the option to invest their insurance money wherever they like. This assumes insurance remains available, which is a misguided assumption as insurance retreat from climate-vulnerable properties accelerates.
However, while local councils are on the front lines of adaptation planning, they’re being asked to make transformational decisions without adequate central government support. A recent Parliamentary select committee report failed to clarify who should pay for adaptation measures, despite acknowledging significant risks.
Parliament continues to avoid the difficult questions, kicking the can further down the road while communities such as South Dunedin and Westport face immediate threats.
Local councils need more than vague guidelines. They need clear direction on funding responsibilities, legislative powers and technical support. Without this support, even the most detailed risk assessments become exercises in documenting vulnerability rather than building resilience.
Instead of demanding short-term fixes, residents should expect their councils to engage with these complex challenges. The best climate preparation isn’t about predicting exactly what will happen in 2100 or avoiding disaster. It is about building more resilient, cohesive communities that are prepared for whatever our changing climate brings.
Tom Logan is a Rutherford Discovery Fellow and the chief technical officer of Urban Intelligence. He receives funding from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment and EU Horizons on risk assessment. He is affiliated with the International Society for Risk Analysis.
An ashen pallor and an eerie stillness all that remains where there should be fluttering fish and vibrant colours in the reefscape, one conservationist says
The world’s coral reefs have been pushed into “uncharted territory” by the worst global bleaching event on record that has now hit more than 80% of the planet’s reefs, scientists have warned.
Reefs in at least 82 countries and territories have been exposed to enough heat to turn corals white since the global event started in January 2023, the latest data from the US government’s Coral Reef Watch shows.
Australia just sweltered through one of its hottest summers on record, and heat has pushed well into autumn. Once-in-a-generation floods are now striking with alarming regularity. As disasters escalate, insurers are warning some properties may soon be uninsurable. Yet, despite these escalating disasters — and a federal election looming — conversation around climate change remains deeply polarising.
But are people’s minds really made up? Or are they still open to change?
In research out today, we asked more than 5,000 Australians a simple question: what would change your mind about climate change? Their answers reveal both a warning and an opportunity.
On climate, Australians fall into six groups
Almost two thirds (64%) of Australians are concerned about the impact of climate change, according to a recent survey.
But drill deeper, and we quickly find Australians hold quite different views on climate. In fact, research in 2022 showed Australians can be sorted into six distinct groups based on how concerned and engaged they are with the issue.
At one end was the Alarmed group – highly concerned people who are convinced of the science, and already taking action (25% of Australians). At the other end was the Dismissive group (7%) – strongly sceptical people who often view climate change as exaggerated or even a hoax. In between were the Concerned, Cautious, Disengaged and Doubtful – groups who varied in belief, awareness and willingness to engage.
In our nationally representative survey, we asked every participant what might change their opinion about climate change? We then looked at how the answers differed between the six groups.
For those already convinced climate change is real and human-caused, we wanted to know what might make them doubt it. For sceptical participants, we wanted to know what might persuade them otherwise. In short, we weren’t testing who was “right” or “wrong” – we were mapping how flexible their opinions were.
Our views aren’t set in stone
People at both extremes – Alarmed and Dismissive – were the most likely to say “nothing” would change their minds. Nearly half the Dismissive respondents flat-out rejected the premise. But these two groups together make up just one in three Australians.
What about everyone in the middle ground? The rest – the Concerned (28%), Cautious (23%), Disengaged (3%) and Doubtful (14%) – showed much more openness. They matter most, because they’re the majority — and they’re still listening.
People with dismissive views of climate science are a small minority.jon lyall/Shutterstock
What information would change minds?
What would it take for people to be convinced? We identified four major themes: evidence and information, trusted sources, action being undertaken, and nothing.
The most common response was a desire for better evidence and information. But not just any facts would do. Participants said they wanted clear, plain-English explanations rather than jargon. They wanted statistics they could trust, and science that didn’t feel politicised or agenda-driven. Some said they’d be more convinced if they saw the impacts with their own eyes.
Crucially, many in the Doubtful and Cautious groups didn’t outright reject climate change – they just didn’t feel confident enough to judge the evidence.
The trust gap
Many respondents didn’t know who to believe on climate change. Scientists and independent experts were the most commonly mentioned trusted sources – but trust in these sources wasn’t universal.
Some Australians, especially in the more sceptical segments, expressed deep distrust toward the media, governments and the scientific community. Others said they’d be more receptive if information came from unbiased or apolitical sources. For some respondents, family, friends and everyday people were seen as more credible than institutions.
In an age of widespread misinformation, this matters. If we want to build support for climate action, we need the right messengers as much as the right message.
What about action?
Many respondents said their views could shift if they saw real, meaningful action – especially from governments and big business. Some wanted proof that Australia is taking climate change seriously. Others said action would offer hope or reduce their anxiety.
Even some sceptical respondents said coordinated, global action might persuade them – though they were often cynical about Australia’s impact compared to larger emitters. Others called for a more respectful, depoliticised conversation around climate.
In other words, for many Australians, it’s not just what evidence and information is presented about climate change. It’s also how it’s said, who says it, and why it’s being said.
Of course, the responses we gathered reflect what people say would change their minds. That’s not necessarily what would actually change their minds.
As climate change intensifies, so does misinformation — especially online, where artificial intelligence and social media accelerate its spread.
Misinformation has a corrosive effect. Spreading doubt, lies and uncertainty can erode public support for climate action.
If we don’t understand what Australians actually need to hear about climate change – and who they need to hear it from – we risk losing ground to confusion and doubt.
After years of growth from 2012 to 2019, Australian backing for climate action is fluctuating and even dropping, according to Lowy Institute polling.
Climate change may not be the headline issue in this federal election campaign. But it’s on the ballot nonetheless, embedded in debates over how to power Australia, jobs and the cost of living. If we want public support for meaningful climate action, we can’t just shout louder. We have to speak smarter.
Kelly Kirkland receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Samantha Stanley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC).
Abby Robinson, Amy S G Lee, and Zoe Leviston do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
A group of Australian pet owners who say their dogs suffered adverse effects or died after receiving an osteoarthritis treatment are working to launch a class action, after a lawsuit was filed in the United States.
Australia’s climate and energy wars are at the forefront of the federal election campaign as the major parties outline vastly different plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and tackle soaring power prices.
Meanwhile, misinformation about climate change has permeated public debate during the campaign, feeding false and misleading claims about renewable energy, gas and global warming.
This is a dangerous situation. In Australia and globally, rampant misinformation has for decades slowed climate action – creating doubt, hindering decision-making and undermining public support for solutions.
Here, we explain the history of climate misinformation in Australia and identify three prominent campaigns operating now. We also outline how Australians can protect themselves from misinformation as they head to the polls.
Misinformation vs disinformation
Misinformation is defined as false information spread unintentionally. It is distinct from disinformation, which is deliberately created to mislead.
However, proving intent to mislead can be challenging. So, the term misinformation is often used as a general term to describe misleading content, while the term disinformation is reserved for cases where intent is proven.
Disinformation is typically part of a coordinated
campaign to influence public opinion. Such campaigns can be run by corporate interests, political groups, lobbying organisations or individuals.
Once released, these false narratives may be picked up by others, who pass them on and create misinformation.
Climate change misinformation in Australia
In the 1980s and 1990s, Australia’s emissions-reduction targets were among the most ambitious in the world.
Despite this, Australia’s resource industry began a concerted media campaign to oppose any binding emissions-reduction actions, claiming it would ruin the economy by making Australian businesses uncompetitive.
These narratives were further exacerbated by false balance in media coverage, whereby news outlets, in an effort to appear neutral, often placed climate scientists alongside contrarians, giving the impression that the science was still unclear.
Together, this created an environment in Australia where climate action was seen as either too economically damaging or simply unnecessary.
What’s happening in the federal election campaign?
Climate misinformation has been circulating in the following forms during this federal election campaign.
1. Trumpet of Patriots
Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots party ran an advertisement that claimed to expose “ the truth about climate change”. It featured a clip from a 2004 documentary, in which a scientist discusses data suggesting temperatures in Greenland were not rising. The scientist in the clip has since said his comments are now outdated.
The type of misinformation is cherry-picking – presenting one scientific measurement at odds with the overwhelming scientific consensus.
Google removed the ad after it was flagged as misleading, but only after it received 1.9 million views.
2. Responsible Future Illawarra
The Responsible Future campaign opposes wind turbines on various grounds, including cost, foreign ownership, power prices, effects on views and fishing, and potential ecological damage.
However, a general lack of research into offshore wind and marine life has created uncertainty that groups such as Responsible Future Illawarra can exploit.
It has cited statements by Sea Shepherd Australia to argue offshore wind farms damage marine life – however Sea Shepherd said its comments were misrepresented.
The group also appears to have deliberately spread disinformation. This includes citing a purported research paper saying offshore wind turbines would kill up to 400 whales per year, when the paper does not exist.
3. Australians for Natural Gas
Australians for Natural Gas is a pro-gas group set up by the head of a gas company, which presents itself as a grassroots organisation. Its advertising campaign promotes natural gas as a necessary part of Australia’s fuel mix, and stresses its contribution to jobs and the economy.
The ad campaign implicitly suggests climate action – in this case, a shift to renewable energy – is harmful to the economy, livelihoods and energy security. According to Meta’s Ad Library, these adds have already been seen more than 1.1 million times.
Gas is needed in Australia’s current energy mix. But analysis shows it could be phased out almost entirely if renewable energy and storage was sufficiently increased and business and home electrification continues to rise.
And of course, failing to tackle climate change will cause substantial harm across Australia’s economy.
How to identify misinformation
As the federal election approaches, climate misinformation and disinformation is likely to proliferate further. So how do we distinguish fact from fiction?
