Always worth a listen, Richard Denniss talks on The Australia Institute's Whats the point podcast about the limitations of centrist politics. Hear and read more on The Australia Institute.

As we push for urgent climate action and a transition away from fossil fuels, the tendency toward political pragmatism can often stall the very progress we need. This discussion highlights the tension between political survival and the bold, systemic changes required to meet our climate goals.

For Tasmania and the broader climate movement, understanding the difference between true progressive policy and mere political centrism is vital to ensuring our future is not compromised by half-measures.

Andrew Watkins writes on The Conversation about the lack of progress following Australia's first National Climate Risk Assessment. Read more on The Conversation.

It has been one year since the federal government released its first National Climate Risk Assessment, identifying 63 nationally significant risks—from surging disaster recovery costs to ecosystem collapse. For Tasmania and the wider nation, this report was a vital warning, yet the government's response has been marked by delays and a lack of legislative commitment to future assessments.

While the report highlights the catastrophic potential of extreme weather, the government continues to approve fossil fuel project extensions and subsidise coal and gas corporations. This disconnect between scientific evidence and policy action poses a severe threat to our climate resilience and long-term security.

The TCC highlights that without urgent investment in climate science, adaptation, and a genuine shift away from fossil fuels, we are simply hurtling towards the very risks the experts have warned us about.

Please call, email or meet with your local federal MP and Senator if you want them to do better.

Carbon Brief writes on the future of climate modelling and the new CMIP7 scenarios. Read more on Carbon Brief here.

These new scenarios represent a significant shift in how scientists predict our climate future. By moving away from unrealistic, high-emissions 'business-as-usual' models and instead focusing on the implications of current policies—whether they are strengthened or weakened—we get a much clearer, albeit sobering, picture of the reality we face.

Why this matters for climate action:

1. Realistic Projections: The 'high' end of the scenario range has dropped significantly, reflecting the global shift toward renewables and the declining plausibility of a coal-dominated 21st century.
2. The 1.5C Reality: The models suggest that some level of 'overshoot' of the Paris Agreement targets is now likely unavoidable, highlighting the urgent need for both rapid decarbonisation and effective carbon removal strategies.
3. Policy-Driven Futures: Instead of vague 'radiative forcing' labels, scenarios are now named by their emissions trajectories, making it easier to see how specific policy choices—from strengthening mitigation to rolling back progress—will directly impact warming.

For Tasmania and the broader climate movement, this underscores that while the most extreme 'doomsday' scenarios of the past may be less likely, the path to staying within safe limits is narrower and requires more decisive action than ever before.

Doctors for the Environment Australia (DEA) is writing an open letter to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health regarding the risks of fossil gas. Concerned supporters can sign the letter and read more on the DEA website.

This letter highlights that fossil gas is not just an environmental issue, but a direct public health threat. From respiratory illnesses in the home to the broader climate impacts of methane emissions and extreme weather, the risks are widespread and indefensible.

For Tasmania, as we transition to a renewable future, understanding these health-related drivers is crucial. The letter calls for:

1. A clear timeline for phasing out fossil gas.
2. Support for communities to disconnect from gas networks and replace appliances.
3. Ensuring the gas industry bears the costs of health and environmental harms.