Thank you for this excellent question. I am not an expert in genetics and don’t believe that there is currently any evidence of true genetic adaptation to climate change. Authors such as Donna Harraway have speculated about this in works that use writing styles similar to science fiction (e.g her book “Staying with the Trouble”). However at the moment works like this are “thought experiments” which imagine what genetic adaptation might be like, rather than science based on genetic evidence. 

There are many other ways that human societies are starting to adapt to our changing climates. Some of this change involves large-scale changes to the way societies live every day, e.g changing our power and transport systems to renewable energy rather than systems reliant on fossil fuels. For example, it’s no mean feat to change our current transport systems from petrol cars to predominantly electric vehicles.  However, countries like Aotearoa New Zealand are currently preparing their infrastructure to do just that. This is an example of large-scale adaptation.  

In terms of our bodies dealing with extremes in temperature (e.g hotter summers), there are limits to how our bodies can deal with this and still maintain a healthy core temperature. For example if we live in hotter, more humid conditions (e.g higher than 33 degrees Celsius), we would need to be careful to avoid heat exhaustion by drinking more fluids and being careful what time of the day we exert ourselves. Many people in the world already live in very hot places, and generally their housing and lifestyles reflect sensible ways to live in these conditions. It’s possible that some of these ways of life will become more common in other parts of the world if the weather is consistently warmer. 

The North Pole and Antarctica sit at opposite ends of the Earth. If you think of them just as spots on a map, then they will definitely still exist in 2040.

But, if we instead ask “Will the North Pole and Antarctica be the same in 2040 as they are today?” then the answer is a little different.

The North Pole sits in the middle of the Arctic Ocean. For centuries, this area has been covered in frozen seawater, which we call sea ice. As our world warms, the amount of ice covering the Arctic Ocean has been decreasing, especially in summer. By 2040 it’s possible that there won’t be any sea ice left in the Arctic Ocean during summer.

Antarctica isn’t just a place on a map; it’s a continent, like Australia. Although Antarctica might look a little different by 2040, it will still be there and still be covered by an ice cap that is more than two kilometres thick.

Yes. In fact, since records began about 100 years ago, the average Australian temperature has warmed but about 1.4°C. By 2050, Tasmania is projected to experience an increase in temperature of at least 1.5°C. We say at least because the real amount depends on what happens to CO2 emissions between now and then. By 2100, Tasmania is projected to experience an increase of 1.5°C to 3°C in temperature across all locations, and more than 4°C in mountain regions.

But this is the average across the year. There will also be changes in temperature extremes, like heat waves. For example, for 1961-1990, Launceston had an average of 29 days per year over 25°C. For 2070-2099, we predict that Launceston will average 75 days per year over 25°C.

Tasmania is one of the marine global warming hotspots, which is big a challenge but also a potential opportunity for the Tasmanian fishing industry. Some important Tasmanian fisheries species might become less abundant and more vulnerable to climate extremes, but other species might benefit from warmer ocean and increase in abundance. Some fish species that are moving into Tasmanian waters already are or could become valuable fisheries species. The fishing industry can be sustainable if it adapts proactively, plans for the future and also supports marine protected areas to help improve resilience of fish populations. Actually, the Tasmanian fisheries industry is one of the few in the world that have conducted risk assessments, to see how climate change might affect them, and have already started some important adaptations (like actively fishing for a pesky urchin that has moved into Tasmania now that it is warm enough for it survive, but the urchin creates a problem by eating all the kelp habitat that lobsters need!).   

One of the big questions for Tasmanian fisheries is how climate change will affect giant kelp forests. These forests are very important for fish and fisheries but are threatened by rising sea temperatures and the increasing sea urchin populations. Together with other management and fishing changes, marine protected areas could play an important role, as they help to rebuild the numbers of large fish and lobsters, which in turn keep the urchin numbers down.  

You could read more about climate change adaptation research here. 

Our world would be very different without the Industrial Revolution. It has been so impactful that historians refer to the time before it as the Early Modern Era and the time since the 18th Century as the Modern Era. Make no mistake, these eras are very different. Before the Industrial Revolution most people lived in the countryside. Because of the Industrial Revolution jobs, resources, money, and people became centralised in cities, which had been much smaller beforehand. Much of what we take for granted is partly because of the Industrial Revolution. Modern governments, police forces, property and renting, education systems, jobs types and more would look very different if it had not happened. In other words, our social systems have been strongly influenced by the fossil fuel economies built because of the Industrial Revolution.

This is also the case for modern technology and life in general. Cars, planes, modern medicine, electricity, indoor plumbing, shopping malls and supermarkets, we take all these things for granted. This is what makes action on climate change so difficult. The Industrial Revolution has created our modern lives as well as climate change. We can acknowledge how the Industrial Revolution has made our lives better. But we should also acknowledge how it has caused air and water pollution, more diseases, C02 and other greenhouse gas emissions, bad working conditions for many, and more advanced weapons and dangerous conflicts. It also has not unfolded equally or fairly for everyone. 

But we do not need to choose between a carbon-heavy industrialised and non-industrialised life. We can change our societies and economies, just like they were changed to make the Industrial Revolution, and we can focus on what we want to do differently. By decarbonising our economies we will no longer rely on fuel and energy that cause climate change. Pollution that runs into the soil and water can be filtered. The amount of damage we do to the environment can be drastically reduced, and if we change not just our economies but also our societies, we can even work to regenerating the environment as well. It will just take us a lot of work - a real transformation of our current society - to get there.  

Fascinating question, the short answer is absolutely! In fact, buildings account for approximately 40% of global CO₂ emissions (the main source of climate change), so if we actually want to make a serious impact on the amount of current emissions, we have to invest more resources in building more eco-buildings and retrofitting existing buildings to be more sustainable. However, ‘sustainable buildings’ consist of two separate but connected aspects related to their emissions, which are typically called operational carbon and embodied carbon. 

Operational carbon refers to the emissions that are produced to keep a building running. This includes running heat or air conditioning, powering lights and computers, and making sure water and waste are going to the right places. Typically, when we make decisions to reduce emissions in our schools or homes, to make them more sustainable, we focus on these operational emissions, such as using more energy efficient appliances or making renovations that reduce the need to run heat or air conditioning year-round. Fortunately, there are countless approaches we can take to reduce operational carbon in buildings, make them more efficient, and ensure they emit at little carbon as possible. Yet, while operational carbon accounts for a larger share of global emissions at 28% compared to embodied cardon at 11%, it is estimated that these will be the same by 2050. 

So what is embodied carbon? This is the amount of carbon emitted during the construction of a building, including the raw materials, their manufacturing and refinement, transport from one location to the next, and the waste produced during construction. Walls, carpets, support beams, and everything that makes up a building is manufactured and produces emissions. The biggest challenge with embodied carbon is that once a building is up, those emissions cannot be reduced, even with the most energy efficient appliances. With Australia expecting the construction of hundreds of millions of new homes, apartments, and offices by 2050, it is essential that they are not only built to be energy efficient, but also built efficiently to reduce the amount of embodied carbon as much as possible.  

This is an excellent question and there are many possible answers. As you know, climate change itself can be described as a “wicked problem” for which there is no one “correct” solution.

It’s certainly possible to switch power sources from fossil fuels to renewable energy – especially wind and solar – and with the right incentives and policy from government. Importantly, we can do so quite quickly which is exactly what is now needed. We can do this both on a small scale (eg: solar panels on rooftops) to a larger scale (eg: vast solar and wind farms). In Australia, we are particularly lucky to have excellent conditions for generating renewable power: plenty of sun and wind, and space for solar and wind farms.

We can also use wind and solar, and also existing hydroelectric energy generation, to help manufacture what’s known as “green” hydrogen as an emissions-free fuel. Making hydrogen needs lots of electricity, but if we use electricity from fossil fuels in this process, we don’t cut carbon dioxide emissions enough. Creating a green hydrogen industry is a really exciting opportunity, especially for Tasmania, as we may be able to export hydrogen to replace fossil fuels in manufacturing and heavy transport industry. For example, it’s currently being used in mining trucks instead of diesel. Take a look at this short video to help you understand more about green hydrogen.

You asked about side effects. One very positive side effect is that switching from fossil fuels to renewables will actually create jobs in Australia. Renewable energy could employ as many as 44,000 Australian workers by 2025. Of course, people who currently work in the fossil fuels industries would need to transition jobs, and this would need to be done in such a way that is fair to those workers. Some reports forecast that there could be 250,000 additional jobs in Australia by 2070 if the transition to a renewable economy is managed well.

Another positive side effect of moving away from fossil fuels will be cleaner air. Burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide, which is bad for the climate, but also produces pollutants such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and very fine particles which can play havoc with our respiratory and cardiovascular systems. A recent study showed that Australia could save $6 billion a year on health costs if we stopped burning fossil fuels.

In terms of negative side effects, one important one is that our transition to a renewable energy future will still have significant environmental impacts. Vast wind turbines need huge amounts of steel and copper, solar panels need rare earth minerals and batteries need lithium. All of these need to be mined from the earth, often with extremely damaging environmental consequences and impacts on biodiversity. So we need to remember that all consumption, even renewable energy consumption, has an impact on our planet. If we can consume less – particularly those of us in developed countries  –  and move towards a circular economy where what we extract from the earth is used and re-used, our transition to a decarbonised world will also mean a healthier and fairer environment for all.