The overlapping crises of extreme heat and Covid-19 “severely stretched” an already overwhelmed healthcare system in the UK with “deadly consequences”, a new study finds.
The research, published in Nature Climate Change, estimates the number of heat- and cold-related deaths in England and Wales before and during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The study finds that pressure on the health system during heatwaves was as much as three times higher for the pandemic years than it was in the previous decade. The authors find a similar result during cold periods.
The number of heat-related deaths “shifted higher” in the Covid-19 years, the study says, suggesting that Covid “may have impacted temperature-related mortality during extreme weather events”.
The authors warn that “if health services are already operating at capacity because of one crisis, the additional health burden from another crisis can break the system entirely, endangering the lives of many people”.
One expert not involved in the study tells Carbon Brief that any future pandemic is likely to be a “syndemic”, where its impacts intertwine with those of a changing climate.
And as similar groups tend to be most vulnerable to both major disease outbreaks and extreme weather, anticipating and preparing for the co-occurrence of such events “would be lifesaving”, the study authors conclude.
Heat, cold and Covid
Extreme weather events and pandemics are among the most serious risks facing the UK, according to the UK National Risk Register. Since 2020, both have claimed thousands of lives in the UK.
Between the UK’s first documented Covid-19 case on 30 January 2020 and the end of 2022, around 190,000 people in England and Wales died of the virus, according to death certificates.
Over this two-year study period, the UK has also seen extreme hot and cold temperatures – from the coldest UK temperature in more than 20 years during February 2021 to the country’s first recorded instance of 40C heat in July 2022.
To assess the link between temperature and mortality, the authors produced “epidemiological models” that analyse exposure to different temperatures and human mortality in different regions of the UK.
Dr Eunice Lo is a research fellow in climate change and health at the University of Bristol and lead author on the study. She tells Carbon Brief that “heatstroke and heat exhaustion can occur quite rapidly” and that, in her models, “we expect the mortality outcome to be within three days of exposure to heat”. In contrast, it takes longer for cold snaps to cause mortality, she adds.
The plot below illustrates the example of London. The lowest point on the curve – indicated by a “relative risk” level of one – shows the optimum temperature, when people are at lowest risk of physiological harm from temperature extremes.
If the temperature rises above (red) or falls below (blue) the optimum temperature, the risk of temperature-related mortality increases. This is indicated by a relative risk level greater than one.
Cumulative relative risk of death in London for the overall population, using data from 1981-2022. Source: Lo et al (2024).
The authors developed a series of models for locations across England and Wales. The study estimates that, over the study period, almost 8,500 excess deaths were attributable to high temperatures and more than 125,000 deaths to cold.
The study points out that cold-related deaths are more common in the UK as “most days of the year are considered moderately cold”. As the planet continues to warm, heat-related deaths are expected to rise, while cold-related deaths will likely fall.
Lo tells Carbon Brief that factors including age and socioeconomic status also affect temperature-related mortality, but these were not included in the model.
Extreme temperatures
The chart below, from the study, shows a timeseries of daily deaths attributable to heat (red), cold (blue) and Covid-19 (purple) in England and Wales over the study period. The black line shows deaths in the UK from all causes. The right-hand section of the chart focuses on the July 2022 heatwave, when daily heat-related mortality peaked at 580 deaths – higher than at any time of over the previous decade.
Annual “all-cause mortality” in England and Wales was higher during the pandemic than it was in the preceding decade, as Covid-19 drove up mortality rates, the study finds.
The authors note that cold-related mortality “dominated” heat-related mortality in all months other than July, August and September – adding that spikes in cold-related mortality often coincided with spikes in deaths due to Covid.
There are a range of reasons for this. For example, low humidity in winter allows droplets containing the virus to spread further. And peoples’ immune systems are weaker in the winter due to a lack of vitamin D, making them more vulnerable to the virus.
The study also notes that, over the whole study period, “cumulative temperature-related deaths exceeded cumulative Covid-19 deaths by 8% in south-west England”. And while total temperature-related deaths did not exceed those from Covid in other regions, they did amount to 58% (East Midlands) to 75% (London) of Covid-19 deaths by the end of 2022.
The approach used in the study assumes that deaths caused by Covid-19 and temperature extremes are independent of each other. In other words, individuals are assumed to die either due to Covid or as a result of extreme temperature exposure, but not a combination of the two.
Nonetheless, the findings suggest that Covid “may have impacted temperature-related mortality during extreme weather events”, the study says. For example, “heat-related mortality shifted higher in the Covid-19 years”, compared to extreme events that were not affected by the disease, the authors note.
At the same time, “extreme heat may have exacerbated Covid-19 mortality”, the authors note, pointing out that on 19 July 2022 – the day that 40C heat was recorded – Covid caused 91 more deaths than the daily average over 10-25 July.
The results “highlight the complex interplay between extreme temperatures and the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as its implications on population health and health services capacity”, the study says.
Mapped
The study maps out Covid- and temperature-related deaths to see how they vary regionally.
The authors select 70 heatwave days and 70 cold days from the 30 January 2020 to 31 December 2022 study period. They then calculate regional mortality rates due to Covid, heat and cold during these days.
The maps below show the ratio of temperature-related deaths to Covid-driven deaths over the full study period (left), heatwave period (middle) and cold period (right). Numbers below zero, shown in grey, indicate that Covid-related deaths are higher than temperature-related deaths. Numbers above zero, shown in blue and purple, indicate that temperature-related deaths are higher.
During heatwaves, heat-related deaths far exceed deaths due to Covid-19 in almost all the regions studied. The study finds that the ratio of temperature to Covid-related deaths was highest in London at 2.7, where temperatures tend to be higher.
(This is likely due, in part, to the urban heat island effect – in which a combination of factors, such as buildings, reduced vegetation and high domestic energy use, cause urban areas to become hotter than more rural regions.)
This finding shows that “that even during the Covid-19 pandemic, heatwaves posed a serious threat to public health”, the study says.
Meanwhile, during cold snaps – when both cold-related mortality and deaths due to Covid spiked – Covid-related mortality was higher. The ratio ranges from 0.4 in east of England to 0.8 in south-west England.
The authors suggest that this is mainly due to “large surges in Covid-19 mortality following the first emergence of the coronavirus and the domination of the Alpha variant, both of which occurred in winter”.
The authors then performed the same heatwave and cold snap calculations for the decade preceding the pandemic, to provide a 2010-19 pre-Covid baseline.
The maps below show the ratio of average annual deaths per 100,000 people during the Covid study period to that during the preceding decade, during heatwaves (left) and cold snaps (right). Lighter green indicates that mortality rates in the Covid and pre-Covid periods were similar, while darker colours indicate that deaths during the Covid study period were higher.
The authors find that during pre-Covid heatwave days, heat-related deaths ranged from six to 14 people per 100,000. They add that during the Covid-19 study period, deaths due to heat and Covid-19 together range from 19 to 24 deaths per 100,000 people.
The authors assume that mortality broadly links to regional demand on health services. As such, they estimate that demand on regional health services was between 1.6 (London) and 3.2 (north-west England) times higher during the pandemic than in the previous decade.
By carrying out the same analysis, the authors find that during cold snaps, demand on health services was between 2.0 (south-west England) and 3.4 (east of England) times higher during Covid than in the previous decade.
The paper highlights “the deadly consequences of an already overwhelmed NHS severely stretched to function through the compound crises of extreme weather and Covid-19”, the authors say, adding:
“If health services are already operating at capacity because of one crisis, the additional health burden from another crisis can break the system entirely, endangering the lives of many people.”
Dr Kristina Dahl is senior climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In 2020, she was a co-author on a comment paper in Nature Climate Change on the compound risks of climate change and the Covid pandemic.
Dahl tells Carbon Brief that the results of this study highlight the need for “amplified public messaging to increase awareness of temperature-related risks”, for “stronger policies and protections around extreme weather”, and to “more adequately prepare public health systems for the co-occurrence of hazards”.
Co-occurring hazards
Despite the study treating temperature- and Covid-related deaths as independent, Lo tells Carbon Brief that “there is certainly a two-way interaction” between the two.
She explains that “a lot of vulnerabilities to temperatures and Covid-10 are shared”, noting that elderly people and those with pre-existing conditions are vulnerable to both extreme temperatures and viruses. This means that one could exacerbate the other, she warns.
She adds that many measures taken to reduce the spread of Covid may have contributed to a rise in temperature-related death. For example, closing social spaces, such as swimming pools and air-conditioned buildings, meant that many people “didn’t have as much of an escape” from the high temperatures in their homes, she says.
Dr Colin Carlson is an assistant research professor at Georgetown University’s centre for global health, science and security and another co-author on the Nature Climate Change comment paper.
Carlson, who studies the relationship between global climate change, biodiversity loss and emerging infectious diseases, tells Carbon Brief that “for the last two decades, we’ve been operating in a very limited framework with how we think about climate change and infectious disease”.
He adds that “going forward, every pandemic will probably be a ‘syndemic’ with a few climate change-related components”.
Lo notes that while this study focuses on the relationship between Covid-19 and extreme temperatures, it speaks to a larger point about the link between climate-related extremes and other hazards, as co-occurring crises can threaten healthcare and other key systems.
Similarly, Dahl warns:
“As climate-related extremes become more frequent, the likelihood that they will intersect with other crises – whether related to public health, social or political unrest, or other environmental problems – will increase.”
The post Dual impact of extreme heat and Covid-19 had ‘deadly consequences’ for UK appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Dual impact of extreme heat and Covid-19 had ‘deadly consequences’ for UK
Layers of red dust coat South Africa’s Saldanha Bay, a legacy of the one billion-plus tonnes of iron ore exported from what was once a quiet coastal fishing town in the 1970s. Now the government wants to turn this area into the “oil and gas hub of South Africa”, but opposition from local communities and civil society could force a change of plan.
Since 2014 South Africa has developed a strategy for taking “full advantage” of its marine resources, known as Operation Phakisa. It has resulted in the mapping of more than 95% of the country’s nearly 3,000-kilometre coastline for offshore oil and gas exploration.
The plan seeks to “drill 30 exploration wells in 10 years”, which it estimates could lead to the production of an average of 370,000 barrels of oil and gas per day over 20 years, with Saldanha Bay earmarked as a key logistics hub. It also aims to develop other marine sectors like aquaculture, maritime transport and ocean tourism.
However, two major court cases against the government and oil giants Shell and TotalEnergies have challenged those plans, as coastal residents, allied with national civil society groups, have pushed back against oil concessions held by the multinationals, arguing they were not consulted, and that towns like Saldanha Bay could face social and environmental harms from the fossil fuel extraction.
-
Santa Marta coalition tested as co-chair Colombia turns back to fossil fuels
Despite a leadership gap, outgoing environment minister Irene Vélez Torres says the anti-fossil fuel coalition can “live without Colombia” -
China’s coal power rebounds as record clean energy goes to waste
Long-term contracts guarantee coal plants buyers regardless of demand, crowding out renewables, report finds
Melissa Groenink-Groves, programme manager at legal nonprofit Natural Justice, said the cases in South Africa could set a precedent for the whole region. “When communities win in the courts, the successes serve as inspiration for other communities to advocate [for] their rights in their own contexts,” she explained.
She added that the legal challenges to Operation Phakisa also develop climate litigation in the African context, and could impact how environmental impact assessments are conducted going forward.
Globally, as the oil and gas industry sets its sights on the ocean, with over 85% of new discoveries in 2024 made offshore, scientists and activists warn it could threaten marine life and coastal communities, and weaken the ocean’s ability to trap excess heat from the atmosphere, fuelling planetary warming further.
Taking oil companies to court
About 300 kilometres north of Saldanha Bay, the Aukotowa Fisheries Cooperative, backed by nonprofits The Green Connection and Natural Justice, has taken TotalEnergies to court over its plans to drill for oil and gas in a 30,000-square-kilometre block off South Africa’s west coast.
The oil exploration block is in a biodiverse marine area bordering Namibia and South Africa known as the Orange Basin, which is a “highly relevant” sanctuary for endangered species, according to Nelson Mandela University’s Institute for Coastal and Marine Research.
Among other grievances, the cooperative maintains that the company’s environmental impact assessment was flawed, failing to consider the project’s contribution to climate change, and that the government “placed the profits of a multinational corporation above the livelihoods of vulnerable coastal communities”. The Western Cape High Court concluded hearings in late March and is expected to deliver a ruling later this year.
Walter Steenkamp, chairperson of the Aukotowa Cooperative, is concerned that the oil and gas drilling will lead to increased inequality, asking “for whom is the development? Definitely not for us.”
In a written statement, TotalEnergies told Climate Home News that it “is a responsible operator fully committed to complying with all applicable South African legislation”.
Southeast Asia’s fragile grids threaten billions in clean energy investment
Communities and climate impacts at stake
On the other side of the country, along South Africa’s eastern coastline, community-based nonprofit Sustaining the Wild Coast and partner organisations challenged Shell and Impact Africa’s exploration permit, arguing that the firms had failed to consult impacted communities – a legal requirement under South African law.
Co-plaintiff Sinegugu Zukulu also said in 2022 that “oil and gas will lead to more emissions, and in the face of climate change, this is wholly irresponsible”.
Following two rulings against the companies by lower courts, the case is now before South Africa’s highest Constitutional Court, which has reserved judgment since September 2025. A ruling against the companies would be final, effectively ending the exploration permit.
Legal expert Groenink-Groves said oil exploration applications under Operation Phakisa have been “granted largely without properly assessing the devastating impact an oil spill could have on small-scale fishers, the risks of drilling in ultra-deep waters, [and] without accounting for climate change impacts associated with oil and gas exploitation”.
She added that exploration applications have often failed to consider coastal management laws and in some cases, cross-border and regional environmental risks.
Shell and South Africa’s Department of Mineral and Petroleum Resources did not respond to written requests for comment.
South Africa’s offshore oil ambitions
Fishers around South Africa, many of whom have for generations relied on marine resources for survival, say the country’s offshore oil and gas push is sacrificing their livelihoods for profit.
“Why do they want to destroy our heritage? We can’t afford to say yes to oil and gas because the ocean is our source of life,” said Carmelita Mostert, a member of advocacy group Coastal Links and third-generation Saldanha Bay fisher.
Yet with unemployment above 30%, alongside high levels of poverty and wealth inequality, the government sees Operation Phakisa as a vehicle for socioeconomic development.
South Africa’s Minister of Mineral and Petroleum Resources Gwede Mantashe has described the court cases as “anti-development”, and claimed that the environmental organisations are funded by the CIA.
Sifiso Dladla, a campaigner with human rights organisation groundWork, argued that the close relationship between the government and the fossil fuel industry – including its 3% contribution to gross tax revenue – limits the potential success of movements pushing for an inclusive energy system. Politicians “need money to win elections. Mining companies need the government to protect them,” he said.
Patrick Bond, a political economist and sociology professor at the University of Johannesburg, said Operation Phakisa only makes economic sense if its social and environmental harms are ignored, adding that “if a genuine social cost of carbon analysis were done in any African fossil fuel project, there would be few – if any – able to justify the projects economically”.
At a global scale, Bond said oil multinationals have the financial backing of European governments – including France’s $2.8 billion stake in TotalEnergies – which can help make local resistance more effective where it has international allies to amplify the messages.
For Saldanha Bay fisher Mostert, the fight is about protecting the livelihoods of coastal communities. “It is my hope that we can stand strong and protest,” she said. “If oil and gas is not allowed, our lives will be much easier and better – but if oil and gas goes ahead we will be in absolute agony.”
The post South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court appeared first on Climate Home News.
South Africa’s offshore oil push meets grassroots resistance in court
Climate Change
Millions of kilograms of marine life taken from Australia’s marine protected areas every year, FOI finds
SYDNEY, Tuesday 11 August 2026 — New data obtained by Greenpeace Australia Pacific has found millions of kilograms of marine life are being taken from Australian marine parks by commercial fishers annually, as the government begins its review of the country’s Marine Parks Network.
The data, released to Greenpeace in response to a Freedom of Information request, relates to 18 of Australia’s 60 Commonwealth marine parks, and shows almost 2.2 million kg of marine life is being fished each year, raising concerns about the true catch numbers across all marine protected areas.
Greenpeace is calling for the Labor government to use the once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review, announced last fortnight, to ban industrial activities, including bottom trawling, longlining and oil and gas mining, from Australia’s Marine Parks Network, and increase fully-protected ocean sanctuaries within the network.
Elle Lawless, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“It’s chilling to think of the true scale of destruction happening inside all of Australia’s marine parks, and how much of our precious ocean wildlife, like dolphins, turtles or seabirds, could be pulled out of protected areas as bycatch.
“We’re talking about 6,600 kilograms of wildlife in one day, and that does not include what’s caught in the other 42 marine parks, many of which allow destructive fishing like longlining.
“Australia has made significant progress in securing 52% of its oceans in marine parks; however, this intent is undermined by zones that allow damaging industrial fishing activities, such as bottom trawling and longlining. The review of Australia’s Marine Parks Network is a critical opportunity to fix what isn’t working and finally give our oceans the real protection they deserve.
You wouldn’t expect someone to bulldoze a national park on land, so why should they be allowed to trawl in a marine park?”
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific welcomes the Albanese Government’s review of the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network as a rare opportunity to strengthen our marine parks and ban industrial fishing in Australia’s marine protected areas.”
The documents reveal that the south-west network has the largest catch volume, at 887,160kg per year, followed by the Coral Sea network, which extends out from the Great Barrier Reef, losing significant wildlife at 808,840kg annually.
—ENDS—
Notes:
- More than half of Australia’s Marine Parks Network allow extractive industries, including industrial fishing and oil and gas mining.
- The data, supplied by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, does not specify how much of the catch is fish or bycatch, like non-target fish, turtles or seabirds, and is available on request.
- Read Greenpeace’s new report: Trawling the Bottom Line
Australia’s network of marine parks is the largest in the world, covering more than half (52%) of Australia’s Commonwealth waters. You could be forgiven for assuming that a marine park is much like a national park on land: a highly protected place where people can enjoy nature while conservation efforts help habitats recover and wildlife thrive. You wouldn’t expect someone to bulldoze a national park, so why should they be allowed to bottom trawl in a marine park?
The reality is that not all marine parks are equally protected. Australia’s Marine Parks Network is divided into different zoning categories, with each zone determining which activities are permitted and the level of protection provided.
More than half of the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network allows industrial activities like oil and gas mining, and industrial fishing.
Our survival, and the survival of our planet, depends on the ocean. The ocean produces more oxygen than all of our forests combined, sustains communities and regulates the earth’s temperature. It’s home to wondrous wildlife and important ecosystems like coral reefs and kelp forests.
We love our big blue backyard
Australia’s ocean is teeming with life that is found nowhere else on earth. Schools of colourful fish, vibrant coral reefs, endemic shark nurseries, pods of dolphins, families of whales, playful seal pups and threatened Jurassic-era turtles call Australian waters home.
Since time began, from the turquoise waves to the deep blue, the ocean has connected our shorelines and communities, fed us, guided us and grounded us. We are intrinsically connected to our big blue backyard – more than 85% of us live within 50km of the shoreline. For tens of thousands of years, people have lived in harmony with the ocean and the wildlife within it, caring for and being sustained by its rich waters. Australia’s waters are some of the most unique and abundant places on Earth but our Marine Parks Network is falling short to properly protect them.
Australia’s marine parks aren’t living up to their name
The Australian Commonwealth Marine Parks Network covers commonwealth waters 5.5km from the coast. The network is divided into 7 regional management areas, overall the network contains 60 marine parks. Zoning types determine what activities are allowed in each area. Over half of the network allows industrial activities, risking our most precious and threatened ocean wildlife.
Within many of our marine parks, destructive industries are allowed to fish, trawl, dig and mine using barbaric and cruel methods. Here are some of the zones explained:
- Bottom Trawling: Special Purpose (trawl) zones allow bottom trawling. This covers 10 marine parks totalling almost 13 million hectares. Bottom trawlers bulldoze the seafloor with weighted nets, deforesting our underwater forests; a cruel, indiscriminate and inefficient way to fish.
- Other Industrial Fishing: Includes “Habitat Protection Zones, ““Multi Use Zones” and “Special Purpose Zones.” Fishing methods vary from park to park but many marine parks in these zones allow industrial fishing like longlining. Longlining involves setting lines that can be 100km long, bristling with deadly hooks designed to catch a specific fish species. But longlining is not a selective method of fishing – significant numbers of sharks, rays, turtles, dolphins and seabirds can be harmed or killed as bycatch in the process.
- Oil and Gas Mining: Many “Special Purpose” and “Multi Use” zones allow seismic blasting and oil and gas mining. 30 marine parks or 65 million hectares of Australia’s highest conservation value areas for ocean wildlife are open for mining and exploration of oil and gas.
- Ocean Sanctuaries: National Park and Sanctuary zones are fully and highly protected marine parks designed to conserve wildlife and their habitat, where fishing, mining, and other industrial activities are not allowed.
Industrial fishing is one of the biggest threats to the ocean
In May, Greenpeace Australia Pacific sailed our campaigning vessel Oceania through some of Australia’s most beautiful and threatened marine parks. Our crew visited Jervis and Hunter marine parks to document their beauty, showcase what’s at risk and aim to expose the industrial fishing activities in these protected waters. Both of these marine parks allow bottom trawling and longlining methods of industrial fishing.
Industrial fishing is ripping the ocean apart across the planet. Longlining, also known as longline fishing, is an industrial fishing method that involves the use of a fishing line with thousands of baited hooks. These fishing lines can stretch over 100 kilometers in length and are set to capture a fish species, often tuna or billfish species. But it is not a selective method of fishing and often results in significant bycatch. This includes a range of non-target species like sharks, rays, sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds which are often injured or killed as bycatch.
Bottom trawling involves dragging heavy weighted nets along the ocean floor. This fishing method is popular with commercial fishing companies, because it makes it easy to catch large quantities of fish in one go. But it also damages the seafloor, releasing carbon and can kill or injure non-target ocean life like coral, fur seals, dolphins and seabirds. You may have watched the reality of bottom trawling (and the benefits of ocean sanctuaries) in Ocean with David Attenborough, if not, add it to your watch list!
Fully protected ocean sanctuaries that ban industrial fishing and mining can protect ocean wildlife and underwater wonderlands for generations to come. Vast, robust sanctuaries create blue havens where ocean wildlife are safe from nets and hooks, and can truly rest, recover, thrive and replenish out into the surrounding waters. Ocean sanctuaries ensure a healthy ocean full of life.
A once-in-a-decade chance to fix what’s falling short
We have a unique opportunity to turn the tide.
The Australian Government is asking for your feedback on how our Commonwealth Marine Parks Network is managed. This is our once-in-a-decade chance to protect ocean wildlife, ban industrial fishing and create more ocean sanctuaries.
As part of the review the Government is asking for submissions from the public to hear from you on what improvements are needed to better protect our vast network of marine parks. Writing a submission is a powerful way to influence government decisions and create real change.
This is the moment to ban industrial activities like bottom trawling and oil and gas mining. But only if they hear from YOU. Add your name!
Greenpeace is calling on the Australian government to:
1. Ban industrial activities from Australia’s Marine Parks Network: Ban industrial activities, such as industrial fishing, seismic blasting and oil and gas mining, from Australia’s marine parks.
2. Create more ocean sanctuaries: Increase fully protected sanctuaries in Australia’s marine parks based on science principles.
3. Connect Australia’s Marine Parks Network to the High Seas: mCreate seascape connectivity by linking Australian marine parks to new high seas ocean sanctuaries.
References
Substantiation that more than half of the Marine Parks Network permits industrial activity comes from a peer-reviewed systematic literature review (Phillips et al. 2025, PLOS One, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307324). The study found that within the Commonwealth Marine Parks Network specifically, “all zones are considered partially protected areas, meaning areas where extractive activities are permitted, except ‘Pink zones’ (Preservation Zones; IUCN Ia) and ‘Green Zones’ (IUCN II).” In other words, every Commonwealth marine park zone type other than the network’s strict no-take sanctuary and national park zones (IUCN Ia and II) permits some form of extractive industrial activity. Since no-take zones are the minority zone type across the network by area, this supports the conclusion that the majority of the network’s area is zoned to permit industrial activity.
DCCEEW Australian Marine Parks spatial dataset (https://fed.dcceew.gov.au/datasets/erin::australian-marine-parks/explore), filtered by zone type. This confirms that 38.43% of the network’s area is zoned as Sanctuary or National Park zones (IUCN Ia and II). These are the no-take categories excluded from the peer-reviewed study’s definition of partially protected/industrial-permitting zones. The remaining 61.57% of the network falls within the zone categories the study classifies as permitting industrial activity (per The MPA Guide definition of “industrial” applied in Phillips et al. 2025), directly corroborating the peer-reviewed finding with current Commonwealth-specific spatial data.
For further information on activities permitted within the Marine Parks Network Zoning, you can refer to the Management Plans zoning and rules for each Marine Parks Network area, for example: Temperate East, Coral Sea, North.
-
Climate Change12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits