Too big to fail
Climate politics should be a contest of ideas, not ideals. Who holds the best policies to avoid system failure, not just the climate system? What of our biodiversity, our freshwater, ocean acidification, and chemical pollution?
In 2008 during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) the term “Too big to fail” became enshrined into popular parlance when the US administration, led by George W. Bush used the term to justify bailing out financial institutions to avoid a global economic meltdown. The former US Fed. Reserve Chair, Ben Bernaanke defined “Too big to fail” as a firm that had reached a certain size with critical interconnectedness within the financial system, that its failure could have a disproportionately adverse impact on the broader economy. After the US bailout, the rest of the world followed suit with their own “Too big to fail” bailouts, including Australia, which put in place the Australian Government Guarantee scheme so its financial institutions would not be disadvantaged with lending rates. The near collapse and subsequent rescue of these institutions was followed by dramatic, regulatory reform. In the US, it was the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act and across the G20, it was reforms such as Basel III. All designed to enhance liquidity resilience and eliminate “Too big to fail”.
When dangerous flaws of our economic system were so spectacularly exposed, Governments quite rightly stepped in to act. Yet when, as reported by the Guardian on June 19, news broke that the world’s carbon budget to keep temperatures below 1.50C could be exhausted in 2 years based on current emission rises, there is a remarkable lack of panic. Surely our planetary system should be classed as “Too big to fail”?
Despite a proliferation of misinformation, the science is well established that the climate crisis is real and man-made (anthropogenic). The Labor party won the 2022 election in no small part due to putting forward a more progressive emissions target of a 43% reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions relative to 2005 levels by 2030, compared to the Coalition's target of 26-28%. A study of fossil fuel communication has revealed that fossil fuel corporations are pivoting from decades of a strategy of denialism to one of delayism, publicly promoting the importance of climate action but in reality doing very little. The Government has updated their emissions target to a range between 62-70% based on the advice that it’s what’s practically achievable. The Climate Change Authority report’s position is that it first considers the science, then the economic conditions, as well as the legislative framework. The CSIRO modelling is predicated on continued growth across all sectors, including mining and resources.
Is it the Government’s position that fossil fuel extraction should not only continue but expand? If so, then the Government can be itself accused of delayism. If the Climate Change Authorities' assessment starts with the science, why is it not empowered to provide advice that suggests a pathway to meet the science? As reported by the Climate Council, to keep temperature to well below 2 degrees a reduction of 75% is required by 2030 not 2035. A 65% reduction which is 3 degrees about the Australian minimum target level of 62 will deliver a temperature rise of 2.4 degrees. Warming of 2.4 degrees is nothing to celebrate. If that is what the Government is aiming for then a deeper discussion needs to be had.
What are the suggested changes to planning laws to ensure that the houses and infrastructure being built now will align with the emissions target set? Where is the investment for the health system to deal with the dramatic increase in heat related illnesses?
The planetary boundaries framework, first proposed by Rockström from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and 28 leading scientists in 2009, outlines that the earth system is governed by 9 planetary processes that together maintain the stability, safety and ultimately, livability of the planet. A 2025 Planetary Health Report released on September 24 by the PIK has announced that a 7th boundary, Ocean Acidification, has now been passed. This means that Climate Change, Biosphere Integrity, Land System Change, Freshwater Use, Biogeochemical Flows, Novel Entities, and Ocean Acidification have all moved beyond the safe zone. This only leaves Atmospheric Aerosol loading and Stratospheric Ozone sitting within the safe zone. Levke Caesar, Co-lead of Planetary Boundaries Science Lab states, “The ocean is becoming more acidic, oxygen levels are dropping, and marine heatwaves are increasing. This is ramping up pressure on a system vital to stabilise conditions on planet Earth.” Beyond it’s role as a carbon sink, the Ocean is home to rich biodiversity, entitled to exist beyond the utility humanity attaches to it as a food source. But with reports suggesting that the Oceans supply at least 17% of the world’s edible meat, why are we as a species not alarmed?
Where is the outrage and scrutiny from the fourth estate? The national risk assessment, released by the Government on September 15, provided a clear context for the impacts on Australia. This should not be yesterday's news; it’s tomorrow's headline and every other natural disaster hereafter. A responsible media should be holding our representatives to account, or at a minimum, educating and keeping the public informed. A report highlighted in the Guardian today (January 23, 2026) by World Weather Attribution (WWA) should have us collectively shitting the bed. In 2026, Australia is currently in a week La Niña cycle, which would have lowered temperatures between 0.3 to 0.5 degrees, but due to Climate Change, this was overwhelmed by the most extreme heatwave since the 2019-2020 bushfires.
The answers are there, but you need the conviction to ask the questions. Climate politics should be a contest of ideas, not ideals. Who holds the best policies to avoid system failure, not just the climate system? What of our biodiversity, our freshwater, ocean acidification, and chemical pollution?
“Too big to fail” is my personal call to arms. An examination of the systems that are failing us and an exploration of the systems that offer us hope, a hope for a kinder, more equitable alternative.
Our planetary system is under attack, but it will go on. The big question is, does humanity want to be a part of it, and what kind of life do we want?
