Richard Fidler: The Volcano That Toppled Two Empires
Back in 536AD, the skies turned dark and the world cooled. It was all thanks to a massive volcanic eruption in Iceland, that no one even knew had happened. It led to a mysterious plague, a pandemic, which swept through the Roman and Persian Empires. In the great Byzantine city of Constantinople, it was said that 10,000 people were dying every day.
Between plague and war, the world's two 'superpowers' were too distracted to notice that something major was happening on the Arabian peninsula. The Prophet Mohammed had united the tribes and, when he died, his followers started pushing north. Instead of encountering resistance, they were able to take huge swathes of the Roman Empire and completely destroy the Persian Empire.
Richard Fidler, host of ABC Conversations and the author of The Book of Roads and Kingdoms, tells Marc Fennell (Stuff the British Stole, Mastermind) the incredible true story of how the language of Arabic and religion of Islam spread across the world, thanks (in part) to a natural disaster and climate change.
Get in touch:
Got a story for us? We'd love to hear from you! Email us at noonesawitcoming@abc.net.au
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
5 hours ago
- ABC News
UN climate chief urges Australia to 'go big' on 2035 emissions target
One of the world's top climate diplomats has urged the federal government to commit to an ambitious 2035 target to cut carbon emissions, saying Australia can reap "colossal" economic rewards if it embraces clean energy. The federal government is due to unveil its 2035 target by September this year, while the Coalition continues to be consumed by a furious internal debate on whether it should maintain its commitment to net zero by 2050. The Climate Change Authority is preparing advice on a 2035 target between 65 and 75 per cent, which will inform the target the government will submit to the UN's climate agency. UN climate change executive secretary Simon Stiell, who presides over the agency responsible for managing the Paris Agreement to limit global warming, is visiting Sydney and Canberra this week as he presses countries across the globe to ramp up their climate ambitions. Mr Stiell called the new climate target a "defining moment" for Australia, and said the government had "one shot to build a blueprint that protects Aussie workers and businesses by preparing them for a fast-changing global economy". Mr Stiell used a speech to a group of investors and clean energy representatives in Sydney to warn "unchecked climate change" would be an "economic wrecking ball" for the Australian and global economy, and that action was imperative. Mr Stiell said climate disasters were "already costing Australian homeowners $4 billion a year" and that unchecked climate change would "cripple Australia's food production" and drain trillions from national GDP by 2050. "You know half measures will destroy property and infrastructure, hammer households, bankrupt regions, and punch holes in public budgets," he said. "And you know that real action opens the door to real leadership and big rewards for this ambitious, capable country." Standing alongside Mr Stiell, the Climate Change Authority's (CCA) chair Matt Kean said the stakes "couldn't be higher" for Australia, but that pursuing net zero emissions also presented an opportunity for the sun-rich and mineral-rich nation. "'Shine, baby, shine' and 'store baby store' should carry an Australian trademark and be hollered from our rooftops — perhaps with an Aussie accent," Mr Kean said in a reference to United States President Donald Trump's "drill, baby, drill" remark. The CCA boss also said that, ahead of the next international climate conference, "maximum ambition should be the catch-cry". The United States has slashed clean energy subsidies and pulled out of the Paris Agreement under Mr Trump. However, Mr Stiell said investment in renewables in countries like India and China was "off the chart" and "trillions of dollars are shifting" globally. Mr Stiell said a "bog standard" 2035 target would be "beneath" Australia, and that government and business had the capacity to deliver transformational change. "This is the moment to get behind a climate plan that doesn't just write that vision into policy — but delivers in spades for your people," he said. "So don't settle for what's easy. Bog standard is beneath you. Go for what's smart by going big. "Go for what will build lasting wealth and national security. Go for what will change the game and stand the test of time."
News.com.au
5 hours ago
- News.com.au
Pauline Hanson calls on Coalition to back urgency motion on net zero
One Nation senator Pauline Hanson is seizing on division in the Coalition to push through an urgency motion calling for Australia to abandon its net zero target. Senator Hanson, a long-time climate change denier, will introduce the motion on Monday following Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce's private members bill calling for the same thing. Aware of the divide in the Coalition, Senator Hanson said her motion would out opposition 'cowards'. 'They're gutless, you know, they're cowards,' she told Sky News when asked about the prospect of Coalition senators not backing her motion. 'Because a lot of these people on the floor of parliament have no understanding, cannot debate you about climate change. 'They don't even know anything about it. 'They're making decisions and voting on it.' 'Scam' She went on to say Australians have 'been hoodwinked'. 'It's a scam going on and if we head down this path, what will happen to Australians?' Senator Hanson said. 'You will be restricted where you travel, where you go, what you eat, and it will be based on your carbon emissions.' Australia's renewables targets do not impose restrictions on freedom of movement or diets. Earlier, Mr Joyce asked Australia's big-city residents if they are 'prepared to hurt the poor' by pursuing a carbon neutral future. Mr Joyce, who was banished to the backbench after the Coalition's brief post-election break-up, kicked off the second sitting week of the new parliament by introducing his Repeal Net Zero Bill. Unless Sussan Ley drastically changes course in rebuilding the Coalition as a moderate opposition, the private member's bill will not get far. But as a former Nationals leader, Mr Joyce holds clout within the party and his split from more green-minded Liberal Party colleagues has grown into somewhat of a backbench rebellion. Mr Joyce said on Monday there needed to be more give and take between city-living Australians and their rural and regional counterparts, saying there 'are certain things' the regions could do but do not 'because we're trying to be reasonable'. 'There's absolutely no reason that Mascot Airport can't work 24/7,' he told reporters, flanked by fellow Coalition rebels and disgruntled community members. 'But we understand that people don't want planes flying over themselves in the middle of the night … but we don't want transmission lines over our head either. 'We don't want wind towers either, so there's got to be a form of good pro quo.' Mr Joyce said the question 'affluent suburbs' needed to be asked was: 'Are you prepared to hurt the poor?' 'Are you prepared to hurt them and I don't think if you really explain the issue that people do want to hurt them,' he said. 'You don't feel virtuous if you're hurting people.' Mr Joyce's Bill proposes to abandon Australia's carbon-neutral target by 2050. The target is in line with goals set by other developed economies, but the task has been complicated by rapid energy demands from emerging economies and global disruptions driven by increased conflicts, such as Russia's war in Ukraine. Among Mr Joyce's supporters gathered outside Parliament House was fellow former Nationals leader Michael McCormack, another hefty voice in the party. Liberal MP Garth Hamilton also joined him, making him the only member of the senior Coalition partner to do so.
ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
World Court climate decision lights match under Australia's fossil fuel industry
A landmark outcome from the world's highest court this week has put major fossil fuel countries like Australia on notice, declaring they could be liable for reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its advisory opinion this week, outlining that nations have an obligation to prevent climate change and listing potential legal consequences for continuing to make the crisis worse. It's been celebrated around the world as a historic turning point for the climate movement. It's also expected to unleash a new wave of climate litigation. Australia, one of the world's biggest fossil fuel exporters, is likely to face new legal scrutiny. "Under international law, it's huge for Australia. It's going to open us up to a lot more liability," said climate law specialist at the University of Melbourne's law school, Liz Hicks. "There could be claims for reparations brought against Australia. I think this is something that the government hasn't been taking seriously until now." The ICJ was tasked with determining what obligations countries have to protect the climate system for current and future generations, and what the consequences are of failing to do so. In a unanimous finding, the court determined that nations have an obligation under international law to prevent climate change — and that they may be liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so. But the 500-page opinion goes much further than that; it has been described as a blueprint for climate justice and a reckoning for those countries perpetuating the destabilisation of the planet. "The court has really met the moment in bringing all of those legal obligations and interpreting them in the climate reality, and the urgency of this kind of existential crisis for the entire world," Retta Berryman, climate lead and lawyer for Environmental Justice Australia (EJA), said. The ICJ's decision isn't binding for Australian courts, but its advice is considered highly influential and will inform legal arguments in cases back home. Under the Paris Agreement, the legal framework for climate action over the past decade, countries set their own targets for how they will reduce their domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Domestic. That's the critical word here. By only counting emissions released at home, fossil fuel exporters like Australia could brag about cutting down greenhouse gases whilst continuing to sell coal, oil and gas to international buyers, obligation-free. "What states like Australia — and many, many states — were arguing, was that the Paris Agreement was exhaustive of all our obligations," Melbourne Law School's Dr Hicks explained. "Our exports, the big contribution that we make to climate harms, fell outside of the Paris Agreement." The ICJ judges rejected that outright. They declared that supporting fossil fuels — by the production, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences, and fossil fuel subsidies — constitutes an internationally wrongful act. For Australia, the potential ramifications can't be overstated. Australia produces about 1.1 per cent of global emissions. However, Australia is the world's largest coal exporter and a top gas exporter, and a UNSW study has concluded Australia is second globally for emissions from fossil fuel exports. When exports are taken into account, Australia makes up about 4.5 per cent of global emissions, the report found. Ella Vines, a climate law researcher at Monash University, said the ICJ ruling would put those emissions into sharper focus. "It's really significant that we can say that Australia should be responsible for its fossil fuel production even though it's consumed overseas. "A lot of the loopholes that Australia has tended to use to get out of liability are starting to get smaller and smaller," Dr Hicks said. The court took this a step further, stating that states are also responsible for regulating fossil fuel companies operating within their borders, which again exposes Australia to legal liability for its booming fossil fuel industry. In some instances, Australian taxpayers are already forking out for the rehabilitation costs once companies have finished digging up and selling their products. Now, they could also be paying for the climate pollution from that coal and gas. "The ICJ observed that a state's failure to regulate the activities of private actors may amount to a breach of that state's duty to exercise regulatory due diligence," Dr Vines said. The ICJ also shot down another argument used frequently in Australian climate court cases. It goes that no individual project — a gas plant or a coal mine — is responsible for climate change, as it is a cumulative problem, so there is no direct link between its emissions and climate harm. It was an argument used in court last year for the Living Wonders case, which was run by Environmental Justice Australia (EJA). "The judges of the ICJ, after hearing all of that evidence and reading all of the submissions, have confirmed that it is scientifically possible to determine a country's contribution to climate change," said EJA's Retta Berryman. "They've said they acknowledge that it's complex, but that it's not impossible. And notwithstanding the fact that climate change is caused by cumulative emissions, it's scientifically possible to determine each state's contribution." International law is not a perfect vehicle for justice, and a longstanding criticism has been its failure to be enforced. But Dr Hicks said that — again — the ICJ addressed this squarely by stating clearly that countries could be liable for penalties, including reparations, if they commit these "wrongful acts" of climate harm. "If there is no clear consequence to breaching [human rights], we are not as good at paying attention. Once you're talking about reparations being a possibility, or other forms of liability and consequences being in play, that is also going to change." The ICJ was asked to consider this issue by Vanuatu and other low-lying island states, which are suffering the consequences and costs of climate change, for which they bear little responsibility. On Friday, Vanuatu's special envoy on climate did not rule out launching litigation against large polluting countries like Australia. Any theoretical case could potentially be heard in the ICJ's dispute court. A spokesperson for the Australian government told the ABC it is carefully considering the court's opinion. "The unprecedented participation by other countries in the ICJ proceedings reflects that we're not alone in recognising the challenges and opportunities of responding to climate change. "…we remain steadfast in our commitment to working together with the Pacific to strengthen global climate action." International law may not be strictly enforceable, but ignoring it would also affect Australia's international, diplomatic and moral standing, if there were any case. One example of an international legal fight in the ICJ is Australia's case against Japan over its whaling program in Antarctica. Australia successfully argued that Japan was breaching international law, and Japan was ordered to stop the program. "I think it puts the Australian government on notice that the actions that it's taking — particularly connected with exports and downstream emissions — are opening it and future Australian publics and taxpayers up to liability," Dr Hicks said. This legal opinion comes as Australia finalises its 2035 emissions targets, which the ICJ opinion stressed must be its "highest possible ambition". EJA's Ms Berryman believes this legal advice sets out a road map for the federal government's response to climate change. "I think starting with setting a really ambitious target and then working towards a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is really the only way to achieve compliance with the standards that the ICJ has set for the countries." Failure to do so could leave all Australians on the hook for the mounting costs of catastrophic climate change.
