Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese sought to strengthen security ties with Pacific island nations and counter China’s growing influence during a trip to the region this week.

If he walks away with one lesson, it’s that Australia’s climate policy remains a significant sticking point.

The main purpose of Albanese’s visit was to attend annual leaders’ talks known as the Pacific Islands Forum. On the way, Albanese stopped in Vanuatu hoping to sign a security agreement – but he couldn’t ink the deal.

I am in the Solomon Islands this week to observe the talks. I saw firsthand that Australia clearly has its work cut out in its quest to lead regional security – and our climate credibility is key.

Pacific countries say unequivocally that climate change – which is bringing stronger cyclones, coastal inundation and bleached coral reefs – is their single greatest threat. If Australia’s geo-strategic jostling is to work, we must show serious commitment to curbing the dangers of a warming planet.

Australia’s strategy tested in the Solomons

The location of this year’s talks – Solomon Islands’ capital, Honiara – is a stark reminder of Australia’s geopolitical stakes amid rising Chinese influence in the region.

The Solomon Islands signed a security deal with China in 2022, which set alarm bells ringing in Canberra. Penny Wong – then opposition foreign minister – described it as the worst failure of Australian foreign policy in the Pacific since World War II.

Since then, the Albanese government has sought to firm up Australia’s place as security partner for Pacific countries by pursuing bilateral security agreements with island nations. So far, it has completed deals with Tuvalu, Papua New Guinea and Nauru.

On his way to the Solomon Islands, Albanese stopped in Vanuatu hoping to sign a security agreement which reportedly included A$500 million over ten years to address worsening climate impacts. But that deal was postponed. Members of Vanuatu’s coalition government were reportedly concerned about wording that could limit infrastructure funding from other countries, including China.

Albanese had more success in Honiara, where he advanced talks with Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka for a new bilateral security pact.

Working with island nations to tackle climate change has become key to Australian strategy in the region. This week Albanese also joined Pacific leaders to ratify a regional fund intended to help island communities access international finance to help adapt to climate impacts. Australia has already pledged $100 million for the project, known as the Pacific Resilience Facility.

Australia is bidding to host the COP31 United Nations climate talks in partnership with Pacific countries in 2026. Pacific leaders formally restated support for Australia’s bid this week.

Palau President Surangel Whipps Jr said an Australia-Pacific COP had broad support from the rest of the world:

We deserve to host COP31, and given the breadth and depth of support, it would be seen as an act of good faith if others would clear the way. We don’t want to let this major international opportunity slip by us.

Whipps also championed an initiative for the Pacific to become the world’s first region to be powered 100% by renewable energy.

Pacific Island countries spend up to 25% of their GDP on importing fossil fuels for power generation and transport. As the costs of renewable energy and battery storage quickly fall, Pacific countries could save billions of dollars by making the clean energy shift.

Albanese this week appeared to acknowledge regional concerns about climate change, saying taking action was “the entry fee, if you like, to credibility in the Pacific”.

But the real test is whether Albanese can follow words with meaningful action.

The work starts at home

Albanese’s Pacific visit comes amid heightened scrutiny of Australia’s efforts to curb emissions.

The government must set Australia’s 2035 emissions reduction target this month. The latest reports suggest the commitment may be less ambitious than Pacific leaders, and many others, would like.

Pacific leaders also expect Albanese to curb fossil fuel production for export. Australia’s biggest contribution to climate change comes from coal and gas exports, which add more than double the climate pollution of Australia’s entire national economy.

However, in coming days the federal government is expected to approve Woodside’s extension of gas production at the Northwest Shelf facility off Western Australia, out to 2070. The decision could lock in more than 4 billion tonnes of climate pollution – equivalent to a decade of Australia’s annual emissions.

All this comes in the wake of a landmark legal ruling in July this year, when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion confirming countries have legal responsibilities for climate harms caused by fossil fuel exports.

Vanuatu led the legal campaign. In Honiara this week, Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu reiterated that Australia must heed the ruling, saying:

The advisory opinion of the ICJ made it clear that going down the path of fossil fuel production expansion is an internationally wrongful act under international law. The argument Australia has been making that the domestic transition is sufficient under the Paris Agreement is untenable. You’ve got to deal with fossil fuel exports as well.

Albanese may have taken on board some of the Pacific’s concern about climate – and made a little progress at this week’s Pacific Islands Forum. But there is work to do if Australia is to be seen as a credible security partner in the Pacific – and that work starts at home.

Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

In yet another shocking act of political violence in the United States, Charlie Kirk was assassinated while debating with students at a university in Utah.

The 31-year-old, who came to fame by doing just that – debating whoever wanted to engage with him – was undeniably the most influential figure in young conversative politics.

News of his killing sent social media into an all-too familiar frenzy, with opposing political camps blaming each other for the increasingly febrile environment in contemporary America. It has also raised fears it may provoke even more violence.

Who was Charlie Kirk?

The meagre tent in which Kirk would set up shop on university campuses around America to engage in debate with university students should not be mistaken for meagre support.

Kirk’s political organisation, Turning Point USA (TPUSA), had a revenue of US$78,000 (A$118,000) when he founded it in 2012. As of last year, its annual revenue had grown to US$85 million (A$129 million).

His podcast, The Charlie Kirk Show, boasted between 500,000 and 750,000 downloads for each episode, ranking it as one of the top 25 most listened to podcasts in the world. Even Kirk’s 7 million X account followers is greater than MSNBC’s 5 million.

Outside the online world, TPUSA today has a presence in more than 3,500 high school and college campuses, with more than 250,000 student members, and more than 450 full- and part-time staff. But perhaps the most important metric is the fact that a TikTok survey of users under 30 found that, among those who voted for Trump, they trusted Kirk more than any other individual.

As much as Kirk’s many detractors abhorred his views and his conduct – particularly his views of Black people, Jews, trans people and immigrants, as well as his efforts to denounce professors engaging in “leftist propaganda” – there was no denying he was willing to debate practically anyone.

Whether it was in storied lecture halls at Oxford University or a progressive university campus in the US, Kirk engaged in political debate with anyone willing to come to the open microphone at his events, encouraging students to “prove me wrong”. The dissemination of clips of these interactions – typically an unwitting progressive student asking Kirk a question only to have Kirk counter-argue – garnered hundreds of millions of views across a variety of social media channels.

Support for Trump

Kirk first came to prominence championing more conventional Republican politicians, including Texas Senator Ted Cruz and former Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. But he eventually came around to supporting Trump in 2016, and never looked back.

Indeed, when many – particularly within the Republican party – sought to distance themselves from Trump after incidents such as the infamous Access Hollywood tape in 2016 or the violence at the US Capitol on January 6 2021, Kirk stayed the course.

The combination of his unceasing loyalty to Trump and his increasing popularity among young voters saw him increase his power within conservative circles. This power saw his organisation contribute millions of dollars to various Trump-aligned campaigns. TPUSA also bolstered support for embattled cabinet nominee, and now defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, and initiate efforts to oust former chair Ronna McDaniel from the Republican National Committee.

But perhaps Kirk’s most notable political win was harnessing a record number of young people to vote for Trump in 2024, despite the fact he was the oldest ever person to lead the Republican presidential ticket.

US political violence

Some may look at yet another instance of deadly US political violence and wonder whether it would have any sort of lasting impact. After all, the creation of the US followed an act of political violence known to Americans as the Revolutionary War. And this founding preceded more political violence, including the Civil War, Reconstruction and Civil Rights movement, among others.

Yet, as much as the entirety of US history is filled with such incidents, there is no denying that for the past generation in particular, it has also grown worse.

Numerous studies have found that the number of attacks and plots against elected officials, political candidates, political party officials, and political workers is exponentially higher now than in recent history. In examining 30 years of data, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) found the number of attacks and plots in the past five years is nearly triple that of the preceding 25 years combined.

But beyond the numbers, US politicians themselves increasingly cite the spectre of violence as a reason why they have either retired from politics or – perhaps more worryingly – changed their votes.

Ultimately, there’s little question as to whether the US will continue to suffer from political violence. The greater question is to what extent and at what cost.

Kirk’s death will affect far more than just his friends and his family – including his widow and two young children. Today marked the loss of a unique leader in the US conservative movement.

Jared Mondschein, Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.