Dear friend,
“Our ABC” has finally jumped the shark.
On 10 July, the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster ran a story under this headline: “Climate change becoming a major driver of child marriage across Asia and the Pacific.”
Young girls are being pulled out of school and handed over to adult men in marriages they never chose, and the ABC wants you squinting at carbon dioxide. Not the adults arranging the marriages. Not the men taking child brides. Not the dowry and bride-price systems that turn a daughter into a transaction, or the traditions and doctrines that keep the whole rotten practice alive. Carbon dioxide.
Presumably, Australian coal miners and cattle farmers should hang their heads in shame. Somewhere overseas, adults decided to marry off a young girl, and our national broadcaster has traced the moral guilt back to the industries that produce Australian energy and food. It would be laughable if the subject were not so evil.
Child marriage is caused by people, customs, and institutions, not by carbon dioxide or bad weather.
The ABC relied heavily on aid-sector advocacy, anecdotes, and unpublished research to make a sweeping regional claim.
The UN evidence brief admits its findings are geographically limited, culturally dependent, and in need of further research.
Dowry, bride-price, family honour and the treatment of girls as property are the real forces sustaining child marriage.
Taxpayer funding should protect vulnerable girls through law enforcement, schooling, and prosecution, not finance climate-branded bureaucracy.
The framing of the ABC’s story does real damage, because it shields the people who should be exposed. Call child marriage a climate consequence and you drain it of moral agency. Perpetrators become passive victims of the weather, and a deliberate human act starts to resemble storm damage. The girl loses twice. First the adults steal her childhood. Then Western institutions steal the truth about why it happened.
The story centres on a Bangladeshi girl married off at 15 after a cyclone wrecked her family’s livelihood. From that one tragedy, the aid organisations quoted in the piece build a much bigger political claim: climate change is supposedly becoming a “leading contributor” to child marriage, so climate programs need more money for child-marriage work. A heartbreaking case, a fashionable explanation, and a request for more taxpayer funding, all in the one article.
The claims come from Plan International, Girls Not Brides, and other aid-sector advocates. One talks about seeing a “direct correlation”. Another wants child-marriage funding folded into climate-change response programs. The ABC helpfully points out that Australia’s foreign-aid framework already puts climate and gender objectives front and centre. So this is not an academic debate. These groups are openly asking governments, ours included, to send more money to programs carrying the climate label. Which makes the quality of the evidence rather important.
And the evidence, as presented, is thin. The article offers anecdotes, advocacy claims, forecasts, and statistics about marriages that followed natural disasters. Correlation gets treated as explanation over and over. A flood happened, a child was married afterwards, therefore climate change drove the marriage. That is the standard of reasoning being served up to the people who pay for the ABC.
Poverty does not perform a marriage ceremony. A flood has no religious beliefs. A drought does not demand a dowry, and a cyclone does not haggle over a bride price. Somewhere in every one of these stories, human beings decided a daughter was worth less than a son, and other human beings let them. Customs allow it, families arrange it, men participate in it, community authorities tolerate it, and governments fail to stop it.
The ABC’s own reporting quietly concedes all this. The article mentions families who regard girls as belonging to their future husbands. It refers to “family honour”, dowry payments, gender inequality, and entrenched social practices, and it quotes an advocate saying families do not consider girls worth investing in. None of those are climatic conditions. They are beliefs, customs, and moral choices, and where religious interpretations, caste practices, or tribal customs are used to justify marrying children, they need to be confronted directly. That includes practices found in Muslim, Hindu, and other traditional societies. Child marriage turns up across many religions and cultures, and blanket attacks on whole faiths are neither fair nor useful. But cultural sensitivity is no excuse for cowardice, and pretending the real villain is atmospheric carbon dioxide is cowardice of a very modern kind.
So, where does the climate claim actually come from? A big part of the answer is a document called Child Marriage and Environmental Crises: An Evidence Brief, published in 2021 by the United Nations Population Fund with researchers from Queen Mary University of London and other partners. Despite the title, it is not new science demonstrating that global warming causes child marriage. It is a ten-page advocacy brief summarising existing academic papers, government reports, interviews, and material produced by aid organisations. Its opening claim is that climate change and other environmental crises “exacerbate the drivers” of child marriage.
Watch how broad that language is. The brief lumps climate change, droughts, floods, natural disasters, biodiversity loss, displacement, and other “environmental breakdown” under one enormous umbrella, then looks at whether these events coincide with poverty, disrupted schooling, migration, sexual violence, dowry practices, and bride-price arrangements. Under that definition, almost any misfortune involving weather can be pulled into the climate story, and any family’s immoral decision after such a misfortune becomes evidence of a link between climate change and child marriage.
Note what the brief is actually arguing, too. It does not claim that a one or two-degree rise in average global temperature makes parents marry off their daughters. Its chain of logic runs like this: disaster causes hardship, hardship interacts with local customs, and some families then choose child marriage as a coping strategy. That is a very different claim from the one in the ABC’s headline.
The most honest part of the document sits near the end, where the authors admit that most of the evidence comes from South Asia, particularly Bangladesh, that generalising the findings elsewhere is limited because child marriage depends on local norms and traditions, and that more research is needed. So by the UN’s own account, the evidence is concentrated in a handful of places, cannot readily be applied elsewhere, and hinges on local culture. The ABC read all that and still ran a sweeping headline covering an entire region full of different countries, religions, legal systems, and customs.
The brief even contains results that cut against the story. One study it cites found drought was associated with a three per cent increase in the annual risk of child marriage across parts of sub-Saharan Africa, where bride-price arrangements are common, but a four per cent decrease in India, where dowries are the norm. Eritrea also showed a decrease under the same analysis. Same climatic factor, opposite outcomes, different customs. So much for the sweeping headline.
The real obscenity is sitting in plain sight. Girls are being assigned a monetary value and transferred between families under systems that tolerate it. The temperature is a distraction.
None of this narrative is new, either. The UNFPA brief cites a 2017 Guardian feature claiming climate change was creating a “new generation of child brides”, so the storyline has been circulating for nearly a decade. You can trace how it travels. An aid group makes a claim, a sympathetic newspaper turns it into a headline, a UN agency cites the newspaper alongside a few selected studies, other organisations cite the UN, and eventually the ABC reports that advocates and international agencies now agree. The same claim goes around the washing machine and comes out wearing a white coat. And you pay for the spin cycle.
There are more problems in the fine print. The ABC promotes unpublished research from Plan International and the University of Technology Sydney, with the full report due later in the year, meaning readers are asked to accept sweeping claims from work they cannot yet inspect. The headline arrives now, the funding campaign starts now, but the report can come later. The article also drops in a claim that child marriages may rise by as much as 39 percent after a natural disaster in Bangladesh, with no meaningful explanation of the baseline, the locations, the period, the definitions, or how a weather event was separated from everything else going on in those communities. A dramatic number creates alarm, alarm supports funding, and funding feeds the climate-development industry.
Child marriage survives because people defend it, profit from it, participate in it, or refuse to punish it. It survives where girls are treated as property, where “honour” matters more than consent, where religious and cultural authorities will not condemn it, where governments lack the courage to arrest anyone, and where Western elites fear being called culturally insensitive more than they fear abandoning a child. No amount of “climate resilience programming” substitutes for moral clarity.
There was real journalism to be done here. The ABC could have investigated the adults arranging these marriages, asked why the laws against it go unenforced, named the customs that make child brides acceptable, followed the money in the dowry and bride-price systems, and put hard questions to religious, political, and community leaders. It chose the climate script instead, because “local patriarchal customs interact with economic shocks” does not move an agenda the way “climate change is becoming a major driver of child marriage” does.
Climate change has become the Left’s universal grievance machine. War, migration, violence, poverty, mental illness, and now child brides all get fed into it, and once every problem is a climate problem, every solution requires more climate funding, more international bureaucracy, and more control over ordinary lives. Foreign aid becomes climate aid, girls’ education becomes climate resilience, social reform becomes climate justice, and every funding pitch learns to include the magic words.
The ABC is not privately funded. Australians are compelled to finance it through taxation, and Australia also contributes public money to the UN system. When UN agencies produce activist briefs that get recycled into taxpayer-funded journalism and then used to justify further government spending, you are entitled to ask where the proof is, where the independent scrutiny is, where the dissenting experts are, and why nobody distinguished between weather, natural disasters, and claimed human-induced climate change. You are entitled to ask why culture and religion escaped examination, and why the people arranging the marriages escaped accountability. The ABC’s readers got none of that. Funny how the uncertainty always surrounds the evidence, never the demand for money.
What girls in these situations actually need is not complicated. Firm minimum-marriage-age laws with serious enforcement. Schooling. Safe shelters. Prosecution of the coercive adults. Economic opportunities for women, and pressure on governments that tolerate the trade in child brides. We should also help communities after genuine disasters, because that is basic humanity. But helping flood victims does not require pretending Australians are morally responsible when a family overseas exchanges a young daughter for cattle, cash, or social status. That proposition is grotesque.
So write to your federal MP. Write to the Communications Minister. Complain directly to the ABC and tell them you will not accept abused girls being used as emotional marketing for the climate agenda. Demand accountability for ABC expenditure and for the Australian money flowing through international bodies, and demand that every dollar sent overseas produces measurable protection for children rather than another climate-branded bureaucracy.
Child marriage is caused by the people who arrange and practice child marriage. The UN and our national broadcaster should be able to say that without hiding behind the weather. Until it can, the funding taps need to be firmly turned off for both institutions.
Until next time, God bless you, your family, and nation.
Take care,
George Christensen
George Christensen is a former Australian politician, a Christian, freedom lover, conservative, blogger, podcaster, journalist and theologian. He has been feted by the Epoch Times as a “champion of human rights” and his writings have been praised by Infowars’ Alex Jones as “excellent and informative”.
George believes Nation First will be an essential part of the ongoing fight for freedom:
“The time is now for every proud patriot to step to the fore and fight for our freedom, sovereignty and way of life. Information is a key tool in any battle and the Nation First newsletter will be a valuable tool in the battle for the future of the West.”
— George Christensen.
Find more about George at his www.georgechristensen.com.au website.
NOTE: Due to the large volume of emails I receive, it is not possible to email me and ask to be unsubscribed from this newsletter. You must do it yourself by following the simple processes listed below:
Whoops, bit premature there laddy! managed to find and read the excellent article. The non biased ABC is a disgrace.
Should be a linger article with more details. Need to stamp out this si called child "bride " sickness.
The ABC? tax payers money, What a disgrace.