Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Professor of Community Health and Wellbeing, The University of Queensland

You may have noticed an unexpected wellness trend gaining traction online. People are claiming a daily cup of hot water (with nothing else in it) can deliver everything from weight loss and clearer skin to relief from menstrual cramps and sore throats.

The practice is often presented as simple and natural.

But are these benefits real, or is drinking hot water just another viral wellness fad?

The short answer

Drinking hot (not boiling) water is generally safe, and many people say it makes them feel better. It’s less clear why.

Any benefits may come from simply drinking more water, following a regular health routine, or from the comfort and relaxation that warmth provides, rather than from the water being hot.

In other words, it’s likely the water itself, and the habit of doing something you believe is good for you, matter more than the temperature.

While warmth can be soothing for some symptoms, current research does not show that hot water offers special health benefits beyond those of staying well hydrated.

Hydration matters more than temperature

Water, whether hot or cold, is essential for life. Staying hydrated supports digestion, circulation, kidney function, blood pressure regulation and overall wellbeing.

Research out in 2025 even suggests not drinking enough water could make handling everyday stress significantly harder.

So far, there is little strong scientific evidence showing that hot water has unique health benefits over cool water or water at room temperature, beyond what hydration alone can deliver.

Myth #1: hot water helps with weight loss

There are no high-quality human trials showing drinking hot water by itself causes meaningful weight loss.

Research on water intake more broadly suggests drinking more fluids can help with weight control by increasing feelings of fullness before meals and reducing intake of sugary or high-calorie drinks. However, the evidence is not strong enough to favour hot water over other temperatures for weight loss.

One small study suggests drinking warm water may stimulate gut movements (peristalsis), which could help digestion, but this effect was modest and does not translate into fat loss.

Put simply, if drinking hot water helps you replace sugary drinks or drink more water overall, it may support weight goals indirectly. But the temperature itself is not what “burns fat”.

Myth #2: hot water cures a sore throat

Here we have the clearest evidence that temperature can matter.

Warm fluids can soothe sore throats and help relieve nasal congestion. The warmth, and in some cases the steam, helps loosen mucus and calm irritated tissues in the throat and airways.

This effect is not unique to plain hot water. Warm teas, herbal infusions and warm lemon drinks can provide similar relief because they deliver heat and fluid together. Warm drinks are commonly recommended for upper respiratory symptoms for this reason. This is not a cure for infections or shorten illness, but the symptom relief is real and physiologically plausible.

So hot water and other warm drinks can ease symptoms even though they do not treat the underlying cause.

Myth #3: hot water clears your skin

There is no direct scientific evidence drinking hot water improves skin clarity or “detoxifies” the skin.

Staying hydrated helps maintain skin elasticity and prevents dryness. But studies do not show drinking hot water is better than drinking water at other temperatures for skin health.

Claims about hot water “detoxifying” the skin are misleading. Detoxification is carried out by organs such as the liver and kidneys, not by flushing the body with hot water.

So drinking enough water supports skin health, but its temperature doesn’t appear to make a difference.

Myth #4: hot water reduces menstrual pain

External heat, from a hot water bottle, can help muscle cramps and menstrual pain by relaxing tissues and improving circulation.

But drinking hot water by itself doesn’t relieve menstrual pain. Staying well hydrated during menstruation however, may help reduce some discomfort related to fluid retention, even though the water’s temperature doesn’t seem to matter.

Certain teas (particularly green and thyme teas) may offer benefits by lowering prostaglandin levels (a hormone implicated in menstrual pain) and reduce oxidative stress (a factor leading to menstrual pain) in the uterus. Together, proper hydration and these teas may help ease menstrual discomfort, but hot water alone is not a cure.

So heat on the body works, but drinking hot water alone does not have strong evidence as a cramp remedy.

Why do hot water health claims persist?

Holding a warm drink can feel soothing, encourage you to drink more fluids and become part of a calming routine that feels good for your mental health.

These sensory and ritual effects are real, even if the actual physical benefits are small. Social media can make personal stories seem like proof, which helps these claims spread quickly.

But most health claims, including weight loss, clearer skin and reduced cramps, are not strongly supported by scientific evidence beyond the basic benefits of hydration itself. The temperature of your water matters less than getting enough of it.

So if hot water helps you drink more, feel more relaxed, or start your day with a ritual you enjoy, that’s fine. Just don’t assume the warmth itself is a secret cure.

Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Health and Wellbeing Queensland, Heart Foundation, Gallipoli Medical Research and Mater Health, Springfield City Group. She is a director of Dietitians Australia, a director of the Darling Downs and West Moreton Primary Health Network and an associate member of the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences.

Emily Burch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Will drinking hot water help me lose weight, clear my skin or treat cramps? – https://theconversation.com/will-drinking-hot-water-help-me-lose-weight-clear-my-skin-or-treat-cramps-274950

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bill Swannie, Senior Lecturer, Thomas More Law School, Australian Catholic University

Around 544,000 people live in public housing in Australia. And there’s huge demand for more: 169,000 households are waiting for public housing, up almost 10% from a decade earlier.

But what happens when a state government decides to move public housing tenants? Do tenants have any legal rights to stay?

Several court cases – including a new High Court appeal for Melbourne tenants, and an unexpected win for three Canberra tenants – show how some people are challenging their relocation when laws aren’t properly followed.

How 3 tenants fought and won

Earlier this month, three public housing tenants in the Australian Capital Territory had a rare win, stopping them being relocated against their wishes. The women had each lived in their home for around 30 to 40 years.

The ACT Supreme Court found the territory’s social housing commissioner had denied the women procedural fairness and failed to consider their rights under the territory’s Human Rights Act. All public bodies in the ACT must properly consider human rights when making a decision.

Justice Verity McWilliam’s judgement quoted iconic Australian movie The Castle, as well as Roman philosopher Cicero:

It need hardly be said that any interference with one’s home must be lawful. That pithy one-liner in The Castle (1997), voiced in the fictional character of Darryl Kerrigan, still resonates: “It’s not a house, it’s a home. A man’s home is his castle […] You can’t just walk in and steal our homes.”

A precedent, with another case to come

Procedural fairness means a person has a right to be heard by a government decision-maker before a decision affecting their interests is made.

The ACT Supreme Court found the commissioner had not consulted with the tenants or taken their personal circumstances into account. This breached the tenants’ right to a home, as well as the rights of an Indigenous tenant to maintain community ties and cultural practices.

Crucially, it wasn’t just a temporary win: as ABC News reported, the three women are still in their Canberra homes today and will not be relocated.

The tenants’ solicitor Sangeeta Sharmin said the judgement set a precedent, “acknowledging that our clients’ houses are not mere assets, but homes”.

Looking ahead, another group of ACT social housing tenants are taking their class action to the Federal Court, responding to the ACT government’s unsuccessful push to move them from their homes. No date has been set for that hearing.

Melbourne tenants appealing to the High Court

A similar case has been playing out in Melbourne’s inner north.

Homes Victoria is seeking to relocate around 10,000 residents of 44 public housing blocks to redevelop the properties with new social and public housing.

But last Thursday, a Victorian court made orders preventing about 32 households from being evicted from three almost empty Melbourne public housing towers, pending an appeal to the High Court. The towers are due to be demolished and Homes Victoria has warned the delays will cost millions of dollars.

Inner Melbourne Community Legal tenancy lawyer Louisa Bassini told the ABC the court injunction was a win for tenants:

It means that they can stay in their homes, see this process through, and make sure that the courts have had a proper opportunity to consider […] whether their rights [under Victoria’s human rights charter] were properly considered.

Public housing rights across Australia

Private and public landlords are entitled to evict tenants when they intend to sell or demolish the premises. But public landlords have additional policies requiring them to help tenants locate alternative premises, either in public housing or in the private market, and to assist with moving costs.

In the case of redevelopment, tenants may be entitled to return to the redeveloped property. However, this depends on them meeting eligibility criteria, having no outstanding debts, and suitable properties being available.

In Victoria, for example, tenants are offered two properties before a notice to vacate is given. Following this, Homes Victoria may seek a possession order which evicts the tenant.

Western Australia, the Northern Territory and South Australia have similar relocation guidelines to Victoria. However, they don’t have their own human rights laws.

In Tasmania, there are no published guidelines regulating relocation, despite research showing how difficult that relocation process can be.

Victoria, the ACT and Queensland have human rights laws in place that protect the right to non-interference with the home, and cultural rights. Public bodies, such as housing authorities, are obliged to properly consider these rights when making decisions.

Over coming months, we’ll see if the High Court agrees to hear the Melbourne tenants’ appeal, as well as the outcome of the ACT social housing tenants’ case in the Federal Court.

But the recent ACT Supreme Court decision offers some hope for public tenants. If state and territory governments want to relocate tenants, they must follow their own laws and policies properly – or risk costly legal challenges.

Bill Swannie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. If you live in public housing, what rights do you have to stay in your home? – https://theconversation.com/if-you-live-in-public-housing-what-rights-do-you-have-to-stay-in-your-home-274958

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodi McAlister, Senior Lecturer in Writing, Literature and Culture, Deakin University

Outside of classics like Pride and Prejudice, romance fiction has not historically been adapted often for the screen, despite its immense popularity.

The success of Bridgerton (2020–) led to countless articles about what romance novels should be adapted for the screen next when it first premiered.

Now more and more romance adaptations are starting to appear – but what makes the translation from page to screen really sing?

The history of romance novel adaptations

Romance adaptations have given us cultural juggernauts, such as Twilight (2008–12), Fifty Shades of Grey (2015–18) and To All The Boys I’ve Loved Before (2018–21).

But romance adaptations have historically been low-budget and escaped mainstream notice.

Authors like Nora Roberts and Debbie Macomber have proved fruitful grounds for made-for-TV adaptations by Hallmark and Lifetime. Passionflix entered the streaming market in 2017 with the sole purpose to adapt romance novels – including Lick (2024) by Australian author Kylie Scott.

Canadian streamer Crave has turned several romances into TV movies, such as Recipe for Romance (2025), an adaptation of Sweet on You by Filipino author Carla de Guzman. Amazon has also joined the game.

The proportion of books that have made it to the screen (and into cultural conversation) is still small. But the needle is moving. This year sees adaptations of Ali Hazelwood’s The Love Hypothesis, Katherine Center’s The Bodyguard, Elle Kennedy’s Off Campus and Emily Henry’s People We Meet On Vacation.

This is to say nothing of the game-changing popularity of a romance adaptation by Crave released late in 2025: Heated Rivalry.

While it has always been popular, romance has become too prominent to ignore: BookTok and Bookstagram have made romance – and its enormous audience – more visible than ever before.

What makes a good romance adaptation?

Romance readers will embrace or reject an adaptation depending on whether the creators love and respect the genre or misunderstand and misrepresent it – or, worse, condescend to and exploit it.

Heated Rivalry shows what happens when a creator truly, in romance critic Olivia Waite’s words, “accept[s] romance’s invitations”.

Rival hockey players Shane Hollander (Hudson Williams) and Ilya Rozanov (Connor Storrie) commence a clandestine affair as rookies and gradually fall in love. The series has surpassed 600 million viewing minutes and shows no sign of slowing down.

It has been so successful that Netflix promised the new season of Bridgerton would take audiences to “the cottage”: a reference to that series’ third episode – and a term now synonymous with Heated Rivalry’s finale and happy ending.

The happy ending is crucial to the romance genre, but it is not the only thing Heated Rivalry gets right. While not all romance novel adaptations should be carbon copies of this series, anyone considering adapting romance for the screen in future would be well served to look at what it does right.

Romance novels are stories of a small, compact universe. At the centre is a couple (or polycule’s) attraction and journey towards a serious relationship. Sub-plots and supporting characters matter to the extent that they are part of this journey. In a romance, the leads are all romance fans care about.

This is something Bridgerton has struggled with. While it centres a new lead couple each season, it is also concerned with servicing the plotlines of past and future leads. This has led to a proliferation of subplots, which often distract from the romantic spine.

Heated Rivalry consistently centres Shane and Ilya. Taking place over ten years, during which period both men presumably live full lives, creator Jacob Tierney spotlights the sporadic, stolen moments they are together. The secondary romance between hockey player Scott Hunter (François Arnaud) and his secret smoothie barista boyfriend Kip (Robbie CK) is mostly siloed to its own self-contained episode, with its relevance to the main plot made crystal clear at the end of episode five.

The love plot must be central, and must be treated with the deepest sincerity and gravity. Romance is an inherently earnest genre. It is often funny, but it is never ironic.

Red, White & Royal Blue (2023), adapted from Casey McQuiston’s book, received mixed reviews for glossing over many of the book’s complexities. But one of its successes is treating the high-concept love plot between a British prince and the son of the United States president seriously. (Their happy ending is bound up with a broader political one: a successful US re-election representing a liberal wing; the potential promise of a more progressive monarchy.)

The love at the romance novel’s heart – and the attendant joy and hope of the happy ending – is serious business, and must be treated as such for an adaptation to succeed.

This aspect of romance is often positioned as a “guilty pleasure”, something to be embarrassed by or make fun of, but it is hard to overstate how vital it is to the success of the form.

The worst mistake an adaptation of a romance can make is being ashamed of where it came from. Romance readers are well aware when someone is sneering at them, or trying to take advantage of the lucrative market they represent while trying to “elevate” the genre by chipping away at its core tenets and pleasures.

Heated Rivalry is the only adaptation that has entirely and wholeheartedly embraced the invitations of the romance genre, foregrounding romance and leaning pronouncedly into sincerity. We hope many more adaptations will learn from it going forward.

Jodi McAlister is the current president of the International Association for the Study of Popular Romance.

Jayashree Kamble is past President of the International Association for the Study of Popular Romance

– ref. From Bridgerton to Heated Rivalry, what’s the secret to a good book-to-TV romance? – https://theconversation.com/from-bridgerton-to-heated-rivalry-whats-the-secret-to-a-good-book-to-tv-romance-273577

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neil Munro, PhD Candidate in Psychology, James Cook University

Depression and anxiety affect millions of people worldwide.

While treatments such as medication and psychotherapy (sometimes called talk therapy) can be very effective, they’re not always an option. Barriers include cost, stigma, long waiting lists for appointments, and potential drug side effects.

So what about exercise? Our new research, published today, confirms physical activity can be just as effective for some people as therapy or medication. This is especially true when it’s social and guided by a professional, such as a gym class or running club.

Let’s take a look at the evidence.

What we already knew

Physical activity has long been promoted as a treatment option for anxiety and depression, largely because it helps release “feel good” chemicals in the brain which help boost mood and reduce stress.

But the evidence can be confusing. Hundreds of studies with diverse results make it unclear how much exercise is beneficial, what type, and who it helps most.

Over the past two decades, researchers have conducted dozens of separate meta-analyses (studies that combine results from multiple trials) examining exercise for depression and anxiety. But these have still left gaps in understanding how effective exercise is for different age groups and whether the type of exercise matters.

Many studies have also included participants with confounding factors (influences that can distort research findings) such as other chronic diseases, for example, diabetes or arthritis. This means it can be hard to apply the findings more broadly.

What we did

Our research aimed to resolve this confusion by conducting a “meta-meta-analysis”. This means we systematically reviewed the results of all the existing meta-analyses – there were 81 – to determine what the evidence really shows.

Together, this meant data from nearly 80,000 participants across more than 1,000 original trials.

We examined multiple factors that might explain why their results varied. These included differences in:

• who they studied (for example, people with diagnosed depression or anxiety versus those just experiencing symptoms, different age groups, and women during pregnancy and after birth)

• what the exercise involved (for example, comparing aerobic fitness to resistance training and mind-body exercises, such as yoga; whether it was supervised by a professional; intensity and duration)

• whether the exercise was individual or in a group.

We also used advanced statistical techniques to accurately isolate and estimate the exact impact of exercise, separate from confounding factors (including other chronic diseases).

Our data looked at the impact of exercise alone on depression and anxiety. But sometimes people will also use antidepressants and/or therapy – so further research would be needed to explore the effect of these when combined.

What did the study find?

Exercise is effective at reducing both depression and anxiety. But there is some nuance.

We found exercising had a high impact on depression symptoms, and a medium impact on anxiety, compared to staying inactive.

The benefits were comparable to, and in some cases better than, more widely prescribed mental health treatments, including therapy and antidepressants.

Importantly, we discovered who exercise helped most. Two groups showed the most improvement: adults aged 18 to 30 and women who had recently given birth.

Many women experience barriers to exercising after giving birth, including lack of time, confidence or access to appropriate and affordable activities.

Our findings suggest making it more accessible could be an important strategy to address new mothers’ mental health in this vulnerable time.

How you exercise matters

We also found aerobic activities – such as walking, running, cycling or swimming – were best at reducing both depression and anxiety symptoms.

However, all forms of exercise reduced symptoms, including resistance training (such as lifting weights) and mind-body practices (such as yoga).

For depression, there were greater improvements when people exercised with others and were guided by a professional, such as a group fitness class.

Unfortunately, there wasn’t available data on group or supervised exercise for anxiety, so we would need more research to find out if the impact is similar.

Exercising once or twice a week had a similar effect on depression as exercising more frequently. And there didn’t seem to be a significant difference between exercising vigorously or at a low intensity – all were beneficial.

But for anxiety, the best improvements in anxiety symptoms were when exercise was done:

• consistently, for up to eight weeks, and

• at a lower intensity, such as walking or swimming laps at a gentle pace.

So, what does all this mean?

Our research shows exercise is a legitimate and evidence-based treatment option for depression and anxiety, particularly for people with diagnosed conditions.

However, simply telling patients to “exercise more” is unlikely to be effective.

The evidence shows structured, supervised exercise with a social component is best for improving depression and anxiety. The social aspect and the accountability may help keep people motivated.

Clinicians should keep this in mind, offering referrals to specific programs – such as aerobic fitness classes or supervised walking and running programs – rather than general advice.

The findings also suggest this kind of exercise can be particularly effective when targeted to depression in younger adults and women who’ve recently given birth.

The takeaway

For people who are hesitant about medication, or facing long waits for therapy, supervised group exercise may be an effective alternative. It’s evidence-based, and you can start any time.

But it’s still best to get advice from a professional. If you have anxiety or depression symptoms, you should talk to your GP or psychologist. They can advise where exercise fits in your treatment plan, potentially alongside therapy and/or medication.

Samantha Teague receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

James Dimmock, Klaire Somoray, and Neil Munro do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Exercise can be as effective as medication for depression and anxiety – new study – https://theconversation.com/exercise-can-be-as-effective-as-medication-for-depression-and-anxiety-new-study-272243

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thomas Byers, PhD Candidate & Research Assistant, Faculty of Engineering & IT, The University of Melbourne

As with all creative industries, generative artificial intelligence (AI) has been infiltrating video games.

Non-generative AI has been in the industry long before things like ChatGPT became household names. Video games would contain AI-driven gameplay systems such as matchmaking, non-player character (NPC) behaviour, or iconic fictional AI characters such as SHODAN and GLaDOS.

Now, generative AI is being used to produce game assets and speed up development. This is threatening creative jobs and fuelling worries about low-effort releases or “slop”.

If you buy a video game today, you may have no reliable way of knowing whether generative AI was used in any part of its development – from the art and voice work to the code and marketing.

Should developers disclose it? Since 2023, AI disclosure in video games has gone from non-existent to patchy. It’s arguably more to do with copyright concerns than being transparent with players.

A messy baseline

Steam, owned by US video game company Valve, is the largest digital storefront for PC games. It’s also the closest thing to a baseline for AI disclosure – simply because it was the first major platform to formalise a position.

Amid the rise of AI in 2023, Valve rejected AI-produced games on Steam, citing legal uncertainty and stating the company was “continuing to learn about AI”.

By January 2024, Valve formalised its disclosure rules, requiring developers to declare two categories of AI use: pre-generated content (made during development) and live-generated content (created while the game runs).

While industry leaders are optimistic about AI’s role in game development, disclosure remains contentious. Tim Sweeney, chief executive of Steam’s competitor Epic Games, mocked Steam’s AI disclosure in late 2025 as being akin to telling players what shampoo developers use.

In recent weeks, Valve has narrowed its disclosure rules, clarifying that developers who submit games to their platform only need to report AI if the output is directly experienced by players.

This changes what counts as relevant transparency, effectively giving a green light to AI coding and other behind-the-scenes processes.

Valve’s focus on player-facing AI does provide consumers with some transparency and the game submissions are checked before release. However, it’s not clear what happens if the makers of a game don’t disclose AI when they should have.

The disclosure system also keeps Steam ahead of a legal grey area regarding copyright and generative AI output. If needed, Valve could quickly pull titles affected by AI copyright claims. Some AI models can memorise copyrighted material and reproduce it when prompted, so this is not an entirely hypothetical scenario.

AI disclosure on Steam doesn’t have a consistent format – developers simply have a text field where they can write their disclosure in free form. Since it’s not treated as an official tag, consumers also can’t search or filter for AI content when browsing for games in the store.

At the time of writing, a search of SteamDB – a third-party catalogue of Steam’s database – lists more than 15,000 games and software with Steam’s AI disclosure label, with no total count available on Steam itself.

In response, user watchdogs have stepped in. The Steam curator group AI Check tracks games with AI-generated assets and flags whether developers disclose AI use – and how.

Players are largely in the dark

Outside Steam, disclosure is inconsistent if not absent. Indie storefront itch.io provides a searchable “AI Generated” tag, but no disclosure is required on game pages.

There’s currently no clear AI disclosure on mobile app stores or console storefronts (Nintendo, PlayStation, Xbox), and they’ve been criticised for letting “AI slop” flood their stores.

Epic Games Store and another major distribution platform, GOG.com, also lack clear AI disclosures. GOG recently faced backlash for using AI-generated artwork in its own storefront promotion.

All this leaves players in the dark, while developers face backlash for AI use that many consider harmful for the industry.

Transparency is important

Many players care about AI use in games and when disclosure is missing. There are plenty of cases in which developers were “caught out” using generative AI and responded with ad hoc statements, asset changes, or even had Game of the Year awards rescinded.

But there are also cases in which suspicion has caused cancellations or wrongful accusations of games using AI art when it was actually drawn by a human artist.

Read more:
Distrust in AI is on the rise – but along with healthy scepticism comes the risk of harm

This is why transparency on AI use is important. Many Australians report low familiarity with AI, and research suggests having more information can shift people’s views, helping people make informed choices and avoid witch hunts.

Many people have ethical concerns about AI use, or are worried about environmental consequences due to how many resources the AI data centres chew up.

All this means AI disclosure is currently a consumer rights issue, but it’s governed entirely by the platforms where people purchase the games.

Players don’t need to know what shampoo a developer uses. But they do deserve a clear view of whether the art was AI-generated, whether writers or voice actors were replaced, and whether a game built on AI-generated code is likely to survive an update.

Steam’s disclosure system is a start, but it means little if the information can’t be found or filtered for. Every game storefront should make generative AI use clear at the point of purchase – because players deserve better.

Thomas Byers receives funding from The Research Training Program Scholarship, supported by the Australian Commonwealth Government and the University of Melbourne.

Bjorn Nansen receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Are video game developers using AI? Players want to know, but the rules are patchy – https://theconversation.com/are-video-game-developers-using-ai-players-want-to-know-but-the-rules-are-patchy-274850

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jen Purdie, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Sustainability, University of Otago

The government’s announcement this week that it would move ahead with plans for a new facility to import liquefied natural gas (LNG), potentially as early as next year, was framed as a way to shore up energy security.

But the decision instead marks another major step backwards for domestic efforts to decarbonise.

Notably, it comes as communities across the North Island – including Mount Maunganui – are recovering from just the kind of extreme weather events climate change is projected to intensify.

With the United States now withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement, and New Zealand simultaneously weakening its own climate settings, it is easy to feel a sense of drift.

Despite 89% of people globally wanting stronger climate action, the erosion of the international rules-based order risks pulling more countries away from cooperative solutions.

But the energy transition now has real momentum. So how much difference does the US withdrawal from Paris – and New Zealand’s turn back towards fossil fuels – actually make?

A setback, not a stop

Before the US withdrew, 93% of global emissions came from countries with net-zero policies in place; that figure has now fallen to 83%. The drop would have been larger if not for pledges by 24 US states, along with many cities and corporations, to stick to Paris Agreement targets.

So, while the US exit might be a massive blow, it is far from the end of global climate action. Current Paris Agreement pledges and targets would see global emissions peak in the next few years, if countries follow through.

Many states – including the US, United Kingdom, China, Australia and Canada – are already recording declines. New Zealand’s emissions have flatlined since 2008 but it is still doing less than its fair share on a per-capita basis.

Globally, the race is now on between avoiding dangerous climate tipping points and fostering self-reinforcing momentum in clean energy, which is already at an all-time high.

This is important, as around 70% of the emissions cuts the world needs to make will likely come from the energy transition. Despite more than half of New Zealand’s emissions coming from agriculture, energy remains a strong focus of the government’s emissions reduction plan.

All the while, solutions to renewable intermittency – the problem of wind and solar not always generating power when it is needed – are expanding.

Read more:
NZ’s rejection of emission targets fuels risk of international law breach

In hydro-heavy systems like New Zealand’s, dry periods can be covered by pumped hydro, biomass, battery storage and overbuilding cheap wind and solar. Importing LNG to “firm” electricity instead undermines these options and puts the brakes on clean investment.

Worldwide, solar and wind capacity has doubled every three years for the past two decades, with each doubling of solar cutting prices by about 25%.

China installed half of all new solar last year and its emissions have now peaked. The European Union now generates more power from renewables than fossil fuels, and Pakistan has imported solar panels equivalent to 40% of its total demand.

Electric vehicles have reached price parity with internal combustion engines. Globally, 25% of new car sales were electric last year, rising to 96% in Norway and 59% in China, with 39 countries now above a 10% sales share. In China’s heavy truck fleet, around half of new sales are electric.

Fossil fuel use is already declining in the developed world: oil use in the OECD peaked in 2005, and coal in 2008. While consumption is still rising in poorer countries, many projections see global oil demand peaking in the next few years. And there is broad agreement coal use will begin to fall before 2030.

As fossil fuel use declines, shipping emissions will fall too. And using existing technology to stop methane leaks from oil and gas wells – which is profitable – would cut emissions by more than all global air travel.

Geopolitics is accelerating the energy transition

Geopolitical tensions are driving a push for energy independence, accelerating the growth of renewables. As Canada’s prime minister Mark Carney recently noted, as the international rules-based order and multilateralism fray, countries are realising they must build greater strategic autonomy, including in energy.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, disrupted gas supplies drove prices higher, leaving Europe paying about €650 billion more for fossil fuels than it otherwise would have – around 40% of the cost of building a 95% renewable power system for the continent.

In 2022–23, the EU built 37% more new renewable capacity than the year before, stepped up energy efficiency and electrification, and set out a strategy to cut reliance on Russian gas.

There is strong global momentum for emissions cuts, and renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuels while offering energy security. New Zealand should also be strengthening its own energy independence, while moving quickly away from importing fossil fuels.

As the US steps back from multilateral climate action, New Zealand must work with other countries to keep momentum growing: holding to existing treaties, and joining new agreements such as the “roadmap” away from fossil fuels put forward at COP30 in Brazil last year.

At the very least, New Zealand should shoulder its fair share of per-capita emissions reductions if it wants to leave a liveable world for future generations.

Jen Purdie has received government science (MBIE) funding in the past.

– ref. Importing gas locks NZ into fossil fuels for longer – just as clean energy surges – https://theconversation.com/importing-gas-locks-nz-into-fossil-fuels-for-longer-just-as-clean-energy-surges-275548

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kirsty Forsdike, Principal Research Fellow and Associate Professor, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University

Research shows gender-based violence in sport is widespread: between a quarter and three-quarters of women within sport report experiencing some form of psychological, physical or sexual violence during their sporting lives.

These experiences happen across all levels of sport and affect not only athletes but also coaches, officials, volunteers and administrators.

And too often, when those affected try to speak up, systems fail them.

Our research team recently examined how reports of gender-based violence in sport are currently experienced and managed.

Based on what we found, we designed a new resource to help sporting organisations handle issues that arise and support victims.

What is gender-based violence in sport?

Gender-based violence can include sexist jokes, humiliation, exclusion from leadership roles, coercive coaching practices, sexual harassment and assault.

These behaviours are often normalised or minimised in sport but their impact is serious: women leave sport, their health is affected, teams dissolve, talent is lost and trust in sporting institutions is eroded.

What our research found

We examined how reports of gender-based violence in sport are currently managed.

We reviewed policies, interviewed women and gender-diverse people who had disclosed gender-based violence in sport, and also interviewed people working in national and state sport integrity and safeguarding roles.

We found policies related to violence in sport to be legalistic, inaccessible and almost entirely gender-blind.

Women and gender-diverse participants shared uncertainty about who to approach, what the process would entail and whether they would be believed.

Some felt re-traumatised by systems meant to support them. One woman told us:

[the sport] never followed any of their own written processes around safety and supporting us. They made promises and then actively went against them. They pretty much gaslit us the whole way.

The people we interviewed said they stayed engaged when listened to, believed and offered choices. When dismissed or blamed, many left – not just the organisation, but sport.

A clear message emerged from those working in integrity and safeguarding roles: many want to do the right thing but are often constrained by unclear policies, limited guidance and support and a lack of training.

They described feeling overwhelmed, unsure of what steps to take and concerned about their organisation’s reputation or getting it wrong.

One person working in integrity and safeguarding roles said:

I’ll be quite candid with you […] they’re protecting the business. They’re not protecting the member.

Another sad:

One time I got one [a report] and I had to run out the door here to throw up. It was just so terrible.

Where current systems fall short

In Australia, Sport Integrity Australia responds to breaches of integrity through the National Integrity Framework and its complaints handling system.

But our research shows when it comes to gender-based violence against adults, significant gaps remain.

While Sport Integrity Australia’s suite of policies include the “safeguarding of children and young people” there is no equivalent for adults.

Also, Sport Integrity Australia can only implement its policies with sports that signed up to its national framework, and only if the issue being reported occurred after the sport signed up.

This means in many cases, gender-based violence against an adult will fall outside of its policies.

In these cases, responsibility falls back to sporting organisations – many of which are under-resourced, unclear about their role or ill-prepared to respond.

For women and gender-diverse people, this often results in confusion, inadequate or inconsistent responses and an increased risk of ongoing harm.

In the absence of sufficient national policy, sport organisations must therefore be better prepared to respond to and address gender-based violence, from the grassroots to elite levels.

Why disclosures so often go wrong

Our research shows reports of gendered violence go wrong not because people don’t care but because systems are not designed with victim-survivors in mind.

Policies are frequently written to protect organisations rather than support those who experience harm.

Reporting pathways mimic legal and criminal justice pathways rather than trauma-informed practices.

Power imbalances – between athletes and coaches, volunteers and boards, players and administrators – are not acknowledged or addressed.

At the same time, those tasked with responding are often unsupported.

Integrity managers, volunteers and administrators told us they regularly absorb traumatic stories without adequate supervision or specialist support and without the ability to address the root causes of the issue. This increases the risk of burnout and turnover.

A practical roadmap for safer responses

In response we developed a practical, evidence-based toolkit designed to help sporting organisations at every level respond better when gender-based violence is reported.

This new guide translates research and best-practice principles from health, trauma and violence-prevention sectors into the sport context in ways that are easy to understand and implement.

It sets out five core principles for good responses:

• making reporting easy

• having clear and fair policies

• supporting choice and autonomy

• responding with care and respect

• committing to ongoing improvement.

It provides concrete tools such as scripts for responding to disclosures, checklists for organisational readiness and a clear roadmap outlining what a good response looks like from first disclosure through to follow-up and review.

Kirsty Forsdike receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the IOC Olympic Studies Centre. She is a board member of Sports Focus, a regional sports assembly for the Loddon Campaspe region of Victoria.

Aurélie Pankowiak currently receives funding from the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth), Early Career Research Fellowship and the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse. Aurélie received funding form the IOC Olympic Studies Centre for this project.

Mary Woessner receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Movember and the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse. While she did not directly receive funding from the IOC Olympic Studies Centre, she was added as an investigator after the project commenced.

Natalie Galea receives funding from the Ithe IOC Olympic Studies Centre. Natalie is an Australian Olympian.

Samantha Marshall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Australian sport still has a gender-based violence problem. Our new guide might help tackle it – https://theconversation.com/australian-sport-still-has-a-gender-based-violence-problem-our-new-guide-might-help-tackle-it-273214