Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bianca McBryde, PhD Candidate, Behavioural Ecology and Conservation, University of Sydney

From brightly coloured birds to the much-loved sugar glider, Australia’s native animals are a sight to behold.

The island continent is home to nearly 600,000 plants, animals and insects, many of which are found nowhere else in the world.

Tragically, though, we’re losing more of these species to habitat destruction and climate change.

Worse still, conservationists are increasingly seeing one native species threaten the survival of another. One example is the critically endangered regent honeyeater, currently being threatened by native possums and gliders.

Our new study shows this trend could mean at-risk bird populations go extinct much earlier than they otherwise would.

Why native birds matter

Australia has more than 800 native bird species – more than almost anywhere else in the world. And they’re a vital part of our unique ecosystems, helping to spread pollen and seeds and ensuring some plants and animals don’t become too numerous.

But many bird species are now at risk from ongoing degradation of our natural environment through land clearing, urbanisation and the introduction of pest species.

Clearing land to make way for farms or houses has hit Australia’s woodlands particularly hard. Woodlands are full of trees and shrubs, like forests, but have have thinner canopies to let more sunlight in.

Since European colonisation, we’ve cleared roughly 80% of many temperate woodlands in Australia. As a result, one in five of our unique native woodland birds are currently in decline.

Read more: Australia has more native bird species than almost anywhere else. What led to this explosion of diversity?

When one native species threatens another

Native predators and prey are generally able to coexist. If a predator drives its main food source to extinction, it would threaten its own survival. This rarely occurs in nature.

Usually, two native species maintain their coexistence through an evolutionary arms race. If the predator gets faster or smarter, the prey follows suit.

But if prey numbers suddenly drop due to other factors – such as habitat loss and invasive species – even occasional attacks from a native predator could push a species over the edge.

The regent honeyeater is a prime example. Less than a century ago, these striking black-and-yellow birds once filled the forests and skies of southeastern Australia in flocks of hundreds. However, they’re now on the brink of extinction due to the effects of habitat loss and increased competition. Today, there are fewer than 300 regent honeyeaters left in the wild.

Read more: Regent honeyeaters were once kings of flowering gums. Now they’re on the edge of extinction. What happened?

In our new study, we looked at how predation by possums and gliders – which sometimes eat bird eggs and nestlings – may affect the survival of regent honeyeaters.

We found even occasional predation by these two species increased the regent honeyeater’s chance of going extinct in the next 20 years by 35%. This is significant because infrequent predation by a native species doesn’t typically threaten the survival of native prey.

This matters more because regent honeyeater numbers are so low. If there were 1,000 of these birds alive – the same number there were in the 1990s – our research shows predation by possums and gliders wouldn’t have the same impact.

An ethical dilemma

The case of regent honeyeaters, possums and gliders is an example of a “conservation conflict”. These conflicts arise when protecting one native species may come at the cost of another. For example, squirrel gliders predate on regent honeyeaters, but they are also threatened in multiple Australian states. So efforts to protect regent honeyeaters from predation by possums and gliders may interfere with squirrel glider conservation.

Conservationists have limited options when it comes to stopping predators eating threatened bird species. At present, the only widely used method is killing predators.

Culling invasive predators may be necessary for conservation in certain situations. For example, in Australia we routinely cull feral cat and fox populations to protect native species and livestock.

But it’s much more contentious to kill one native species to protect another, especially when the predator species isn’t the main cause of decline.

Yet if we do nothing, we might lose endangered species – such as the regent honeyeater – forever.

Read more: Most native bird species are losing their homes, even the ones you see every day

So, what can we do?

To protect possums, gliders and regent honeyeaters, it’s vital to bring back woodlands. Governments and conservation organisations are already working to restore habitat for regent honeyeaters.

Even so, it can take years to fully restore these areas. And while endangered bird populations remain low, predation by other native species will remain a problem.

That’s why researchers are investigating ways to protect threatened species without killing predators. One approach is spreading certain bird smells to deceive predators. Another is using tree collars to protect nests.

These methods are promising, but won’t work everywhere. Our research shows possums don’t use bird odour to find nests, so spreading smells around is unlikely to affect them. Gliders also move easily through tree canopies, so tree collars likely won’t stop them accessing nests.

As we lose more of our native animals, these conservation conflicts will only become more common. But to save the regent honeyeater, we must explore new non-lethal ways of managing predation by possums and gliders. Hopefully, these will help us protect other endangered species too.

Read more: Native birds have vanished across the continent since colonisation. Now we know just how much we’ve lost

– ref. Possums and gliders are pushing a native bird to extinction. What can we do? – https://theconversation.com/possums-and-gliders-are-pushing-a-native-bird-to-extinction-what-can-we-do-281431

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Imogen Richards, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Deakin University

The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion will deliver its interim report to the governor-general by April 30. Public hearings will follow, defining antisemitism and its effects on Jewish Australians.

As a researcher of political violence, I provided a submission to the NSW parliamentary committee considering prohibitions on slogans that some argue incite hatred and violence against Jews, such as “globalise the intifada”.

In the wake of the Bondi Beach attack in December, the political debate in Australia has directed an inordinate amount of attention to these protest slogans as a source of antisemitism.

This focus rests on a flawed premise about what is driving contemporary antisemitism.

Antisemitism is a serious and persistent problem. And any effective response must begin with a clear recognition of its causes and harms.

Treating protest speech as the primary problem risks misidentifying where the most serious dangers lie.

Neo-Nazism: the most explicit threat

The most overt form of antisemitism in Australia comes from extreme right and neo-Nazi movements.

For these groups, hostility toward Jewish people is foundational. Their narratives cast Jewish people as hidden forces behind both the international financial system and revolutionary socialism. In this framing, Jewish people are falsely portrayed as an all-powerful, transnational enemy operating above the nation-state.

These tropes date back to interwar fascist movements in Europe, and continue to feature at the centre of the worldviews espoused by neo-Nazi groups today.

In Australia, groups such as the National Socialist Network have distributed propaganda outside synagogues and Jewish schools, and used social media to glorify Nazi iconography.

These movements aim not only to intimidate Jewish Australians, but to normalise Nazi symbols and ideology in public life.

The far right’s conditional embrace of Israel

Somewhat paradoxically, parts of the far right have also embraced conditional philosemitism in recent years.

This is expressed as an admiration for Jewish people, culture or history. However, it is not a genuine regard for Jewish people. Rather, the far right uses it as a strategic rhetorical stance.

Across Europe, the United States and Australia, far-right movements have adopted ostensibly pro-Jewish and pro-Israel positions to mobilise opposition to migration, particularly from Muslim-majority countries, and deflect accusations of racism.

Yet, these groups continue to circulate antisemitic conspiracy narratives, including:

• “globalist” Jewish elites allegedly orchestrating “mass migration” to engineer the demographic “replacement” of white majorities

• Jewish intellectuals supposedly driving moral and cultural decline through progressive social movements.

These false narratives are evident in European far-right parties with long antisemitic histories, including Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), France’s National Rally, and Italy’s Lega. Each has adopted pro-Israel positions while members continue to circulate antisemitic tropes.

In Australia, One Nation has taken strongly pro-Israel positions since the October 2023 Hamas attacks.

Yet, Pauline Hanson has long deployed rhetoric that critics associate with far-right traditions. For example, she has warned of “globalist” elites and a “great reset” following the COVID pandemic. This language overlaps with conspiratorial narratives, including those present in white supremacist “great replacement” theories.

In her 1997 book, she also described Indigenous Australians’ status in society as “the Aboriginal question”. This construction arguably echoes the 19th-century antisemitic trope of “the Jewish question”, later radicalised and weaponised under Nazism.

Neo-jihadist rhetoric against Zionism

Following the Bondi attack on a Hanukkah gathering in December, attention immediately focused on the alleged attackers’ ties to the Islamic State organisation.

Investigative journalists have reported that security officials believe the attack may have been motivated by Israel’s war on Gaza. Court documents indicate the alleged gunmen also filmed a video condemning “Zionists” before the attack.

In addition, researchers have suggested the attack was likely inspired by an Islamic State speech urging attacks on Jews.

This reflects a distinct ideological logic.

Within neo-jihadist movements, antisemitism is tied to hostility to Zionism. However, this does not necessarily translate into opposition to Israeli state policies.

Although Osama bin Laden invoked Palestinian suffering, neither al-Qaeda nor Islamic State consistently treated the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a primary driver of their actions.

Zionism is instead framed as a global conspiratorial force. Jewish people are cast as agents within a system that collapses any distinction between Jews, Israel and Western states. In this worldview, they are all depicted as a single existential enemy of Islam.

State-directed antisemitic violence

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has long targeted Jews internationally. In Argentina, for instance, a criminal court found Iran responsible for the bombing of a Jewish community centre in 1994 that killed 85 people.

In August 2025, the Australian government, citing ASIO intelligence, said Iran was behind the firebombing of Lewis’ Continental Kitchen in Sydney and the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne.

This violence differs from neo-jihadist groups, who draw on Salafi-jihadist interpretations of Islam to legitimise their actions. By contrast, the IRGC operates within a framework of Khomeinist Shia Islamism. In this, religious authority is fused with state power and geopolitical strategy.

Their targeting of Jewish communities abroad is therefore driven by Iranian statecraft. The objectives are maintaining deterrence, regime survival and projecting power. And Jewish communities outside Israel are positioned as proxies through which Iran can exert pressure on the Israeli state.

Antisemitism within protest movements: real but distinct

Antisemitism has appeared in some pro-Palestinian activism in Australia, and this warrants serious attention. Jewish students have experienced harassment and intimidation, including at cultural or religious events.

However, such conduct does not reflect the core beliefs of the pro-Palestinian movement. Organisers have challenged antisemitic language when it has emerged, including at the March for Humanity in Sydney last year.

And across Australia, antisemitic incidents more commonly involve verbal abuse, online messages, graffiti, posters and property attacks, many unrelated to protest activity.

Policies that criminalise pro-Palestinian speech risk overlooking the deeper reasons Jewish people have been targeted historically.

More fundamentally, the conflation of Jewish identity with the state of Israel – advanced by far-right actors and, at times, by government policy – may deepen rather than reduce antisemitism. Treating all criticism of Israel as antisemitic reinforces the premise that Jewish people bear collective responsibility for the actions of the Israeli state.

If we are serious about addressing antisemitism, we need to engage with the complexities that underpin it.

– ref. Banning protest slogans won’t end antisemitism. We need to understand the complex forces driving it – https://theconversation.com/banning-protest-slogans-wont-end-antisemitism-we-need-to-understand-the-complex-forces-driving-it-272151

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Rich, Director of the Curtin Extremism Research Network (CERN), Curtin University

As the United States and Israel launched their war on Iran in late February, the social media posts by some US national security agencies took a particular turn.

With missiles and bombs raining down, Pentagon accounts began using strange turns of phrase to describe the AI-guided violence unleashed against child and soldier alike. The destruction was described as “lethalitymaxxing”. Its perpetrators were said to be “locked in” with “low cortisol”.

This lingo finds much of its origins in the manosphere: a set of defined online communities centred on male grievance and empowerment.

The fact the highest political institutions are now using the language and concepts of the manosphere suggests this community and beliefs have become far more extensive than many like to think.

An online phenomenon?

Mainstream awareness of the manosphere emerged following its rapid expansion during the COVID pandemic through influencers such as Andrew Tate.

A common understanding emerged during this time of the manosphere as a digital subculture that leads vulnerable young boys and men astray. Popular media such as 2025’s Adolescence and Louis Theroux’s latest documentary have only reinforced this perception.

In Australia, its impacts have been felt especially acutely in the classroom. There’s been a noticeable growth of gendered harassment and disorderly behaviour among male students that is directed at female classmates and teachers.

The manosphere has also acted as an incubator for a stark form of self-help for young men, known as self-optimisation. It relies on arbitrarily quantified metrics around looks, status, personality and wealth.

To succeed, one is driven to compete with others by “maxxing” these metrics of self-value and lauding them against one’s competitors.

Outdated conceptions

But today this delineation of us and them – of mainstream and counterculture – is no longer accurate. As the US government posts show us, the manosphere today isn’t limited to a handful of online communities. It’s more like a collection of ideas floating around the culture.

Although some analysts have defined this as the “neo-manosphere”, this continues to suggest it’s an unusual phenomenon restricted to the internet.

Having broken containment, manosphere ideas and logic are now becoming deeply ingrained, reproduced and transformed in significant parts of the mainstream zeitgeist.

When manosphere ideas are picked up outside their original contexts, the ideas take on a life of their own. The growing normalisation of “maxxing” as a concept within an ever-expanding array of activities (from eating enough fibre to warmaking) is one way this happens.

Similarly, there’s the concept of hypergamy, or “dating up”. It’s the idea women only date in ruthlessly strategic and socially Darwinian terms to ascend the social and material hierarchy. It’s increasingly entered normal understandings of modern romance.

As commentators point out, when the Joe Rogan Experience, ranked the number-one podcast globally for years, regularly espouses such concepts to tens of millions of loyal followers, you are no longer talking about subculture.

Read more: How ‘looksmaxxing’ self-improvement apps are marketing misogyny to young men

Normalising the manosphere

The rapid rise and popularity of the online influencer Braden Peters illustrates how pervasive manosphere ideas have become.

Known by his online moniker Clavicular, Peters is a streamer who became famous for popularising “looksmaxxing”.

Looksmaxxing is a relentless and extreme optimisation of one’s physical appearance. It’s measured by pseudoscientific metrics of attractiveness and often achieved through invasive and dangerous practices.

Peters has repeatedly and angrily denied any connection to the manosphere community. Instead, he claims his approach to life is simply the most optimal way one can live.

Read more: The pseudoscientific attractiveness scale that grew out of incel forums and is now making money for looksmaxxing influencers

Despite this, he channels a range of manosphere ideas in his content. His streams provide constant advice to their young audience on self-optimisation, whether for looksmaxxing, financemaxxing or statusmaxxing.

Peters suggests the key purpose in life for men of his generation is to relentlessly raise these numbers to “mog” (outperform) one’s competitors.

Because this status is only ever ephemeral, maxxing becomes an endless pursuit and a goal in itself.

Central to Peters’ content is performative visuals. Maxxing only rewards what can be conveyed through images: sixpack abs and a chiselled jawline, a Bugatti draped in bikini models, or even a grinning soldier, unbothered by the missiles and drones overhead on his way to rain hell on his enemies.

The maxxers don’t exist in a vacuum. All of us are encouraged to treat our world as if it is defined by interpersonal competition. We are constantly encouraged to optimise and quantify ourselves across myriad digital profiles in which we build our “personal brands” – our LinkedIns, our Tinders and our Google Scholars.

Researchers have found images can feel more real than reality. When that happens, we stop viewing other people through our shared humanity and starting thinking of them merely as quantifiable entities to compete against and dominate. This is the dehumanising worldview that now reaches into the highest offices of US political life.

The deeper roots

Thinking about the manosphere as an external threat to be contained fails to understand the bigger picture.

All this is occurring amid diminishing intergenerational economic opportunities, continual global crises and chaos, decaying social connections, and a growing disparity between rich and poor not seen since the gilded age.

For many young men who lack social connection and emotional intelligence, this intense competition over unstable future prospects is felt acutely. When influencers such as Peters or Tate offer simple, “quantifiable” solutions, vulnerable young men listen.

Initiatives around respect, building empathy, setting behavioural expectations and punishing transgressions can have a role in stemming the worst of the manosphere’s negative impacts for now. But they will ultimately fail unless the broader belief system and its structural economic and political causes are addressed.

The balm against manosphere ideas – as with many other extreme and radical beliefs – requires holistic solutions. These solutions look less like education and “respectful discourse” and more like rekindling a social contract that provides tangible material outcomes. This means meaningful, secure and achievable work, accessible housing, and ending extreme wealth disparity.

– ref. You’d better start paying attention to the manosphere. You’re living in it – https://theconversation.com/youd-better-start-paying-attention-to-the-manosphere-youre-living-in-it-279547

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Samara Ranie, PhD Student, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland

The quail is a small, unassuming bird that glides rather than flies and prefers to hide under bushes than to perch on top of a tree. And now, it’s also helping scientists understand serious birth defects in humans.

In a new paper published in Nature Communications, my colleagues and I introduce a new way to study how spinal cords form in the earliest stages of development and what can go wrong – using a genetically modified fluorescent quail embryo.

A fluorescent quail may not be helpful for survival in the wild. But in the lab it allows us to watch living cells organise themselves in real time, revealing processes previously impossible to observe.

What is the neural tube?

The neural tube is the precursor to the brain and spinal cord. In humans, it forms during the first four weeks of pregnancy.

It isn’t much more than a tiny tube stretching from what will become the head to the future tail bone. When this process fails, the neural tube is left open in what is called a neural tube defect.

At least 214,000 pregnancies are impacted by these defects worldwide every year.

In some cases pregnancies are lost; in others the baby will have lifelong disabilities. Spina bifida occurs when the spine is open, most commonly resulting in mobility loss and loss of feeling. Other conditions such as anencephaly occur when this opening is in the brain.

Studying these birth defects is hard because neural tube defects don’t have a single cause. Multiple genetic mutations and environmental factors work in combination.

So how do we even begin to understand what is happening?

Enter the fluorescent quail

Human spine development is very similar to that of our feathered friends, birds.

Our spines form progressively, one section at a time. Most species only have two sections, but humans and birds – such as quails – develop in three.

The neural tube forms so early in development that studying it in humans with the technology currently available isn’t possible. Even using common animal models, such as mice, is a challenge because we simply can’t see into a uterus to watch this process live and in detail.

Quails, however, grow in an egg. Working out of an egg means that we can study early development with the embryo growing comfortably in its natural environment. Quails also have the benefit of growing quickly, quicker than chickens, so we can study this process as fast as we can.

In 2024 my colleagues created a genetically modified fluorescent quail. With this fluorescent quail we can discover how the neural tube forms during the first 72 hours of development by imaging individual cells to see how they move and send signals to each other as they build the early spine.

But how do we make a quail glow?

A fluorescent tag is added to what we are interested in observing inside the quail cells. That colourful tag can be seen under what’s called a confocal fluorescence microscope. And as the embryo grows, we can watch these tags move around the cell.

Embryos grow for only 24 hours before we cut a window into the egg. The embryo is still smaller than a grain of rice, barely visible on top of the yolk.

But using that fluorescent tag, we record the embryo growing and cells moving and signalling to each other in real time in what I like to consider the “cell superhighway”.

Navigating the cell superhighway

When we video the neural tube, we look close enough to see individual cells moving to their destinations. Cells in this superhighway exist in a state of gridlock that makes the busiest highways in the world look fast. But somehow every cell knows where to go.

Outside the cells, chemical signals draw specific cells to specific locations, like road signs telling you to take the next highway exit.

Each cell also contains an internal “GPS system”, organising left from right, up from down, forward from backwards. Without this signal cells become lost. This is catastrophic for development.

In our new paper, we show that one of these signals – a gene known as PRICKLE1 – plays a crucial role in shaping the early neural tube by coordinating cell movement, but not in the way we previously thought.

PRICKLE1 is crucial for “left versus right” signalling and we know that mutations of PRICKLE1 cause neural tube defects. So by removing PRICKLE1 from the quails we expected “left versus right” signalling to be broken, cells to become lost, and neural tube defects to occur.

But science likes to prove us wrong.

A big discovery from a tiny embryo

We did see that losing PRICKLE1 caused neural tube defects and cells were moving randomly on our cell superhighway. What surprised us was that the “left versus right” signals were completely fine.

Instead, cells could no longer separate up from down.

In our cells almost everything has multiple jobs. There are backup plans and backup-backup plans. But this second, new role for PRICKLE1 seems to not have any backups.

When this up-and-down signalling is damaged, the embryo will develop neural tube defects.

The difference between left and right or up and down seems trivial. But inside the cell, these are distinctly different pathways controlled by different signals.

This discovery will ensure future research can progress in the right direction. It could ultimately lead us to genetic screening methods and therapeutic targets to make a difference to the hundreds of thousands of pregnancies impacted by neural tube defects.

All of this knowledge from our little fluorescent quail embryo, smaller than a grain of rice and less than 72 hours into development.

– ref. Fluorescent quail embryos could help solve serious birth defects in humans – https://theconversation.com/fluorescent-quail-embryos-could-help-solve-serious-birth-defects-in-humans-277090

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

A Coalition government would boost Australia’s minimum fuel reserve  to 60 days, and deliver at least  one billion litres of new storage with a $800 million Fuel Security Facility.

The opposition, making the announcement on Monday, said the new storage capacity would have “a focus on diesel”.

Diesel, especially vital in regional areas and for the trucking industry and farmers, has been under particular pressure during the present fuel crisis.

The opposition meanwhile called on the government to  increase baseline  stockholding fuel levels  from January 1 next year.

Australia’s fuel reserves are currently about 44 days of petrol, 33 days of diesel and 30 days of jet fuel. The  international obligation is for a 90 day reserve – a level not held in recent years under either side of politics.

The government has said the  cost of moving to the 90 day reserve would be about $20 billion over four years.

Leader of the Opposition Angus Taylor said: “If fuel stops, Australia stops. We are putting forward a practical plan to make sure that never happens. More fuel in reserve, more storage on the ground, and a country that can stand on its own two feet.”

“This is about protecting Australians’ way of life and restoring their standard of living.”

Nationals leader Matt Canavan said families and businesses needed to know fuel would be there when required.

“People in the regions know how serious this is. If the diesel doesn’t turn up, the farm doesn’t run and the shelves go empty,”  Canavan said.

“This plan is just common sense. Keep more fuel here in Australia so we are not relying on overseas supply lines that can be cut overnight.”

The Coalition estimates that increasing the reserve to 60 days could be expected to raise the price at the bowser by about one cent a litre.

“In the context of the very steep increases in prices consumers have experienced in recent months due to the threat to our fuel security, the Coalition considers this prudent insurance to prevent severe economic damage during a potential future crisis,” the opposition said in a statement..

This week, Foreign Minister Penny Wong is travelling to  Japan, China, and South Korea with fuel and energy security high on the agenda in her talks.

“The Middle East conflict and closure of the Strait of Hormuz continue to disrupt global energy markets, with Asian refineries and the Indo-Pacific region disproportionately affected,” Wong said.

“Direct, in-person engagement with counterparts across our region will help ensure we are coordinating effectively as these disruptions continue to unfold.”

In Tokyo, Wong meets the Minister for Foreign Affairs, H.E. Motegi Toshimitsu, other cabinet ministers, and industry leaders.

In Beijing, she will hold the eighth Australia-China Foreign and Strategic Dialogue with Foreign Minister Wang Yi.

Korea is one of Australia’s most important sources of refined fuels, including diesel, automotive gasoline and aviation fuel.

Prime minister Anthony Albanese has already made two trips to Asia recently in a round of fuel diplomacy.

– ref. Coalition would boost Australia’s fuel reserve to 60 days – https://theconversation.com/coalition-would-boost-australias-fuel-reserve-to-60-days-281142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isrrah Malabanan, PhD Candidate in Transport Engineering, The University of Melbourne

Electric vehicle purchases in Australia have surged amid the ongoing war in Iran, as drivers worry about rising fuel costs.

The big drawcard: much cheaper running costs. As of 22 April, A$1 of electricity takes an EV 45 kilometres, while $1 of diesel gets you 5.4 km.

Driving an EV is fairly similar to a combustion engine car. The biggest difference is charging instead of refuelling.

In our research, we interviewed renters and people who live in apartments to understand how they made the switch – and what practical advice they would give others.

Driving experience

EVs generally offer a smoother ride with punchier acceleration compared to combustion engine cars.

One thing to watch for is speed. Because EVs have much more torque, they can accelerate much faster – and do so quietly. It can be easy to speed without meaning to. Using cruise control on freeways is a good idea.

Almost all EVs have regenerative braking, meaning the brakes recharge the battery.

Many EVs allow drivers to use just one pedal to accelerate and brake. To brake gently, you can take your foot off the accelerator and let the car slow itself down. But there’s still a traditional brake pedal.

Refuelling vs charging

Refuelling a combustion engine car is quick, but requires going to a service station. Charging an EV can be done at home, at work, in shopping centres and public charging stations.

Charging time varies depending on the speed of the charger, from slow Level 1 trickle chargers, Level 2 chargers and Level 3 fast or ultrafast public chargers. The cost varies by location, time and operator.

The cheapest and easiest method is to plug in at home and charge overnight at off-peak electricity rates or using solar during the day. Charging overnight at off-peak rates is cheap, while running off solar is effectively free. EVs and solar pair well.

Drivers who regularly do longer distances can install a faster wallbox charger at home.

For the millions of Australians who live in apartments, it may not be possible to charge at home. Public charging plays a vital role here.

Range anxiety is fading

Early EV adopters often experienced range anxiety – the fear of running out of charge mid-trip.

This concern is fading, as the average range of new EVs is now over 400 km. Research shows this anxiety fades away as drivers become comfortable with their vehicles, learn the distances they usually travel and use apps and maps to plan where they will charge during road trips.

As one EV owner told us:

charging’s not something I really think about. Like, as soon as I get home and park, I just plug my car in and it charges automatically at 12 o’clock at night for 6 hours

Home charging offers the biggest comfort. Most EV owners (93%) in Australia can charge at home, and most of them say home charging meets their travel needs.

Over time, EV owners learn the locations of more public chargers, which also reduces anxiety.

Public charging is the biggest challenge

It took decades to build Australia’s network of more than 6,600 service stations.

The public charging network has had much less time to develop. The network is significantly bigger than it was five years ago, but some issues remain.

The main challenge then shifts from range anxiety to charging anxiety. This is the fear of arriving at a public charging station only to find the chargers don’t work, have an incompatible plug, deliver slower-than-advertised speeds or have long queues, especially at peak times.

EV drivers have told us the solution is to check on public chargers before driving there. Real-time data about chargers is easy to come by.

Charging apps let you check charger reliability easily. If you can see a charger has been successfully used recently, it’s a good sign. Charger ratings and reviews help you decide.

Choosing chargers used by drivers with similar EVs is an easy way to ensure the charger has the right plug.

Much of this information is held in charging apps such as Evie, Chargefox or Tesla.

Apps such as PlugShare, Google Maps and the Electric Vehicle Council’s Charge@Large have data on chargers from many different networks.

Planning roadtrips

Longer distance trips require a little bit of planning.

• Use route planners such as A Better Route Planner to see where you will need to charge, find good charger options and identify backups

• Pack an EV travel kit with a charger cable and extension lead

• Allow time for charging, queues and possible detours, especially during busy periods. Aim to charge before the battery drops below 20%.

Some new EV owners may find public charging a hassle compared to a quick refuel stop. But there are perks.

Many regional charging stations are located in the centre of a town. As one EV owner told us:

just plug it in there, stroll up the street, have a coffee, grab a muffin or something. By the time you come back, the car’s charged.

Drivers are quick to adapt

As with any new technology, switching to an EV has a learning curve.

The good news is the curve is not steep, despite some critical media reports.

Drivers adapt quickly. As they gain experience, EV owners develop charging habits and smart trip planning which become second nature. Range and charging anxiety dissipate.

Worldwide, over 90% of EV owners plan to make their next car an EV too.

– ref. Bought a new EV? Here’s a quick guide to driving and charging – https://theconversation.com/bought-a-new-ev-heres-a-quick-guide-to-driving-and-charging-280363

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ray Wills, Adjunct Professor, The University of Western Australia

Over the last two months, nations have scrambled to shore up oil supplies as the Iran war prevented oil tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz.

This, according to some global analysts, would lead to a downturn for clean technology exports from China, the world’s top producer of solar, wind, batteries and electric vehicles. They predicted the rush to secure fuel for cars and trucks combined with China’s manufacturing oversupply, collapsing prices and trade barriers would trigger a sharp fall in cleantech exports and a slowdown in global deployment.

New data from energy thinktank Ember shows the exact opposite has happened. China’s solar exports doubled in a single month, rising to a new record of 68 gigawatts in March. Fifty countries broke records for imports of Chinese solar panels. Demand was particularly high in countries hardest hit by the oil crunch, such as India and the Philippines. Exports of batteries and EVs also jumped 38% in a month.

Nations aren’t just focused on oil. They’re securing more reliable energy supplies to avoid the next disruption.

Solar is now global

The pain from soaring oil and gas prices is being felt most acutely in developing nations. It should be no surprise many of these countries are moving fastest to seek alternatives.

Demand for solar in many African nations has risen rapidly since 2024. But in March, demand across the continent rose 176% month on month to reach 10 GW, while demand in Asia rose to 39 GW.

The top importers were India (11.3 GW) and Indonesia (6.2 GW), two nations long reliant on coal.

Some of this demand will fall back, as China’s changes to tax rebates this month will add 9% to the cost of solar panels. But this doesn’t take away from the bigger picture.

What happened to oversupply?

In only a few years, China has come to dominate the mass production of almost all clean technologies across solar (80%), wind (70%), battery cells (80%), battery systems (80%), EVs (70%) and hydrogen electrolysers (58%). In newer industries such as heavy electric trucks, market share is over 90%.

This success has come with the problem of overcapacity. Firms can produce much more solar than the world is buying. Authorities are flagging the need for industry consolidation.

For other cleantech producers, China’s record exports look threatening. But from a climate perspective, overcapacity isn’t so much a bug as a feature.

This is because of Wright’s Law – the rule that for every doubling of cumulative production, the cost per unit falls by a predictable percentage. When production is concentrated in high-volume hubs as in China, this law translates to rapid cost declines globally. The effect is even stronger because China is installing solar at world-beating rates.

Record solar exports aren’t a blip. Growth has been consistently strong since 2023. There’s no sign of a long-term slump in demand for cheap solar and clean tech.

What does this mean for fossil fuels?

As the International Energy Agency points out, this year’s oil crisis is likely to accelerate the rush for clean tech.

In coming months, shipments of solar panels will be unloaded from China’s cargo ships and added to power grids or as standalone energy sources everywhere from South America to West Africa. Once online, cheap daytime solar will reduce demand for pricier power from coal and gas plants.

This is exactly what happened in Pakistan, where an unreliable grid drove enormous solar uptake in recent years – and less demand for gas.

Solar panels usually displace coal and gas, given thermal power plants tend to burn these fossil fuels. But EVs directly displace oil.

This is why it’s significant that exports of EVs and batteries are now much more valuable to China than solar panels.

Solar and storage open up hard sectors

Solar produces cheap, abundant power. Batteries allow it to be used later. These technologies are useful first to clean up electricity generation and boost energy security.

But these two technologies can unlock much more. They can make it possible to electrify polluting sectors long considered “hard to abate”.

Electric options for heavy industry are multiplying. Electric arc furnaces are now replacing coal‑fired blast furnaces in steelmaking. High‑temperature electric heat pumps and electric boilers are replacing gas in some chemical and food‑processing plants, while heavy duty battery‑electric haul trucks are being trialled in mining and construction.

These technologies are still at an early stage. They’re often more expensive up-front. But the selling point is the fact they are cheaper to run – as long as electricity is fairly cheap.

This is exactly the outcome solar and battery combinations deliver.

Australia paving the way?

Last month, Australia imported nearly 1 GW of solar from China – a new monthly record.

This quiet surge happened even as leaders debated over whether to drill for more oil in Queensland or expand domestic fuel reserves.

The facts on the ground favour clean tech. Per capita, sun-drenched Australia has the most rooftop solar in the world. Battery storage is growing very fast. The main power grid is now at 50% renewables. Uptake of EVs is surging after a slow start.

The next big thing will be clean tech for heavy industry and mining. Some mine sites already get most of their power from renewables, while electrified fleets are developing.

Cleantech is here

China’s export boom shows cleantech is becoming the new engine of the global energy system. The scramble for oil is a stopgap measure.

Higher oil prices will only spur on the search for alternatives – just as they did during the first oil shocks over 50 years ago.

This time, though, the oil shock has hit in the midst of the fastest energy transition in human history.

– ref. Is oil king again? China’s surging cleantech exports show the opposite is true – https://theconversation.com/is-oil-king-again-chinas-surging-cleantech-exports-show-the-opposite-is-true-281349

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rick Sarre, Emeritus Professor in Law and Criminal Justice, Adelaide University

The day after the horror shooting and killing of 15 people at a Jewish festival at Bondi Beach last year, national cabinet agreed to take steps to eradicate antisemitism, hate, violence and terrorism.

In addition to the drafting of laws designed to limit hate speech, the government was determined to tighten Australia’s gun laws.

Among the measures was a national gun buyback. But months on from the tragedy, there’s been little movement on implementing it. Indeed, some states have pushed back against the idea.

Here’s what’s been achieved so far, and what’s still left to do.

Surplus to requirements

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke said the scheme will target surplus and some types of newly restricted firearms.

The term “surplus” is instructive. It’s alleged the Bondi shooter, who died at the hands of police snipers, legally owned six firearms.

He and his son (now before the courts charged with 15 counts of murder) would not legally have had access to this number of firearms if these new laws had been in place prior to the attack.

The firearms bill passed both the House of Representatives and Senate at special sittings on January 20. The act commenced two days later.

Read more: Why can someone in suburban Sydney own 6 guns legally? New laws might change that

30 years of gun reform

This legislation brought in the most significant changes to Australia’s gun laws since the reforms that followed the Port Arthur massacre of April 28 1996. Today marks its 30th anniversary.

Before this tragedy, Australia’s eight states and territories had widely divergent gun laws.

Prime Minister John Howard had been elected only six weeks before the Tasmanian horror unfolded. He immediately set in train gun control measures that no previous government, conservative or progressive, would ever have thought possible.

A National Firearms Agreement was brought in.

Furthermore, a compensatory buyback scheme was implemented. Gun owners surrendered more than 650,000 firearms at a cost of around $367 million in compensation.

The National Firearms Agreement, which later included a 2002 National Handgun Agreement, was reconfirmed by all jurisdictions in 2017. In December 2023 a National Firearms Register was brought into being.

A decade after the massacre, data assembled by the National Homicide Monitoring Program, managed by the Australian Institute of Criminology, suggested the share of murders committed with firearms in Australia dropped sharply after the gun reductions.

What have the states done?

The political imperative to keep guns out of the hands of those who do not need them continues today with bipartisan support. But there are serious hiccups with the latest proposals set in train by the new legislation.

The prime minister set an April 1 deadline for state and territory leaders to agree to a plan for the reforms to take effect in July this year.

But as it stands, half of the states and territories oppose the plans. Queensland, the Northern Territory and South Australia have not signed up. While Victoria has agreed in general terms to participate in a buyback, other legislative details are yet to be settled.

Some progress has been made. New South Wales has introduced legislation to limit individuals to a maximum of four firearms, with exceptions for primary producers.

The ACT is implementing a five gun limit for standard licence holders.

Western Australia passed its own reformed firearms act in 2025, limiting the number of firearms an individual can own, and implementing a voluntary buyback scheme that concluded in January.

Tasmania is partially on board with the proposals, with its buyback scheme offering one and a half times the market value for surrendered weapons. But it has no intention of capping the total number of guns a person can own.

Last month, the Queensland parliament enacted legislation that bans non-citizens from obtaining new gun licences. It increases penalties for drive-by shootings and 3D-printed weapon manufacturing. But it stopped short of joining a buyback scheme.

Fixing the hodge-podge

So why has there been only a lukewarm uptake? There are two key reasons.

The first is funding. Buybacks are expensive (estimates for this proposed buyback range wildly from $1 billion to $15 billion). At this stage the federal government is only offering a 50-50 split with the states and territories.

NT Chief Minister Lia Finocciaro maintains the Commonwealth should foot the entire bill, as it did in 1996. Tasmania agrees.

The second is that the uncommitted jurisdictions are not satisfied that they need to extend their current rules.

South Australia’s Labor Premier Peter Malinauskas late in February responded to concerns from the Sporting Shooters’ Association of Australia, who had complained to him that the new laws went too far:

I can advise that the South Australian government currently has no plans to amend firearm laws. South Australia already has some of the strictest and most comprehensive firearms laws in the country.

The Victorian government has appointed former Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Ken Lay to lead a review of the state’s firearm laws. He has yet to report back, but is expected to make recommendations regarding the numbers of guns that can be owned by an individual, and how firearms are to be classified. The government will also need to settle how the buyback scheme will be funded.

So we currently have a hodgepodge of outcomes. Federal Attorney-General Michelle Rowland continues to mount the case for a consensus. “The key word here is ‘national’. It does have that national context,” she asserts.

But it is now well past April 1. The attorney-general will need to employ her best bargaining skills to negotiate this imbroglio such that the nation can satisfy the requirements of the legislation. It’s not going to be easy.

– ref. Months on from the Bondi terror attack, the national gun buyback is floundering – https://theconversation.com/months-on-from-the-bondi-terror-attack-the-national-gun-buyback-is-floundering-280367