Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah C. E. Ross, Associate Professor in English Literatures and Creative Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Not so long ago, the death of a monarch would have been a cue for outpourings of elegies and poetic commemorations. One might have thought the end of the second Elizabethan era would prompt something similar – but apparently not.

So far, the death of Queen Elizabeth II has had only a muted response from our poets, both in the United Kingdom and here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Does this reflect shifting priorities in the national imagination? Are we witnessing the demise of poetry on public occasions?

We need only look back at the death in 1936 of the queen’s grandfather, George V, for comparison. John Betjeman and John Masefield were among the poets who marked the occasion. Betjeman was England’s poet laureate from 1972 until his death in 1984, and also wrote on the birthday of the queen mother and the marriage of Charles and Diana.

Betjeman stood in a long line of British poet laureates stretching back unbroken to John Dryden in 1668, and to poets such as Geoffrey Chaucer before that. But the culture of poetry responding to monarchs’ deaths has flourished outside the official post, too.

The unexpected death in 1612 of the 18-year-old Prince Henry, son and heir to James VI and I, prompted an outpouring of poetic tears. John Donne wrote an elegy, as did George Herbert, John Webster and Sir Walter Raleigh.

Elegiac energy

Particularly voluminous was the the flood of poetry that met the execution of King Charles I at the height of the English Civil Wars in 1649. His dramatic beheading on a scaffold erected outside Whitehall Palace made him a martyr to his loyal followers.

Literary historian Nigel Smith has described the way elegy became a royalist genre, as the death of the king “sucked all elegiac energy into its own subject”.

And there are close connections nearby to these elegies on King Charles I. Melbourne’s State Library Victoria holds the John Emmerson collection of over 5,000 early modern English books, among which poems, pamphlets and other publications on the death of Charles I feature prominently.

Poetic treasures in the collection include a copy of Monumentum Regale: Or a Tombe, Erected for that Incomparable and Glorious Monarch, Charles the First, a volume of elegies and poetic “sighs” and “groans” published three months after the king’s execution. Royalist poets grapple with how they can possibly commemorate an “incomparable” king. The Earl of Montrose declares he has written his poem with “blood”, “wounds” and the point of his sword.

Read more:
How news of the death of Elizabeth I in the 17th century was communicated in ballads and proclamations

In Aotearoa New Zealand, the Alexander Turnbull Library is famous for its collection of works by a poet from the other side of the 17th-century political divide, John Milton. Turnbull (1868–1918) had a personal interest in Milton, an ardent republican. Even Turnbull’s collection, however, contains a notable number of volumes celebrating Charles I, including multiple editions of Eikon Basilike (The King’s Book), which represented Charles I as a Christ-like martyr.

Public poetry isn’t dead

This vast body of public poetry about previous monarchs is in sharp contrast to the response to Queen Elizabeth II’s death. Even in the United Kingdom, the current poet laureate, Simon Armitage, seems to have struggled. The form of his poem “Floral Tribute”, an acrostic on the name “Elizabeth”, seems archaic at best and banal at worst.

New Zealand’s poet laurate, Chris Tse, inaugurated only a few weeks ago, has been notably silent. When I asked him why, he said writing a poem for the queen “would be a backwards step in terms of where I want the role to go”.

Tse’s reticence perhaps echoes the complicated thoughts of Selina Tusitala Marsh, the most recent former laureate, on performing her poem “Unity” for the queen in 2016. For Marsh, the British Crown’s colonial legacy (as she put it, “Her peeps also colonised my peeps”) made writing and performing the poem a complex commission to accept.

Read more:
What do Britain’s tears for Queen Elizabeth mean?

As laureate, Marsh preferred to write poems on occasions such as the birth of a prime ministerial baby. But the fact New Zealand even has a poet laureate in 2022 suggests there is still an appetite for public poetry, even if the days of poems on the death of a queen are numbered.

The modern monarchy itself, of course, provides rich material for poetry of a less commemorative kind. Bill Manhire, New Zealand’s inaugural laureate, speculated on Twitter that we are awaiting an acrostic on “Andrew”. And the most remarkable poem of the morning we awoke to news of the queen’s death was essa may ranapiri’s “The Queen is Dead”.

Immediate and visceral, it’s an unabashed anti-colonialist spit in the face of monarchy. Some will find it shocking, others will gasp with appreciation. But even those taken aback by its frank approach and timing may share the sense of distance it captures, in its formal displacement of the news from afar by scrambled eggs, spring sunlight and the joy of quotidian love as a new day begins.

Public poetry isn’t dead. But our poets’ responses to the death of the queen – the the silent, the awkward, the confrontational – tell us much, as ever, about the societies we live in.

Sarah C. E. Ross receives funding from the Australian Research Council for Transforming the Early Modern Archive: The Emmerson Collection at State Library Victoria.

– ref. Silence of the poets – has an ancient tradition of commemorative verse died with the Queen? – https://theconversation.com/silence-of-the-poets-has-an-ancient-tradition-of-commemorative-verse-died-with-the-queen-190834

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron McTernan, Lecturer of Media and Communication, University of South Australia

Why do politicians often post content that seems awkward, outrageous or strange? The answer could be an appeal to authenticity – something that has become a valuable currency in the world of politicians, influencers and social media.

When John Howard debuted his first YouTube video as prime minister in 2007 he famously began by addressing the audience with “Good morning”.

The gaffe – not realising that users might view the content at any time of day – represented the beginning of an era for Australian politicians on social media, and a period coloured by naivety and experimentation.

Yet if we were to examine the then prime minister Scott Morrison’s Facebook page ahead of the 2019 and 2022 elections (not to mention his famous “curry night” posts) you might be forgiven for thinking not much had changed.

Of course, Morrison and other pollies’ pages have plenty of high-production content that reflects their professional personas – but among this are also myriad posts that appear unscripted and unrefined.

It could very well be deliberate, and there is evidence to show it’s working.

Can we fake authenticity?

Media scholar Gunn Enli argues that for personalities in the media their public-facing “authenticity” is a kind of performance. This thinking suggests that in the media, being authentic is something you do as opposed to something you are.

Theories of authenticity have been used to examine influencers, reality television and Barack Obama’s presidential election campaign.

Ambivalence, imperfection and shared “live” experiences are among the range of qualities that Enli suggests constitute an authentic performance.

Strategic engagement with social media platforms has become a major preoccupation for politicians. But why?

Well, research has shown young voters in Australia, the UK and US want to see politicians who are more authentic and accessible online. So it could be politicians are taking the authenticity approach to appeal to young voters.

Another consideration is that social media often force campaigners to reduce the scope of their messaging. It’s hard to articulate the nuance of tax reform in Twitter’s 280 characters, or diplomatic efforts in 15 seconds on TikTok.

Appealing to emotions over logic (what is called “politics of the gut”) could be a strategy for campaigners trying to overcome the constraints of digital platforms.

So does ‘authenticity’ on social media work?

We can measure the success of content characteristics or appeals on social media, such as authenticity, by comparing high-engagement posts against a randomised sample.

If a particular characteristic is over-represented in the high-engagement sample, we can estimate it is contributing to its popularity online.

My analysis of social media posts by Australia’s federal party leaders ahead of the 2019 election indicates these kinds of authenticity appeals do, in fact, give posts an edge.

Using Enli’s analytical theory, the following graph shows six out of seven authenticity traits were over-represented in a sample of high-engagement posts. The data were collected from six party leaders: Bill Shorten, Scott Morrison, Clive Palmer, Pauline Hanson, Richard Di Natale and Michael McCormack.

Of these qualities, “predictability” (which loosely refers to how on-brand they stay) and “immediacy” (use of “live” content) were the most frequently observed.

“Ambivalence” appeared to have the widest margin. Further examination at a page-by-page level revealed the majority of these posts were coming from Palmer’s page, reflective of the abundance of memes among Palmer’s high-engagement posts.

We can understand authenticity alongside a constellation of political communication styles referred to as “politics of the gut”. Other appeals to politics of the gut include “populist” and “nativist” appeals.

Populism promotes the worldview that political elites are depriving the public of their rights. Nativism conveys a worldview that promotes divisions between non-migrants and migrants.

When I compared posts that have been measured for traits of populism and nativism, the inverse was observed. Populist and nativist appeals made by Australian party leaders received less support.

This would suggest that, in the context of Australian politics, there is less of an appetite for these kinds of appeals, compared to authenticity.

But authenticity is a good thing … right?

Politicians have sought to appear more authentic since well before the advent of social media. We can look to former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “fireside chats” as an early example of politicians using the media and performance to appear more down to earth.

But is this a good thing for politics and democracy?

Politics of the gut comes at the cost of hearing politicians discuss matters that genuinely affect the public. If social media continue to be a leading arena for political communication, politicians will continue to engineer content that works best on these platforms. This might mean more political personality, but less political substance.

We saw this play out on TV ahead of the 2022 Australian federal election too, with Anthony Albanese’s authenticity being challenged by Morrison after the former’s “glow-up”.

More recently, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young wore an “end gas and coal” dress at a Press Gallery event – an obvious nod to US politician and social media icon Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (whose “tax the rich” Met gala dress made headlines everywhere).

The research suggests people (especially young people) want more “authentic” politicians. But this might actually be a political literacy issue.

Wanting politicians to act more like influencers might only seem natural for a generation raised on internet media. Memes, selfies and curry nights help us relate to our political leaders, but they don’t help solve the issues that matter most.

Cameron McTernan 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. From curry nights to ‘coal kills’ dresses: how social media drives politicians to behave like influencers – https://theconversation.com/from-curry-nights-to-coal-kills-dresses-how-social-media-drives-politicians-to-behave-like-influencers-190246

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Wright, Adjunct Research Fellow in Philosophy, La Trobe University

Many of us accept science is a reliable guide to what we ought to believe – but not all of us do.

Mistrust of science has led to scepticism around several important issues, from climate change denial to vaccine hesitancy during the COVID pandemic. And while most of us may be inclined to dismiss such scepticism as unwarranted, it does raise the question: why ought we to trust science?

As a philosopher with a focus on the philosophy of science, I’m particularly intrigued by this question. As it turns out, diving into the works of great thinkers can help provide an answer.

Common arguments

One thought that might initially spring to mind is we ought to trust scientists because what they say is true.

But there are problems with this. One is the question of whether what a scientist says is, in fact, the truth. Sceptics will point out scientists are just humans and remain prone to making mistakes.

Also, if we look at the history of science, we find that what scientists believed in the past has often later turned out to be false. And this suggests what scientists believe now might one day turn out to be false. After all, there were times in history when people thought mercury could treat syphilis, and that the bumps on a person’s skull could reveal their character traits.

Another tempting suggestion for why we ought to trust science is because it is based on “facts and logic”.

This may be true, but unfortunately it is of limited help in persuading someone who is inclined to reject what scientists say. Both sides in a dispute will claim they have the facts on their side; it is not unknown for climate change deniers to say global warming is just a “theory”.

Read more:
Vaccine hesitancy: Why ‘doing your own research’ doesn’t work, but reason alone won’t change minds

Popper and the scientific method

One influential answer to the question of why we should trust scientists is because they use the scientific method. This, of course, raises the question: what is the scientific method?

Possibly the best-known account is offered by science philosopher Karl Popper, who has influenced an Einstein Medal-winning mathematical physicist and Nobel Prize winners in biology and physiology and medicine.

For Popper, science proceeds by means of what he calls “conjectures and refutations”. Scientists are confronted with some question, and offer a possible answer. This answer is a conjecture in the sense that, at least initially, it is not known if it is right or wrong.

Popper says scientists then do their best to refute this conjecture, or prove it wrong. Typically it is refuted, rejected, and replaced by a better one. This too will then be tested, and eventually replaced by an even better one. In this way science progresses.

Sometimes this process can be incredibly slow. Albert Einstein predicted the existence of gravitational waves more than 100 years ago, as part of his general theory of relativity. But it was only in 2015 that scientists managed to observe them.

For Popper, at the core of the scientific method is the attempt to refute or disprove theories, which is called the “falsification principle”. If scientists have not been able to refute a theory over a long period of time, despite their best efforts, then in Popper’s terminology the theory has been “corroborated”.

This suggests a possible answer to the question of why we ought to trust what scientists tell us. It is because, despite their best efforts, they have not been able to disprove the idea they are telling us is true.

Majority rules

Recently, an answer to the question was further articulated in a book by science historian Naomi Oreskes. Oreskes acknowledges the importance Popper placed on the role of attempting to refute a theory, but also emphasises the social and consensual element of scientific practice.

For Oreskes, we have reason to trust science because, or to the extent that, there is a consensus among the (relevant) scientific community that a particular claim is true – wherein that same scientific community has done their best to disprove it, and failed.

Here is a brief sketch of what a scientific idea typically goes through before a consensus emerges it is correct.

A scientist might give a paper on some idea to colleagues, who then discuss it. One aim of this discussion will be to find something wrong with it. If the paper passes the test, the scientist might write a peer-reviewed paper on the same idea. If the referees think it has sufficient merit, it will be published.

Others may then subject the idea to experimental tests. If it passes a sufficient number of these, a consensus may emerge it is correct.

A good example of a theory undergoing this transition is the theory of global warming and human impact on it. It had been suggested as early as 1896 that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere might lead to global warming.

In the early 20th century, another theory emerged that not only was this happening, but carbon dioxide released from human activities (namely fossil fuel burning) could accelerate global warming. It gained some support at the time, but most scientists remained unconvinced.

However, throughout the second half of the 20th century and what has so far passed of the 21st, the theory of human-caused climate change has so successfully passed ongoing testing that one recent meta-study found more than 99% of the relevant scientific community accept its reality. It started off perhaps as a mere hypothesis, successfully passed testing for more than a hundred years, and has now gained near-universal acceptance.

The bottom line

This does not necessarily mean we ought to uncritically accept everything scientists say. There is of course a difference between a single isolated scientist or small group saying something, and there being a consensus within the scientific community that something is true.

And, of course, for a variety of reasons – some practical, some financial, some otherwise – scientists may not have done their best to refute some idea. And even if scientists have repeatedly tried, but failed, to refute a given theory, the history of science suggests at some point in the future it may still turn out to be false when new evidence comes to light.

So when should we trust science? The view that seems to emerge from Popper, Oreskes and other writers in the field is we have good, but fallible, reason to trust what scientists say when, despite their own best efforts to disprove an idea, there remains a consensus that it is true.

Read more:
Curious Kids: what is the most important thing a scientist needs?

John Wright 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. Why should we trust science? Because it doesn’t trust itself – https://theconversation.com/why-should-we-trust-science-because-it-doesnt-trust-itself-188988

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lara Herrero, Research Leader in Virology and Infectious Disease, Griffith University

So you’ve had COVID and have now recovered. You don’t have ongoing symptoms and luckily, you don’t seem to have developed long COVID.

But what impacts has COVID had on your overall immune system?

It’s early days yet. But growing evidence suggests there are changes to your immune system that may put you at risk of other infectious diseases.

Here’s what we know so far.

A round of viral infections

Over this past winter, many of us have had what seemed like a continual round of viral illness. This may have included COVID, influenza or infection with respiratory syncytial virus. We may have recovered from one infection, only to get another.

Then there is the re-emergence of infectious diseases globally such as monkeypox or polio.

Could these all be connected? Does COVID somehow weaken the immune system to make us more prone to other infectious diseases?

There are many reasons for infectious diseases to emerge in new locations, after many decades, or in new populations. So we cannot jump to the conclusion COVID infections have given rise to these and other viral infections.

But evidence is building of the negative impact of COVID on a healthy individual’s immune system, several weeks after symptoms have subsided.

Read more:
The latest polio cases have put the world on alert. Here’s what this means for Australia and people travelling overseas

What happens when you catch a virus?

There are three possible outcomes after a viral infection:

1) your immune system clears the infection and you recover (for instance, with rhinovirus which causes the common cold)

2) your immune system fights the virus into “latency” and you recover with a virus dormant in our bodies (for instance, varicella zoster virus, which causes chickenpox)

3) your immune system fights, and despite best efforts the virus remains “chronic”, replicating at very low levels (this can occur for hepatitis C virus).

Ideally we all want option 1, to clear the virus. In fact, most of us clear SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID. That’s through a complex process, using many different parts of our immune system.

But international evidence suggests changes to our immune cells after SARS-CoV-2 infection may have other impacts. It may affect our ability to fight other viruses, as well as other pathogens, such as bacteria or fungi.

Read more:
No, the extra hygiene precautions we’re taking for COVID-19 won’t weaken our immune systems

How much do we know?

An Australian study has found SARS-CoV-2 alters the balance of immune cells up to 24 weeks after clearing the infection.

There were changes to the relative numbers and types of immune cells between people who had recovered from COVID compared with healthy people who had not been infected.

This included changes to cells of the innate immune system (which provides a non-specific immune response) and the adaptive immune system (a specific immune response, targeting a recognised foreign invader).

Another study focused specifically on dendritic cells – the immune cells that are often considered the body’s “first line of defence”.

Researchers found fewer of these cells circulating after people recovered from COVID. The ones that remained were less able to activate white blood cells known as T-cells, a critical step in activating anti-viral immunity.

Other studies have found different impacts on T-cells, and other types of white blood cells known as B-cells (cells involved in producing antibodies).

After SARS-CoV-2 infection, one study found evidence many of these cells had been activated and “exhausted”. This suggests the cells are dysfunctional, and might not be able to adequately fight a subsequent infection. In other words, sustained activation of these immune cells after a SARS-CoV-2 infection may have an impact on other inflammatory diseases.

One study found people who had recovered from COVID have changes in different types of B-cells. This included changes in the cells’ metabolism, which may impact how these cells function. Given B-cells are critical for producing antibodies, we’re not quite sure of the precise implications.

Could this influence how our bodies produce antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 should we encounter it again? Or could this impact our ability to produce antibodies against pathogens more broadly – against other viruses, bacteria or fungi? The study did not say.

Read more:
Explainer: what is the immune system?

What impact will these changes have?

One of the main concerns is whether such changes may impact how the immune system responds to other infections, or whether these changes
might worsen or cause other chronic conditions.

So more work needs to be done to understand the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a person’s immune system.

For instance, we still don’t know how long these changes to the immune system last, and if the immune system recovers. We also don’t know if SARS-CoV-2 triggers other chronic illnesses, such as chronic fatigue syndrome (myalgic encephalomyelitis). Research into this is ongoing.

What we do know is that having a healthy immune system and being vaccinated (when a vaccine has been developed) is critically important to have the best chance of fighting any infection.

Lara Herrero receives funding from NHMRC.

– ref. I’ve had COVID and am constantly getting colds. Did COVID harm my immune system? Am I now at risk of other infectious diseases? – https://theconversation.com/ive-had-covid-and-am-constantly-getting-colds-did-covid-harm-my-immune-system-am-i-now-at-risk-of-other-infectious-diseases-188899

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna M. Kotarba-Morley, Senior Lecturer in Archaeology, Flinders University

Climate change is rapidly intensifying. Amid the chaos and damage it wreaks, many precious Indigenous heritage sites in Australia and around the world are being destroyed at an alarming rate.

Sea-level rise, flooding, worsening bushfires and other human-caused climate events put many archaeological and heritage sites at risk. Already, culturally significant Indigenous sites have been lost or are gravely threatened.

For example, in Northern Australia, rock art tens of thousands of years old has been destroyed by cyclones, bushfires and other extreme weather events.

And as we outline below, ancestral remains in the Torres Strait were last year almost washed away by king tides and storm surge.

These examples of loss are just the beginning, unless we act. By combining Indigenous Traditional Knowledge with Western scientific approaches, communities can prioritise what heritage to save.

Indigenous heritage on the brink

Indigenous Australians are one of the longest living cultures on Earth. They have maintained their cultural and sacred sites for millennia.

In July, Traditional Owners from across Australia attended a workshop on disaster risk management at Flinders University. The participants, who work on Country as cultural heritage managers and rangers, hailed from as far afield as the Torres Strait Islands and Tasmania.

Here, three of these Traditional Owners describe cultural heritage losses they’ve witnessed, or fear will occur in the near future.

– Enid Tom, Kaurareg Elder and a director of Kaurareg Native Title Aboriginal Corporation:

Coastal erosion and seawater inundation have long threatened the Torres Strait. But now efforts to deal with the problem have taken on new urgency.

In February last year, king tides and a storm surge eroded parts of a beach on Muralug (or Prince of Wales) Island. Aboriginal custodians and archaeologists rushed to one site where a female ancestor was buried. They excavated the skeletal remains and reburied them at a safe location.

It was the first time such a site had been excavated at the island. Kaurareg Elders now worry coastal erosion will uncover and potentially destroy more burial sites.

Read more:
Sacred Aboriginal sites are yet again at risk in the Pilbara. But tourism can help protect Australia’s rich cultural heritage

– Marcus Lacey, Senior Gumurr Marthakal Indigenous Ranger:

The Marthakal Indigenous Protected Area covers remote islands and coastal mainland areas in the Northern Territory’s North Eastern Arnhem Land. It has an average elevation of just one metre above sea level, and is highly vulnerable to climate change-related hazards such as severe tropical cyclones and sea level rise.

The area is the last remnant of the ancient land bridge joining Australia with Southeast Asia. As such, it can provide valuable information about the first colonisation of Australia by First Nations people.

It is also an important place for understanding contact history between Aboriginal Australians and the Indonesian Maccassans, dating back some 400 years.

What’s more, the area provides insights into Australia’s colonial history, such as Indigenous rock art depicting the ships of British navigator Matthew Flinders. Sea level rise and king tides mean this valuable piece of Australia’s history is now being eroded.

Read more:
Shifting seasons: using Indigenous knowledge and western science to help address climate change impacts

– Shawnee Gorringe, operations administrator at Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation:

On Mithaka land, in remote Queensland, lie important Indigenous heritage sites such as stone circles, fireplaces and examples of traditional First Nations water management infrastructure.

But repeated drought risks destroying these sites – a threat compounded by erosion from over-grazing.

To help solve these issues, we desperately need Indigenous leadership and participation in decision-making at local, state and federal levels. This is the only way to achieve a sustainable future for environmental and heritage protection.

Mithaka Aboriginal Corporation general manager Joshua Gorringe has been invited to the United Nations’ COP27 climate conference in Egypt in November. This is a step in the right direction.

So what now?

The loss of Indigenous heritage to climate change requires immediate action. This should involve rigorous assessment of threatened sites, prioritising those most at risk, and taking steps to mitigate damage.

This work should be undertaken not only by scientists, engineers and heritage workers, but first and foremost by the Indigenous communities themselves, using Traditional Knowledge.

Last year’s COP26 global climate conference included a climate heritage agenda. This allowed global Indigenous voices to be heard. But unfortunately, Indigenous heritage is often excluded from discussions about climate change.

Addressing this requires doing away with the usual “top down” Western, neo-colonial approach which many Indigenous communities see as exclusive and ineffective. Instead, a “bottom up” approach should be adopted through inclusive and long-term initiatives such as Caring for Country.

This approach should draw on Indigenous knowledge – often passed down orally – of how to manage risk. This should be combined with Western climate science, as well as the expertise of governments and other organisations.

Incorporating Indigenous knowledge into cultural heritage policies and procedures will not just improve heritage protection. It would empower Indigenous communities in the face of the growing climate emergency.

Read more:
Caring for Country means tackling the climate crisis with Indigenous leadership: 3 things the new government must do

Anna M. Kotarba-Morley receives funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC) and National Centre of Science (NCN) in Poland.

Enid Tom does not have any thing to disclose.

Shawnee Gorringe has received funding from the Australian Research Council.

Marcus Lacey 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. From crumbling rock art to exposed ancestral remains, climate change is ravaging our precious Indigenous heritage – https://theconversation.com/from-crumbling-rock-art-to-exposed-ancestral-remains-climate-change-is-ravaging-our-precious-indigenous-heritage-188454

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Grimmer, Senior Lecturer in Retail Marketing, University of Tasmania

UK supermarkets have removed “best before” dates on thousands of fresh food products in an effort to reduce food waste.

One of the major supermarket chains, Sainsbury’s, is replacing these labels with product messaging that says “no date helps reduce waste”.

Apples, bananas, potatoes, cucumbers and broccoli are among the most wasted foods. Removing “best before” labels from these foods alone will reduce waste by an estimated 50,000 tonnes a year.

In Australia we produce 7.6 million tonnes of food waste every year – about 300kg per person. About 70% of what we throw out is still edible. Why aren’t we following the UK’s example?

Read more:
Scrapping use-by dates could prevent huge amounts of food waste – here’s what else could help

Some might worry about food safety. But two types of date labels – “best before” and “use by” – are used in Australia. “Use by” labels would still alert us to when food can no longer be regarded as safe to eat.

And consumers will still be able to assess the state of fresh produce for themselves.

Food waste has huge impacts

Food waste costs Australia A$36.6 billion a year.

This waste occurs right across the supply chain, including primary production, manufacturing, distribution, retail and hospitality. However, households produce more than half of the waste, at an average cost per household of A$2,000 to $2,500 a year.

In 2017, the Australian government pledged to halve food waste by 2030 when it launched the National Food Waste Strategy.

This is a complex issue, but one simple solution could be to follow the UK and remove “best before” dates.

Read more:
Want to reduce your food waste at home? Here are the 6 best evidence-based ways to do it

How will you know if food is still safe?

Our labelling system is fairly straightforward, but many consumers don’t understand the difference between “best before” and “use by”. This confusion leads them to throw away tonnes of food that’s still suitable for eating.

In Australia, the regulatory authority Food Standards provides guidance for manufacturers, retailers and consumers on using dates on product labels. These dates indicate how long food products can be sold, and kept, before they deteriorate or become unsafe to eat.

Food with a “best before” date can be legally sold and consumed after that date. These products should be safe, but may have lost some of their quality.

Products past their “use by date” are considered not safe.

The food supplier is responsible for placing date labels on the product.

Differences in packaging and date labelling can be subtle. For example, lettuce sold loose or in an open plastic sleeve does not have a “best before” date. The same lettuce packaged in a sealed bag does.

Bread is the only fresh food that uses a different system with “baked on” or “baked for” date labels.

Some foods, such as canned goods and food with a shelf life of two years or more, don’t have to be labelled with “best before” dates because they usually retain their quality for many years. They are typically eaten well before they deteriorate.

Food producers and retailers are keen to keep the labelling status quo, because it makes it easier to manage stock and encourages turnover.

The case for packaging

Some packaging is used to separate branded products such as fruit varieties protected by plant breeders’ rights, organic products and imperfect vegetable ranges. Once packaged, these products require a “best before” date.

Plastic packaging can greatly increase the shelf life of some vegetables. In these cases, it effectively reduces food waste. A striking example is cucumbers. Plastic wrap can extend their shelf life from a few days to two weeks.

Vegetables such as broccoli and cauliflower contain beneficial anti-cancer compounds called glucosinolates. Plastic packaging that seals in specialty gas preserves these longer. However, overcooking quickly erases this packaging benefit.

Read more:
Why some plastic packaging is necessary to prevent food waste and protect the environment

Dead or alive?

The chemistry of a fruit or vegetable starts changing the moment it is picked. Some types of produce, such as bananas and pears, are picked early so they ripen in the shop and at home. Other produce, such as sweet corn and peas, rapidly decline in the quality and quantity of flavours and nutrients once they’re picked. Snap freezing is an excellent way to preserve this produce.

Fresh fruits and vegetables are still alive. Their cells remain full of chemical reactions and enzymatic activity.

This is why a cut apple turns brown. It’s also why ethylene gas released from bananas and other fruits can shorten the life of their neighbours in the fruit bowl.

Potatoes, one of the most wasted products, are sold with “best before” dates when packaged in plastic bags. But if stored correctly in low light and in a “breathable” bag (paper or hessian), potatoes stay “alive” and edible for months. Just make sure you cut away any green parts, which contain toxic solanine.

As well as fresh produce’s own cellular activity, there is microbial activity in the form of bacteria and fungi.

Fortunately, we come equipped with a number of evolved chemical sensors. We can feel, see, sniff and taste the state of fruits, vegetables and other products. Trust (and train) your instincts.

Read more:
Food expiration dates don’t have much science behind them – a food safety researcher explains another way to know what’s too old to eat

Questions to ask yourself

To reduce food waste, we need a combination of approaches, including appropriate packaging, sensible labelling and consumer awareness.

Ideally, the Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code would be updated to reflect a more nuanced view of packaged fresh foods.

In the short term, consumer awareness and buying power are the best drivers of change. Ask yourself questions like:

• Do I need a packaged product?

• Does the packaging enhance shelf life?

• Would I buy less if it wasn’t packaged?

Thinking about these questions will help us reduce the impacts of food waste.

The authors 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. Why ‘best before’ food labelling is not best for the planet or your budget – https://theconversation.com/why-best-before-food-labelling-is-not-best-for-the-planet-or-your-budget-189686

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Fischetti, Professor, Pro Vice-Chancellor of the College of Human and Social Futures, University of Newcastle

Year 12 students around Australia are preparing to sit their final exams.
For many young people this is one of the most stressful parts of school, with their future supposedly coming down to one number.

This is an outdated way of finishing school and working out what students do in the next phase of their lives.

Universities and TAFEs are increasingly using other methods – such as interviews or portfolios – to offer places to school leavers. In 2021, more than 25,000 NSW students applied for an early offer through the “schools recommendation scheme”, to lock in a university place before they sit their exams. This is up from 5,447 in 2014, suggesting year 12 exams may not be as necessary as we once thought.

Our research shows you can reliably predict a student’s year 12 results by year 11. This also suggests we don’t need a battery of stressful exams to work out if a student is suited for tertiary education.

This gives us the opportunity to radically rethink how the final years of school are structured.

Our research

Two years ago, we studied more than 10,000 students in the Catholic Education Diocese of Paramatta, NSW. We have repeated the study and our work now includes 20,000 students across 21 exam areas.

We used predictive analytics which links multiple pieces of information about student progression through school.

We used 17 variables including year 9 NAPLAN scores, Higher School Certificate subject choices and year 11 attendance. We also use demographic information, such as how long a student has lived in Australia and a school’s socioeconomic rating.

Across both our studies, we found we could predict year 12 results in year 11, with a 93% accuracy rate.

Our purpose here is not to label students, but to change the focus of school and the efforts of students and teachers.

What can we do differently in schools?

We are already seeing the beginnings of new ways of “doing school” in Australia. Some schools are changing their focus from year 12 exams to students doing internships, creating portfolios of work, doing TAFE or university certificates, or doing an overseas exchange.

In British Columbia, Canada, final school assessments include a project that connects “real-world” applications of the curriculum for each student.

Read more:
3 things to help improve your exam results (besides studying)

In Estonia, now among the world leaders in education, traditional “knowledge and understanding” approaches have been replaced with a strong emphasis on critical thinking, problem-solving, entrepreneurship, digital skills and citizenship. These are all qualities that fit with both employers’ needs and measures of success in the adult world.

Students undertake a cross-disciplinary creative project to graduate from the equivalent of year 10 – an example might be studying the impact of music on managing the onset of dementia in older people. They then do a research project before finishing high school.

Year 12 exams are outdated

High school as we’ve known it has been dominated by high stakes, high-pressure exams that have outlived their usefulness. If we can reliably predict the results, we don’t need the tests.

We know young people’s mental health is already poor, and has suffered further during COVID.

Read more:
40% of year 12s suffer high anxiety. At exam time, here’s what parents can do to help

We should be looking for ways to improve, rather than exacerbate this. We also know universities are increasingly open to other ways of admitting students.

There is an enormous opportunity here to reallocate resources and create a modern, meaningful school experience that excites young people. It can encourage them to seek career-building activities, study overseas, learn languages or follow passion projects – not just study for stressful exams that tell us what we already know.

The research for this piece is a continuation of the work initiated by Dr Raju Veranasi for his 2021 Phd at the University of Newcastle.

John Fischetti is an unpaid, volunteer member of the Board of Directors of Big Picture Australia.

– ref. We can predict final school marks in year 11 – it’s time to replace stressful exams with more meaningful education – https://theconversation.com/we-can-predict-final-school-marks-in-year-11-its-time-to-replace-stressful-exams-with-more-meaningful-education-190071

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Wooden, Professorial Fellow, The University of Melbourne

One of the key measures announced to “get wages moving” in the wake of the federal government’s jobs summit was greater access to multi-employer agreements.

At the moment, most workers get their wages adjusted by bargaining with individual employers, so-called “enterprise bargaining”.

Others rely on awards and the minimum wage, set by the Fair Work Commission.

Multi-employer agreements would allow workers in particular occupations to bargain with their employers as a group, rather than employer by employer.

If multi-employer agreements were clearly a good way to get real wages moving, we would expect to see real wages growing more strongly in countries that allow multi-employer bargaining than in those that don’t.

What system lifts wages more?

To find out, I examined the measure of average annual wages per full-time and full-year-equivalent employee assembled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, available at OECD.stat.

The OECD measure is derived from national accounts data, making it different to the wage price index commonly quoted in Australia, which comes from a survey of employers and at the moment shows real wage growth negative.

The measure I used has the advantage of including the effect of wage increases from promotions, annual increments and job changes, making it a better guide to the experience of workers than the wage price index, which merely records the rate at which the wages attached to particular positions grows.

17 countries compared

Less helpfully, because the OECD data is an average of all wages paid it can be affected by changes in the composition of the workforce. As an example, a rapid growth in employment concentrated in low-income jobs can make it look as if wage growth is slowing when it isn’t.

The OECD assigns countries to one of two groups:

• those in which bargaining occurs mainly at the company level

• those in which collective bargaining takes place with multiple employers, most often from the same industry, but sometimes from firms in the same region.

Not all countries fit neatly into these categories. Australia is one such exception, relying on centrally-set awards and a minimum wages in addition to employer by employer (and sometimes occupation by occupation) negotiations.

Read more:
Are real wages falling? Here’s the evidence

After omitting countries without comparable wages data, I found 14 countries where multi-employer bargaining dominates, and 12 where company-level bargaining dominates.

Examining the period 2011-21, I found that across the multi-employer bargaining countries, real wages growth averaged only 0.6% per year.

In contrast, among those in the company bargaining group, average real wage growth was about four times a high, at 2.3% per annum.

Read more:
Real wages are shrinking, these figures put it beyond doubt

But the company-bargaining group included many Eastern European countries which have greater room for productivity growth and thus wage increases.

Excluding these from both groups, I found that in the countries where multi-employer bargaining dominated, real wage growth averaged 0.7% per year.

Where company bargaining dominated, real wage growth averaged 1.1%.

Australia, which, along with Luxembourg, fits into neither category, had real wage growth of 0.4%.

These calculations are not consistent with the claim that multi-employer bargaining boosts real wages growth. If anything, they suggests the reverse.

We will need to try other things

But this isn’t to say Australia’s system of enterprise bargaining can’t be improved. The post-summit bipartisan commitment to reform the Better Off Overall Test that is applied to enterprise agreements holds potential.

Researchers at the E61 Institute have identified another problem ripe for attention: an apparent decoupling of wages from firm performance.

Multi-employer bargaining is unlikely to be able to address this; indeed it could make it worse.

Read more:
If the PM wants wage rises, he should start with the 1.6 million people on state payrolls

We also need to recognise that in an economy increasingly dominated by services, getting real wage gains from productivity gains becomes difficult.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the public sector, where teachers and nurses face wages set by government employers and in sectors such as aged care and childcare where governments help pay and effectively set wages.

The main obstacle to higher wage growth in these sectors is not enterprise bargaining, but simply an unwillingness on the part of governments (on behalf of taxpayers) to stump up the cash.

Mark Wooden is also a part-time member of the Fair Work Commission’s Expert Panel responsible for the Annual Wage Review. This piece, however, is written in his capacity as a professor of the University of Melbourne. None of the views expressed here should be attributed to either the Fair Work Commission or the University of Melbourne.

– ref. Despite high hopes, multi-employer bargaining is unlikely to ‘get wages moving’ – https://theconversation.com/despite-high-hopes-multi-employer-bargaining-is-unlikely-to-get-wages-moving-190131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cherine Fahd, Associate Professor of Visual Communication in the School of Design, University of Technology Sydney

For the past ten months, I have photographed hundreds of people in the Western Sydney suburb of Parramatta for a portrait project called Being Together: Parramatta Yearbook.

The portraits in the yearbook show the people who live, work and play in Parramatta against the backdrop of an ever-changing city.

The way a photographer and subject come together to make a portrait is usually invisible in a portrait.

Here, instead of trying to reveal the elusive individuality of a person, I have been focusing on the social dynamics of portraiture – what happens behind the scenes between me and the people I’m photographing.

As Daniel Palmer notes in his book Photography and Collaboration, portraiture is by definition relational and collaborative. That is, the process of photographic portraiture inherently brings the photographer and subjects together to arrive at an image.

In the context of this project, coming together for a portrait creates playful opportunities for social interactions among strangers.

It is amazing what strangers will share with me in the space of five minutes.

Two men reveal they are brothers and haven’t seen each other for ten years.

One woman tells me she thinks she’s ugly and asks me to make her look beautiful.

Another keenly describes the floral wonders she is holding from her community garden.

One man whispers that he can’t speak English.

Another tells me he’s in a hurry to go to lunch.

We chat about the everyday things, the weather, COVID, shopping and Rugby League.

There are stories of time spent in jail, and lives being turned around.

New arrivals to Australia speak of their family in lands faraway and citizens who have lived all their lives in Parramatta share insights on the city.

These are the stories photography can’t capture in the silent stillness of the image, but that’s no reason not to continue.

Read more:
How the arts can help us come back together again – podcast

Performing photography

Setting up a studio in the street and inviting people to pose together in front of the camera is a thing to see. We always had audiences of passersby watching and it wasn’t long before they were also in front of the camera.

If you look closely at the portraits there are talkative details and warm gestures: micro-movements of the body where people touch each other or hold hands; the spaces between our bodies; instances when we are caught by the camera laughing, chatting and applying lipstick.

I also see myself in action. I am both photographer and subject, a stranger dressed in red, wanting desperately to be with people, to steer them through a photographic moment, to pose and be uncomfortable together.

When people have their portraits made I want to know whether they enjoyed it or found it excruciating and awkward. After the photo is taken, we walk up to the laptop tethered to the camera and look at the photographs. They indicate which portraits they like and hate. I listen and take notes.

Involving people in the selection process creates instant trust.

In bringing people together before a camera, I became acutely aware of photography’s potential to foster social inclusion, social participation, visibility and a sense of belonging and connection to one’s place and people.

Photography is something we all do. It is familiar and familial. Group portraits activate a social encounter and conversation, listening and storytelling.

The social experience of photography is also extended through time. After the photographs have been taken and printed, they are displayed as a collage on a large scale photo wall in the heart of Parramatta in Centenary Square. I love watching people looking for themselves or pointing to familiar faces.

As one passerby declared on seeing the photo wall:

Thanks for treating everyone the same, like we belong and are as deserving of recognition and dignity as others, instead of excluding us from being visible.

This feedback goes to the heart of the project that welcomed people from all walks of life to offer a view of Western Sydney that is far from the media stereotypes.

Fundamentally, the Parramatta Yearbook acts as a model for how cultural institutions and government can work together with artists to record and reflect community, create a sense of belonging and produce narratives about a place in transition that foregrounds the creativity of its citizens ahead of urban development.

Read more:
Drawing data: I make art from the bodily experience of long-distance running

The Parramatta Yearbook portraits are on public display in Parramatta’s Centenary Square until October 3, as well as in a 88-page downloadable yearbook from the Museum of Contemporary Art.

Being Together: Parramatta Yearbook is produced and presented by C3West on behalf of the Museum of Contemporary Art Australia in partnership with Parramatta Artists’ Studios, an initiative of the City of Parramatta.

– ref. 10 months and hundreds of subjects: how I took portrait photography to the streets of Parramatta – https://theconversation.com/10-months-and-hundreds-of-subjects-how-i-took-portrait-photography-to-the-streets-of-parramatta-189448

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Rowe, Emeritus Professor of Cultural Research, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University

This is a time of endings. In the midst of the all-consuming media spectacle surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth II, “tennis royalty” in the form of Roger Federer will retire in the same week and in the same city that she is laid to rest.

When the career of a sporting celebrity concludes, it is widely represented as if they have died, in what journalists call “sports obituaries”.

The person in question is usually still alive and will probably go on to be successful in the business, media and/or charity sectors. But the experience of watching them perform live at the stadium or on screen immediately mutates into nostalgic reflection.

So, what can be said about the sporting life of “Roger”, one the few people often known solely by their given name?

Read more:
Serena Williams forced sports journalists to get out of the ‘toy box’ – and cover tennis as more than a game

The final curtain

When the institution of sport emerged during the late industrial revolution in the 19th century, it changed, as Allen Guttmann famously put it, “from ritual to record”. It became all about the numbers and the score.

By this measure, Federer’s sporting record is formidable – world men’s number one for the best part of six years, 20 Grand Slam singles titles (including six Australian Opens), the only player to win at least ten titles on clay, grass and hard court surfaces, and sundry other tennis achievements.

Of course, it has not all gone smoothly. The body that was his finely tuned instrument on the tennis court increasingly failed him, although the steely determination of the champion never wavered.

Until, facing one last hurrah but probably playing on one leg, he chose to lower the curtain at the event that he co-created.

Named after his tennis hero, the Laver Cup is a testament to Federer’s unusually intense immersion in tennis history and, ultimately, his own place within it. Federer, who arrived as a teenage firebrand, admires not just the impressive tennis record but also the demeanour of Rod Laver.

An elegant and courteous stylist who was instrumental in the professionalisation of tennis in the 1960s, he has been a significant role model for Federer.

Laver is not just acknowledged as a superlative tennis player, but widely respected and admired. In emulating him, Federer generally behaved well on and off court, although unlike Laver, he sometimes wept with frustration or joy.

In the pure aesthetics of tennis, Federer arguably eclipsed the master. No cold-eyed counting of tournament wins can capture the beauty of his backhand, the flourish of his forehand.

King Roger and the big three

In the early days of his career, the Swiss-South African Federer could have gone the way of Australian Nick Kyrgios, who is more than a decade younger. Both supremely talented and combustible, Federer and Kyrgios went in different directions.

Federer became “King Roger”, as he was anointed by the august Times of London in 2018 – a player who trained hard, curbed his temper, and won Wimbledon at the age of 21.

Kyrgios, by contrast, emerged as “Nasty Nick”, attracting media and spectator interest as much for his confrontational on-court antics as his sometimes sublime tennis.

Even if Kyrgios begins to win Grand Slams while continuing to fascinate younger tennis fans, it is unimaginable he will come close to Federer’s elevated place in the pantheon.

Federer’s place in tennis history has been enhanced in part by his membership of the “Big Three” alongside Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic – or the “Big Four” if Andy Murray is included.

With more than 60 Grand Slams between them, the three rivals dominated men’s tennis, supplying the kind of “golden age” narrative so beloved of terminally sentimental sport fans.

Now, with Nadal also prone to injury and Djokovic sacrificing tournaments by refusing to be vaccinated against COVID, Federer’s retirement signals the end of this era.

The departure of “Queen Serena Williams” from the women’s game and the youth of the singles winners in the 2022 US Open is further evidence that the wheel has, perhaps mercifully, turned in favour of renewal.

But longevity is a major aspect of Federer’s status. He has been at or near the top of tennis for most of the 21st century.

Just as most people have only known one Queen of England, young and middle-aged tennis fans have had the comforting certainty of King Roger plying his trade on the world tennis circuit.

Unlike constitutional monarchies, though, those of the sporting world are produced by performance, not heredity. The new tennis regime is yet to take shape.

Read more:
Who can break up the ‘Big 3’ monopoly on men’s tennis? Here’s what the numbers say

Astonishing athleticism

I only saw Roger Federer in the flesh once.

It was two decades ago in London’s shiny NikeTown, and young Roger – an up-and-coming professional contracted to Nike – was playing an exhibition game with oversized tennis balls and undersized racquets. My initial cynicism was overwhelmed by the astonishing athleticism on display.

I thought he’d do well then, but had no idea I was witnessing the rise of the House of Roger.

Federer, we are told, may return to such spaces to play post-retirement exhibition games. The Roger Federation Foundation, dedicated to alleviating child poverty through education, could use the money.

But before the next phase of King Roger’s life there must be the ceremonial media moment of his appearance in the O2 arena in London, this week’s global capital of farewell ceremonies.

Read more:
What the Ash Barty and ‘Special K’ tennis triumphs say about Australia and the buttoned-up sport industry

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

– ref. The retirement of Roger Federer is the abdication of tennis royalty – https://theconversation.com/the-retirement-of-roger-federer-is-the-abdication-of-tennis-royalty-190832

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robin Smit, Adjunct Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

Australia’s love for fuel-hungry and fuel-inefficient SUVs is hampering our ability to bring transport emissions down. SUVs make up half of all new car sales last year, a National Transport Commission report revealed this week – up from a quarter of all sales a decade ago.

As a result, the carbon emitted by all new cars sold in Australia dropped only 2% in 2021, the report found. Sales of battery electric vehicles tripled last year, but still make up just 0.23% of all cars and light commercial vehicles on our roads.

In internationally peer-reviewed research earlier this year, we measured the emissions of five SUVs driving around Sydney, and our findings suggest the situation may actually be worse than the new report finds.

The National Transport Commission’s numbers are based on the “New European Drive Cycle” (NEDC) emissions test. Our research found the real-world emissions of SUVs are, on average, about 30% higher than the NEDC values. This means we are not reducing fleet average emissions by a few percent per year, but actually probably increasing them by a few percent every year.

What the report found

The transport sector is responsible for almost 20% of Australia’s emissions, ranking third behind the electricity and agriculture sector. The first year of the COVID pandemic only reduced transport carbon dioxide emissions by about 7%, compared to 2019 emission levels.

Overall, Australia’s pride in carbon-belching transport is evident by the fact transport CO₂ emissions have risen 14% between 2005 and 2020.

Read more:
Why Labor’s new tax cut on electric vehicles won’t help you buy one anytime soon

SUVs are generally larger and heavier than other passenger cars, which means they need quite a bit more energy and fuel per kilometre of driving when compared with smaller, lighter cars.

Although SUV sales are rising globally, the Australian fleet is unique due to its large portion of SUVs in the on-road fleet, often with four-wheel-drive capability.

According to the National Transport Commission report, sales of four-wheel-drives and utes surged by more than 43,000 in 2021, while large SUV sales rose by around 25,000.

Rapidly shifting to electric cars is an important way to bring emissions down. But the report found in 2021, just 2.8% of Australia’s car sales were electric. Compare this to 17% in Europe, 16% in China and 5% in the United States.

In Australia, there is still no option to buy an electric ute, and electric vehicles remain prohibitively expensive.

Measuring SUV emissions in Sydney

There are a range of methods scientists use to measure vehicle emissions.

One popular method worldwide uses so-called “on-board portable emission monitoring systems”. These systems are effective because they enable second-by-second emissions testing under a variety of real-world driving conditions on the road.

On the other hand, the New European Drive Cycle (NEDC) emissions test is conducted in the laboratory. It was also developed in the early 1970s and reflects unrealistic driving behaviour, because test facilities at the time could not deal with significant changes in speed.

We fitted five SUVs with a portable emission monitoring system and drove them a little over 100 kilometres around Sydney in various situations, such as in the city and on the freeway.

We then compared our measurements with the Green Vehicle Guide – the national guide to vehicle fuel consumption and environmental performance, which is also based on the NEDC test.

Our measurements of fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions were consistently higher. This varied from 16% to 65% higher than NEDC values, depending on the actual car and driving conditions.

On average, real-world fuel consumption and CO₂ emissions were both 27% higher than NEDC values. Importantly, this gap has increased substantially from about 10% in 2008.

Indeed, previous research from 2019 found fleet average greenhouse gas emissions for new Australian cars and SUVs has probably been increasing by 2-3% percent per year since 2015, rather than the reported annual reduction by, for instance, the National Transport Commission.

This detailed analysis showed a sustained increase in vehicle weight and a shift to the sale of more four-wheel-drive cars (in other words, SUVs) are probably the main factors contributing to this change.

More bad news for SUVs

We also recently summarised the results of various emission measurement campaigns conducted in Australia and compared them with international studies. These include results from a study of vehicle emissions in a tunnel, and a study of vehicle emissions measured on the road with remote sensing.

We found modern diesel SUVs and cars or diesel light commercial vehicles (such as utes) in Australia and New Zealand have relatively high emissions of nitrogen oxides and soot – both important air pollutants.

Around 2,600 deaths are attributed to fine-particle air pollution in Australia each year. Transport and industrial activities (such as mining) are the main sources of this.

And in 2015, an estimated 1,715 deaths were attributed to vehicle exhaust emissions – 42% more than the road toll that year.

Read more:
A rapid shift to electric vehicles can save 24,000 lives and leave us $148bn better off over the next 2 decades

The remote sensing emissions data suggest 1% of one to two-year-old diesel SUVs and 2% of one-to-two year old diesel light commercial vehicles have issues with their particulate filters, leading to high soot emissions.

These percentages are high when compared with a similar study conducted in the United Kingdom, which could not find any clear evidence of filters issues.

Three ways to move forward

Ever increasing SUVs sales are a drag on successfully reducing Australia’s total greenhouse gas emissions. So what should we do?

Of course there are several things to consider, but in terms of fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions, we believe there are three main points.

First, we need to make sure we have realistic fuel use and emissions data. This means the National Transport Commission and Green Vehicle Guide should stop using the NEDC values and shift to more realistic emissions data. We acknowledge this is not a simple matter and it requires a lot more testing.

Second, we need to electrify transport as fast as we can, wherever we can. This is crucial, but not the whole solution.

Read more:
The road to new fuel efficiency rules is filled with potholes. Here’s how Australia can avoid them

To ensure Australia meets its net-zero emissions target, we also need to seriously consider energy and fuel efficiency in transport. This could be by promoting the sales of smaller and lightweight vehicles, thereby optimising transport for energy efficiency.

In all of this, it will be essential for car manufacturers to take responsibility for their increasing contributions to climate change. From this perspective, they should move away from marketing profitable fossil-fueled SUVs that clog up our roads, and instead offer and promote lighter, smaller and electric vehicles.

Robin Smit is the founder and director at Transport Energy/Emission Research Pty Ltd (TER) and an Adjunct Associate Professor at University of Technology Sydney.

Nic Surawski has worked on projects funded by city councils, alternative engine design companies, the Australian Coal Association Research Program, the federal Department of Environment and the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency. Nic is a member of the Clean Air Society of Australia and New Zealand.

– ref. We may be underestimating just how bad carbon-belching SUVs are for the climate – and for our health – https://theconversation.com/we-may-be-underestimating-just-how-bad-carbon-belching-suvs-are-for-the-climate-and-for-our-health-190743

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Baker, Professor of Public Health, University of Otago

New Zealand’s decision to end most COVID health measures is welcome, as it removes controls that are in most cases no longer essential. But the new COVID management phase looks like a short-term reaction to declining case numbers rather than a longer-term strategy.

New Zealand has achieved one of the best health outcomes of any country by taking decisive action from the start of the pandemic.

We argue now is the time to build on that success with a strong, science-informed strategy to get us through the next pandemic stages and lift our resilience against future emerging infectious disease threats.

Such a strategy would need to provide a robust plan for managing the two most likely pandemic scenarios – new variants and endemic disease.

The most probable scenario is that SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, will continue to evolve new variants that evade immunity from prior infection or vaccination, triggering new waves. Any new variant could be more or less severe than Omicron.

The government has previously identified the need for a strategy to manage this scenario, which would require rapid risk assessment of new threats and increased controls if needed.

Read more:
With most mandatory public health measures gone, is New Zealand well prepared for the next COVID wave?

COVID is also likely to eventually become a more stable and predictable endemic disease, perhaps somewhat like seasonal influenza but with more severe consequences that are still emerging.

Endemic does not necessarily mean mild. The world’s biggest infectious disease killers, including tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and malaria, are all endemic. A long-term strategy should aim to minimise health burdens (serious illness, death and long-term disability) and health inequities.

Unfortunately, New Zealand’s new approach does not provide a robust response to either of these scenarios.

Defences against likely pandemic threats

New Zealand already has well-established tools for assessing and communicating the risk associated with many other hazards such as fires and storms. Why not do the same for COVID and potentially other serious respiratory infections?

We propose five changes to fill gaps in the new COVID management approach while at the same time minimising disruptions.

1. Develop an updated alert level system for COVID variants

The government could use this relatively low point in the number of COVID cases to develop a robust framework to provide a simple way for describing the level of risk and a proportionate response at each level.

Before COVID, New Zealand’s pandemic plan was based on mitigation. This meant accepting pandemics would wash over the country and the best we could do was to minimise healthcare system overload. Now we know we can potentially stop any respiratory disease pandemic.

2. Reinforce the critical importance of borders for biosecurity

We need an evidence-informed strategy for our borders to manage potentially more dangerous variants and other future pandemics.

The government has now removed vaccination requirements and mandated testing for visitors. As case numbers fall, arriving travellers will likely become an increasingly important source of new infections.

The end of routine testing on arrival limits our ability to collect viral samples for whole genome sequencing and leaves a gap in our surveillance system. Long-term benefits of improved border control would include a reduced risk of importing other outbreak-prone diseases such as measles or more serious, bioengineered pandemics.

3. Reinforce self-isolation as a key infection control tool

Fortunately, the government has retained mandatory isolation for people who test positive for COVID. It is fundamental to disease control that sick people stay home. Keeping isolation to a minimum of seven days is also wise, as even then about a quarter of people are still infectious.

Nevertheless, adding a test-to-release requirement would improve the effectiveness of this strategy and reduce the isolation period to five days for some.

Making these measures work well requires a great deal more public education and support, particularly around health, social and work support. This could be a major legacy benefit of this pandemic, particularly if it also helps to reduce the spread of other respiratory diseases such as influenza.

Read more:
Cutting COVID isolation and mask mandates will mean more damage to business and health in the long run

4. Establish requirements for masks and ventilation

Masks still have to be worn in healthcare and aged-care settings. Masks work best in such high-risk environments when everyone is using them. But we need systematic criteria to identify other confined, crowded and close-contact environments with a high risk of infection.

On that basis, public transport would be an important environment for universal mask use and ventilation improvements, particularly during winter. An evidence-based mask and ventilation policy would be another major legacy benefit of the current pandemic.

5. Establish vaccination as the norm for healthcare and essential services

The government has now removed all vaccine mandates. However, there are several reasons why healthcare and other essential workers should be vaccinated against COVID and other serious infectious diseases. It should be a basic occupational health and safety necessity, just like some groups are required to wear protective clothing.

One legacy benefit of the pandemic should be a wider discussion about how to appropriately establish vaccination as a requirement for key occupational groups.

The inconvenient truth is that the pandemic has not gone away and future pandemics remain a risk. Even if COVID becomes a more predictable endemic disease, we still need to minimise serious illness, particularly for the most vulnerable.

Michael Baker receives funding from the Health Research Council for research on Covid-19.

Nick Wilson 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. New Zealand’s new cut-down COVID response is a missed opportunity – here are 5 ways to improve it – https://theconversation.com/new-zealands-new-cut-down-covid-response-is-a-missed-opportunity-here-are-5-ways-to-improve-it-190737

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Latella, Lecturer, Master of Exercise Science (Strength and Conditioning), Edith Cowan University

As humans, it is in our nature to want to do better, find that edge and succeed. This couldn’t be truer than in sport, where winning and losing are often separated by tenths of a second, a successful score attempt in the dying stages of a game, or a split-second decision.

So, there is always a need for effective and legal strategies to boost performance. “Priming” is a tool attracting more and more interest from athletes, coaches and scientists.

The good news is it is not just for elite athletes.

Not just a warm-up

Priming, also called “morning exercise”, “pre-activation” or “pre-competition training”, has attracted renewed interest among scientists in recent years. Many sporting teams are already on the ball, with more than half of coaches using priming to help their athletes gain a performance advantage.

Typically, a relatively brief and non-tiring bout of exercise is performed the day before or on the morning of a competition – somewhere between one and 48 hours beforehand. This stimulus to the muscles results in “delayed potentiation”. That is, the muscles can perform better after several hours of rest than they would have without the priming exercise.

In contrast, a warm-up takes place much closer to competition. What’s interesting is the benefits of priming are much longer-lasting than those typical of warm-up activation strategies. This is perplexing because we know that increases in muscle temperature, metabolism and the nervous system potentiation with warm-ups return to baseline levels within minutes.

Warm-ups remain important but priming sessions could provide an additional edge. Sports scientists have reported improvements in running, jumping, throwing and weightlifting ability by as much as 4%. This might not seem like a lot, but it’s crucial when the difference between winning and losing can be measured in fractions of a percentage point. The physiological mechanisms that cause the priming effect are not yet well understood, but neuromuscular and hormonal changes have been suggested.

And it may not be only muscles that benefit. Researchers have long known priming exercise can improve weightlifting performance in anxious athletes. More recent research reinforces the idea priming activities can help athletes’ psychological state and stress levels.

Read more:
What’s behind the spate of super-fast sprints at the Tokyo Olympics? Technology plays a role, but the real answer is training

Finding time to play, train and prime

Very few of us are elite, full-time athletes. Finding time to train and compete, even at a community or sub-elite level, is hard – let alone making extra time for additional priming sessions. But priming exercises can be done with minimal equipment in minimal time.

Basic exercises such as squats and bench presses with relatively heavy weights (around 85% of your maximum capacity) for just a few repetitions are enough to boost performance later that day.

Don’t have a rack of weights lying around? That’s OK. Explosive body-weight activities such as a few short sprints or jumping still have the potential to boost athletic performance. Stronger people seem to respond better to priming, likely because they recover more quickly from exercise.

Ideally, pick an activity that uses the same muscle groups you will use during your sport, and do the priming exercise six to 33 hours before your event, as this seems to offer the most benefit and practicality. And remember, more is not better. You may be able to incorporate your priming session into your existing training regime.

I don’t play sport – what’s in it for me?

Priming doesn’t just apply to sport; it may help in the gym and with learning new skills.

A 2014 study showed bench-press and squat performance was greater in the afternoon if they were used as priming exercises that same morning.

And ten to 30 minutes of aerobic exercise may improve reaction time, memory and attention. Moderately intense cycling has been shown to help musicians learn the piano. However, these changes appear more immediate and short-lived than those that relate to athletic performance, taking effect and lasting minutes rather than hours.

Read more:
Can’t get your teen off the couch? High-intensity interval training might help

What we still don’t know

There are still questions to be addressed when it comes to priming.

Could priming be useful in sports like rugby, football and basketball? These sports require multiple high-intensity efforts, coupled with dynamic decision-making to score and beat an opponent.

More research is also needed to work out what’s happening in the body and what exercises should be done when for the most effective priming. As researchers, we’re exploring the effect of different priming routines on muscular strength and power, as well as repeat sprint performance and reaction time in strength athletes and football players.

In particular, weightlifting protocols that provide strong stimulation, but minimise fatigue, seem promising. We expect the findings will be useful for coaches and athletes who want to improve athletic performance.

Christopher Latella receives funding from the National Strength and Conditioning Foundation

Krissy Kendall receives funding from National Strength and Conditioning Foundation

– ref. This finals season, a brief ‘priming’ workout could boost performance on the sports field and beyond – https://theconversation.com/this-finals-season-a-brief-priming-workout-could-boost-performance-on-the-sports-field-and-beyond-188823

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wayne Macpherson, Senior lecturer, Massey University

COVID-19 has had a significant impact on all facets of our lives, including the ways we work and our work-life priorities.

Globally, workplaces are navigating trends such as the “great resignation”, “quiet quitting” and the “great recruitment”. But in New Zealand, the “great return” to work is still being negotiated, providing employees and employers an opportunity to redesign the workplace in ways that benefit both.

One common theme in the employment trends to emerge during COVID-19 is a shift in the value people place on their work and their lives outside of work. But has this gone too far? Are workers being selfish – or “self-first”, as in putting their non-work preferences ahead of workplace productivity?

Or are they prioritising personal wellbeing in order to be better employees? And are these global employment trends meaningful in the New Zealand context, where small and medium-sized companies (SMEs) dominate the business landscape?

Our ongoing survey of more than 600 SME employees found workplace practices and future working preferences have changed since 2020. Workers are looking for jobs that better fit their lives. The results suggest now is the time for employers to work with employees, rather than against them, for mutual benefit and increased productivity.

Global trends: big players and trendsetters

More than two years after the first COVID-19 lockdowns, employers are calling their employees back to the office – but also having to respond to employee push-back. Employees are expecting and asking for more flexibility in where and when they work – they aren’t just quietly accepting the “old ways” of working.

Workers have had a taste of work-life flexibility and are demanding this more frequently and with more confidence. Meanwhile, some employers are focused on “traditional” 40-hour weeks in the office, while others are offering flexibility in hours worked, work style and location.

Read more:
The ‘city’ is becoming increasingly digital, forcing us to rethink its role in life and work

Tesla recently told workers to return to the office for 40 hours a week, or work elsewhere permanently. Apple’s mandate for employees to return to the office was met with a petition for a work-from-home policy, as implemented at Facebook and Twitter. The company eventually settled for a hybrid “two days at home, three days in the office” model.

In the UK, a four-day work week pilot involving 70 companies is underway, while in Canada some workplaces are navigating the broad pushback from employees who have seen they can work in different places and during different hours and who now want a say in how, when, and where they do their job.

Some businesses are mandating a return to the office while other Canadian businesses have embraced a four-day work week with no change in daily hours for employees.

NZ workplaces in a state of flux

While similar trials are under way in New Zealand, the big questions are whether employers need to worry about the actions of large, multinational companies (given SMEs make up approximately 97% of local businesses), and whether employees have the same desired future work-life preferences as workers overseas.

A quick search of vacancies on the job website Seek.com showed more than 700 jobs mentioned “working from home”, 5,000 mentioned “flexibility”, and 38,000 mentioned “work-life” in the job descriptions. Businesses clearly have the sense that staff preferences are changing.

Our research provides insight on what employees want and why. We asked questions about when, where and how many hours they work, as well as the levels of autonomy they have in setting their own work patterns. We also asked what changes they had seen in their organisations since 2020.

Read more:
Flexibility makes us happier, with 3 clear trends emerging in post-pandemic hybrid work

While more than half of the respondents (52%) said they had more flexibility in terms of their work arrangements compared to before COVID, and 62% agreed they were able to manage their work-life demands, two-thirds (67%) indicated they now wanted more work-life flexibility.

Nearly half of the respondents (48%) reported that their organisation had already made formal policy changes to enable more work-life flexibility (not including temporary changes during the pandemic). Some 41% said they knew of employees who had left organisations because the employer did not provide enough flexibility to match their needs.

Flexibility in this context meant control over their working patterns. Employees wanted to decide how, where and when they carried out their work. This does not necessarily mean only working from home, but start and end times, number of daily hours worked, and preferred locations such as the homes of friends and family, cafes, libraries and shared open spaces.

Read more:
Even Google agrees there’s no going back to the old office life

The dominant reason for people seeking greater flexibility was personal wellbeing (60%) – above family care, lifestyle, community involvement, fewer interruptions and increased productivity.

We also found 77% of respondents wanted to feel a strong sense of belonging to their organisation. Despite wanting more control of their working patterns, including not necessarily being in the same building as their colleagues, respondents still wanted to be part of an organisation – just in a different way.

Finding common ground

This survey results offer local employers an opportunity to work with employees, rather than face the backlash that has been seen overseas.

With record low unemployment, employees are seeking organisations that are responding to the shift in employee values. Employers need to look past what might appear, on the surface, to be employee selfishness and accommodate the new “self-first” preferences in the post-COVID environment.

By embracing the preferences of their workers, employers can show they value employees and employee wellbeing, which might help navigate the best options for employees – including helping set the new “rules” of working and where compromises might take place.

Remember, employees want a sense of belonging to something bigger. But they also understand the importance of taking care of themselves first. It is time for employees and employers to work together to carve out the mutual benefits of finding new ways of working.

The authors 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. Survey reveals two-thirds of NZ employees want more work-life flexibility – how should employers respond? – https://theconversation.com/survey-reveals-two-thirds-of-nz-employees-want-more-work-life-flexibility-how-should-employers-respond-189879

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Trinajstic, John Curtin Distinguished Professor, Molecular and Life Sciences, Curtin University

In the limestone ranges of Western Australia’s Kimberley region, near the town of Fitzroy Crossing, you’ll find one of the world’s best-preserved ancient reef complexes.

Here lie the remnants of myriad prehistoric marine animals, including placoderms, a prehistoric class of fish that represents some of our earliest jawed ancestors.

Placoderms were the rulers of the ancient seas, rivers and lakes. They were the most abundant and diverse fishes of the Devonian Period (419–359 million years ago) – but died out at the end in a mass extinction event.

Studying placoderms is important as they provide insight into the origins of the jawed vertebrate body plan (vertebrates are animals with backbones). For instance, placoderms have revealed when the first jaws, teeth, paired skull bones and paired limbs evolved. They’ve also taught us about the origins of internal fertilisation and live birth in vertebrate evolution.

Read more:
Our ideas about vertebrate evolution challenged by a new tree of life

Now, in a paper published in Science, we detail our findings of the oldest three-dimensionally preserved heart from a vertebrate – in this case a jawed vertebrate. This placoderm heart is about 380 million years old, and 250 million years older than the previous oldest vertebrate heart.

How did we do it?

Fish fossils from near Fitzroy Crossing were first reported from Gogo Station in the 1940s. But it wasn’t until the 1960s that beautiful 3D preservations were revealed, using a technique that removes rock from bones with weak acetic acid.

However, this technique proved to be a double-edged sword. While the fine details of the bony skeleton were uncovered, soft tissues in the fossils dissolved away. It wasn’t until 2000 that the first pieces of fossilised muscle were identified in placoderms.

With the advent of an X-ray method called “synchrotron microtomography” – first used on the Gogo fossils in 2010 – more muscles were revealed from the Gogo placoderms, including neck and abdominal muscles.

Our work used this same technology to show, for the first time, the presence of a liver, stomach and intestines in a Devonian fish. Some of the specimens even showed remnants of their last meal: a crustacean.

We found the soft organs fossilised in an order of placoderms called arthrodires. These were the most common and diverse of all known placoderms, characterised by a unique joint between their head and trunk armour.

The heart of the placoderm

The most exciting find for us was the heart. We found our first placoderm heart using synchrotron imagining.

Then while experimenting with a technology called neutron imaging, we discovered a second heart within a different specimen.

Life must have been nerve-racking in the Devonian seas, because placoderms literally had their hearts in their mouths!

At this point in vertebrate evolution, the neck was so short that the heart was located at the back of the throat and under the gills.

Fishes that are even more primitive than arthrodires, such as the jawless lamprey, have their heart close to their liver. And the chambers of the heart (called the atrium and ventricle) sit side by side.

On the other hand, arthrodire placoderms had the heart in a more forward (anterior) position, at the back of the throat. And the atrium sat on top of the ventricle – similar to sharks and bony fishes today.

Today, 99% of all living vertebrates have jaws. Arthrodires provide the first anatomical evidence to support the hypothesis that, in jawed vertebrates, the repositioning of the heart to a more forward position was linked to the evolution of jaws and a neck.

But that’s not all. This movement of the heart would also have made room for lungs to develop.

So did placoderms have lungs?

One of the most challenging evolutionary questions today is whether lungs were present in the earliest jawed vertebrates. Although fish have gills, the presence of lungs in some fish can help with buoyancy, which is needed to sink and rise in the water.

Today, lungs are only present in primitive bony fishes such as lungfish and African reedfishes.

More advanced bony fish (such as the teleosts) stay afloat using a swim bladder, whereas sharks have neither lungs nor a swim bladder, and instead use a large fatty liver to help with buoyancy.

But what about ancient placoderms? Previous studies (which were somewhat controversial) suggested lungs were present in a primitive placoderm called Bothriolepis.

Our analysis of the arthrodires from Gogo reveals the structures thought to be lungs in Bothriolepis are in fact a liver with two lobes, so lungs are now thought to have been missing from placoderms.

Our discovery therefore shows a single origin for lungs in bony fishes (osteichthyans). The movement of the heart to a forward position from jawless fishes (Cyclostomata) would have allowed room for lungs to develop in later lineages.

The absence of lungs in placoderms suggests these fish relied on their liver for buoyancy, like modern sharks do.

A crucial site

The preservation of organs is a race against time. In some cases, an animal’s decomposition will aid soft tissue preservation, but too much decomposition and the soft tissues decay away. For excellent preservation the balance needs to be just right.

In the fossilised heart we found the atrium and ventricles are shown clearly, while the conus arteriosus – a section of the heart that directs blood from the ventricle to the arteries – is not as well preserved.

Being able to make these discoveries before they’re lost forever is crucial if we are to fully understand the early evolution of vertebrates, including the origins of the human body plan.

So beyond our immediate findings, our work has reinforced the significance of the Gogo site in the Kimberley as one of the world’s most important sites for carrying out this work.

Read more:
Extraordinary ‘missing link’ fossil fish found in China

Kate Trinajstic receives funding from
ARC Discovery Project

I am a research associate at the WA Museum

John Long receives funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. We found the oldest ever vertebrate fossil heart. It tells a 380 million-year-old story of how our bodies evolved – https://theconversation.com/we-found-the-oldest-ever-vertebrate-fossil-heart-it-tells-a-380-million-year-old-story-of-how-our-bodies-evolved-190230

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Marian-Andrei Rizoiu, Senior Lecturer in Behavioral Data Science, University of Technology Sydney

Say you are looking for a new job. You head to LinkedIn to spruce up your profile and look around your social network.

But who should you reach out to for an introduction to a potential new employer? A new study of more than 20 million people, published in Science, shows that your close friends (on LinkedIn) are not your best bet: instead you should look to acquaintances you don’t know well enough to share a personal connection with.

The strength of weak ties

In 1973, the American sociologist Mark Granovetter coined the phrase “the strength of weak ties” in the context of social networks. He argued that the stronger the ties between two individuals, the more their friendship networks will overlap.

Simply put, you are most likely to know all the friends of a close friend, but few of the friends of an acquaintance.

So if you are searching for a job, you probably already know everything your immediate neighbourhood has to offer. Intuitively, it is the weak ties – your acquaintances – that offer the most opportunities for new discoveries.

Weak ties and jobs

Granovetter’s theory feels right, but is it? A team of researchers from LinkedIn, Harvard Business School, Stanford and MIT set out to gather some empirical evidence on how weak ties affect job mobility.

Their research piggy-backed on the efforts of engineers at LinkedIn to test and improve the platform’s “People You May Know” recommendation algorithm. LinkedIn regularly updates this algorithm, which recommends new people to add to your network.

One of these updates tested the effects of encouraging the formation of strong ties (recommending adding your close friends) versus weak ties (recommending acquaintances and friends of friends). The researchers then followed the users that participated in this “A/B testing” to see if the difference impacted their employment outcomes.

More than 20 million LinkedIn users worldwide were randomly assigned to well-defined treatment groups. Users in each group were shown slightly different new contact recommendations, which led users in some groups to form more strong ties and users in other groups to form more weak ties.

Next, the team measured how many jobs users in each group applied for, and how many “job transmissions” occurred. Job transmissions are of particular interest, as they are defined as getting a job in the same company as the new contact. A job transmission suggests the new contact helped land the job.

Moderately weak ties are best

The study uses causal analysis to go beyond simple correlations and connect link formation with employment. There are three important findings.

First, the recommender engine significantly shapes link formation. Users who were recommended more weak links formed significantly more weak links, and users who were recommended more strong links formed more strong links.

Second, the experiment provides causal evidence that moderately weak ties are more than twice as effective as strong ties in helping a job-seeker join a new employer. What’s a “moderately” weak tie? The study found job transmission is most likely from acquaintances with whom you share about 10 mutual friends and rarely interact.

Third, the strength of weak ties varied by industry. Whereas weak ties increased job mobility in more digital industries, strong ties increased job mobility in less digital industries.

Better recommendations

This LinkedIn study is first to causally prove Granovetter’s theory in the employment market. The causal analysis is key here, as large-scale studies of correlations between strength of ties and job transmission have shown strong ties are more beneficial, in what was considered until now a paradox.

This study resolves the paradox and again proves the limitations of correlation studies, which do a poor job at disentangling confounding factors and sometimes lead to the wrong conclusions.

From a practical point of view, the study outlines the best parameters for suggesting new links. It revealed that the connections most helpful in landing a job are your acquaintances, people you meet in professional settings, or friends of friends, rather than your closest friends – people with whom you share about 10 mutual contacts and with whom one is less likely to interact regularly.

These can be translated into algorithmic recommendations, which can make the recommendation engines of professional networks such as LinkedIn even more proficient at helping job-seekers land jobs.

The power of black boxes

The public is often wary when large social media companies perform experiments on their users (see Facebook’s infamous emotion experiment of 2014).

So, could LinkedIn’s experiment have harmed its users? In theory, the users in the “strong link” treatment group might have missed the weak links that could have brought their next job.

However, all groups had some degree of job mobility – some just a bit more than others. Moreover, since the researchers were observing an engineering experiment, the study itself seems to raise few ethical concerns.

Nonetheless, it is a reminder to ask how much our most intimate professional decisions – such as selecting a new career or workplace – are determined by black-box artificial intelligence algorithms whose workings we cannot see.

Marian-Andrei Rizoiu receives funding from the Department of Home Affairs, the Commonwealth of Australia represented by the Defence Science and Technology Group, Facebook and the Australian Research Council.

– ref. A huge LinkedIn study just showed which connections are better when searching for a job – https://theconversation.com/a-huge-linkedin-study-just-showed-which-connections-are-better-when-searching-for-a-job-190428

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mianna Lotz, Associate Professor in Philosophy & Chair of Faculty of Arts Human Research Ethics Committee, Macquarie University

The opportunity to conceive, carry and give birth to a biologically related child is a deep desire for many women and their partners. Since the introduction of IVF in 1978, many people in countries such as Australia have accessed support and resources to help realise their reproductive goals.

For some women, the lack a functioning uterus has kept that opportunity out of reach. This includes those with a congenital condition such as Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, and those who had a hysterectomy for medical reasons.

For these women, the only options for parenthood have been surrogacy or adoption. Access to both is often difficult.

Uterus transplants are changing that. From next year, uterus transplants are being trialled in Australia. However, there are risks involved and ethical concerns which must addressed before it can become mainstream clinical treatment.

How does the process work?

Uterus transplantation is a set of medical procedures in which a donated uterus is surgically removed from a suitable donor and transplanted into an eligible recipient.

Hormones are used to stimulate menstruation in the recipient, and once the uterus is functioning normally, an IVF-created embryo is transferred into the woman’s uterus.

Following successful implantation and healthy development, the baby is delivered via caesarean section. This is because a uterus transplant pregnancy is regarded as high risk, and the woman may not be able to feel contractions. Women with the congenital absence of a uterus will not be able to deliver vaginally.

Read more:
Explainer: what are womb transplants and who could they help?

As with all transplants, the uterus recipient is prescribed immunosuppression medication to prevent rejection of the donor organ. These drugs are administered at levels deemed safe for the developing foetus. Close monitoring continues throughout the pregnancy to ensure the safety of both woman and foetus.

Immunosuppression continues until the delivery of up to two healthy babies or five years after the transplant, whichever is first.

The uterus is then surgically removed via hysterectomy, enabling immunosuppression – which carries risks and side-effects – to be ceased. Risks from immunosuppression include infection, reduced blood cell count, heart disease and suppression of bone marrow growth. And these risks increase with time.

Uterus transplantation is an “ephemeral” transplant: a non-life-saving temporary transplant, aimed solely at enabling reproduction. These features make it medically and ethically distinct from other transplants.

When did uterus transplants start?

Scientists started developing uterus transplantation in animals in the 1970s. The first attempts in humans occurred in 2000 (Saudi Arabia) and 2011 (Turkey), both of which failed.

After 14 years of research, Professor Mats Brannstrom and his team at Sweden’s Sahlgrenska University Hospital started the world’s first human trials in 2013. In 2014, the first healthy baby was born.

With more than 25 countries now performing or planning uterus transplants, it is estimated that at least 80 procedures have been performed, resulting in more than 40 healthy live births. While not all transplants are successful, the live birth rate from a uterus that is functioning successfully after transplantation is estimated at over 80%.

In Australia, two trials have been approved and plan to start within the next 12-18 months.

Who donates?

Most uterus transplants so far have used altruistic living donors, typically a mother donating to her daughter or an aunt to her niece.

But cases using uteruses from deceased donors have also been successful, with at least four healthy live births reported.

Uteruses from deceased donors are mostly provided through standard family consent methods for medical research. But in future they could be provided through organ donor registration processes modified to include the uterus.

Currently, only pre-menopausal women can be uterus donors, and living donors need to have had a successful pregnancy to be eligible to donate. But this may not need to be a requirement for deceased donors, potentially enabling younger donors and increasing the availability of uteruses for transplantation.

Of the two approved Australian trials, only one (led by Royal Hospital for Women, for which I provide independent ethical advice) will conduct both living and deceased donor uterus transplantation. The other (through Royal Prince Alfred hospital) will trial only living donor transplantation.

Participation in these uterus transplant trials will remain limited while uterus transplantation is still in the research phase, and will depend on the availability of funding.

What are the risks of living donation?

For recipients, the main surgical risks are organ rejection, infection, and blood clots or thrombosis, as well as risks arising from the surgery duration (average 5 hours) such as blood clots (including in the lung) and from immunosuppression.

While challenging, these risks have been minimised through close monitoring and early intervention using blood thinners and encouraging recipients to move around soon after surgery.

For living donors, physical risks arise from surgery duration (6-11 hours) and operative and postoperative complications, the most common being urinary tract injury and infection.

There are also ethical and psychological risks. These include the possibility of a potential donor feeling pressured to donate to a family member, and experiencing guilt and failure if the transplant is not successful or results in adverse outcomes.

These risks may be reduced with appropriate counselling and support. But as with all altruistic organ donation, they cannot be entirely eliminated.

What about deceased donation?

Deceased donor transplantation also carries risks but involves less surgical time than living donor transplantation (typically 1-2 hours) and therefore less demand on medical resources and personnel.

Deceased donor transplantation may be less ethically fraught. There is no prospect of pressure, guilt or surgical risk to the deceased donor, who must have been declared brain dead and be suitable for multi-organ donation. Their organs may only be procured with proper consent, following the usual protocols and procedures.

Read more:
Would you donate your womb when you die?

In Australia, as elsewhere, organ donors are in short supply. But deceased donors might be found via existing donation registries and consent processes, such as those managed by DonateLife and NSW Organ and Tissue Donation Services.

Why investigate both types of donation?

It’s important to be able to compare the outcomes of living and deceased donation in similar recipients and contexts. This will inform future guidelines and policies around uterus donation, and determine whether it can become mainstream clinical practice.

Emerging evidence suggests deceased donation may yield better results for recipients. Using deceased donor organs allows longer veins and arteries to be retrieved, enabling better blood flow for the uterus and potentially greater success in transplants and pregnancies.

So although there are currently fewer cases of deceased donors, there are sound medical and ethical reasons for Australian uterus transplant research with both deceased and living donors.

Mianna Lotz provides independent ethical advice to the uterus transplant trial at Royal Hospital for Women.

– ref. What are uterus transplants? Who donates their uterus? And what are the risks? – https://theconversation.com/what-are-uterus-transplants-who-donates-their-uterus-and-what-are-the-risks-190443

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Albert Pessarrodona Silvestre, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, The University of Western Australia

Amazon, Borneo, Congo, Daintree. We know the names of many of the world’s largest or most famous rainforests. And many of us know about the world’s largest span of forests, the boreal forests stretching from Russia to Canada.

But how many of us could name an underwater forest? Hidden underwater are huge kelp and seaweed forests, stretching much further than we previously realised. Few are even named. But their lush canopies are home to huge numbers of marine species.

Off the coastline of southern Africa lies the Great African Seaforest, while Australia boasts the Great Southern Reef around its southern reaches. There are many more vast but unnamed underwater forests all over the world.

Our new research has discovered just how extensive and productive they are. The world’s ocean forests, we found, cover an area twice the size of India.

These seaweed forests face threats from marine heatwaves and climate change. But they may also hold part of the answer, with their ability to grow quickly and sequester carbon.

What are ocean forests?

Underwater forests are formed by seaweeds, which are types of algae. Like other plants, seaweeds grow by capturing the Sun’s energy and carbon dioxide through photosynthesis. The largest species grow tens of metres high, forming forest canopies that sway in a never-ending dance as swells move through. To swim through one is to see dappled light and shadow and a sense of constant movement.

Just like trees on land, these seaweeds offer habitat, food and shelter to a wide variety of marine organisms. Large species such as sea-bamboo and giant kelp have gas-filled structures that work like little balloons and help them create vast floating canopies. Other species relies on strong stems to stay upright and support their photosynthetic blades. Others again, like golden kelp on Australia’s Great Southern Reef, drape over seafloor.

How extensive are these forests and how fast do they grow?

Seaweeds have long been known to be among the fastest growing plants on the planet. But to date, it’s been very challenging to estimate how large an area their forests cover.

On land, you can now easily measure forests by satellite. Underwater, it’s much more complicated. Most satellites cannot take measurements at the depths where underwater forests are found.

To overcome this challenge, we relied on millions of underwater records from scientific literature, online repositories, local herbaria and citizen science initiatives.

With this information, we modelled the global distribution of ocean forests, finding they cover between 6 million and 7.2 million square kilometres. That’s larger than the Amazon.

Next, we assessed how productive these ocean forests are – that is, how much they grow. Once again, there were no unified global records. We had to go through hundreds of individual experimental studies from across the globe where seaweed growth rates had been measured by scuba divers.

We found ocean forests are even more productive than many intensely farmed crops such as wheat, rice and corn. Productivity was highest in temperate regions, which are usually bathed in cool, nutrient-rich water. Every year, on average, ocean forests in these regions produce 2 to 11 times more biomass per area than these crops.

What do our findings mean for the challenges we face?

These findings are encouraging. We could harness this immense productivity to help meet the world’s future food security. Seaweed farms can supplement food production on land and boost sustainable development.

These fast growth rates also mean seaweeds are hungry for carbon dioxide. As they grow, they pull large quantities of carbon from seawater and the atmosphere. Globally, ocean forests may take up as much carbon as the Amazon.

Read more:
A marine heatwave has wiped out a swathe of WA’s undersea kelp forest

This suggests they could play a role in mitigating climate change. However, not all that carbon may end up sequestered, as this requires seaweed carbon to be locked away from the atmosphere for relatively long periods of time. First estimates suggest that a sizeable proportion of seaweed could be sequestered in sediments or the deep sea. But exactly how much seaweed carbon ends up sequestered naturally is an area of intense research.

Hard times for ocean forests

Almost all of the extra heat trapped by the 2,400 gigatonnes of greenhouse gases we have emitted so far has gone into our oceans.

This means ocean forests are facing very difficult conditions. Large expanses of ocean forests have recently disappeared off Western Australia, eastern Canada and California, resulting in the loss of habitat and carbon sequestration potential.

Conversely, as sea ice melts and water temperatures warm, some Arctic regions are expected to see expansion of their ocean forests.

These overlooked forests play an crucial, largely unseen role off our coasts. The majority of the world’s underwater forests are unrecognised, unexplored and uncharted.

Without substantial efforts to improve our knowledge, it will not be possible to ensure their protection and conservation – let alone harness the full potential of the many opportunities they provide.

Read more:
Can selective breeding of ‘super kelp’ save our cold water reefs from hotter seas?

Albert Pessarrodona Silvestre receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program, the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment. He is also affiliated with Conservation International.

Karen Filbee-Dexter receives funding from the Australian Research Council, ArcticNet, the Norwegian Research Council, Schmidt Marine Technology Partners and Canopy Blue. Karen is affiliated with the Institute of Marine Research Norway and Laval University.

Thomas Wernberg receives funding from The Australian Research Council, The Norwegian Research Council, The Schmidt Marine Technology Partners and Canopy Blue. Thomas is also affiliated with the Institute of Marine Research, Norway and Rosklid University, Denmark.

– ref. Ever heard of ocean forests? They’re larger than the Amazon and more productive than we thought – https://theconversation.com/ever-heard-of-ocean-forests-theyre-larger-than-the-amazon-and-more-productive-than-we-thought-190534

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Pearse, Lecturer, Australian National University

Australia’s historic climate law passed the Senate last week and enshrined an economy-wide target to reduce emissions. But an important measure to reduce Australia’s industrial emissions is still up for debate: the “safeguard mechanism”.

Introduced by the Abbott government in 2014, the safeguard mechanism is supposed to stop Australia’s largest greenhouse gas polluters from emitting over a certain threshold. But the policy has been frequently criticised for lacking teeth. The Labor government has promised to strengthen the mechanism, and is currently reviewing it.

Industry has raised concerns over any toughening of the policy. Meanwhile, the Greens will push Labor to strengthen it further.

The safeguard mechanism covers the grid-connected power stations with a sectoral target. It also applies to 215 of Australia’s largest industrial emitters. Together, these 215 facilities produce almost 30% of Australia’s total annual emissions. So a stringent policy to curb this pollution is crucial to climate action.

Wait, what’s the safeguard mechanism?

The safeguard mechanism works by setting a limit on the emissions individual enterprises can produce in a year. This limit is put into place with “baselines” that get set in a number of different ways, depending on the type of company involved. Such companies might include a mining company, aluminium smelter, steelworks or airline.

If the company emits beyond their limit, they can buy carbon credits to compensate for, or “offset”, the excess emissions.

The mechanism covers hard-to-abate industries which are regulated on an individual basis, such as new coal, oil and gas projects, steel, aluminium, manufacturing and transport. These include Woodside’s Northwest Shelf gas project, Qantas, Chevron’s Gorgon gas project, Port Kembla steelworks, and AngloAmerican coal mines in central Queensland.

Coal fired power remains our biggest industrial source of emissions, but is regulated separately. A “sectoral baseline” has been set for all electricity generators connected to the national grid at 198 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent each year.

Rubbery baseline emissions

Historically, the safeguard mechanism hasn’t put strong obligations on industrial emitters to reduce their emissions. Indeed, industrial emissions have increased since the mechanism began in 2016.

Imposing a genuine carbon limit on high-emitting companies requires a clear definition and enforcement of the baselines. But the safeguard mechanism provides enormous scope for expanded production and, therefore, expanded emissions.

The government’s review paper identifies a major problem with how baselines have been set in the past. Namely, many facilities have been allowed to set their baseline emissions well above their actual emissions.

Read more:
1 in 5 fossil fuel projects overshoot their original estimations for emissions. Why are there such significant errors?

Baselines for each facilities’ emissions are currently measured according to “production-adjusted” emissions intensity. So, for example, a coal mine’s baseline is measured per tonne of coal commodity produced. This means over time, baselines rise or fall in proportion to a company’s expected production.

The government’s consultation paper reports that in the 2020-21 financial year the combined baseline emissions recorded for non-electricity grid emissions under the safeguard mechanism was estimated at 180 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.

But actual emissions in the same period were 137 million tonnes of CO₂ equivalent.

It should also be noted that research suggests up to one in five fossil fuel projects are underestimating their actual emissions. But regardless, the high baselines mean there’s no regulatory pressure for companies to reduce their emissions.

The current review paper seeks feedback on these issues. Removing the head room for facilities with baselines well above their actual emissions is on the cards.

Carbon credit questions

The government is poised to propose significantly expanding carbon credit trading under the safeguard mechanism.

Carbon credits are granted to projects that reduce, store or avoid greenhouse gas emissions. These credits can be sold to the federal government or to private companies to offset a project’s own emissions.

Under the current safeguard mechanism, if a company exceeds its baseline emissions, then it can purchase Australian carbon credits to offset this.

These carbon offsets, however, are plagued with credibility problems. In fact, another federal government review is underway to examine the issues.

Read more:
‘Untenable’: even companies profiting from Australia’s carbon market say the system must change

There are calls to strongly limit or remove questionable offsets linked to the safeguard mechanism.

For instance, climate science professor Mark Howden argued recently that offsets should not be used to give big emitters a “free ride” to continue polluting if they invest in carbon sequestration projects, at this stage.
Instead, the immediate priorities should be limiting fossil fuel combustion burning, and making concrete plans for other industries to transition.

Despite this, the federal government is considering expanding trade in these and potentially other types of carbon credits.

The government is proposing a new type of carbon credit for companies emitting below their baseline. For instance, if an aluminium smelter reduced its emissions over 2024 and 2025, it could be granted credits to sell to others in the carbon market.

The government is also considering allowing companies to trade carbon credits on an international level, pending reforms to address integrity issues in safeguard mechanism like the baseline headroom problem.

Read more:
Australia may be heading for emissions trading between big polluters

The international trade in carbon credits has been plagued with problems for 20 years. A 2021 literature review found little evidence demonstrating causal effect of carbon trading markets on emissions reduction.

It puts a strong case forward against linking carbon markets internationally, after Europe, Quebec and California case studies show linking carbon markets has led to price crashes and volatility – not stability.

The risk of a weak carbon trading market

We can expect industry to continue to lobby for a weak safeguard mechanism and carbon credit rules. But if the Labor government is genuine about wanting to reduce Australia’s emissions, our biggest polluters cannot be allowed to carry on emitting as usual.

And there is no role for a carbon trading policy that excuses big emitters from making clean energy transition plans.

Labor may need the numerous pro-climate independent senators or the Greens to make changes signalled in the safeguard consultation paper. They are unlikely to be satisfied with a weak carbon trading scheme.

Any proposed changes that undermine Australia’s emissions reduction goals will not easily be passed.

Rebecca Pearse receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the National Recovery and Resilience Agency.

– ref. Nearly 30% of Australia’s emissions come from industry. Tougher rules for big polluters is a no-brainer – https://theconversation.com/nearly-30-of-australias-emissions-come-from-industry-tougher-rules-for-big-polluters-is-a-no-brainer-190264

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Callister, Senior Associate Institute of Governance and Policy Studies, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

Biofuels – and a broader bioeconomy – are key parts of New Zealand’s recently released first emissions reduction plan, particularly for transport, forestry and a transition to a more circular use of resources.

Work is moving fast, with a biofuel mandate for land transport to be introduced from April 2023 and a plan to transform the forestry industry currently under consultation.

A bioeconomy is heralded as an opportunity to replace imported fossil fuels with carbon-neutral domestic biofuels and to create higher-value products from plantation forestry (much of which is currently exported as unprocessed logs) while supporting carbon sequestration at the same time.

New Zealand is not the only country thinking along these lines. Biofuels are part of a widespread strategy to address emissions from existing fossil-fueled vehicles, tens of millions of which are still being produced annually. They are also promoted for planes, ships and heavy trucks, often with few alternatives.

Both the Inflation Reduction Act, a landmark US law which aims to curb inflation by investing in domestic clean energy production, and the EU’s Fit for 55 package, expand support for biofuels through a combination of subsidies and mandates. In the International Energy Agency (IEA)’s Net Zero scenario, global biofuel production quadruples by 2050, to supply 14% of transport energy.

Unfortunately, a string of government reports, combined with experience of the real-world impacts of biofuels thus far, point to several downsides and challenges, both economic and environmental.

Read more:
Air of compromise: NZ’s Emissions Reduction Plan reveals a climate budget that’s long on planning, short on strategy

First-generation biofuels from food crops

The risks of first-generation biofuels, made from crops grown on arable land, are well known. They are not due to the fuels themselves or their production, but their indirect effects of how the land would have been used otherwise.

Already, 10% of the world’s grain is used for biofuels. This is at the heart of the “food-to-fuel” issue. This approach has been challenged because it could increase grain prices or, at the worst, lead to starvation. It has also led to agricultural expansion, often into ecologically sensitive areas.

Debated for years, it is now back in the spotlight as the effects of droughts in China, the US and Europe, combined with the war in Ukraine, push food prices up 50% on 2019-2020 levels.

Read more:
A shrinking fraction of the world’s major crops goes to feed the hungry, with more used for nonfood purposes

Palm oil has borne the brunt of criticism about landuse change, as vast areas of rainforest in Indonesia and Malaysia have been cleared for its production. The impact of such “induced landuse change” (ILUC) gives palm oil biofuel nearly three times the emissions of fossil fuel.

But palm oil is a substitute for many other vegetable oils. Therefore, biofuel production from other oils like rapeseed (canola) is also implicated in ILUC, as diverting rapeseed to fuel leads to more palm oil entering the food chain.

Sustainability and credibility of feedstocks

The EU has undergone a lengthy process of strengthening the standards of its biofuel mandate. In the end, palm oil was the only feedstock listed as “high ILUC”, but was given a reprieve until 2030.

The cheapest biofuels with the biggest emissions savings are made from used cooking oil and beef tallow. But these feedstocks are in limited supply and open to fraud. They also already have other uses, which again raises the issue of substitution.

Z Energy’s NZ$50m tallow biodiesel plant, opened in 2018, has been mothballed due to the rising cost of tallow. The company has stopped work on plans for a much larger plant.

Since New Zealand’s biofuel mandate will initially be met solely by imports, questions of sustainability and certifiability of feedstocks will be crucial. It is concerning that landuse change will not be considered when calculating emissions reductions.

The fuels will count as zero-emission in New Zealand, while the actual emissions from growing, fertilising, processing and transporting will take place overseas, likely in countries with weaker climate targets. Unless accounted for, this is carbon leakage by design.

Second-generation biofuels from inedible plant material

For all these reasons, proponents are keen to talk up the prospect of second-generation biofuels, made from non-food crops. In New Zealand’s case, the main crop is pine trees.

Although there is some forestry waste available, much of it is currently left on site and would be expensive to collect and transport. The Wood Fibre Futures report, commissioned by the government, focuses on logs-to-fuel, specifically “drop-in” fuels that can substitute directly for petrol, diesel or jet fuel.

However, there are no such plants in commercial operation anywhere. The report calls the risks of such an unproved technology extreme, with little prospect for mitigation.

Read more:
Biofuel: how new microalgae technologies can hasten the end of our reliance on oil

The economics are also challenging, in part because log prices are high due to the efficiency of the log export market. A plant capable of producing 150 million litres of drop-in fuels a year – just 1.5% of New Zealand’s liquid fuel demand – would cost $1.2 billion and have a negative rate of return.

To obtain an acceptable return, the government would need to pay for half the cost of the plant and the logs, and also subsidise (or enforce) a 50% higher sale price of the fuel. The report envisages such a plant being completed by 2028 in New Zealand.

A fundamental obstacle is that any such use has to compete with other uses – including sawn timber, wood chips and wood pellets – which are far simpler, more profitable and come with greater carbon benefits.

Stop the mandate, strengthen alternatives

For all these reasons, we have formed the interest group Don’t Burn Our Future, which aims to stop New Zealand’s biofuel mandate.

As advocates of strong climate action, these are painful conclusions to reach. But we argue that for transport, the answer lies in the avoid/shift/improve framework, which encourages people to drive less, shift necessary trips to other modes and make them less polluting.

Biofuels only enter in the third and least important step (improve) and even there, they are the worst option.

The transport transformations envisaged in the new climate plans for Wellington and Auckland are heavily focused on avoidance and shifts to other modes. These options should be the priority.

Paul Callister is affiliated with Don’t burn our future: Stop the NZ biofuels obligation

Robert McLachlan is affiliated with Don’t burn our future: Stop the NZ biofuels obligation.

– ref. New Zealand has announced a biofuel mandate to cut transport emissions, but that could be the worst option for the climate – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-has-announced-a-biofuel-mandate-to-cut-transport-emissions-but-that-could-be-the-worst-option-for-the-climate-189960

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lucas Walsh, Professor and Director of the Centre for Youth Policy and Education Practice, Monash University

Australia’s class of 2022 is on the home stretch. Almost two million year 12 students will be sitting their final exams next month. In amongst this, they are making big decisions about their lives beyond school.

But research shows they are not getting the support they need as they finish school and move into the work or study that is right for them. Girls, in particular, are not getting the support they need.

This suggests careers support in high school is not working.

Careers advice at school

Careers education is not compulsory in Australian schools. There are guidelines such as the blueprint for career development. And the national curriculum up to year 10 calls on schools to “develop school-based approaches to career education […] to suit the needs of their students and the community”.

States and territories offer their own frameworks for years 11 and 12, such as Victoria’s careers curriculum framework.

These can be interpreted in a wide variety of ways. In reality, some schools may have dedicated careers teachers. Students sometimes seek private careers counselling. Others may have nothing.

Read more:
‘It’s kind of suffocating’: queer young Australians speak about how they feel at school and what they think of politicians

Our study

Our Monash University study published last month surveyed more than 1,300 female school students in years 10 to 12. We wanted to know about how they were choosing their careers.

While we found more than 83% wanted to go to university, there was a significant degree of uncertainty about what next:

• one third did not know what career best suited them
• nearly 40% were concerned they were never have a “real” career
• about one third felt “unemployable”
• 34% said they were doing subjects or activities with no sense of purpose
• 26% said they often felt down or worried about selecting a career

The also continued to nominate careers within narrow fields. Half of young women’s chosen careers were concentrated in areas such as medicine (16.7%), law and paralegal studies (12.1%), nursing (11.5%), the creative arts (9.9%) and teaching (8.2%).

These ambitions are not bad, of course. But it means these young people might be overlooking new and growing careers around digital technology or fulfilling and potentially lucrative vocational options, such as trades.

Smith Family study

Another 2022 study released this week by The Smith Family surveyed over 1,500 young people and interviewed 38 students aged 17–19 experiencing disadvantage.

While most young people surveyed (86%) recalled receiving careers support while at school, only just over half found this support helpful. One in ten said it was not useful at all.

In some cases, there was no career advice. As interviewee Rabia said:

Because our school never really provided career counselling, right now a lot of my friends from school, they’re currently dropping out of their degree […] a lot of them are just not happy with what they chose.

Interviewee Mercedes said students needed advice that was individual and supportive:

More discussions around what’s on offer and job pathways would be a great thing […] instead of teachers saying ‘you know you probably can’t do that’ [they should say] ‘let’s think of some steps in order for you to get there’.

When choosing careers, interviewees said they valued hands-on work exposure, vocational study and being able to try different career options while at school. As Sahil said:

That work experience really opened my eyes to how IT would be in actual work settings. That shaped up my thinking of doing software engineering.

Careers advice needs to change

Careers advice needs to do much more than tell young people about what subjects to do in year 12 to qualify for certain degrees, or hand out pamphlets at university open days.

Apart from understanding the modern job market and current range of opportunities, careers advice needs to support young people as they move to the next stage of life.

Read more:
Choosing a career? These jobs won’t go out of style

Careers support is, of course, closely related to mental health and wellbeing. More than a third of those in The Smith Family Study had a health or mental health condition which was sometimes a barrier to employment, as Tarni said:

Honestly, thinking about my future is really scary. I never really did it ‘cos when you’re really mentally ill at a really young age, you don’t really make plans for it.

Young people need to know they are valued and have potential. An average of 110,000 fewer year 12s completed high school in the wake of COVID disruptions last year.

We need to find ways to keep them in school and provide them with better career support for their own and Australia’s future prosperity.

Lucas Walsh currently receives funding from The Paul Ramsay Foundation. He has worked with The Smith Family and sits on a voluntary advisory board unrelated to this study.

This article is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. ‘Thinking about my future is really scary’ – school leavers are not getting the careers support they need – https://theconversation.com/thinking-about-my-future-is-really-scary-school-leavers-are-not-getting-the-careers-support-they-need-190553

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Phillips, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), Australian National University

What if we could save A$243 billion by abolishing the Stage 3 tax cuts?

An article in Guardian Australia says we could spend it on all kinds of things, from pay rises for aged care workers to electrifying homes.

But the money probably wouldn’t be there – not most of it.

The Parliamentary Budget Office came up with the figure of $243 billion in response to a request from Greens Leader Adam Bandt to total the revenue the cuts would cost in their first nine years, which begin in July 2024.

The PBO used a standard, and, on face of it, an unexceptional assumption – that the cost would be the revenue that was lost in each year compared to what would have been raised if tax scales hadn’t been adjusted – for the entire decade.

Cost, but compared to what?

To recap, Stage 3 cuts the rate that applies to incomes over $45,000 from 32.5 cents in the dollar to 30 cents then extends that 30 cent rate all the way up to $200,000, abolishing an entire rung of the tax ladder.

The problem with the PBO’s assumption is that the alternative is unlikely to be borne out in reality.

Whenever incomes climb (The PBO assumes around 45 per cent growth in incomes over the next 10 years) the tax scales are typically adjusted to stop more income going into higher tax brackets – so-called bracket creep.

The graph below shows what would happen to the average tax rate in the absence of an adjustment over the next decade.

It would climb from 17.9% to 20.1% of household income.

With the Stage 3 cuts, average rates would at first fall to 17%, and then increase, climbing beyond current rates in 2028 as bracket creep reasserted itself.

This suggests the “cuts” aren’t much of cuts at all, certainly not long-lasting ones.

It is difficult to both claim that the cuts will cost the budget A$243 billion by 2032 and that they will allow the average tax take to climb.

Read more:
Stand by for the oddly designed Stage 3 tax cut that will send middle earners backwards and give high earners thousands

It means axing the cuts would produce less of a honeypot than might be thought.

While the PBO prepared its costing in accordance with standard practice, a more realistic costing of the Stage 3 cuts would have compared them to the sort of tax adjustments we could have expected without them.

Winners and losers

The Stage 3 tax cuts will be regressive, meaning they will cut the rates faced by high earners more than the rates faced by low earners.

My calculations suggest that in the first year they will cut the tax paid by the highest-earning fifth of households by 2.1 percentage points, leaving the tax paid by other households little changed.

And they will certainly will cost the budget money – leaving less money for services of the kind that mostly benefit lower income households – although nowhere near as much as the $243 billion quoted.

But the cost will be temporary. The effects on inequality will be longer-lasting.

Ben Phillips 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. That $243 billion ‘saving’ from axing the Stage 3 tax cut is more mirage than reality – https://theconversation.com/that-243-billion-saving-from-axing-the-stage-3-tax-cut-is-more-mirage-than-reality-190350

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daryl Sparkes, Senior Lecturer (Media Studies and Production), University of Southern Queensland

MASH, stylised as M*A*S*H, is the story of a rag-tag bunch of medical misfits of the 4077th Mobile Army Surgical Hospital thrown together against the horrors of the Korean war in the 1950s. The series endured for 11 seasons, from September 1972 to the final episode in 1983.

Originally it was centred on two army surgeons, the wisecracking but empathetic Benjamin “Hawkeye” Pierce, played by Alan Alda, and the deadpan “Trapper” John McIntyre, played by Wayne Rogers.

The show had an ensemble cast and different episodes would often focus on one of the featured characters.

There was the meek Corporal “Radar” O’Reilly, cross-dressing Corporal Klinger, the easy-going Lieutenant Colonel Henry Blake and pious Father Mulcahy. The antagonists, conniving Major Frank Burns and Major Margaret “Hot Lips” Houlihan, were foils for Hawkeye and Trapper but occasionally were central characters in some episodes too.

Based on the 1970 movie, itself based on a novel, MASH was designed as a “black comedy” set during the Korean War.

It was really a thinly veiled critique of the war in Vietnam raging at the time.

The creators of the show knew they wouldn’t get away with making a Vietnam war comedy. Uncensored news broadcasts showing the viciousness of Vietnam were transmitted straight to the American public who were, by now, growing jaded of the increasingly brutal war.

Setting the series 20 years earlier allowed the creators to mask their criticisms behind a historical perspective – but most viewers realised the true context.

Read more:
Alan Alda on the art of science communication: ‘I want to tell you a story’

An anti-war sitcom

What started as a criticism of the Vietnam war soon evolved into one for all wars.

In many episodes, audiences would be reminded of the horrors of lives lost in the fighting on the line, and the angst and trauma faced by those behind the line.

It didn’t matter which war this was, MASH was saying all wars are the same, full of shattered lives.

Cloaking this message in comedy was the way the creators were able to make it palatable to a wide audience.

The early seasons have a distinctive sitcom feel to them, mostly as a result of the series co-creators, Larry Gelbart and Gene Reynolds, who were from a comedy background.

When both creatives left by the end of season five the show took a more dramatic turn.

In particular, Alda became more involved in the writing and took it into a more dramatic direction, toning down the comedic elements. This was also reflected in the change of many of the secondary characters.

The philandering, practical joker Trapper was replaced by the moral and professional BJ Hunnicutt, the snivelling Frank Burns by the pretentious Charles Winchester, the laconic Henry Blake with the officious Sherman Potter, and the complete absence of Radar after season eight. The voice of the series took on a noticeably Hawkeye focus.

As the Vietnam war ended in 1975, the tone of the show also changed. It became less political and focused more on the dilemmas of the individual characters. The laugh track was toned down. But this did not make the show any less popular.

Audiences responded strongly to the anarchic anti-authoritarianism of Hawkeye and Trapper/BJ.

Almost all the characters are anti-war, reflecting the growing antagonism the American public was feeling towards the Vietnam war and war fatigue in general, post-Vietnam.

Even Frank and Hot Lips, the most patriotic characters, sometimes questioned if the war was worth all the suffering and death. And the series reminded people the humour used was not meant to disrespect those fighting but as a coping mechanism of the trauma by those involved.

Read more:
‘Accidental Napalm’ turns 50: the generation-defining image capturing the futility of the Vietnam war

A timeless classic

That’s not to say there aren’t issues with the show when looked at with modern sensibilities.

Contemporary audiences would find problems with some of the representations of characters and issues addressed in the series. Corporal Klinger would today be seen as contentious. His penchant for dressing in women’s clothes was not because he was trans or interested in drag, but because he was trying to get a “Section 8”, or mental health, discharge.

Many of the female characters were also relegated to little more than two-dimensional romantic interests or background characters.

The only woman who starred with a significant recurring role was “Hot Lips” Houlihan but, as the nickname implies, she was often the butt of sexualised humour.

This has not stopped the show maintaining its popularity in the continual re-runs it gets on cable and streaming services.

MASH was a product of its time, yet its themes on the absurdity of war are universal. It became more than a TV show: a shared cathartic experience for war-weary audiences.

At its heart is the eclectic mix of dysfunctional characters who use humour to laugh in the face of adversity. This is what makes MASH a timeless classic.

Daryl Sparkes 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. M*A*S*H, 50 years on: the anti-war sitcom was a product of its time, yet its themes are timeless – https://theconversation.com/m-a-s-h-50-years-on-the-anti-war-sitcom-was-a-product-of-its-time-yet-its-themes-are-timeless-190422

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

Joseph Ibrahim, Professor and Head, Health Law and Ageing Research Unit, Monash University, specialises in aged care issues. He has been a long-term advocate for improving the quality of life for those in residential care and for reform of the sector.

In this podcast, Ibrahim says currently COVID in aged care facilities is going largely unnoticed in the media. “If you have a look into the media coverage it would seem that it’s not a problem at all. [But] COVID deaths are far greater than at any time in the last two to three years”. While the vaccines have helped get things under control, the absence of restrictions is seeing infection rates at an all-time high. Ibrahim believes there should be a more tailored approach to outbreaks at facilities, depending on the circumstances.

A key election promise from Anthony Albanese was for a nurse on-site 24/7 in aged care facilities. Ibrahim is sceptical about how this will be achieved, given how many would be needed to meet the objective. “We would need 15,000 new nurses just to have one nurse in every facility, 24/7.”

More generally, in relation to the desperate staff shortages in the sector, Ibrahim says there is a “lack of respect” for aged care workers, citing low pay, the treatment they are given compared to healthcare professionals in hospitals, and the lesser opportunities for a career path.

Home care packages are key to the ability of many older people to stay at home. “I don’t think we’re keeping people at home for as long as we could […] Both governments have addressed and increased the amount of support packages available. The issue with that is, the package may be available, but the staff aren’t there to deliver on what’s within that package”. In some cases “I think people want to stay at home because they’re fearful of going into residential care, and so residential care isn’t seen as an option, it’s seen as a last resort”.

More radically, Ibrahim would like to see the end of nursing homes altogether. “We shouldn’t be having nursing homes at all […] do we believe that orphanages are a good way to look after children who have fractured family or who don’t have parents?”

One alternative to nursing homes would be “you might have small communal housing that might have five to ten people in them”.

“Or there are design changes around what you do when you get to 60, 70 or 80 in terms of downsizing and moving into a home that is more likely to meet your needs […] There’s also shared communal housing with people of different ages and different needs.

“I think we’ve been very lazy in just relying on aged care homes as a solution. So we’ve picked a lazy solution and we’re doing it badly.”

Michelle Grattan 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. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Professor Joseph Ibrahim on COVID in aged care – and the end of nursing homes – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-professor-joseph-ibrahim-on-covid-in-aged-care-and-the-end-of-nursing-homes-190753

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria O’Sullivan, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, and Deputy Director, Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, Monash University

During the present period of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, public sensitivities in the United Kingdom and Australia are high. There’s strong sentiment in both countries in favour of showing respect for the queen’s death. Some people may wish to do this privately. Others will want to demonstrate their respect publicly by attending commemorations and processions.

There are also cohorts within both countries that may wish to express discontent and disagreement with the monarchy at this time. For instance, groups such as Indigenous peoples and others who were subject to dispossession and oppression by the British monarchy may wish to express important political views about these significant and continuing injustices.

This has caused tension across the globe. For instance, a professor from the United States who tweeted a critical comment of the queen has been subject to significant public backlash. Also, an Aboriginal rugby league player is facing a ban and a fine by the NRL for similar negative comments she posted online following the queen’s death.

This tension has been particularly so in the UK, where police have questioned protestors expressing anti-monarchy sentiments, and in some cases, arrested them.

But should such concerns about the actions of the queen and monarchy be silenced or limited because a public declaration of mourning has been made by the government?

This raises some difficult questions as to how the freedom of speech of both those who wish to grieve publicly and those who wish to protest should be balanced.

What laws in the UK are being used to do this?

There are various laws that regulate protest in the UK. At a basic level, police can arrest a person for a “breach of the peace”.

Also, two statutes provide specific offences that allow police to arrest protestors.

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 UK provides that a person is guilty of a public order offence if:

• they use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour

• or display any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening or abusive.

The offence provision then provides this must be “within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress” by those acts.

There’s some protection for speech in the legislation because people arrested under this provision can argue a defence of “reasonable excuse”. However, there’s still a great deal of discretion placed in the hands of the police.

The other statute that was recently amended is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act of 2022, which allows police to arrest protestors for “public nuisance”.

In the context of the period of mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, the wide terms used in this legislation (such as “nuisance” and “distress”) gives a lot of discretion to police to arrest protestors who they perceive to be upsetting others. For instance, a protestor who holds a placard saying “Not my king, abolish the monarchy” may be seen as likely to cause distress to others given the high sensitivities in the community during the period of mourning.

Is there a right to protest under UK and Australian law?

Protest rights are recognised in both the UK and in Australia, but in different ways.

In the UK, the right to freedom of expression is recognised in Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.

In Australia, there’s no equivalent of the right to freedom of expression at the federal level as Australia doesn’t have a national human rights charter. Rather, there’s a constitutional principle called the “implied freedom of political communication”. This isn’t a “right” as such but does provide some acknowledgement of the importance of protest.

Also, freedom of expression is recognised in the three jurisdictions in Australia that have human rights instruments (Victoria, Queensland and the ACT).

Can the right to protest be limited in a period of mourning?

In this period of public mourning, people wishing to assemble in a public place to pay respect to the queen are exercising two primary human rights: the right to assembly and the right to freedom of expression. But these aren’t absolute rights. They cannot override the rights of others to also express their own views.

Further, there’s no recognised right to assemble without annoyance or disturbance from others. That is, others in the community are also permitted to gather in a public place during the period of mourning and voice their views (which may be critical of the queen or monarchy).

À lire aussi :
The Queen has left her mark around the world. But not all see it as something to be celebrated

It’s important to also note that neither the UK nor Australia protects the monarchy against criticism. This is significant because in some countries (such as Thailand), it’s a criminal offence to insult the monarch. These are called “lèse-majesté” laws – a French term meaning “to do wrong to majesty”.

The police in the UK and Australia cannot therefore use public order offences (such breach of the peace) to unlawfully limit public criticism of the monarchy.

It may be uncomfortable or even distressing for those wishing to publicly grieve the queen’s passing to see anti-monarchy placards displayed. But that doesn’t make it a criminal offence that allows protestors to be arrested.

The ability to voice dissent is vital for a functioning democracy. It’s therefore arguable that people should be able to voice their concerns with the monarchy even in this period of heightened sensitivity. The only way in which anti-monarchy sentiment can lawfully be suppressed is in a state of emergency. A public period of mourning does not meet that standard.

Maria O’Sullivan received funding from the federal Attorney-General’s Department to write a research report on automated decision-making and serves as a legal advisor (part-time) on the Human Rights Advisory Panel for Queensland Parliament.

– ref. ‘Not my king’: do we have the right to protest the monarchy at a time of mourning? – https://theconversation.com/not-my-king-do-we-have-the-right-to-protest-the-monarchy-at-a-time-of-mourning-190687

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sharon McLennan, Senior Lecturer, Massey University

With Fiji “open for happiness” and a COVID test no longer required on arrival, the temptation to take that long awaited tropical holiday may be stronger than ever.

Fiji is clearly very keen to see tourists, and their money, return, having previously boasted that it provided the world’s friendliest COVID test. COVID restrictions are now minimal.

Despite the optimism, COVID continues to circulate in Fiji, and some requirements remain. Holidaymakers are required to have insurance that covers the costs of testing, treatment, isolation and transport home. Those unlucky enough to get COVID must isolate for five days.

But the current approach by the Fijian government towards COVID-19 highlights the gap between the tourist experience and the lives of ordinary Fijians. Many locals struggle to find and pay for those COVID tests, which cost NZ$8–$20 per kit and are only available from approved pharmacies.

Between ongoing issues in the health sector and the effects of the global cost of living crisis, the reality behind Fiji’s marketing images remains challenging for many.

COVID horror still lingers

Over the past year, 68,000 Fijians contracted COVID-19 and 878 died. Hospitals have been stretched to breaking point amid shortages of equipment, medicine and space.

Heath workers burned out and many left their jobs. Amnesty International has attributed the COVID deaths to an inadequately resourced healthcare system, noting thousands of patients were turned away from hospitals due to bed shortages.

Read more:
How your Spanish holiday could be quite different this year — and why that matters

To be fair, the Fijian health sector was struggling well before the pandemic. The country already faced a worsening noncommunicable disease (NCD) crisis as well as high rates of infectious disease, both of which exacerbated the impacts of COVID.

Outbreaks of typhoid, dengue and leptospirosis have been a particular concern.

Combined with ageing infrastructure and an exhausted workforce, the situation reflects long-term neglect and under-resourcing of Fijian health services. As a consequence, the country has seen an unprecedented exodus of nurses and other health professionals and the closure of operating theatres.

Privatisation of health

The government’s response to these multiple crises has been twofold. Firstly, Fiji’s government promised increased support for health through the budget and a pivot to focus on NCDs.

At least 70% of the Fijian population who had COVID when they died were also suffering from a chronic disease. In response, health authorities are now focusing on wellness and promoting healthier behaviours to build people’s resilience to the virus.

This shift in strategy also means the government has committed to keeping better track of patients with NCDs and to keep the rest of the population healthy.

But the second response, one that began before the crisis and has expanded over the past three years, is a creeping privatisation of the health system. This has included the introduction of public-private partnerships (PPPs) (criticised for lack of adequate consultation), the rise in private laboratory, pharmaceutical and mortuary services and the expansion of a private GP scheme.

The potential impact of this is concerning in a country where the minimum wage is below US$2 a day. Without careful regulation and a well-functioning public health system, privatisation could put Fiji’s commitment to universal health care at risk. It might also lead to rising costs and a reduced focus on public health and health promotion.

Be a good tourist

The rising cost of health care is already a reality for ordinary Fijians. Between 40–50% of the population is estimated to live in poverty; putting food on the table is an everyday struggle.

With a national election anticipated soon, how Fiji responds to these challenges and the global cost of living crisis is very much in the spotlight.

For tourists, these structural issues may not be obvious. But by taking precautions that reduce the strain on Fiji’s health services, tourists can show respect and care for the Fijians providing the human and cultural element of their holiday experience.

Read more:
COVID changed travel writing. Maybe that’s not a bad thing

Behind the famous “bula smile” they or members of their families may be struggling with returning to work in the resorts, or to access the health care and wellbeing support they need.

They may still offer the world’s friendliest COVID protocols, but it comes at a cost that cannot always be measured by money.

Apisalome Movono receives funding from the Royal Society Te Aparangi

Sharon McLennan 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. Behind the ‘world’s friendliest COVID protocols’, Fiji’s health system remains stretched and struggling – https://theconversation.com/behind-the-worlds-friendliest-covid-protocols-fijis-health-system-remains-stretched-and-struggling-190344