Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hayley O’Neill, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University

Globally, one in eight people are living with obesity. This is an issue because excess fat increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and certain cancers.

Modifying your diet is important for managing obesity and preventing weight gain. This might include reducing your calorie intake, changing your eating patterns and prioritising healthy food.

But is one formula for weight loss more likely to result in success than another? Our new research compared three weight-loss methods, to see if one delivered more weight loss than the others:

• altering calorie distribution – eating more calories earlier rather than later in the day
• eating fewer meals
• intermittent fasting.

We analysed data from 29 clinical trials involving almost 2,500 people.

We found that over 12 weeks or more, the three methods resulted in similar weight loss: 1.4–1.8kg.

So if you do want to lose weight, choose a method that works best for you and your lifestyle.

Eating earlier in the day

When our metabolism isn’t functioning properly, our body can’t respond to the hormone insulin properly. This can lead to weight gain, fatigue and can increase the risk of a number of chronic diseases such as diabetes.

Eating later in the day – with a heavy dinner and late-night snacking – seems to lead to worse metabolic function. This means the body becomes less efficient at converting food into energy, managing blood sugar and regulating fat storage.

In contrast, consuming calories earlier in the day appears to improve metabolic function.

However, this might not be the case for everyone. Some people naturally have an evening “chronotype”, meaning they wake up and stay up later.

People with this chronotype appear to have less success losing weight, no matter the method. This is due to a combination of factors including genes, an increased likelihood to have a poorer diet overall and higher levels of hunger hormones.

Eating fewer meals

Skipping breakfast is common, but does it hinder weight loss? Or is a larger breakfast and smaller dinner ideal?

While frequent meals may reduce disease risk, recent studies suggest that compared to eating one to two meals a day, eating six times a day might increase weight loss success.

However, this doesn’t reflect the broader research, which tends to show consuming fewer meals can lead to greater weight loss. Our research suggests three meals a day is better than six. The easiest way to do this is by cutting out snacks and keeping breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Most studies compare three versus six meals, with limited evidence on whether two meals is better than three.

However, front-loading your calories (consuming most of your calories between breakfast and lunch) appears to be better for weight loss and may also help reduce hunger across the day. But more studies with a longer duration are needed.

Fasting, or time-restricted eating

Many of us eat over a period of more than 14 hours a day.

Eating late at night can throw off your body’s natural rhythm and alter how your organs function. Over time, this can increase your risk of type 2 diabetes and other chronic diseases, particularly among shift workers.

Time-restricted eating, a form of intermittent fasting, means eating all your calories within a six- to ten-hour window during the day when you’re most active. It’s not about changing what or how much you eat, but when you eat it.

Animal studies suggest time-restricted eating can lead to weight loss and improved metabolism. But the evidence in humans is still limited, especially about the long-term benefits.

It’s also unclear if the benefits of time-restricted eating are due to the timing itself or because people are eating less overall. When we looked at studies where participants ate freely (with no intentional calorie limits) but followed an eight-hour daily eating window, they naturally consumed about 200 fewer calories per day.

What will work for you?

In the past, clinicians have thought about weight loss and avoiding weight gain as a simile equation of calories in and out. But factors such as how we distribute our calories across the day, how often we eat and whether we eat late at night may also impact our metabolism, weight and health.

There are no easy ways to lose weight. So choose a method, or combination of methods, that suits you best. You might consider

• aiming to eat in an eight-hour window
• consuming your calories earlier, by focusing on breakfast and lunch
• opting for three meals a day, instead of six.

The average adult gains 0.4 to 0.7 kg per year. Improving the quality of your diet is important to prevent this weight gain and the strategies above might also help.

Finally, there’s still a lot we don’t know about these eating patterns. Many existing studies are short-term, with small sample sizes and varied methods, making it hard to make direct comparisons.

More research is underway, including well-controlled trials with larger samples, diverse populations and consistent methods. So hopefully future research will help us better understand how altering our eating patterns can result in better health.

Alongside her academic role, Hayley O’Neill works as a wellness consultant.

Loai Albarqouni receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and Heart Foundation.

– ref. Fasting, eating earlier in the day or eating fewer meals – what works best for weight loss? – https://theconversation.com/fasting-eating-earlier-in-the-day-or-eating-fewer-meals-what-works-best-for-weight-loss-242028

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Newton, Emeritus Professor in Sustainable Urbanism, Centre for Urban Transitions, Swinburne University of Technology

The way we organise our cities and regions creates problems everywhere. We’re facing difficult and polluting drives to work, a lack of affordable housing, and urban designs that lead to car dependency and are bad for our health.

For example, poor levels of walkability are associated with higher rates of obesity, hypertension and cardiovascular disease. Parks and greenery are associated with better mental and cognitive health.

Australian cities sprawl. Many suburbs are hard to get to by public transport or cycling and walking.

Our sprawling cities use a lot of land per person. Their resource use and carbon footprints are massive. They also produce huge amounts of waste.

To resolve such issues, government planners should think beyond our capital cities. Australia needs to develop strategies that connect these capitals with surrounding regional cities to create “megacity regions”.

It’s a settlement model that could work better than our big cities do now, making urban growth more sustainable. The emergence of hybrid work, fast internet and high-speed rail favours this form of settlement.

What are megacity regions?

A megacity region, according to the OECD, is a network of urban areas linked to a capital city by home-to-work commuting. Megacity regions connect these urban centres more efficiently to make them more sustainable and productive.

An early example is the Bos-Wash corridor (including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington DC) in North America that emerged around the mid-20th century. Megacity regions are now common across Europe (for example, Germany’s Rhine-Ruhr region including Dortmund, Essen, Duesseldorf and Cologne, and the Netherlands’ Randstad region including Amsterdam, The Hague, Rotterdam and Utrecht). The Taiheiyō Belt in Japan (including Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka, Hiroshima and Fukuoka) is one of many Asian examples.

How ready is Australia for megacity regions?

The 2019 CSIRO Australian National Outlook explored the question “What will Australia be like economically, socially and environmentally in 2060?” Its modelling showed “stronger regions” created major benefits across transport, health, education, jobs and housing. One scenario involved 16 million people living in regional Australia by 2060, with 10 million in regional cities.

CSIRO concluded that “investing in the growth of regional satellite cities with strong connectivity to those capitals” creates many opportunities. This growth would benefit the regions while easing pressures on the capitals.

In recent years, the New South Wales government has developed ideas for Sydney to grow into a Six Cities Region from Newcastle to Wollongong.

The Committee for Melbourne has called for an Australian East Coast Megaregion to boost economic growth and attract foreign investment.

In 2023, the Victorian government indicated a statewide strategy, Plan Victoria, would replace Plan Melbourne.

However, without robust regionalisation policies, Melbourne and Sydney are likely to become sprawling megacities of ten million people or more this century. This will add to the strain on transport, infrastructure and housing.

What makes change possible?

Cities and their central business districts are important for their agglomeration effects – the accumulated benefits of concentrated social and economic activity. But this also often leads to social, economic and environmental problems.

Integrating regional cities into the economic life of their capital cities can reduce some of these problems. It can also produce many benefits, including new and more efficient industries, enhanced communication networks and stronger labour markets.

Settlement systems have evolved throughout history. Walking cities became rail-oriented cities, which became car-based cities. All these models in their day supported a daily return commute averaging one hour (Marchetti’s constant).

Our research explores how new technologies and work practices can enable a fourth transition to the megacity region. The drivers of this change include ubiquitous fast internet, hybrid work and high-speed rail.

Ubiquitous fast internet

NBN broadband data from 2012 to 2021 showed little difference between Melbourne and Victorian regional cities in the uptake of typical residential internet connections. There was a major difference for higher-speed business connections.

Major capital cities continue to act as engines of bandwidth-hungry, information economy industries in Australia. They have more high-skilled workers and higher uptake of fast internet.

Overall, the data reflected that regional cities in Victoria mostly house “population-serving” rather than “producer-services” industries. Fast internet can open up job opportunities, but is not by itself enough to decentralise knowledge industries.

Hybrid work

Working both from home and in the office has become established since COVID. Hybrid work improves sustainability, mostly by reducing car use and road congestion.

Today, only 18% of Australian knowledge workers work “only in the office”.

Not having to go into work every day means knowledge workers can live further from their workplace. This changes the employment landscape in regional centres. Many information economy jobs can be done in non-metropolitan locations where housing costs less.

High-speed rail

Fast rail systems have long been debated in Australia, with various options proposed.

Victoria introduced “faster” regional rail in 2005-06. The populations of urban centres served by these lines have since grown faster than “off-line” ones.

The gap in job growth rates between on-line and off-line centres was greater for producer services than people-serving jobs. The latter are tied more closely to demand from local residents.

Designated growth areas on the outer fringes of Melbourne had much higher population and employment growth rates, indicating that current transport polices have supported urban sprawl. High-speed rail can help urban growth to “leap over” outer suburbs to the regional cities.

What could high-speed rail lead to? In England, the advent of high-speed rail (speeds of more than 200km/hr) resulted in notably higher population growth in on‑line local area districts compared to off-line. The on-line districts, across the board, experienced a stronger shift towards information and knowledge-based industries than off-line ones. Some even outperformed outer metropolitan London districts.

Why is this important now?

Both federal and Victorian governments are preparing strategic plans to guide long-term urban development. Both have issued discussion documents for public feedback.

These documents are long on planning principles but short on mission-scale programs capable of transformative change. This sort of change is now the focus of long-term planning internationally. Land-use planning of megacity regions needs to feature strongly in Australian urbanisation plans too.

We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to achieve urban development at a scale and in a form that can transform Australia’s settlement system.

Magnus Moglia receives funding from iMOVE Australia Cooperative Research Centre, Transport for New South Wales, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads, Victorian Department of Transport and Planning, Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Sydney Water, Sustainability Victoria, AHURI, Cotton Research and Development Corporation, and ACIAR. He is chair for Regen Melbourne’s Research Council. He was on the steering committee for Committee for Melbourne’s Melbourne 4.0 project. As a CSIRO staff member, he advised the Australian National Outlook 2 project.

James Whitten, Peter Newton, and Stephen Glackin 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. How our regions can help make Australia’s growing cities more sustainable – https://theconversation.com/how-our-regions-can-help-make-australias-growing-cities-more-sustainable-240330

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Ross Smith, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Research on Europe, University of Canterbury

Over the past decade, the idea of an important geopolitical space called the “Indo-Pacific” has become integral to the grand strategising of countries inside and outside this vast geographical area.

The term is not new, however. Australia – one of a few truly Indo-Pacific countries – used it during the 1970s to paint an optimistic vision of a future in which it was interlinked economically and politically with its neighbours in the Indian and Pacific oceans.

However, since Japan (under the leadership of Shinzo Abe) first used the term in 2007 as a way of conceptualising relations with India in the context of “broader Asia”, the Indo-Pacific has evolved significantly.

And with the advent of the AUKUS security pact in 2021, it is now common to refer to the Indo-Pacific as either a region or super-region. But this oversimplifies what is, in fact, a far more complex geopolitical reality.

What is a region?

A region is best thought of as a geographically enclosed complex. According to political scientist David Lake, regions are “so interrelated in terms of their security that actions by any one member, and significant security-related developments inside any member, have a major impact on others”.

The problem with thinking of the Indo-Pacific as a region or super-region is that at its widest definition – stretching from the east coast of Africa to the west coast of South America – it comprises more than half the geographic space of the surface of the Earth.

Simply put, the Indo-Pacific is too large to meaningfully conceive of as a region or even a super-region.

Furthermore, although many states have adopted an Indo-Pacific outlook in their strategising, they typically (save for greater powers) still think of their national security in a strict regional sense.

So, the Indo-Pacific as a geopolitical space looks vastly different in Washington DC than it does in Jakarta, Wellington, Tokyo or Manila (to choose but a few).

This is not to say the Indo-Pacific concept should be ignored. It represents an important development in international security. The fact is it has experienced the greatest geopolitical shift over the past decade or so – and this is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.

The China factor

If not a region or super-region, then, what is the Indo-Pacific?

It is perhaps better thought of in terms of what international relations experts Barry Buzan and Ole Waever call “macrosecuritisation”: the identification of an “existential threat” to something deemed precious and worth protecting which demands an immediate and, if necessary, extraordinary collective response to protect it.

This was given a major boost in 2017 when the United States – still by far the most powerful global actor – formally adopted the Indo-Pacific concept at the centre of its strategic thinking.

In the process, it identified China as a clear strategic competitor. This decision had immediate real-world implications.

Firstly, it helped resuscitate the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) involving the US, Australia, India and Japan after nearly a decade of impasse.

Secondly, after Joe Biden ran for president on an “America must lead again” foreign policy platform, it led to the formation of AUKUS in 2021 and the launch of the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity in 2022.

Geopolitical complexity

Importantly, not only the US is involved in this macrosecuritisation. Australia, India, Japan and, more recently, the United Kingdom and European Union (and particular member states, such as France) are all involved.

Together they are pushing an Indo-Pacific concept that is built on the identification of the rules-based international order as being under existential threat due to China’s rise and perceived assertiveness.

The framing of China as a “threat” rather than an “opportunity” – which dominated the previous “Asia-Pacific” construct – means a radically different perspective in the countries adopting Indo-Pacific outlooks.

This clearly matters greatly to regional geopolitics. But it still does not mean the Indo-Pacific has to be seen as a region or super-region.

Rather, the concept is distorting the geopolitics of different regions – especially East Asia, South-east Asia, South Asia and the South Pacific.

These remain genuine regions with their own unique security dynamics. But the Indo-Pacific idea is enveloping them and shifting the dynamics in a more pessimistic and paranoid direction.

A ‘New Cold War’

There is now a concerning habit of treating the Indo-Pacific as a coherent unitary geopolitical space rather than a constellation of different regions.

This lends credence to the simplistic analogy of the Indo-Pacific becoming the ground zero of a “New Cold War”. And it ignores the perspectives of the smaller countries that find themselves being sucked into this growing contest.

Seeing the Indo-Pacific for what it really is – not a natural geographical phenomenon but a construct – is an important step towards developing more coherent and nuanced policies that adequately capture the geopolitical complexity of the Indo-Pacific constellation.

But this runs contrary to the macrosecuritisation process already in place.

There are many reasons why the current situation in the Indo-Pacific is nothing like the original Cold War. But the securitisation process is simplifying the geopolitics, at least in perception, into something reminiscent of it. The ramifications could be devastating.

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. The Indo-Pacific is an idea more than a region – and it’s pushing politics in a ‘pessimistic and paranoid’ direction – https://theconversation.com/the-indo-pacific-is-an-idea-more-than-a-region-and-its-pushing-politics-in-a-pessimistic-and-paranoid-direction-243130

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

Early Wednesday evening, Queensland Nationals senator Matt Canavan raced down the Parliament House stairs to collect a bag of McDonald’s from an Uber. To celebrate Trump’s victory, he called out as he ran.

If any Labor people were eating McDonald’s, it would have been for comfort food as they contemplated difficult times.

Donald Trump’s triumphant return to the White House is mostly bad news for Anthony Albanese and his government, already facing a challenging 2025 election year.

Let’s be clear: officials are reassuring themselves Trump’s ascendancy won’t shake the fundamentals of the Australian-American alliance. That is driven by long-term mutual interests, which remain through the thick-and-thin of political turbulence in one or other country.

But the Trump administration will be complicated for the prime minister to handle.

Meanwhile, Labor won’t miss a few election messages from the result, despite the big differences between the two countries (especially our compulsory voting system). High cost of living was a political killer, as was people feeling worse off than before. Trump’s much repeated question, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” resonated. Voters were sour and distrustful; alienated men are becoming a hard constituency for a party of the left.

Trump relates to other leaders in a very personal way. US watcher Bruce Wolpe, speaking ahead of the result, warned a Trump-Albanese relationship would be “rocky at the start”. Trump would be briefed on past Albanese comments. (These include Albanese saying, in 2017, Trump “scares the shit out of me”.) Also, “If Trump looks at the agenda of the Albanese government, it is a mirror image of Joe Biden’s domestic policy agenda adjusted for realities in both countries”.

Two former prime ministers, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison, successfully dealt with President Trump Mark 1. Morrison was a natural fit and Trump feted him. Turnbull mixed an appeal to their common transactional business backgrounds, with some straight-out bullying ( the latter to persuade Trump to abide by an existing deal on refugees).

During those years Australia also had the advantage of having as ambassador Joe Hockey, who had a close relationship with the Trump White House.

The path for Albanese to establish a personal relationship with Trump is unclear.

One early test may be the Trump administration’s attitude to current ambassador Kevin Rudd. When, earlier this year, Rudd’s past scathing critique was put to him. Trump said, “if he’s at all hostile, he will not be there long”.

Rudd won’t be “at all hostile”. He’s been working assiduously to foster relations with the Trump camp. The government is determined to keep him in place, hoping the Trump team will let bygones be bygones.

Rudd’s office on Thursday issued this rather extraordinary statement:

“In his previous role as the head of an independent US-based think tank, Mr Rudd was a regular commentator on American politics.

“Out of respect for the office of President of the United States, and following the election of President Trump, Ambassador Rudd has now removed these past commentaries from his personal website and social media channels. This has been done to eliminate the possibility of such comments being misconstrued as reflecting his positions as Ambassador and, by extension, the views of the Australian Government.

“Ambassador Rudd looks forward to working with President Trump and his team to continue strengthening the US-Australia alliance.”

Another, more substantial test of the Trump-Albanese government relationship is likely to be the tariff regime Trump has foreshadowed. Previously under Trump, Australia was able to negotiate exemptions from tariffs for its steel and aluminium. Australia will lobby hard for special consideration again.

When Trump turns his eyes to the United States’ allies, there is a general expectation the AUKUS pact will be safe. It is long term, with support from both sides of Congress; there is no US interest in disturbing it – indeed the US is doing well financially out of it.

Former head of the defence department and one-time ambassador to the US Dennis Richardson, points out the Trump presidency will end several years before the Americans are due to hand over the first of the Virginia Class submarines to Australia.

While there’ll be general pressure on allies to boost their defence budgets, Richardson says Australia is already spending 2% of GDP and is committed to increasing it.

In economic terms, like other countries Australia will be affected by whatever fallout the Trump program brings for the international economy. But predicting exactly what will happen is near impossible, as Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock made clear on Thursday when questioned by a testy Greens senator Nick McKim, who wanted precision.

“Our initial feeling is that if he does some of what he’s said, maybe it doesn’t have a lot of implications. If he’s more extreme, maybe it does,” Bullock told an Senate estimates committee hearing.

Assistant governor Christopher Kent explained further, “One of the big effects [of Trump’s stated tariff policy] is on China. But you can’t imagine the Chinese will do nothing. […] There can be offsetting things and we don’t know.”

Independent economist Chris Richardson sees the “vibe” of uncertainty as a defining feature of the future with Trump. The volatility of his presidency will affect the decisions of nations, business, even families, he says.

At all levels, “there will be good reason to be a bit more careful with your decisions in a Trump world.” As businesses and individuals become more risk averse, ultimately the cost is a loss of returns, Richardson says.

That’s likely to be the case in one major policy area of particular importance to Australia: climate change. Trump’s flagged he would want to take the US out of the Paris agreement once again. His presidency could throw international efforts to contain global warming into disarray. Climate change Minister Chris Bowen has already been coy about whether he will announced Australia’s 2035 emissions reduction target in February, as required. Now the timetable, and the ambition of the target, will come further into question.

Asked on Thursday whether he’d commit to announcing a 2035 target before the election, Albanese said “we’re focused on our 2030 target”.

Albanese had a phone call with the president-elect on Thursday morning. “We talked about the importance of the Alliance, and the strength of the Australia-US relationship in security, AUKUS, trade and investment. I look forward to working together in the interests of both our countries,” the prime minister said later on social media.

Albanese told reporters: “President Trump has run a campaign based on change and he’s made it clear he’s going to do things differently – so we shouldn’t be surprised as things change.” The prime minister is in no position to say so, but probably Trump still “scares the shit” out of him.

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. Grattan on Friday: Donald Trump’s win will make 2025 even more challenging for Anthony Albanese – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-donald-trumps-win-will-make-2025-even-more-challenging-for-anthony-albanese-243141

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

Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus says the government plans to publish the secret section of the Robodebt royal commission report, although it is not clear when it will do so.

Dreyfus said in a Thursday statement this would be done for transparency and accountability “at the first appropriate opportunity”.

The timing will depend on advice from the “eminent person” who is to review the National Anti-Corruption Commission’s decision not to investigate six people referred to it by the royal commission. The six, among others, are named in the secret section.

The royal commission recommended this section not be released with the rest of the report to avoid prejudicing any civil action or criminal prosecution.

“With civil and criminal matters largely complete, the government had planned to table the additional chapter in the House of Representatives in the current sitting week,” Dreyfus said.

But then last week the Inspector of the NACC said the NACC’s decision not to investigate the six should be reopened, after finding Commissioner Paul Brereton, who heads the organisation, had not properly recused himself from the decision-making process. Brereton excused himself because of his acquaintance with one of the six, but was still heavily involved in the process, according to the Inspector.

The Inspector said an eminent person should be appointed by the NACC to look again at whether an investigation should be undertaken.

“The government will now seek advice from the NACC decision maker, once appointed, on whether the tabling of the confidential additional chapter would prejudice any current or future decision of the NACC, ” Dreyfus said.

There has been strong pressure, including from within the government, for the secret section to be put out.

Meanwhile Brereton’s conduct will be examined at a public hearing later this month of the parliament committee with oversight of the NACC.

There have been calls for Brereton’s resignation, with critics saying this is needed to preserve the reputation of the NACC, which has only been in operation a little over a year.

The deputy chair of the parliamentary committee, Independent MP Helen Haines. told The Conversation’s politics podcast that the NACC had had a “disappointing start” with the Robodebt incident and the findings by the Inspector.

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. Government to publish secret section of Robodebt report, but timing is uncertain – https://theconversation.com/government-to-publish-secret-section-of-robodebt-report-but-timing-is-uncertain-240444

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evangeline Mantzioris, Program Director of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Accredited Practising Dietitian, University of South Australia

Matcha has experienced a surge in popularity in recent months, leading to reports of global shortages and price increases.

If you haven’t been caught up in the craze, matcha is a powdered version of green tea. On a cafe menu you might see a hot or iced matcha latte, or even a matcha-flavoured cake or pastry. A quick google brings up countless recipes incorporating matcha, both sweet and savoury.

Retailers and cafe owners have suggested the main reasons for matcha’s popularity include its “instagrammable” looks and its purported health benefits.

But what are the health benefits of matcha? Here’s what the evidence says.

First, what is matcha?

Matcha is a finely ground powder of green tea leaves, which come from the plant Camellia sinensis. This is the same plant used to make green and black tea. However, the production process differentiates matcha from green and black tea.

For matcha, the tea plant is grown in shade. Once the leaves are harvested, they’re steamed and dried and the stems are removed. Then the leaves are carefully ground at controlled temperatures to form the powder.

The production process for green tea is simpler. The leaves are picked from the unshaded plants, heated and then dried. We then steep the dried leaves in hot water to get tea (whereas with matcha the whole leaf is consumed).

With black tea, after the leaves are picked they’re exposed to air, which leads to oxidation. This makes the leaves black and gives the tea a different flavour.

A source of phytonutrients

Phytonutrients are chemical compounds found in plants which have a range of benefits for human health. Matcha contains several.

Chlorophyll gives plants such as Camellia sinensis their green colour. There’s some evidence chlorophyll may have health benefits – including anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer and anti-obesity effects – due to its antioxidant properties. Antioxidants neutralise free radicals, which are unstable molecules that harm our cells.

Theanine has been shown to improve sleep and reduce stress and anxiety. The only other known dietary source of theanine is mushrooms.

Caffeine is a phytonutrient we know well. Aside from increasing alertness, caffeine has also demonstrated antioxidant effects and some protection against a range of chronic and neurodegenerative diseases. However, too much caffeine can have negative side effects.

Interestingly, shading the plants while growing appears to change the nutritional composition of the leaf and may lead to higher levels of these phytonutrients in matcha compared to green tea.

Another compound worth mentioning is called catechins, of which there are several different types. Matcha powder similarly has more catechins than green tea. They are strong antioxidants, which have been shown to have protective effects against bacteria, viruses, allergies, inflammation and cancer. Catechins are also found in apples, blueberries and strawberries.

What are the actual health benefits?

So we know matcha contains a variety of phytonutrients, but does this translate to noticeable health benefits?

A review published in 2023 identified only five experimental studies that have given matcha to people. These studies gave participants about 2–4g of matcha per day (equivalent to 1–2 teaspoons of matcha powder), compared to a placebo, as either a capsule, in tea or in foods. Matcha decreased stress and anxiety, and improved memory and cognitive function. There was no effect on mood.

A more recent study showed 2g of matcha in older people aged 60 to 85 improved sleep quality. However, in younger people aged 27 to 64 in another study, matcha had little effect on sleep.

A study in people with obesity found no difference in the weight loss observed between the matcha group and the control group. This study did not randomise participants, and people knew which group they had been placed in.

It could be hypothesised that given you consume all of the leaf, and given levels of some phytonutrients may be higher due to the growing conditions, matcha may have more nutritional benefits than green tea. But to my knowledge there has been no direct comparison of health outcomes from green tea compared to matcha.

There’s lots of evidence for green tea

While to date a limited number of studies have looked at matcha, and none compared matcha and green tea, there’s quite a bit of research on the health benefits of drinking green tea.

A systematic review of 21 studies on green tea has shown similar benefits to matcha for improvements in memory, plus evidence for mood improvement.

There’s also evidence green tea provides other health benefits. Systematic reviews have shown green tea leads to weight loss in people with obesity, lower levels of certain types of cholesterol, and reduced blood pressure. Green tea may also lower the risk of certain types of cancer.

So, if you can’t get your hands on matcha at the moment, drinking green tea may be a good way to get your caffeine hit.

Although the evidence on green tea provides us with some hints about the health benefits of matcha, we can’t be certain they would be the same. Nonetheless, if your local coffee shop has a good supply of matcha, there’s nothing to suggest you shouldn’t keep enjoying matcha drinks.

However, it may be best to leave the matcha croissant or cronut for special occasions. When matcha is added to foods with high levels of added sugar, salt and saturated fat, any health benefits that could be attributed to the matcha may be negated.

Evangeline Mantzioris is affiliated with Alliance for Research in Nutrition, Exercise and Activity (ARENA) at the University of South Australia. Evangeline Mantzioris has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and has been appointed to the National Health and Medical Research Council Dietary Guideline Expert Committee.

– ref. Matcha is having a moment. What are the health benefits of this green tea drink? – https://theconversation.com/matcha-is-having-a-moment-what-are-the-health-benefits-of-this-green-tea-drink-242775

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Stone, Credit Union SA Chair of Economics, University of South Australia

For months, experts and commentators have been weighing up what the possible return of Donald Trump might mean for financial markets and the global economy.

Now, at least, they have a bit more certainty. Trump has decisively won the 2024 US presidential election. He’ll be officially inaugurated as the country’s 47th president in January.

The incoming administration has already flagged its economic agenda: lowering taxes, raising tariffs, withdrawing from key agreements and moving away from the rules-based global trade order. These measures could have profound impacts.

A large increase in US public debt and investment could keep global interest rates stuck higher for longer. Steep tariffs could disrupt global value chains and hamper China’s economic growth.

A further withdrawal of US leadership from global matters could lead to a decline in international trade and a significant weakening of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Other countries – including Australia – won’t be able to look away and simply hope for the best. For better or worse, the world must now adapt to the return of Trump.

Read more:
Trump has vowed to be a ‘dictator’ on day one. With this day now coming, what exactly will he do?

Hey, big spender

The Trump campaign has promised to cut US taxes across the board, including by lowering the federal corporate tax rate to just 15% (currently, it’s 21%).

Such tax cuts – alongside a range of new spending proposals – don’t come cheap. It has recently been estimated that Trump’s tax and spending plan could increase total US debt by US$7.75 trillion (A$11.8 trillion).

While that number might be hard to wrap your head around, it basically means the US government will be borrowing a lot more money in the future. That will drive up borrowing costs for other borrowers, such as the Australian government.

While Australia has recently enjoyed budget surpluses, this is unlikely to continue. This means the government will need to start borrowing around the time Trump’s policies start to put upward pressure on interest rates, likely later in 2025, making it more expensive for Australia to borrow and raising the cost of repayments.

An important customer

A bigger concern for Australia, though, is Trump’s pledge to impose tariffs of 10–20% on all imports to the US. Imports from China have been singled out for much more severe treatment, set to face tariffs of 60% or more.

While the US accounts for only 5% of Australian exports, it still ranks as Australia’s fifth-largest export market.

Breaking it down by what we export to the US paints a more alarming picture. The Australian government has long sought to diversify its economy and exports, moving away from relying heavily on commodities such as iron ore and wheat.

The US imports relatively small amounts of our commodities, but it’s a different story for much of our advanced manufacturing sector. If we look specifically at many high technology products, the US is a major customer.

Within Australia’s exports, more than 40% of high-tech engines, 50% of aircraft and space parts and almost 60% of machine tools are sent to the US.

On top of this, the US is Australia’s second-largest services export market, accounting for more than 10% of the total services trade. And it is not just outright services exports that matter.

Goods that are traded internationally (toys, laptops, refrigerators, and so on) are produced with services inputs, such as software, engineering or transport services.

If Australia wants to become a bigger player in the advanced goods and services market, it needs to be an effective global competitor. Any increase in barriers to the US market will hamper this goal.

Making the world protectionist again

If Trump raises tariffs on all imports to the US, other countries will almost certainly follow suit. They may also impose new tariffs on trade with countries other than the US.

The global impacts of the tariffs, such as rising shipping costs, increased volatility in the US dollar, and a general increase in uncertainty and risk, will almost certainly flow on to Australia.

Trade is a major part of the Australian economy, accounting for as much as 45% of GDP. That means when the costs of doing business internationally grow, it can seriously impact Australian businesses and consumers.

When Trump raised tariffs on China in 2018, ocean container shipping market rates spiked by more than 70%.

Global shipping is already under pressure due to ongoing conflicts in Europe and the Middle East. For a country as far away from major markets as Australia, higher shipping costs put our goods at a significant price disadvantage.

Australia will also need to watch the impact of Trump’s policies on China, still our largest two-way trading partner.

Large tariffs on China could slow its growth, in turn slowing its imports of Australian exports such as iron ore.

Less trade leadership from the US

A Republican majority in Congress could also raise the spectre of a US withdrawal from the WTO, which oversees the rules-based global trading system.

Coupled with the impacts we’ve already discussed, that could create deep divides in the global trading system, undoing years of hard-earned global agreements for freer trade.

For a small, open economy like Australia, this could mean an increase in prices of everything – from cars through to business services.

It could also make it harder for countries to settle their differences if the US continues to block new appointments to the WTO’s Appellate Body – the body that hears appeals in disputes brought by WTO Members.

On the positive side, retaliatory tariffs on US products may mean market opportunities for Australian goods that compete directly with US goods, such as wheat and education services. Whether this would be enough to offset the potential disorder of a Trump trade agenda remains to be seen.

Read more:
A Donald Trump presidency is bad for climate action, but Australia should get on with the job

Susan Stone 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. Trump’s economic vision is no longer a ‘maybe’. Here’s what it might mean for Australia and the world – https://theconversation.com/trumps-economic-vision-is-no-longer-a-maybe-heres-what-it-might-mean-for-australia-and-the-world-243024

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Clifford, Senior Research Fellow, National Centre for Clinical Research on Emerging Drugs, UNSW Sydney

You’re gearing up for the music festival season and considering your options – which artists you’re keen to see, who’s going, what outfits you need, how you’ll get there and perhaps what substances you’re planning to take.

You’ve heard about ketamine, have thought about trying it, or maybe have dabbled with it a few times. You might have mates who’ve tried it or use it regularly.

In fact, data released today suggests use of ketamine in Australia is at an all-time high.

Here are five things you need to know about ketamine (and other substances) to help keep you and your mates safe this party season.

What is ketamine?

Ketamine was developed in the 1960s and is widely used as an anaesthetic for humans and in veterinary medicine. More recently, low-dose ketamine has been used medically to manage pain and as an antidepressant. A growing number of clinical trials are examining whether it may be a useful addition to psychotherapy for substance use disorders and mental health conditions.

Ketamine is used recreationally, known as K, special K, vitamin K, kit kat or ket. It’s commonly sold as a white powder that is snorted, producing stimulant and hallucinogenic effects.

Taking too high a dose can produce uncomfortable and distressing effects known as a “K-hole”. This is when people feel disconnected from their body and environment, experiencing a dream-like state (known as dissociation).

Other effects include nausea, vomiting and in some cases, seizures. Ketamine can irritate the lining of the bladder, with one study showing about one in four people who had used ketamine recreationally had experienced urinary symptoms, such as burning or stinging.

Why is ketamine use so high?

Ketamine is steadily becoming the drug of choice for many people in the party scene.

Australia’s 2022-23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey estimated 300,000 people in the general community had used ketamine in the previous 12 months. This is roughly three times seen in 2016, and coming close to the estimated 400,000 people using MDMA.

Results from around Australia released today show rates of ketamine excreted into wastewater were at an all-time high, in both capital cities and regional areas.

It’s unclear why ketamine use is rising. Perhaps it’s because it’s slightly cheaper than other drugs, such as cocaine. Perhaps ketamine’s dissociative effects have “party drug” appeal to those interested in altered states of consciousness. It may also be perceived as safer and more acceptable because of growing medical use.

Is it ketamine or something else?

In Australia, the purity of ketamine is highly variable. What you buy is likely to be cut with other substances, so it’s difficult to know what you’re getting and how it’s going to affect you.

Ketamine analogues are substances that have similar chemical structures to ketamine but produce different effects. A number of these analogues have been found during drug checking (also known as pill testing). These include CanKet and tiletamine (a veterinary tranquiliser).

These analogues may come on slower (so people may be tempted to take more). Their effects can also last longer than regular ketamine.

You may also have heard about “pink cocaine”, one of several drugs said to be linked to the recent death of former One Direction singer Liam Payne. Pink cocaine is generally a mix of ketamine and MDMA rather than cocaine. It’s also known as tusi.

Worryingly, strong opioid drugs called nitazines have also been detected in ketamine in Australia. They’ve also been detected in cocaine and MDMA.

Can ketamine lead to dependence?

Regular use of ketamine can lead to psychological dependence, where people feel a strong urge to use even though they may have begun to experience harmful effects.

Though numbers are relatively low, an increasing number of young people in the United Kingdom are seeking treatment for their ketamine use. In addition to damage to the liver and brain, chronic (long-term) use of ketamine can result in damage to the bladder, which can require surgery.

Avoid using ketamine regularly, and seek professional help early if you think you need help with your use.

How to stay safe

1. Get your drugs checked

In Australia, drug-checking services are available in some areas. These non-judgemental, friendly services can test your drug while you wait, giving you important information on what’s in it (or not in it). You can then decide what you want to do with it.

You can either go to a fixed site such as CanTest in the Australian Capital Territory or CheQpoint in Queensland before the festival to test your drugs. Some festivals or events have these services on site, including this year’s schoolies on Queensland’s Gold Coast.

You can also look out for local drug alerts (for ketamine and other drugs on the market) issued by websites such as our own – TheKnow.org.au.

2. Start low, go slow

If you’re planning to take ketamine (or any other drug), start with a small amount to begin with to allow yourself to feel the effects before taking any more. Wait a few hours before re-dosing.

3. Avoid mixing your drugs

Avoid using ketamine with other substances as they can interact and increase your risk of harm. Alcohol and ketamine can cause nausea and vomiting at low doses, and more serious effects such as stroke and cardiac arrest at higher doses.

If mixed with ketamine, depressants such as GHB, opioids and benzodiazepines (for example Valium) can cause loss of consciousness, difficulty breathing and in some cases, death.

4. Let your mates know

If you’re planning to take ketamine, use it around people you feel safe with. Let others know what you have taken, and if possible, have a friend with you who is not using. Seek help if you are concerned about the effects of the drug.

Music festivals often have supportive teams of people with experience taking drugs (such as DanceWize). These peers can give you advice about safer partying and drug use.

5. Be prepared

As ketamine may contain opioids, everyone should be prepared to recognise the signs of an opioid overdose – altered or lack of consciousness, slow or laboured breathing.

Naloxone can reverse an opioid overdose, and is provided free and without a prescription through certain pharmacies in Australia.

If this article raises issues for you or someone you know, call the Alcohol and Other Drugs Information Service 24 hours a day, seven days a week on 1800 250 015. In an emergency in Australia, call 000.

Brendan Clifford has received research funding from the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care, the National Health and Medical Research Council, New South Wales Health and St Vincent’s Health Australia.

Kathryn Fletcher 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. Ketamine use is at an all-time high. 5 things to know ahead of festival season – https://theconversation.com/ketamine-use-is-at-an-all-time-high-5-things-to-know-ahead-of-festival-season-241667

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Downie, Associate Professor, Australian National University

Donald Trump’s triumph over Kamala Harris in the US presidential election matters for many reasons, but especially climate change.

No presidential candidate in US history has presented such a threat to global efforts to cut carbon pollution as Trump does.

After all, Trump regularly refers to climate change as a “hoax” and a “scam”, even as his home state of Florida is battered by more frequent and severe hurricanes.

So what will a Trump presidency mean for climate policy, including in Australia? Buckle up, it’s not pretty.

Pulling out of Paris and the UN climate treaty

Let’s start with international relations.

Trump is likely to pull the United States out of the Paris Agreement, the landmark international climate pact negotiated in 2015 during the Obama administration. Trump withdrew the US from the deal when he was last in the White House.

More concerningly, Trump may go further this time and attempt to withdraw the US from the international treaty that underpins the deal – the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This would cast the US further outside the global push to reduce dangerous greenhouse gas emissions, and make it harder for a subsequent president to rejoin the effort. Joining a treaty requires a two-thirds Senate majority, and legal experts are divided on whether Trump could exit a treaty without the same mandate.

Australia is bidding to host the UN climate negotiations in 2026, the so-called COP31. If it succeeds, it will have to steer the challenging negotiations without the diplomatic heft of our closest ally.

And with the US no longer working towards climate action, Australia will need to establish new alliances with governments in Europe and Asia and strengthen existing ones. For example, the new Labour government in the United Kingdom has already proposed a Global Clean Power Alliance, which Australia is no doubt considering.

Bumping up greenhouse gas emissions

The US is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, after China. If it doesn’t cut pollution, humanity’s climate goals will be further out of reach – and with it the chances of preserving a habitable planet this century and beyond.

In 2100, when children alive today are the same age as Trump is now, the loss of the Great Barrier Reef will be the least of their worries. They will be contending with more frequent and intense heatwaves, longer bushfire seasons, flooding and sea-level rise.

Trump has promised a complete repeal of President Joe Biden’s flagship climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act. That law passed in 2022 and has been a boon for clean energy. It has already provided billions of dollars in tax credits for solar panels, wind turbines and batteries, among other technologies.

But it remains to be seen whether Trump will follow through on the threat. Some Republicans support the Inflation Reduction Act, especially those whose states have benefited from the jobs and investment. In fact, more than three-quarters of clean energy investments announced by the Biden administration are in Republican districts, such new solar manufacturing in South Carolina.

It is no surprise, then, that Republican lawmakers have already written to the leadership opposing the repeal of the climate bill. But given that Republicans have just flipped the Senate, and at the time of writing the House remains up for grabs, the repeal remains a live possibility.

Winding back environmental protection

Under Trump, the US Environmental Protection Agency will be gutted, along with many other government agencies.

Trump has committed to removing all manner of environmental regulations in his first days in office. This includes reopening oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

That could be just the beginning. During the campaign he reportedly offered oil and gas executives the chance to rewrite climate and energy policy in return for US$1 billion (A$1.5 billion) in political donations – in one of the most brazen attempts to sell policy to the highest bidder.

Australia must remain on track

There will be a temptation for some political leaders here to advocate that Australia walk away from action on climate change, by pointing to Trump’s policies and claiming Australia should follow suit.

That would be a mistake. Not just because it will make another horror bushfire season more likely, or commit towns such as Lismore in New South Wales to further floods. But because it would forego the significant economic opportunities Australia can capture from a clean energy future.

The Australian government should double down on the Future Made in Australia agenda, which seeks to do just that, for example by extending production tax credits to additional clean energy industries, and boosting public finance for new renewable projects, much as the Inflation Reduction Act in the US does.

Of course, Australia should also tackle the billions doled out in subsidies to coal and gas each year, which the US failed to do under both the Biden and Trump presidencies.

Australian government officials should also work to strengthen relationships with US states working towards climate action – both with progressive states such as California, but also with Republican states that benefit from clean energy investments.

The US election result does not change the basic facts: Australia remains a lucky country when it comes to clean energy. We have abundant solar, wind and hydro power, not to mention a skilled workforce and deep expertise in large energy projects.

What’s needed now are durable climate policies that support long-term investment and build the industries of the future, such as green iron for steel production.

Australia may have lost a major ally in the climate fight. But that should only make us more determined to work with others around the world. Our largest trading partners are in Asia, and future demand for our clean energy exports will come from our region as well.

With smart policies at home and strategic engagement abroad, Australia will remain well placed to advance a clean energy transition.

Christian Downie receives funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. A Donald Trump presidency is bad for climate action, but Australia should get on with the job – https://theconversation.com/a-donald-trump-presidency-is-bad-for-climate-action-but-australia-should-get-on-with-the-job-242779

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Williamson, Senior Tutor in English, University of Canterbury

Following the global success of down-under comedies What We Do in the Shadows and Flight of the Conchords, Antipodean humour has quickly become associated with the deadpan and self-deprecating. Natalie Bailey’s 2024 directorial debut Audrey is a welcome – albeit more barbed and prickly – addition to the genre.

Tightly paced, with an excellent script by Lou Sanz, Audrey is clearly influenced by PJ Hogan’s 1994 hit Muriel’s Wedding. Like that Australian classic, Audrey revels in the absurd. It pokes fun at domesticity and family life, while simultaneously acknowledging them as a source of profound disappointment for many women.

The film stars marvellous Kiwi actor/writer/director/producer Jackie van Beek as Ronnie Lipsick, a washed-up TV actress and self-proclaimed mother of the year. Once mildly famous herself (“I had a two-episode arc on Neighbours”), Ronnie’s life now revolves around cultivating the acting career of her “very, very special” eldest daughter Audrey (Josephine Blazier).

This comes at the detriment of her mopey handyman husband Cormack (Jeremy Lindsay Taylor) and sharp, sarcastic younger daughter Norah (Hannah Diviney). Norah, who has cerebral palsy and uses a wheelchair, is reliant on a largely unreliable family.

The first 20 minutes establish the titular Audrey as bratty, spiteful and selfish. She blackmails her father after catching him in flagrante with a sex toy, capitalises on her sister’s disability, and self-righteously proclaims she’s going to Nepal with her equally awful musician boyfriend “to do something amazing with our white privilege”.

So perhaps it’s unsurprising that when Audrey faceplants off the roof of the family home during a teenage sulk, and falls into a coma, the Lipsicks find their lives taking a turn for the better.

With Audrey out of the picture, Ronnie assumes her daughter’s place in a teenage acting masterclass. Cormack gets his mojo back while working for a boutique film studio specialising in “niche marital aids for Christian couples”. Even Norah benefits, as her parents now have more time for her and more money for her to pursue wheelchair fencing.

Although played for laughs, like all good black comedies, the unexpected plot point raises morally ambiguous questions. In this instance, the questions are about modern motherhood, family life and regret.

The high expectations of motherhood

Sociologist Sharon Hays famously said contemporary motherhood is governed by an “ideology of intensive mothering” that requires women to be self-sacrificing and all-in. Intensive mothering is expensive, time-consuming and usually framed as straight, white and middle-class.

The film parodically displays many of the familiar hallmarks of modern motherhood. It opens with Ronnie kitted out in high-end active wear, juggling housework with her home acting coach business, which she began after giving up her career to prioritise Audrey’s.

At first glance, Ronnie might be mistaken for the fetishised “yummy mummy” or the neoliberal “mumtrepreneur”. But van Beek’s slightly desperate and manic performance quickly subverts these expectations.

Rather than propping up an idealised version of motherhood, the film joins the ranks of other “mom-com” shows that mine maternal failure for comic relief. This is becoming an increasingly common trope in popular culture, wherein mothers’ dissatisfaction, disappointments and failings are often reduced to laughs.

Audrey, however, resists this via its use of a much darker comedic tone that encourages us to linger on these taboo topics.

Maternal regret

The removal of the spoiled daughter throws the parents’ pressures into sharp relief. This is underscored by an exuberant montage cutting between a comatose Audrey and her surviving family members joyously living their best lives. A guilty Ronnie asks Cormack: “Isn’t it nice, just you, me and Norah? Isn’t that bad?”

While maternal regret is a taboo topic, popular productions such as HBO’s series Big Little Lies and Netflix’s film The Lost Daughter have helped normalise this previously unspoken phenomenon. Despite obvious differences in tone and form, Audrey also provocatively asks whether life might be better without one’s children around.

It’s no spoiler to reveal Audrey eventually wakes. From here, the film leans into familiar horror tropes, pitting the monstrous mother head-to-head with her sadistic, evil child. There’s a poisoned lemon tree, dead birds and psychedelic intercuts of stage actors wearing animal heads.

The increasingly surreal ending refuses a moral resolution. This suits the film perfectly. The alternative would compromise the film’s deliciously dark humour and risk silencing the shocking possibility that a mother might not just regret having children, but might actually be worse off as a result.

While Audrey may be too much for some viewers, others will no doubt welcome it as an important addition to the spate of texts featuring regretful mothers – served up with a distinctly Antipodean flavour.

Audrey is in cinemas from November 7.

Rachel Williamson 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. Would you be better off without your kids? Audrey is a cheeky, darkly humorous film that explores maternal regret – https://theconversation.com/would-you-be-better-off-without-your-kids-audrey-is-a-cheeky-darkly-humorous-film-that-explores-maternal-regret-242780

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Shortis, Adjunct Senior Fellow, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University

On the Saturday before Election Day, I travelled from Washington DC to Charlotte, North Carolina, to attend one of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ last campaign rallies.

It was extraordinary how many women were in the crowd – young Black women in particular. There were also older, suburban, white women who looked like they could have been Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren’s sister or cousin.

There were many men, who were just as enthusiastic. But they were far outnumbered by the women.

Harris was warm and charismatic, and the women in the crowd had such a huge reaction to her. They saved their biggest cheers for her lines about reproductive rights – North Carolina has very strict abortion restrictions, which are affecting women across the state.

Overall, though, I got a sense of cautious optimism from the crowd. There was absolutely no complacency. People were very nervous and anxious about the impending election against Donald Trump, especially since North Carolina was one of the seven key battleground states. You could sense a kind of distrust in the broader American electorate.

Cynical decision-making and misogyny

One of the focal points of Harris’ campaign was her outreach to women voters. She made this election about freedom for women to make decisions about their own bodies and reproductive health.

And while this message did resonate with many women – in particular younger women – it didn’t with others. According to exit polls by the Associated Press, 47% of women over the age of 45 voted for Trump, as well as 43% of women aged 18-44. More than half of white women overall also voted for Trump (53%).

Exit polls by CNN also found that while Harris did better than Hillary Clinton in 2016 with white women with college degrees, white women without degrees overwhelmingly supported Trump.

This says a lot about the decisions that some women made in the election. It seems possible that what Trump was able to do was give these women enough wiggle room to reconcile what might seem to be otherwise irreconcilable. For instance, they could perhaps believe that Trump wouldn’t actually implement a national abortion ban, simply because he has said he would not. Or they may simply believe that Trump’s policies wouldn’t necessarily apply to them.

I think this led to some potentially cynical decision-making among voters, much as there was in 2016.

And as expected, Harris also did worse than Trump among men. At least some of this – alongside the voting patterns of white women – comes down to structural racism and misogyny and the toxic mix of the two. Trump’s entire campaign was structured around appealing to men and mobilising them to vote, in particular younger men.

There was clearly a level of discomfort among men with the idea of a woman president. And there’ll be a lot of recriminations about Harris’ inability to appeal to those men, even though she had an entire event devoted to “white dudes” and put forth an economic plan specifically for Black men.

I think she did run an effective campaign overall, judging it on the basis of campaign tactics, but the underlying structures and divisions of American politics were hard to overcome. Trump didn’t create these divisions, but he exploits them like no one else can.

This is also partly because the Democrats – even Harris’ campaign – seemed either unwilling or unable to really address these structural divisions, economic inequality and their own role in the greatly changed economy in the US, dating back to the decisions of the Clinton administration in the 1990s.

Where to now for the Democrats?

Harris also had to walk this impossible line in attempting to be the “change candidate” while not disavowing the Biden administration.

There’s been a lot of attention in the US media today about a moment in early October on The View, a popular talk show, in which Harris was asked what she would have done differently than Biden over the last four years, if given the chance. And she said nothing came to mind.

It’s entirely possible the Democrats will take the wrong lesson out of this campaign. There are recriminations already coming from the right of the party that Harris had moved too far to the left and should have spent more time trying to appeal to Republican voters in states like Pennsylvania.

But I think you could make the opposite argument – that the Democrats failed to listen to their base in places like Michigan, where there was so much anger for the Biden administration’s support for Israel in its war on Gaza. In the Democratic primaries earlier this year, for instance, some 100,000 people in Michigan voted “uncommitted” instead of for Biden.

And when you consider the fact that Rashida Tlaib, the only Palestinian representative in Congress, was re-elected with a huge majority in Michigan, as was Representative Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, this suggests Harris’ campaign did not mobilise the base in the way that it needed to. They didn’t listen to what the base was telling them.

The Democrats need to look now at offering real structural economic change that addresses inequality and a reassessment of the US role in the world.

They can’t underestimate the appeal of Trump’s line about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, for instance – that this wouldn’t have happened under a Trump presidency. Many Americans are exhausted with American-led wars or American involvement in wars overseas – and I think that’s another thing the Harris campaign and Biden administration were either unable or unwilling to hear that.

Emma Shortis is Director of the International and Security Affairs program at The Australia Institute, an independent think tank.

– ref. Why did white women and the Democratic base abandon Kamala Harris? My view from the campaign trail – https://theconversation.com/why-did-white-women-and-the-democratic-base-abandon-kamala-harris-my-view-from-the-campaign-trail-243136

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luis Gómez Romero, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Constitutional Law and Legal Theory, University of Wollongong

Voters from Latino (immigrants from Latin America and their descendants) and Hispanic (people whose heritage is from Spanish-speaking countries) backgrounds contributed significantly to Donald Trump’s resounding victory over Kamala Harris in the US presidential election.

Overall, Trump increased his share of the Latino vote to 45% nationwide, up substantially from 32% in his 2020 loss to Joe Biden.

About 53% of the voters in this group supported Harris, down from the estimated 60% who voted for Biden in 2020. The shift is an outstanding political feat for the Republican candidate, especially considering Trump’s uneasy and frequently antagonistic relationship with Latino and Hispanic communities.

So why did so many Latino and Hispanic voters back Trump?

Nightmares and dreams

It might seem illogical that Trump strengthened his backing among Latino and Hispanic voters, given his anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies, his threat to enact mass deportations of illegal immigrants, and his frequently blatant racist remarks.

Politics, however, is not a realm of pure reason. Emotion and narrative play a role, too.

Trump’s surge among Latino and Hispanic voters can be traced back to nightmares and dreams never far from voters’ minds.

Many of these voters left the nightmare of poverty behind in their countries of origin. Their dreams are rooted in traditional (mainly masculine) stories about prosperity in the “land of the free”.

‘Love’, insults and slander

Trump has boasted about how much he “loves” Latinos and Hispanics. His actions, however, mostly disprove his words.

When Trump launched his first presidential campaign in 2015, he called Mexicans “rapists” who were “bringing drugs” and “crime” into the US.

He claimed this problem was “coming from all over South and Latin America”.

He also promised to build “a great, great wall” on the US southern border, for which Mexico was meant to pay, to stop undocumented immigrants.

In the third and last 2016 presidential debate, he labelled Latino and Hispanic men, without any nuance or evidence, as “bad hombres” who constantly smuggle drugs into the US.

During his first term in office, the Trump administration then implemented policies that specifically hurt Latino and Hispanic communities.

These included a “zero tolerance” illegal immigration approach, which separated parents from their children.

In November 2023, he argued this served as an effective deterrent, foreshadowing that this policy may return if he was re-elected.

In his 2024 campaign, Trump claimed immigrants were “poisoning the blood” of the US.

He again vowed to crack down on immigration, promising mass deportations of some 11 million undocumented people.

At a Trump rally a week ago, comedian Tony Hinchcliffe then likened Puerto Rico to a “floating island of garbage.” Trump told ABC News he had not heard the remark and stopped short of denouncing it.

The rainbow of Latino and Hispanic pluralism

Why would Latino and Hispanic voters support a candidate who so candidly has shown his contempt for them?

A recent Siena poll for the New York Times provides some clues.

Over 40% among these Latino and Hispanic voters supported both Trump’s pledge to continue building a wall along the Mexico border and his deportation plans.

About 63% said they do not “feel like he is talking about me” when Trump discusses immigration.

Latino and Hispanic voters are frequently clustered as a distinct ethnic and cultural group in US political surveys.

They are contrasted, for example, against “white”, “Black” or “Asian” voters.

Latinos and Hispanics, however, are diverse in national origin, class, ethnic and gender characteristics. They are not a monolith, but rather a rainbow.

There were 62.5 million Latinos and Hispanics living in the US in 2021, about 19% of the total population.

An estimated 36.2 million were eligible to vote this year, representing 15% of potential voters.

Latinos and Hispanics also make up a large share of voters in swing states such as Nevada, Arizona and Pennsylvania.

Their wide variety of backgrounds, however, underscores why grouping them as a uniform bloc is flawed.

In 2021, the five largest populations in the US by national origin were:

• Mexicans (37.2 million)
• Puerto Ricans (5.8 million)
• Salvadorans (2.5 million)
• Dominicans (2.4 million)
• Cubans (2.4 million).

The experience of immigration and life in the US is different for each of these groups. Their response to the political campaigns would also be different.

The myth of ‘Comrade Kamala’

It’s too early to say for sure what drove voter patterns in each community. But we can venture a few hypotheses.

Trump, for example, falsely portrayed Harris as a committed communist, such as in this post on X (which garnered over 81 million views):

For Latino immigrants coming from countries under authoritarian regimes, such as Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, this messaging recalls memories of the situation they fled.

“I will deliver the best future for Puerto Ricans and Hispanic Americans. Kamala will deliver you poverty and crime,” Trump told his supporters at a recent rally.

Playing on the fears of a “communist” system under Harris was likely a successful strategy. The leftist regimes in many Latinos’ countries of origin are seen as a threat to their economic security.

Kamala, ‘evil woman’

Gender also played a major role in Trump’s victory. Trump appealed to young men, who fear women’s gains in equality. Latino and Hispanic men were no exception.

A viral campaign video showed Trump dancing to the famous salsa theme “Juliana”. The lyrics were modified though, simply describing Harris as “mala” (evil).

A September NBC poll showed a vast gender gap between Trump and Harris voters. While women backed the Democrats 58% to 37%, men supported Republicans 52% to 40%.

This played out specifically among Latinos in the election, too. According to exit polls by the Associated Press, 47% of Latino men supported Trump in the election, compared to 38% of Latino women.

Trump tapped into ideals of masculinity and hierarchy that, while not exclusive to Latino and Hispanic men, uphold the promise of a return to traditional gender models.

Many men are angry about losing their former privileges. They expressed their nostalgia for stereotypical male traits (and corresponding female submission) in the polls.

Luis Gómez Romero 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 did so many Latino and Hispanic voters help return Donald Trump to power? – https://theconversation.com/why-did-so-many-latino-and-hispanic-voters-help-return-donald-trump-to-power-243048

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Prudence Flowers, Senior Lecturer in US History, College of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, Flinders University

Online, people predicted the 2024 US election would be Roevember.

According to a 2024 Pew Research Center poll, 63% of Americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases, which is up four percentage points from 2021.

In another poll by Gallup, nearly a third of registered voters said they would “only vote for a candidate who shares their views on abortion”.

Abortion rights were central throughout the campaign. Many predicted it would mean huge numbers of women turned out in support of Kamala Harris and the Democrats.

That did not happen.

In fact, exit polling indicates that while women of colour overwhelmingly voted for Harris, a majority of white women voted for Donald Trump. This mirrors their electoral choices in 2016 and 2020.

Yet voters clearly were concerned about abortion.

Seven of the 10 state reproductive rights ballot initiatives passed, including in the swing state of Arizona. And while the Florida initiative was defeated, it still received a clear majority of the vote, while failing to reach the 60% supermajority required in that state.

This seeming anomaly may indicate that voters genuinely believe that after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and found there was not a constitutional right to abortion, the issue is now exclusively a state matter.

If so, they are in for a rude awakening.

Conservatives see the federal government as central in their fight against legal abortion.

So what might a Trump victory mean for abortion access in the US and beyond?

Trump, abortion, and the election

Early in the primaries, Trump claimed to be the “MOST pro-life President in history”, taking sole credit for the end of Roe v Wade.

Yet simultaneously, because abortion had become politically toxic for Republicans, Trump distanced himself from the bans that had swept the nation. He insisted abortion regulation was now exclusively a state matter.

After months of questioning, Trump indicated he would veto a federal abortion ban (a promise few put any stock in).

For his running mate, Trump chose J.D. Vance, who has previously said he would like “abortion to be illegal nationally” and called for a federal response to block travel to access abortion. He also argued against rape and incest exceptions in abortion law.

And Trump has pledged to put Robert F. Kennedy junior, a notable vaccine and fluoride sceptic, “in charge of” women’s health.

Kennedy has made contradictory statements about abortion, including expressing support for a federal ban after 15 weeks.

Abortion in the US under Trump 2.0

After spending all election denying a connection between Project 2025 and Trump, some conservatives, including Steve Bannon who is fresh out of prison, “joked” on election eve that finally, the charade was over.

Read more:
Project 2025: what is it and why does Trump say he knows nothing about it?

If Trump follows the regulatory vision outlined by conservatives and anti-abortion groups, there will be consequences that transcend state borders.

An immediate priority for opponents of abortion is preventing women and pregnant people in states with bans from accessing abortion care.

Idaho, Tennessee and Alabama have laws making it a crime to assist someone to access an abortion out of state. Several Texas counties have made it illegal to travel on their roads to access abortion.

Multiple pro-choice states have passed “shield laws” to protect doctors from being prosecuted by other states for providing medical abortion via Telehealth.

Anti-abortion legislators condemn this as states “circumvent[ing] each other’s laws”. They want to see these strategies challenged in court.

In both situations, a Trump Department of Justice will energise anti-abortion activists, legislators and lawyers.

Many opponents of abortion call for Congress to establish a “national minimum standard” after which abortion would be illegal. This is simply a rebranded federal ban.

A much broader threat is the Comstock Act of 1873, a federal obscenity law that dates back almost to the Civil War era.

Conservatives, including the authors of Project 2025, interpret this law as prohibiting the mailing of abortion-related drugs or paraphernalia.

Comstock featured in a recent Supreme Court case about Mifepristone, one of the key drugs in medication abortion used in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. In 2023, 63% of abortions in the US were medication abortions.

Some conservatives also argue that Comstock extends to the medical equipment and supplies used to provide surgical abortion.

In January 2023, some Congressional Republicans, including Vance, wrote to the attorney-general calling on the Department of Justice to enforce what was once viewed as a zombie law.

There is also the very real likelihood that Trump will have at least one Supreme Court vacancy to fill. Both Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are rumoured to be planning to retire.

Trump has been clear he would appoint “young” nominees to judicial vacancies with the goal of extending his legacy decades into the future.

Even with the fall of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court is still a crucial vehicle for people who want to make abortion completely illegal. Their goal is a decision that interprets the 14th Amendment as giving fetuses the same rights as all other persons.

“Fetal personhood” arguments gained international attention this year because they underpinned the 2024 Alabama state court decision that found that embryos were legally “children”. This renders most forms of IVF illegal.

US election, global impact

Another Trump presidency will also have global consequences for abortion provision, access and politics.

Like every Republican dating back to Ronald Reagan, Trump will reintroduce the so-called “global gag rule”. This prevents foreign NGOs that receive US aid from providing information, counselling or referrals for legal abortion.

Previously, this rule applied solely to NGOs engaged in family planning services.

Under Trump, it was dramatically expanded and applied to the US$9.5 billion worth of foreign aid for global health assistance. This had particularly dire consequences for initiatives relating to sexual and reproductive health.

In the United Nations, we should again expect the US to start finding common cause on issues like abortion with Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other countries dubbed the “Axis of Medievals”.

Meanwhile, the US election result will further embolden opponents of abortion globally, including here in Australia.

Only a few days ago, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton read his MPs the “riot act” over the abortion issue. He warned it was a distraction that had cost the LNP votes in the recent Queensland election.

Read more:
Abortion is back in the headlines in Australia. The debates in the United States tell us why

Given how quickly anti-abortion senators like Matt Canavan and Alex Antic congratulated Trump on his victory, one cannot help but wonder whether they will be drawing quite a different lesson from this election result.

Prudence Flowers has received funding from the South Australian Department of Human Services. She is a member of the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition.

– ref. Abortion did not play as big a role in the US election as many anticipated. What might happen on this issue now? – https://theconversation.com/abortion-did-not-play-as-big-a-role-in-the-us-election-as-many-anticipated-what-might-happen-on-this-issue-now-243047

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brandon Robert Munn, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Sydney

The brain is a marvel of efficiency, honed by thousands of years of evolution so it can adapt and thrive in a rapidly changing world. Yet, despite decades of research, the mystery of how the brain achieves this has remained elusive.

Our new research, published in the journal Cell, reveals how neurons – the cells responsible for your childhood memories, thoughts and emotions – coordinate their activity.

It’s a bit like being a worker in a high-performing business. Balancing individual skills with teamwork is key to success, but how do you achieve the balance?

As it turns out, the brain’s secret is surprisingly simple: devote no more than half (and no less than 40%) of each cell’s effort to individual tasks. Where does the rest of the effort go? Towards scalable teamwork.

And here’s the kicker: we found the exact same organisational structure across the brains of five species – from fruit flies and nematodes to zebrafish, mice and monkeys.

These species come from different branches of the tree of life that are separated by more than a billion years of evolution, suggesting we may have uncovered a fundamental principle for optimised information processing. It also offers powerful lessons for any complex system today.

The critical middle ground

Our discovery addresses a long-standing debate about the brain: do neurons act like star players (each highly specialised and efficient) or do they prioritise teamwork (ensuring the whole system works even when some elements falter)?

Answering this question has been challenging. Until recently, neuroscience tools were limited to either recording the activity of a few cells, or of several million.

It would be like trying to understand a massive company by either interviewing a handful of employees or by only receiving high-level department summaries. The critical middle ground was missing.

However, with advances in calcium imaging, we can now record signals from tens of thousands of cells simultaneously. Calcium imaging is a method that lets us watch neural activity in real time by using fluorescent sensors that light up according to calcium levels in the cell.

Applying insights from my physics training to analyse large-scale datasets, we found that brain activity unfolds according to a fractal hierarchy. Cells work together to build larger, coordinated networks, creating an organisation with each scale mirroring those above and below.

This structure answered the debate: the brain actually does both. It balances individuality and teamwork, and does so in a clever way. Roughly half of the effort goes to “personal” performance as neurons collaborate within increasingly larger networks.

The brain can rapidly adapt to change

To test whether the brain’s structure had unique advantages, we ran computational simulations, revealing that this fractal hierarchy optimises information flow across the brain.

It allows the brain to do something crucial: adapt to change. It ensures the brain operates efficiently, accomplishing tasks with minimal resources while staying resilient by maintaining function even when neurons misfire.

Whether you are navigating unfamiliar terrain or reacting to a sudden threat, your brain processes and acts on new information rapidly. Neurons continuously adjust their coordination, keeping the brain stable enough for deep thought, yet agile enough to respond to new challenges.

The multiscale organisation we found allows different strategies – or “neural codes” – to function at different scales. For instance, we found that zebrafish movement relies on many neurons working in unison. This resilient design ensures swimming continues smoothly, even in fast-changing environments.

By contrast, mouse vision adapts at the cellular scale, permitting the precision required to extract fine details from a scene. Here, if a few neurons miss key pieces of information, the entire perception can shift – like when an optical illusion tricks your brain.

Our findings reveal that this fractal coordination of neuron activity occurs across a vast evolutionary span: from vertebrates, whose last common ancestor lived 450 million years ago, to invertebrates, dating back a billion years.

This suggests brains have evolved to balance efficiency with resilience, allowing for optimised information processing and adaptability to new behavioural demands. The evolutionary persistence hints that we’ve uncovered a fundamental design principle.

A fundamental principle?

These are exciting times, as physics and neuroscience continue interacting to uncover the universal laws of the brain, crafted over aeons of natural selection. Future work will be needed to see how these principles might play out in the human brain.

Our findings also hint at something bigger: this simple rule of individual focus and scalable teamwork might not just be a solution for the brain.

When elements are organised into tiered networks, resources can be shared efficiently, and the system becomes robust against disruptions.

The best businesses operate in the same way — when a new challenge arises, individuals can react without waiting for instructions from their manager, allowing them to solve the problem while remaining supported by the organisation rapidly.

It may be a universal principle to achieve resilience and efficiency in complex systems. It appears basketball legend Michael Jordan was right when he said: “talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence win championships”.

Brandon Robert Munn 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. How do brains coordinate activity? From fruit flies to monkeys, we discovered this universal principle – https://theconversation.com/how-do-brains-coordinate-activity-from-fruit-flies-to-monkeys-we-discovered-this-universal-principle-242792

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Philippa Martyr, Lecturer, Pharmacology, Women’s Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, The University of Western Australia

For millennia, humans had one obvious and reliable source of light – the Sun – and we knew the Sun was essential for our survival.

This might be why ancient religions – such as those in Egypt, Greece, the Middle East, India, Asia, and Central and South America – involved Sun worship.

Early religions were also often tied up with healing. Sick people would turn to the shaman, priest or priestess for help.

While ancient peoples used the Sun to heal, this might not be how you think.

Since then, we’ve used light to heal in a number of ways. Some you might recognise today, others sound more like magic.

From warming ointments to sunbaking

There’s not much evidence around today that ancient peoples believed sunlight itself could cure illness. Instead, there’s more evidence they used the warmth of the Sun to heal.

The Ebers Papyrus is an ancient Egyptian medical scroll from around 1500 BCE. It contains a recipe for an ointment to “make the sinews […] flexible”. The ointment was made of wine, onion, soot, fruit and the tree extracts frankincense and myrrh. Once it was applied, the person was “put in sunlight”.

Other recipes, to treat coughs for example, involved putting ingredients in a vessel and letting it stand in sunlight. This is presumably to warm it up and help it infuse more strongly. The same technique is in the medical writings attributed to Greek physician Hippocrates who lived around 450-380 BCE.

The physician Aretaeus, who was active around 150 CE in what is now modern Turkey, wrote that sunlight could cure chronic cases of what he called “lethargy” but we’d recognise today as depression:

Lethargics are to be laid in the light, and exposed to the rays of the Sun (for the disease is gloom); and in a rather warm place, for the cause is a congelation of the innate heat.

Classical Islamic scholar Ibn Sina (980-1037 CE) described the health effects of sunbathing (at a time where we didn’t know about the link to skin cancer). In Book I of The Canon of Medicine he said the hot Sun helped everything from flatulence and asthma to hysteria. He also said the Sun “invigorates the brain” and is beneficial for “clearing the uterus”.

It was sometimes hard to tell science from magic

All the ways of curing described so far depend more on the Sun’s heat rather than its light. But what about curing with light itself?

English scientist Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) knew you could “split” sunlight into a rainbow spectrum of colours.

This and many other discoveries radically changed ideas about healing in the next 200 years.

But as new ideas flourished, it was sometimes hard to tell science from magic.

For example, German mystic and visionary Jakob Lorber (1800-1864) believed sunlight was the best cure for pretty much anything. His 1851 book The Healing Power of Sunlight was still in print in 1997.

Public health reformer Florence Nightingale (1820-1910) also believed in the power of sunlight. In her famous book Notes on Nursing, she said of her patients:

second only to their need of fresh air is their need for light […] not only light but direct sunlight.

Nightingale also believed sunlight was the natural enemy of bacteria and viruses. She seems at least partially right. Sunlight can kill some, but not all, bacteria and viruses.

Chromotherapy – a way of healing based on colours and light – emerged in this period. While some of its supporters claim using coloured light for healing dates back to ancient Egypt, it’s hard to find evidence of this now.

Modern chromotherapy owes a lot to the fertile mind of physician Edwin Babbitt (1828-1905) from the United States. Babbitt’s 1878 book The Principles of Light and Color was based on experiments with coloured light and his own visions and clairvoyant insights. It’s still in print.

Babbitt invented a portable stained-glass window called the Chromolume, designed to restore the balance of the body’s natural coloured energy. Sitting for set periods under the coloured lights from the window was said to restore your health.

Indian entrepreneur Dinshah Ghadiali (1873-1966) read about this, moved to the US and invented his own instrument, the Spectro-Chrome, in 1920.

The theory behind the Spectro-Chrome was that the human body was made up of four elements – oxygen (blue), hydrogen (red), nitrogen (green) and carbon (yellow). When these colours were out of balance, it caused sickness.

Some hour-long sessions with the Spectro-Chrome would restore balance and health. By using its green light, for example, you could reportedly aid your pituitary gland, while yellow light helped your digestion.

By 1946 Ghadiali had made around a million dollars from sales of this device in the US.

And today?

While some of these treatments sound bizarre, we now know certain coloured lights treat some illnesses and disorders.

Phototherapy with blue light is used to treat newborn babies with jaundice in hospital. People with seasonal affective disorder (sometimes known as winter depression) can be treated with regular exposure to white or blue light. And ultraviolet light is used to treat skin conditions, such as psoriasis.

Today, light therapy has even found its way into the beauty industry. LED face masks, with celebrity endorsements, promise to fight acne and reduce signs of ageing.

But like all forms of light, exposure to it has both risks and benefits. In the case of these LED face masks, they could disrupt your sleep.

This is the final article in our ‘Light and health’ series, where we look at how light affects our physical and mental health in sometimes surprising ways. Read other articles in the series.

Philippa Martyr 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. Part science, part magic: an illuminating history of healing with light – https://theconversation.com/part-science-part-magic-an-illuminating-history-of-healing-with-light-231179

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Biddle, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University

Central to Australia’s cultural and political identity is the notion of a “fair go”. But recent elections, including in the United States, have highlighted the challenge of maintaining shared norms and support for institutions when many voters don’t believe they’re getting a “fair go”.

Australia has maintained a reasonably high satisfaction with democracy. However, this satisfaction is slipping.

Our study, published by the Australian National University in partnership with the Department of Home Affairs Strengthening Democracy Taskforce, explored this issue further. We analysed how perceptions of income inequality relate to satisfaction with democracy.

We found concerns about income inequality in Australia are strongly related to dissatisfaction with democracy. This suggests Australia’s satisfaction with democracy is at risk. It may erode further if voters think the major parties aren’t sufficiently responsive to the economic pressures they are under.

What we did and what we found

We analysed results of two large, broadly nationally representative surveys undertaken online:

• the Asian Barometer Survey collected in partnership with National Taiwan University, and
• the ANUpoll series.

These datasets allowed us to make comparisons through time, and with other countries in the region and globally.

Data from one of our surveys – the Asian Barometer Survey – suggests Australians are quite likely to think levels of income inequality are too high.

In both 2018 and 2023, respondents were asked:

How fair do you think income distribution is in Australia?

More Australians think income distribution in Australia is unfair or very unfair (60.5%) than think it is fair or very fair.

This gap has widened slightly since 2018, particularly in terms of those who think the distribution is very unfair (as opposed to just unfair).

Over a number of years, we asked respondents to both surveys:

On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied, or not at all satisfied with the way democracy works in Australia?

From March 2008 to January 2023, satisfaction with democracy was quite stable.

Between January and October 2023, however, there was a more than doubling in the proportion of Australians who were not at all satisfied in democracy.

There was also:

• a smaller increase in those who were not very satisfied
• a small decline in those who were fairly satisfied, and
• a large decline in those who were very satisfied.

This is likely to be, at least in part, related to the Voice referendum.

In the three months that followed the referendum, there was a partial return to the levels of satisfaction with democracy observed over the longer-term.

Combined, 30.3% of Australians were not at all or not very satisfied with democracy in January 2024 (compared to 34.2% in October 2023).

This is still well above the January 2023 levels of dissatisfaction (22.9%) and even more so the March 2008 levels (18.6%).

How people see inequality affects their view of democracy

The Department of Home Affairs’ 2024 Strengthening Democracy report describes Australia’s democratic resilience as “strong, but vulnerable”. It states that

community concerns about economic inequality are connected to a waning sense of national belonging.

Our paper found strong empirical support for this statement.

There is a very strong relationship between views on income inequality in Australia and views on democracy.

In the Asian Barometer Survey, only 51.2% of Australians who think the distribution of income is very unfair are satisfied or very satisfied with democracy in Australia.

This increases to 77.8% of those that think it is unfair, 87.1% of those that think it is fair, and 95.8% of the very small share of Australians that think the distribution of income is very fair.

In other words: the more fair you think Australia is, the more likely you are to be satisfied with democracy in Australia.

We also found those who support an expansive role for the government, particularly in reducing income gaps, tend to be more dissatisfied with how democracy functions in Australia.

Implications for Australian policy

Overall, we found the Australian population has identified the income distribution in Australia as being unfair, and this appears to be affecting people’s views on democracy.

There are many potential reasons to reduce inequality, including the negative impact inequality has on people’s health, wellbeing, and development.

Inequality could be reduced through progressive taxation, increased or better targeted social welfare spending, and targeted economic support for disadvantaged groups.

Our paper highlights reducing inequality could also help improve people’s satisfaction with democracy.

Income inequality in Australia has not risen as fast as in some other countries. And by some measures, it is relatively low.

Nonetheless, a majority of Australians think the current income distribution is unfair. In other words, that the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor.

There is an opportunity for governments and political leaders that care about maintaining confidence in institutions to do things differently.

They could improve transparency and communication regarding their efforts to reduce income inequality.

As our analysis shows, public perception plays a critical role in democratic satisfaction.

Perceptions of inequality in a country can easily flow into perceptions of democratic institutions. It can affect people’s overall satisfaction with the system.

Nicholas Biddle 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. Australians who think inequality is high have less faith in democratic institutions: study – https://theconversation.com/australians-who-think-inequality-is-high-have-less-faith-in-democratic-institutions-study-242902

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shiori Shakuto, Lecturer in Anthropology, University of Sydney

What makes a good retirement? I’ve been researching the lives of “silver backpackers”: Japanese seniors who embark on a later-life journey of self-discovery.

Many experienced Japan’s high-growth economy, characterised by rigid gender roles. For many men who worked as iconic cultural figures of sarariiman (white collar workers), excessive working hours were normalised and expected. Their absence from home was compensated by their female partners, many full-time stay-at-home mothers.

Entering their 60s meant either retirement from work, or children leaving home. For men and women, retirement is understood as an opportunity to live a life for themselves, leading to a journey of self-discovery.

Dedicating life to work

I interviewed more than 100 older Japanese women and men and found a significant disparity in the quality of life between them.

Japanese retired men who led a work-oriented life struggled to find meaning at the initial stages of retirement.

One man I spoke to retired at the age of 60 from a large trading company. He was a successful businessman, having travelled the world and held various managerial positions in the company. His wife looked after the children most of the time.

They bought a house with a yard in a suburb so the children could attend a good school. It significantly increased his commute, and further reduced his time with children. He also worked on weekends. He barely had time to develop his hobbies or get to know his neighbours.

He idealised his retirement as a time to finally spend with his family and develop his own hobbies. When he retired, however, he realised that he and his family didn’t have any common topics of conversation.

Through decades of excessive hours spent at work away from home, the rest of the family established a routine that did not include him. Taking up new hobbies at the age of 60 was not as easy as he thought, nor was making new friends at this age.

“I became a nureochiba,” he lamented. Nureochiba refers to the wet fallen leaves that linger and are difficult to get rid of. The term is commonly used to describe retired men with no friends or hobbies who constantly accompany their wives.

The retirement for many former sarariiman was characterised by boredom – having nowhere to go to or having nothing to do. The sense of boredom led to a sense of isolation and low confidence in old age. Many older Japanese men I spoke to lament not having built a connection with their children or communities at a younger age.

Dedicating life to family and community

Older Japanese women I spoke with were more well-connected with their children and local communities in later life. Many were in regular contact with their children through visits, phone calls and messages. Some continued to care for them by providing food or by looking after grandchildren. Children very much appreciated them.

Many older women who had been full-time stay-at-home mothers had already taken up hobbies or volunteering activities at community organisations, and they could accelerate these involvements in their old age.

Even women who worked full-time seemed to maintain better connections with their family members because working excessively away from home was simply not possible for them.

Older men relied on these women’s networks and activities conducted at the scales of home and communities – from caring for others to pursuing hobbies – to enact a meaningful retirement. The sense of connection with family and communities, not to mention their husbands’ reliance on them, led to a high confidence and wellbeing among older women.

I saw many instances where older women preferred spending time with their female friends than their retired husbands and embarked on adventurous trips alone. One woman went on a three-month cruise alone. Feeling liberated, she sent a fax message to her husband from the ship: “When I get off this ship, I will devote the rest of my life to myself. You will have to take care of your own mother.”

Upon disembarking, she moved to Malaysia to start her second life.

The silver backpackers

Malaysia has become a popular destination for silver backpackers looking to embark on a journey of self-discovery. Some travel as couples, while others go alone, regardless of their marital status.

For many male silver backpackers I spoke to, moving to Malaysia offers a second chance at life to make new friends, find hobbies and, most importantly, start anew with their partners.

For many female silver backpackers, visiting Malaysia means being able to enjoy an independent lifestyle while having the security of friends and family in Malaysia and Japan.

The experiences of older Japanese men and women can be translated into the experiences of anyone who spent excessive hours at work and those who spent more time cultivating relationships outside of work. The activities of the latter group are not as valued in a society that narrowly defines productivity. However, my research shows that it is their activities that carry more value in old age.

Are you under pressure to work long hours? If you can, turn off your phone and computer. Instead of organising events for work, organise a dinner with your family and friends. Take up a new hobby in your local community centres. You can change how you work and live now for a better old age.

Shiori Shakuto received funding from the Australian Government, Australian National University and Cambridge University to conduct research for this project.

– ref. I spoke to 100 Japanese seniors, and learnt the secret to a good retirement is a good working life – https://theconversation.com/i-spoke-to-100-japanese-seniors-and-learnt-the-secret-to-a-good-retirement-is-a-good-working-life-238571

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Myra Williamson, Senior Lecturer in Law, Auckland University of Technology

The decision by Israel’s parliament to designate the United Nations’ Palestinian relief agency UNRWA a “terrorist organisation” has been condemned by many governments, with claims it will create a “catastrophe in what is already an unmitigated disaster”.

This came three months after the International Court of Justice’s landmark advisory opinion in July declaring Israel’s presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful. All states now have a legal obligation to ensure they are not assisting Israel to continue its unlawful occupation.

But with the reelection of Donald Trump as US president, how the international community will respond to breaches of international law becomes even less clear.

New Zealand has criticised the United Nations Security Council for its failure to resolve the crisis, and has backed calls in the UN General Assembly for humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza.

But some, including the Green Party, have called for the government to take tougher measures against Israel, including divestment and sanctions. If the government were to consider such a path, then, what would its options be?

The Russian invasion of Ukraine provides the most obvious precedent. The Russia Sanctions Act (the first law of its kind in New Zealand) was passed in 2022, covering travel, trade and assets associated with the Russian and Belarusian governments. Stronger action against Israel would likely require something similar.

Divestment, on the other hand, could happen without any law changes. The guardians of the Superannuation Fund, for example, could review their portfolio and decide to divest, and technically would not need to consult the finance minister.

NZ’s Israel investments

New Zealand has investments in Israeli companies and government bonds. The latest portfolio disclosure from the Super Fund (which is a crown entity) shows investments in five Israeli software and IT companies totalling NZ$29,510,559.

The Super Fund also has $5,996,326 invested in “Israeli sovereign bonds”, according to an Official Information Act response I received from Finance Minister Nicola Willis.

These investments arguably breach section 61(d) of the Superannuation and Retirement Income Act which requires “ethical investment”. They may also go against the Super Fund’s sustainable investment framework, which guides investments and “protects the reputation of the Fund”.

The framework states the fund may take account of international law and “the severity of the breach of standards” when making investment decisions. It also says the fund will exclude investment in the government bonds of any state where:

• there is widespread condemnation or sanctions by the international community

• and New Zealand has imposed meaningful diplomatic, economic or military sanctions aimed at that government.

The first requirement of “widespread condemnation” appears to have been met: 124 states (including NZ) voted in the UN General Assembly in September to call for an end to Israel’s unlawful occupation of East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The second requirement is more difficult to satisfy because New Zealand has not yet “imposed meaningful diplomatic, economic or military sanctions” on Israel.

Ministerial direction

As Willis has made clear, the Super Fund is an autonomous crown entity with its own responsible investment policy.

However, if the fund is perceived not to be investing ethically or in accordance with the sustainable investment framework, the minister could take action.

Under section 64 of the act, the minister could issue a non-binding ministerial direction to the fund’s guardians directing them to consider divesting from sovereign bonds to avoid “prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible member of the world community”.

The minister could also send an “enduring letter of expectation” setting out what responsible and ethical investment might look like. This has happened before, most recently in 2021 when the Labour government required Crown Financial Institutions to seek “zero carbon investment portfolios” by 2050.

The fund’s guardians might also strengthen the fund’s sustainable investment framework by making its language more emphatic. For example, by stating the fund “shall” – rather than “may” – take account of international law and “the severity of the breach of standards” by another state.

Calls for sanctions

Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Gaza and now Lebanon has become even more dire, with Israel accused of further violations of international law, including using civilians as human shields and targeting UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.

Internationally, calls for economic sanctions and divestment have been increasing, including from some Israeli citizens, as well as from the leaders of Spain and Ireland, and the European Union’s top foreign affairs and security diplomat.

New Zealand can impose sanctions, if they have been imposed by the UN Security Council, through regulations permitted by the United Nations Act 1946. But this is highly unlikely in the case of Israel, given the US power of veto.

Without UN sanctions, New Zealand would require a specific law similar to the Russia Sanctions Act. Or it could use the current crisis to create an “autonomous sanctions” regime that would allow it to impose sanctions unilaterally.

This was recommended by an independent advisory group in May 2023, after an autonomous sanctions bill was proposed but defeated in 2021. This puts New Zealand out of step with its Five Eyes intelligence network allies, which all have autonomous sanctions legislation.

In the absence of a meaningful ceasefire, divestment would be the possible next resort should the government choose to take a tougher line.

Myra Williamson is a member of the NZ Labour Party.

– ref. The NZ Super Fund has Israeli investments worth $35 million – could it divest? – https://theconversation.com/the-nz-super-fund-has-israeli-investments-worth-35-million-could-it-divest-241476

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katrin Schreiter, Senior Lecturer in German and History, King’s College London

The 35th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall, an event that powerfully symbolised the collapse of communism in eastern Europe and signalled the end of the cold war, is an opportune moment to take stock of what remains of East Germany (GDR) in the capital of Germany.

Remnants of the wall in the eastern part of the city, most visible in the so-called East Side Gallery along the river Spree in Berlin-Friedrichshain, have become a tourist attraction. The former American border crossing, Checkpoint Charlie, likewise, is a highly frequented stop on Berlin’s sightseeing map.

Many of the wall’s original concrete slabs were gifted abroad. A piece baring graffiti by artist Jürgen Grosse, known as Indiano, is on display outside London’s Imperial War Museum.

What remains of the wall in Berlin is a fading demarcation line. A trail of inscripted metal and simple cobble stones has people tripping over this part of German history – the 40-year division of the country and the “anti-fascist protection wall” that was meant to separate East Germans from the lure of the capitalist west.

However, the attentive tourist will note that the landmarks of the former GDR are gradually disappearing from the landscape of Berlin. Architectural heritage is falling victim to urban planners – and a specific political desire to frame the East German past in a certain way.

Not all asbestos is created equal

The most notorious example is the Palast der Republik, the glass, steel and concrete GDR parliamentary building and public event space. It was erected in 1976 on the site of the palace of the Hohenzollern, once home to imperial Germany’s ruling family, but ultimately destroyed in the war. The discovery of asbestos in the East German “people’s palace” in the 1990s made demolition a rational option. The deed was done in the early 2000s.

Funds could instead have been invested in repairing the building, had there been the wish to save this iconic architectural heritage of the GDR. But conservative forces drummed up political support for a highly controversial project to replace it – the partial rebuilding of the Hohenzollern palace.

Supporters emphasised tradition and the shared history of all Germans. Opponents point to the colonial crimes of empire. This discussion has continued since the new building houses the Humboldt Forum, a museum that is home to an “intercultural” collection of colonial exhibits that do not rightfully belong to Germany.

Meanwhile, the International Congress Centre, a conference complex in west Berlin that was also built with asbestos in the 1970s, has been listed for historical preservation.

Refurbished into political neutrality

In the meantime, the city has taken a different approach to other, more useful buildings such as the restructuring effort that has gone into the famous prefab plattenbauten – the large apartment blocks that dominate the urban landscape in the eastern part of the city.

According to the German Statistical Agency, between 1970 and 1990 the GDR built about 1.9 million apartments in blocks of this kind to combat a severe housing shortage. They attained cult status in the early 2000s, when it became fashionable among Berlin’s university students and young professionals to live in them. Concerns about sufficient living space in the growing capital justified the investments that the city put into the modernisation of these buildings.

But taking such a utilitarian approach to dealing with East German architectural heritage arguably robs buildings such as the plattenbauten of their political meaning. In being refurbished for future use, they are neutralised.

In recent years, a number of plattenbauten beyond Berlin have been listed for historical preservation. Only last month a similar step was announced for central Berlin. It includes houses in Münzstraße, Torstraße, Neue and Alte Schönhauser Straße and Dircksenstraße.

But anyone who is familiar with the area knows that buildings there were erected by East German urban planners during the “rediscovery” of Berlin’s architectural heritage in the 1980s. They emulate the style of turn-of-the-century apartment blocks and have nothing in common with the giant modernist plattenbauten that had helped in resolving the East German housing crisis.

Berlin, as the contested city of the cold war and the new seat of government in a reunited Germany, remains a challenged urban space. Whether or not there’s an explicit political agenda at work, conscious or unconscious biases among politicians inevitably come into play when they decide which buildings are allowed to stand and which are torn down.

Katrin Schreiter 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. Thirty-five years since the wall fell, Berlin is divided – over what to do with crumbling communist buildings – https://theconversation.com/thirty-five-years-since-the-wall-fell-berlin-is-divided-over-what-to-do-with-crumbling-communist-buildings-242662

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Donald Trump has been elected the 47th president of the United States. He is just the second president in US history to win a second non-consecutive term in office after being defeated – the first was Grover Cleveland in 1892.

His is a decisive victory, sweeping every one of the much-analysed “swing” states by two or three percentage points. These state wins were not huge, but they were good enough where it counted.

We are yet to see the final popular vote, but it’s entirely possible Trump will win that too, becoming the first Republican candidate to do so since George W. Bush in 2004. And the result emerged quickly this time, unlike in the 2020 election where the early results were mixed and the count dragged on for a long time.

Economic pain won Trump votes where it mattered

There will be much post-election analysis in the coming days and weeks, but I believe the biggest reason Trump won was discontent with the Biden administration. Kamala Harris could not separate herself from it, given she was vice president, and a lot of Americans feel the past four years have not served them well.

Harris certainly performed a lot better in this election than President Joe Biden would have. But the fact is that a lot of Americans’ perception and experience of the economy is that it is in dire shape, and they are dealing with the biggest price shocks since the 1970s. This is something they experience every time they buy groceries or fill up the car with petrol – and they took it out on Harris.

Polls show most Americans feel they are worse off than four years ago. Only a small proportion think the country is on the right track economically.

So when people were looking for change that they believed would improve their lives, they turned to Trump. People’s memories of the first Trump administration were that the economy was stronger then, even though the last year of COVID was pretty disastrous.

However, they do not seem to hold that against him, and instead think they were better off then than they are now, and that was a very powerful sentiment for the vice president to be fighting against.

Lingering misogyny

Being a woman was also probably a disadvantage for Harris. From the time she became the presumptive Democratic nominee, we saw she was fighting against a misogynistic culture. The level of debasement and obscenity from the Trump campaign only got worse, and disturbingly, they paid no penalty for it. That in itself says a lot about what Harris was up against.

While there was much talk early in the campaign about abortion playing a major role in the vote, in the end it was overshadowed by other issues. Abortion was always going to be overshadowed by the economy, because the economy is what people are dealing with every day. The same goes for immigration – it did not play as big a role in the vote as some expected. So two big issues that each side ran hard on were not as significant, in the end, as the economy.

Some significant demographic shifts

It’s clear from the results that Trump has significantly improved his vote with Latinos. Exit polls showed him in the mid-40s with Latinos, which was up there with other electorally successful presidents, and clearly the controversy over a racist joke about Puerto Ricans did not change Latinos’ willingness to vote for Trump. Many Latinos tend to be socially conservative, and they have been hit very hard by inflation and economic strain.

One of the exit polls showed Trump with 12% of the African-American vote. If that proves to be the case once all the votes have been counted, that is a significant increase for him. It might seem like a small proportion, but at the margins it could have been pretty important.

Trump has managed to persuade conservatives among Latinos and African-Americans that the Republican party has a place for them – that it’s not just a party for white people.

Harris won among young people, but her margin in that group wasn’t as big as Biden’s in 2020. This is extraordinary given she’s nearly 20 years younger than him, but there are probably a few different factors at play: young people are also hard hit by the economy, and are only just forming their voting habits. They may have found much of the contest to be uninspiring.

What now for the Democrats?

The Democrats will likely have a significant period of despondency. We need to see how the House of Representatives turns out – there’s a chance it too may have a Republican majority. But whatever happens, the Democrats will need to rebuild from opposition.

In recent history, parties have rebuilt themselves quite quickly from opposition, as Americans tend to turn on their governments very quickly.

They may well look for a new generation of leadership. Remember that by the end of his four-year term, Trump will look very old, and is likely the last of the baby-boomer leaders. Also, he can’t run for president again.

So Democrats may take the message that they can’t win just by opposing – or just by not being Donald Trump. One observation from this campaign was that they didn’t stand for enough, they didn’t promise enough, and they didn’t represent enough. Younger leading Democrats such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will be trying to push the party in a more progressive direction.

Others in the party might blame the loss on them being too progressive. But I think Harris actually spent most of her time appealing to moderate and conservative voters. It might be time to try something new.

Second Trump term will not be dull

Trump has promised a lot of genuinely horrifying things, some of which are just to entertain his base, and some of which are really what he believes. But whether he will actually be able to do the things he says he will do is another matter. I’m sure he does want to deport every illegal immigrant in the country, for example, but the legal and practical difficulties of that are very real and limiting.

If he wants to impose tariffs as broadly as he says, he’ll need the cooperation of Congress. Many will caution against it. We might think other elected Republicans are completely in his thrall, but given he’s not running again, I wonder whether those with their eyes on the future might try to carve out a more independent path.

One of his plans is to fire as many bureaucrats as possible and replace them with loyalists who would not oppose him on any measure. On one hand, he might be able to fill the government with people who do what he wants, but on the other it might be hard for him to govern if he fires everyone who knows how government works. So while he certainly has a lot of big plans, it remains to be seen just how many of them he will actually be able to implement.

David Smith 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. Americans have voted for Donald Trump to become president again, and the economy is the biggest reason – https://theconversation.com/americans-have-voted-for-donald-trump-to-become-president-again-and-the-economy-is-the-biggest-reason-243035

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jared Mondschein, Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Trying to predict what Donald Trump will do during a second term in office is a fool’s errand.

It is all the more challenging considering Trump has prioritised winning re-election far more than discussing a detailed policy agenda. In many ways, Kamala Harris had the same strategy of maintaining an ambiguous policy agenda, though to obviously lesser success.

With that said, Trump comes back to the White House after not only four years of a prior tenure in the Oval Office, but also an additional four years since leaving office. These many years in the public eye may not tell us exactly what he will do, but they do give us an indication of his priorities.

Trump’s ambiguous policy agenda

Many point to Trump’s policy agenda as lacking both consistency and coherence.

On one hand, he has touted his Supreme Court nominees for overturning Roe v Wade. On the other, he shied away from talking about abortion on the campaign trail and encouraged fellow Republicans not to legislate conservative restrictions.

On one hand, many of his top advisors from his first term in office wrote the exceedingly conservative and controversial Project 2025 manifesto. On the other, he has distanced himself from it and the people who wrote it, saying he had never even read the document.

And on one hand, Elon Musk, one of Trump’s biggest supporters and financial backers, has claimed he could cut the size of government, government spending and even a number of federal agencies. On the other hand, most economists have said the Trump campaign’s economic agenda would dramatically expand the federal deficit more than Harris’ proposed policies.

It should be noted, however, there definitely is one area where Trump has never wavered: trade.

Trump has maintained a protectionist stance for many decades, so we can expect
consistency here. However, it remains unclear how much his Republican colleagues from rural parts of America will support such protectionist policies.

The agenda for a ‘dictator on day one’

The most well-known – and probably the most infamous – of Trump’s promises for his return to the White House was his statement about being a dictator “only on day one”.

This quote became a well-known part of the Biden and Harris campaigns’ stump speeches against Trump. It’s perhaps less well-known what exactly he would do.

He initially pledged to immediately close the border with Mexico and expand drilling for fossil fuels. On the campaign trail, he broadened his first-day priorities to also include:

• firing Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has charged Trump in two federal cases
• pardoning some of the rioters imprisoned after the January 6 2021 riots
• beginning mass deportations for the estimated 11 million people living in the United States without legal immigration status
• and ending what he has called “Green New Deal atrocities” within President Joe Biden’s framework for tackling climate change.

Trump also, in a surprise to immigration activists, said he would also “automatically” give non-citizens in the country permanent residency when they graduate from college.

What about his Cabinet?

The old adage that “personnel is policy” applies to Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

When Biden appointed Kurt Campbell to lead the White House’s Indo-Pacific efforts on the National Security Council, the move made clear that an “allies and partners” approach would define his administration’s policy in Asia.

And when Trump appointed Mike Pence to be his running mate in 2016, it made clear to traditional Republicans that Trump would have a “Republican insider” in an influential position in his administration.

Trump has made clear that Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will play sizeable roles in his administration, but it remains unclear exactly what they will do.

Musk has promised to cut government regulation and red tape and Kennedy has pledged to “Make America Healthy Again”. On a practical level, however, it’s still too early to tell what type of role the two celebrities will have – particularly given Trump cabinet appointees will require Senate confirmation.

While the Republicans are going to control the Senate again, this doesn’t guarantee it will support his appointees. A slim Republican majority in the Senate in 2017 did not support all of Trump’s agenda.

The high staff turnover that defined Trump’s first term of office may once again define his second term. There was also sometimes little coherence between his appointments. For example, Trump national security advisors Michael Flynn and John Bolton had little in common beyond a shared antagonism for the Obama administration’s policies.

At the same time, deputy national security advisor Matt Pottinger ultimately stayed for nearly the entirety of the Trump administration. He not only led much of Trump’s strategic policies toward Asia, but also defined the term “strategic competition”, which will likely outlast both the Biden and Trump administrations.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Ultimately, if Trump’s second term in office is anything like his first term, then the prognostication about his policy agenda and personnel appointments will continue for some time.

It’s therefore less valuable to guess what Trump will do than to focus on the long-term structural trends that would have continued regardless of who is in the White House.

After all, the Biden administration maintained or sought to expand man of the Trump administration’s efforts abroad, including his “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” policy, tariffs, and the Abraham Accords that normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states.

At home, the Biden administration built on Trump policies that included government support for domestic manufacturing, expansion of the Child Tax Credit and increasing restrictions on large technology firms.

And furthermore, even a Harris administration would have been unlikely to view China as a fair economic partner, deploy US troops to the Middle East, or oppose NATO allies increasing their defence spending.

Trump will undoubtedly remain unpredictable and unconventional, but it would be a mistake to think there are not clear areas of continuity that began before Trump and will continue long after him.

Jared Mondschein 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. Trump has vowed to be a ‘dictator’ on day one. What exactly will he do? – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-vowed-to-be-a-dictator-on-day-one-what-exactly-will-he-do-243049

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jared Mondschein, Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

Trying to predict what Donald Trump will do during a second term in office is a fool’s errand.

It is all the more challenging considering Trump has prioritised winning re-election far more than discussing a detailed policy agenda. In many ways, Kamala Harris had the same strategy of maintaining an ambiguous policy agenda, though to obviously lesser success.

With that said, Trump comes back to the White House after not only four years of a prior tenure in the Oval Office, but also an additional four years since leaving office. These many years in the public eye may not tell us exactly what he will do, but they do give us an indication of his priorities.

Trump’s ambiguous policy agenda

Many point to Trump’s policy agenda as lacking both consistency and coherence.

On one hand, he has touted his Supreme Court nominees for overturning Roe v Wade. On the other, he shied away from talking about abortion on the campaign trail and encouraged fellow Republicans not to legislate conservative restrictions.

On one hand, many of his top advisors from his first term in office wrote the exceedingly conservative and controversial Project 2025 manifesto. On the other, he has distanced himself from it and the people who wrote it, saying he had never even read the document.

And on one hand, Elon Musk, one of Trump’s biggest supporters and financial backers, has claimed he could cut the size of government, government spending and even a number of federal agencies. On the other hand, most economists have said the Trump campaign’s economic agenda would dramatically expand the federal deficit more than Harris’ proposed policies.

It should be noted, however, there definitely is one area where Trump has never wavered: trade.

Trump has maintained a protectionist stance for many decades, so we can expect
consistency here. However, it remains unclear how much his Republican colleagues from rural parts of America will support such protectionist policies.

The agenda for a ‘dictator on day one’

The most well-known – and probably the most infamous – of Trump’s promises for his return to the White House was his statement about being a dictator “only on day one”.

This quote became a well-known part of the Biden and Harris campaigns’ stump speeches against Trump. It’s perhaps less well-known what exactly he would do.

He initially pledged to immediately close the border with Mexico and expand drilling for fossil fuels. On the campaign trail, he broadened his first-day priorities to also include:

• firing Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has charged Trump in two federal cases
• pardoning some of the rioters imprisoned after the January 6 2021 riots
• beginning mass deportations for the estimated 11 million people living in the United States without legal immigration status
• and ending what he has called “Green New Deal atrocities” within President Joe Biden’s framework for tackling climate change.

Trump also, in a surprise to immigration activists, said he would also “automatically” give non-citizens in the country permanent residency when they graduate from college.

What about his Cabinet?

The old adage that “personnel is policy” applies to Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

When Biden appointed Kurt Campbell to lead the White House’s Indo-Pacific efforts on the National Security Council, the move made clear that an “allies and partners” approach would define his administration’s policy in Asia.

And when Trump appointed Mike Pence to be his running mate in 2016, it made clear to traditional Republicans that Trump would have a “Republican insider” in an influential position in his administration.

Trump has made clear that Musk and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. will play sizeable roles in his administration, but it remains unclear exactly what they will do.

Musk has promised to cut government regulation and red tape and Kennedy has pledged to “Make America Healthy Again”. On a practical level, however, it’s still too early to tell what type of role the two celebrities will have – particularly given Trump cabinet appointees will require Senate confirmation.

While the Republicans are going to control the Senate again, this doesn’t guarantee it will support his appointees. A slim Republican majority in the Senate in 2017 did not support all of Trump’s agenda.

The high staff turnover that defined Trump’s first term of office may once again define his second term. There was also sometimes little coherence between his appointments. For example, Trump national security advisors Michael Flynn and John Bolton had little in common beyond a shared antagonism for the Obama administration’s policies.

At the same time, deputy national security advisor Matt Pottinger ultimately stayed for nearly the entirety of the Trump administration. He not only led much of Trump’s strategic policies toward Asia, but also defined the term “strategic competition”, which will likely outlast both the Biden and Trump administrations.

The more things change, the more they stay the same

Ultimately, if Trump’s second term in office is anything like his first term, then the prognostication about his policy agenda and personnel appointments will continue for some time.

It’s therefore less valuable to guess what Trump will do than to focus on the long-term structural trends that would have continued regardless of who is in the White House.

After all, the Biden administration maintained or sought to expand man of the Trump administration’s efforts abroad, including his “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” policy, tariffs, and the Abraham Accords that normalised relations between Israel and several Arab states.

At home, the Biden administration built on Trump policies that included government support for domestic manufacturing, expansion of the Child Tax Credit and increasing restrictions on large technology firms.

And furthermore, even a Harris administration would have been unlikely to view China as a fair economic partner, deploy US troops to the Middle East, or oppose NATO allies increasing their defence spending.

Trump will undoubtedly remain unpredictable and unconventional, but it would be a mistake to think there are not clear areas of continuity that began before Trump and will continue long after him.

Jared Mondschein 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. Trump has vowed to be a ‘dictator’ on day one. With that day approaching, what exactly will he do? – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-vowed-to-be-a-dictator-on-day-one-with-that-day-approaching-what-exactly-will-he-do-243049

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

Opposition transport spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie has admitted to receiving sixteen undisclosed upgrades, including on five personal flights to or from New Zealand.

The five NZ flights, with Qantas, were between 2016 and 2018, when her boyfriend was New Zealand then-parliamentarian David Bennett.

While McKenzie has been in the shadow transport portfolio since the last election, there have been three Qantas upgrades from economy to business, when she was flying on parliamentary business.

Other upgrades included one from Qantas in January 2015, and seven Virgin domestic upgrades between 2015 and 2019.

After Anthony Albanese’s upgrades became an issue following publication of Joe Aston’s book The Chairman’s Lounge, McKenzie went strongly on the attack. Initially she denied she had had any upgrades herself. After that was seen to be wrong she wrote to the airlines asking for her details.

When it became clear the opposition was about to be embarrassed by the McKenzie record, it pulled back from pursuing the upgrades issue.

In a Wednesday statement, McKenzie acknowledged her “deficiencies in disclosing these matters do not meet the expectations of the Australian people and the parliament and were an oversight on my part, and for this I apologise”.

She said she had never sought free upgrades.

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. Bridget McKenzie admits to 16 undeclared upgrades, including on personal New Zealand flights – https://theconversation.com/bridget-mckenzie-admits-to-16-undeclared-upgrades-including-on-personal-new-zealand-flights-243050

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine M. FitzGerald, PhD Candidate, Queensland University of Technology

In the 2020 US elections, Joe Biden’s win against Donald Trump prompted the Trump campaign to file more than 60 lawsuits challenging the result, mostly focusing on swing states.

Trump falsely claimed widespread voter fraud, although none of the proceedings found any evidence of this. Yet he continued to use these baseless claims as a key part of his 2024 campaign.

Such rhetoric undermines trust in the electoral process – and it’s in this context that we must assess the conspiracies and reactions to the fake bomb threats that have emerged since polling began today.

As misinformation researchers, we spent election day monitoring a wide range of hashtags and keywords on X and Reddit to identify political misinformation. Our goal was to collect data that will help determine where, how and through whom misinformation and conspiracy theories spread in the wake of breaking news.

Regarding the fake bomb threats, we observed an online reaction that demonstrates a clear erosion of citizens’ trust in the election process.

Fake threats hit polling stations nationwide

Around midday in Georgia, local time, non-credible bomb threats were called in to polling stations across the country, with a particular focus on the battleground state of Georgia.

Georgia police said 32 fake threats had been called in to Fulton County. Fulton is the state’s most populous county – and one where the 2020 election result came down to less than 12,000 votes. Further threats were made in Georgia’s DeKalb and Gwinnett counties.

The FBI released an official statement saying they were “[…] aware of bomb threats to polling locations in several states, many of which appear to originate from Russian email domains”. The Georgia secretary of state also said the threats were from Russia – this video announcement receiving significant attention online. That said, United States intelligence agencies will need to conduct further investigation before the source can be confirmed.

One thing is for sure: the threats added further confusion and fear to an already contentious election. In some locations, voting was paused as emergency services swept polling stations to ensure voters were safe. Judges also had to make emergency interventions to allow polling to remain open late, to account for the temporary closures.

On X and Reddit, we observed discussions that the threats may have intentionally targeted predominantly Black counties to discourage voting. In response, some users with large followings started calling on potentially hesitant voters to return to the line and vote.

Rejecting official reports

As for who is behind the threats, not everyone is buying the narrative that Russia is likely responsible.

We’ve seen fingers pointed at the Democrats, Republicans, members of the “deep state” (a group of people who are allegedly secretly controlling the government) and even Elon Musk. It’s too early to say which will emerge as the most popular conspiracy.

On both social media and in the traditional media, the far-right seem to have grown increasingly cynical about claims of Russian involvement in US politics. This is due to a distrust in the Democratic government and various investigations, largely organised by the Democrats, such as the Mueller report and the first impeachment of Donald Trump.

In the far-right’s view, Russia is used as a scapegoat by the Democrats to attack Trump and/or to disguise their own misdeeds. This form of conspiratorial thinking goes back to their scepticism of Russia’s “sweeping and systematic” interference in the 2016 election.

While the Mueller report detailed Russia’s involvement extensively, it has never been accepted by US right-wing media and has been discredited as the “Russia hoax”.

In the years since – and based on our observations on X today – Trump’s supporters have easily dismissed every new scandal involving Russia as another Russia hoax.

The Democrats, meanwhile, are so far largely accepting the official narrative that Russia is responsible for the hoax bomb threats. They did, however, criticise Republicans who were seemingly celebrating the poll closures.

Misinformation in a post-truth environment

Elections, particularly those involving Donald Trump, are renowned for elements of post-truth politics. This is the idea that what someone believes to be true can hold greater weight than objective facts.

One significant aspect of the post-truth era is the erosion of social trust. We can see, in the examples below, various perspectives on the Russian bomb threats:

These examples from indicate there is no widespread acceptance of US authorities’ official explanation. As such, it seems likely that regardless of the outcome of the FBI’s investigation into the source/sources, citizens will continue to be divided.

Our findings point to a clear distrust in authority and official narratives – something which is characteristic of post-truth politics.

How many people will question this year’s electoral proceedings, assuming the role of foreign interference? And if societies can’t agree on matters which should be easily settled, where does that leave them on the issues that aren’t so black and white?

Katherine M. FitzGerald receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a PhD scholarship.

Klaus Groebner receives funding from the Australian Research Council for a PhD scholarship.

– ref. The fake election bomb threats caused chaos online. It’s a perfect breeding ground for conspiracies – https://theconversation.com/the-fake-election-bomb-threats-caused-chaos-online-its-a-perfect-breeding-ground-for-conspiracies-241785

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

Donald Trump is set to accomplish the rare feat of winning the US presidential election after losing an earlier one.

The New York Times Needle gives Trump a 95% chance to win the Electoral College. He’s estimated to have won Georgia (16 electoral votes) by 2.5% over Democrat Kamala Harris and North Carolina (16) by 3.3%.

Other key states have not yet been called, but Trump has an 85% probability of winning Pennsylvania (19 electoral votes), a 71% chance to win Michigan (15), a 79% chance to win Wisconsin (ten) and an 83% chance to win Arizona (11). There are still no results from Nevada (six).

If Trump wins all the seven key states in which the “needle” favours him, he will win the Electoral College by a 312–226 margin.

The needle’s popular vote projection also favours Trump by 1.2%. If Trump wins the popular vote as well as the Electoral College, it will be the first time Republicans have won both since 2004. In 2000 and 2016, Republicans won the Electoral College but not the popular vote.

The main reasons for Trump’s victory were Joe Biden’s unpopularity, the US economy being only just above average, and record illegal immigration during Biden’s term. I’ve mentioned all these factors in my previous US election articles.

Abortion was not the vote-shifter Democrats expected. In lower-turnout elections such as the 2022 midterms and byelections, Democrats have performed well owing to voters motivated by abortion. But in this high-turnout presidential election, abortion was marginalised.

Polls understated Trump across the board, though they were not as bad as they were in 2020. Using Nate Silver’s aggregate of final polls, Trump outperformed his polls in the seven key states by two to three points. This is the third successive time that polls have underestimated Trump.

In the past, the Selzer Iowa poll has had outlier results that turned out to be accurate. This time the final Selzer poll gave Harris a three-point lead in Iowa, but Trump will win by 13 points according to the needle’s forecast.

Barack Obama won Florida in both 2008 and 2012, and Trump won it by one to three points in both 2016 and 2020. This year, Trump won Florida by 56–43. He won the heavily Hispanic Miami-Dade county by 55–44. At the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton had defeated Trump in Miami-Dade by 63–34.

In some states that have nearly finished counting, such as Kentucky, there were swings across the board to Trump compared with 2020. It wasn’t just a rural swing to Trump as there were also swings in urban counties.

The New York Times said Trump had gained nine to ten points since 2020 in New York, New Jersey and Florida, all racially diverse states.

The only comfort for Democrats from this election is that the gap between the popular vote and the Electoral College “tipping point” state has almost disappeared, if the needle is right. Democrats will lose the popular vote by 1.2% but Pennsylvania, the tipping point state, by 2.2%. This will be a gap of 1.0%, down from nearly 3.9% in 2020.

Senate also ugly for Democrats

Democrats and allied independents held a 51–49 Senate majority coming into this election, but they were defending 23 of the 33 regular seats up for election. Senators have six-year terms with two from each of the 50 states.

Republicans have gained the Senate with a 51–42 lead over Democrats, after gaining West Virginia and Ohio from Democrats and defending Florida, Nebraska and Texas. Republicans lead Democrats in four more Senate races, so they could win a 55–45 Senate majority.

All of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years. Republicans currently have a 183–155 lead over Democrats. A majority requires 218 seats.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Donald Trump poised to become next US president, likely sweeping all the seven key states – https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-poised-to-become-next-us-president-likely-sweeping-all-the-seven-key-states-242766

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

Trust in politicians is at an all-time low, not only in Australia but across the world. Now more than ever, people are demanding a higher standard for our elected officials.

The row over flight upgrades and the Qantas lounge has reinforced distrust.

So has the strong criticism of the head of the National Anti-Corruption Commission, Paul Brereton, in his conduct over referrals from the Robodebt royal commission. The Inspector of the NACC found Brereton, who had a conflict of interest because he knew one of the people, had not properly recused himself from the consideration of whether the NACC should investigate the referrals.

Independent MP Helen Haines, who holds the Victorian seat of Indi, has long focused on integrity issues, and she joined us on the podcast.

Haines, who is deputy chair of the parliamentary committee with oversight of the NACC, says the new body – which she strongly believes is surrounded by too much secrecy – has not started well:

We are just over one year in, but I’d have to say that the National Anti-Corruption Commission has got off to a disappointing start, given the Robodebt incident and the subsequent inquiry by the Inspector.

The [parliamentary] oversight committee will have the opportunity very soon – in a public hearing on the 22nd of November, when the Commissioner comes before us in regard to the annual report of the NACC – to ask him questions. And I certainly will be giving full consideration to what line of questioning needs to happen in that committee in order to unpack the events of the past year.

Will that committee make a decision on whether Commissioner Brereton should be asked to resign?

I think what happens next will be determined by what the committee unpacks in that public hearing. But I think, to be clear, that under the legislation, our committee has powers to review the performance of the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners. So that’s what we’ll be doing.

On grant programs, Haines says the Albanese government is pork barrelling, just as the Coalition did:

It’s a really strong example of the two major parties and the duopoly they hold. They wouldn’t do it if it didn’t work. But there are ways that we can remedy this. I’ve put forward twice in the parliament now a piece of private member’s legislation that would bring an end to pork barrelling. It would mean that eligibility criteria and guidelines by legislation must be published before grant moneys are allocated.

It would re-institute parliamentary oversight of these grant programs. And it would make sure that in circumstances where the department had recommended particular projects but a minister wished to make a different decision to override that, which may be quite legitimate, but that the minister would need to come into the House and explain that.

When she is reminded one argument for a vote for an independent in her seat of Indi, when her predecessor Cathy McGowan ran, had been to make it more competitive in attracting promises, she says:

Now I think that’s regrettable. I think, though, it’s a symptom of the cynicism that everyday citizens feel when the major parties have what they consider safe seats and what they consider marginal seats.

I think that what I’ve learnt as a member of parliament is that we never fix the system if we remain that cynical. I think we need to say, what’s the problem here? The problem is that the major parties are using taxpayer dollars for political purposes and that, yes, you can feel angry, disappointed and, in fact, so cynical that you take the approaches, as we did in Indi, to say, well, we need to change our representation.

I’m saying it’s no wonder people buy into that when there’s no remedy. I want to see a remedy.

On her decision to this week to cancel her membership of the Qantas chairman’s lounge and its Virgin equivalent:

For me, the potential or perceived conflict of interest or actual conflict of interest that may arise from holding such a membership when I’m a legislator is a risk that I’m not willing to take now.

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: Independent Helen Haines says the NACC has had ‘disappointing start’, and the government is pork barrelling – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-independent-helen-haines-says-the-nacc-has-had-disappointing-start-and-the-government-is-pork-barrelling-243029

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

The High Court has struck down the Albanese government’s law enabling it to impose ankle bracelets and curfews on the more than 200 non-citizens it released from immigration detention in 2023 after  an earlier decision by the court.

Wednesday’s decision, by a five-two majority, found the measures “punitive” and an infringement of the constitution.

The plaintiff in the case  was a stateless Eritrean who was released from immigration detention last November. He was later charged  with six offences  for failing to comply with his monitoring and curfew conditions. The charges are  pending  in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.  His earlier criminal record includes a 2017 conviction for offences of burglary and causing injury.

Legislation for the measures was rushed through parliament a year ago, in response to the release of the detainees, many of whom had serious criminal records, including for murder, rape and assault.

During consideration of the bill, the opposition forced the government to toughen it – from providing for the measures only where needed for community safety, to saying the minister must act unless satisfied the person did not pose a risk.

At the time constitutional experts such as Anne Twomey, from the University of Sydney,nas well as the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills expressed doubts about the legislation.

Twomey wrote: “the effects of the political bidding war to be seen as the ‘toughest’ and most punitive  towards non-citizens will make it infinitely harder for Commonwealth lawyers to defend these measures in the courts”.

The opposition said in a statement the effect of the court decision would be that “215 dangerous non-citizen offenders including 12 murderers, 66 sex offenders, 97 people convicted of assault, 15 domestic violence perpetrators and others will be free in the community without any monitoring or curfews”.

It said since being released, 65 of these people had been charged with new state or territory offences, with 45 remaining free in the community.

Minister for Home Affairs Tony Burke said regulations were being finalised for “an adjusted process” for electronic monitoring and curfews. “I will sign off on these regulations later today.”

Burke said that on Thursday he would introduce new legislation to support the regulations. That legislation would also strengthen the government’s power to remove to third countries people whose visas had been cancelled.

“The court decision is not the one the government wanted – but it is one the government has prepared for,” Burke said.

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. Government to introduce urgent legislation after High Court strikes down law to monitor former immigration detainees – https://theconversation.com/government-to-introduce-urgent-legislation-after-high-court-strikes-down-law-to-monitor-former-immigration-detainees-243027

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Conrad Wasko, ARC DECRA Fellow in Hydrology, University of Sydney

Spain is still reeling from recent floods in the Valencia region. In some areas, a year’s worth of rain fell in a single day. Sudden torrents raced through towns and cities. Over 200 people are dead. Rapid analysis suggests daily rainfall extremes in this region and season have become twice as common over the last 75 years and become 12% more intense.

The World Meteorological Organisation has pointed out that climate change is steadily increasing the risk of extreme floods like these. Warmer air can hold more water vapour, about 7% more per degree Celsius of warming. More moisture generally leads to more intense rainfall, and therefore more extreme floods.

The physics of how temperature influences the atmosphere’s capacity to hold moisture has been known for close to 200 years. But we’ve learned something worrying more recently. When water vapour condenses to form rain droplets, it releases heat which can fuel stronger convection and boost updrafts of air currents in storms. This means the intensity of extreme rainfall could increase not just 7% per degree of warming, but over twice that rate.

Last week, CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology released their biennial report on the State of the Climate, which found “heavy short-term rainfall events are becoming more intense”. Australia, the report states, has already warmed 1.5°C since national records began in 1910. In recent years, extreme rains have triggered devastating floods in New South Wales and Queensland.

The question now is – are we prepared for these more damaging floods? This year, Australia updated the climate change section of Australia’s flood design guidance. But while this will help ensure that future infrastructure is better able to weather extreme floods, our current bridges, roads and stormwater drains have not been built to weather these increases in extreme rainfall. Similarly, our flood planning levels – used to determine where houses, offices, hospitals and so forth can be built – have generally not factored in the reality of the threat.

More floods and more extreme

Many of us would have learned about the water cycle in school. Water evaporates from seas and lakes before falling as rain and filling lakes and rivers, which eventually makes it back to the sea.

Unfortunately, climate change is making this cycle more intense, as detailed in a recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Rain is more likely to fall in intense short-duration bursts which are more likely to trigger floods.

This year alone, we have seen disastrous and deadly floods from extreme storms across the Americas, Asia and Europe. Scientific analysis has showed these floods were more severe due to human-caused climate change.

Australia is not immune. The devastating northern New South Wales floods of 2022 took 24 lives and ravaged towns such as Lismore. These floods are the most expensive natural disaster to date in Australia, costing A$5.65 billion in damages.

How do you prepare for worse floods?

When urban planners set flood planning levels, or engineers begin designing a new bridge or rail line, they have to take floods into account. To do so, they will inevitably reach for the local bible, Australia’s flood design guidance.

Before 2024, this document allowed for a 5% increase in rainfall intensity per degree of global warming, and generally applied it only to infrastructure intended for a very long lifespan. This clashed with most scientific studies on the topic both globally and in Australia, which showed much greater increases, and that these increases are already being witnessed.

To provide better flood guidance, we and our colleagues undertook a comprehensive review of over 300 scientific papers covering climate change in Australia and extreme rainfall.

The review proved we had been underestimating the threat of extreme rains and subsequent floods. Rain events over a 24-hour period leading to flooding are likely to increase at 8% per degree of warming, not 5%. Hourly rainfall extremes are likely increasing even faster, at 15% per degree.

Worse, these are just the central estimates. The wide range of plausible values suggests some rain events could eclipse these. For daily or longer extreme rains, the range is 2–15%. For hourly or shorter periods, that figure is 7–28% for hourly or shorter duration.

Over the month of February in 2022, the Lismore region had about 600–800 mm of rain – much more than a normal February, which might see closer to 150 mm on average. These floods took place with just 1.1°C of warming since the pre-industrial period. On our current path, it’s possible the world could warm another 1.5°C or more by the end of this century. If this happens, these rainfall totals could be substantially higher and more likely to cause even worse flood impacts.

These new figures have now been included in the August update of Australia’s flood design guidance. This is good news. It means future decisions on infrastructure and planning can now be well informed by the latest science on how climate change influences flood risk.

Over time, this will ensure essential infrastructure can be built to endure worse floods. It will affect the design and construction of everything from local stormwater drains to levees, bridges, culverts and dam spillways.

Local councils can use it to set the height of floor levels for property development. State and federal decision-makers can use it in planning for responses to flood emergencies.

Does it mean we can avoid disastrous floods like those in Spain and Lismore? Yes and no. We now have the knowledge and tools to adapt to the increased risk levels already arriving. Yet implementing this will be challenging. In many cases, it will require retrofitting or redesigning existing infrastructure to withstand more intense flooding.

Climate change is no longer something we can file under “problem for the future”. It’s here already. The flood risks we face today are already substantially worse than 25 years ago, and will continue to worsen. We must accelerate how we plan for extreme, rapid rainfall creating catastrophic floods like those in Spain.

Conrad Wasko receives funding from The University of Sydney and the Australian Research Council. Conrad has previously received funding from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.

Andrew Dowdy receives funding from University of Melbourne, including through the Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes and the Melbourne Energy Institute.

Seth Westra is a Professor of Hydrology and Climate Risk at the University of Adelaide, Director of Research for the One Basin Cooperative Research Centre, and Chair of the Systems Cooperative. Seth receives funding from state and federal governments support decision making under hydrological or climatic uncertainty.

– ref. The extreme floods which devastated Spain are hitting more often. Is Australia ready for the next one? – https://theconversation.com/the-extreme-floods-which-devastated-spain-are-hitting-more-often-is-australia-ready-for-the-next-one-242686

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehak Oberai, Senior Research Assistant, Ethos Project, School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University

Parts of Australia are currently facing extreme heat, with high temperatures set to continue over the coming days.

Though it’s unclear exactly what the upcoming summer will bring, climate change means Australian summers are getting hotter. Even this year in August we saw temperatures around 40°C in parts of the country.

Heatwaves aren’t just uncomfortable – they can be deadly. Health emergencies related to extreme heat place significant strain on our health-care systems, with data showing increased ambulance callouts and hospital presentations during these periods.

Although heatwaves can affect everyone, older adults are particularly at risk. But our new research has found older Queenslanders don’t necessarily believe heat poses a risk to their health. And this affects how they respond to emergency warnings.

Older people and the heat

Ageing brings physiological changes, including reduced ability to regulate body temperature, which can put older people at increased risk of issues such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke.

Heat exposure can also worsen the symptoms of existing conditions, such as heart disease, lung disease or kidney disease, which are more common in older people.

The risk is even more pronounced for older people who live in poor quality housing, are economically disadvantaged, or are socially isolated.

A report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows that, of 2,150 hospitalisations due to extreme heat between 2019 and 2022, 37% were among people aged 65 and older (who make up around 16% of the population).

So there’s an urgent need to prioritise the health of older Australians as the country braces for more intense and prolonged heatwaves in the future.

Early warning systems

As we’ve learned more about the risks of heatwaves, there’s been an increased focus on developing population-based early warning systems. These systems play a crucial role in encouraging people to adopt heat-protective behaviours such as staying hydrated, avoiding strenuous physical activity when temperatures are high, and wearing loose or light clothing.

Queensland is one of the world’s most vulnerable regions to heatwaves. Since 2015, heatwave warnings have been part of the state’s heatwave subplan, which sets out strategies for managing and mitigating the impacts of extreme heat events.

These warnings involve alerts about upcoming high temperatures, and advice on staying cool. They come as notifications through the Bureau of Meterology’s weather app or via media outlets or social media. However, it’s not clear whether these warnings are reaching those most at risk.

As part of a broader project on extreme heat and older people, we surveyed 547 Queenslanders aged 65 and over to understand their perceptions of heat risks and to determine if heatwave warnings were reaching them.

We also wanted to know what factors influence how they receive and respond to these warnings, with a view to understanding how we can improve heatwave warnings for this group.

What we found

Only 25% of respondents were aware of the potential consequences of heatwaves on their health. The majority of participants (80%) perceived themselves to be at lower risk compared to others of their age group. This aligns with previous heat-health research which has similarly found older adults often don’t perceive heat as a personal risk.

While most of the sample (87%) reported having one or more chronic health conditions, 30% were unaware having a chronic health condition increased their vulnerability to heatwaves.

Several cultural and personal factors may explain why older people don’t think heat poses a danger to them. In Australia, heat is typically seen as a normal and even positive part of life. Heat risk messages are often less urgent than warnings for other natural disasters.

We also found nearly half of respondents had not heard a heatwave warning. Of those who had, roughly half took actions to keep themselves cool.

What stood out from our analysis was that participants’ awareness and actions in response to heatwave warnings were significantly influenced by their knowledge and perceptions of heat risks. Factors such as age, gender and education were not so important.

Respondents who believed they were at risk were almost twice as likely to hear the warnings, and 3.6 times more likely to take heat protective actions.

This aligns with other research that highlights the correlation between heat-health risk perception and the efficacy of heatwave warnings.

One limitation of our research is that we conducted the survey in 2022 during and following a La Nina period, where temperatures are usually lower. So there may have been fewer heatwave warnings throughout the season, potentially reducing participants’ perceptions of heat health risks.

What needs to change?

With another hot summer likely ahead, we need to rethink how we communicate about heatwaves. These are more than just hot days. We need to recognise heatwaves as a serious health risk, especially for older people, and effectively communicate that risk to the public.

This might include using primary health-care professionals such as GPs, nurses and pharmacists to share heat-health information with older patients and their family members, or developing personalised heat action plans for the summer period.

Text message alerts from the Bureau of Meteorology, along with app notifications, could be a good idea considering some older adults may not have a smartphone or be open to using apps.

To improve heatwave communication, we also need to explore the barriers and facilitators to heat protective behaviours. This includes considering structural factors (such as housing design), environmental factors (for example, access to shade and cool refuges), individual factors (such as financial constraints or health conditions) and social factors (such as access to family and community support).

Strengthening communication around heatwaves and health will not only protect individual wellbeing but enhance community resilience as extreme heat continues to affect our lives.

Mehak Oberai is a Senior Research Assistant working on Ethos project and is also a member of the AAG (Australian Association of Gerontology) Student & Early Career Working Group.

Ella Jackman is a PhD Candidate at Griffith University and a Research Assistant for the Queensland Heat Health Community of Practice (QHHCoP) and the Ethos Project.

Shannon Rutherford co-leads the Climate Action Beacon Griffith University funded, Queensland Heat Health Community of Practice and receives funding from Wellcome and NEMA. She is an affiliate member of the HEAL network

Steven Baker and Zhiwei Xu 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. Only 25% of older Queenslanders are aware of the risks heatwaves put on their health – new study – https://theconversation.com/only-25-of-older-queenslanders-are-aware-of-the-risks-heatwaves-put-on-their-health-new-study-238875