Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Meyrick, Professor of Creative Arts, Griffith University

Ray Lawler, who died this week at 103, was one of the artists responsible for establishing the first non-commercial repertory theatre in Australia – the Union Repertory Theatre Company, now Melbourne Theatre Company – and the writer of its best-known play, Summer of the Seventeenth Doll.

It is impossible to think of the two achievements separately. So pronounced was the Doll’s success, it cemented the position of the company. The story of the production of the play is the story of the rise of the Union Theatre.

Both are inception events for the structure, outlook and values of Australian theatre today.

The ‘non-existent’ Australian plays

Lawler was born in Footscray in 1921, leaving school when he was 13 to work in a factory. Taking acting classes whenever he could, he started writing plays during the war after being rostered on night shift.

His first job in theatre was on the vaudeville circuit, playing “straight man” to American comedian Will Mahoney. In 1953 came an all-important meeting with John Sumner, founder of the Union Theatre, and the man who would lead it for 35 years.

Sumner persuaded Lawler to try directing, and Sumner prevailed upon Lawler to let the Union Repertory Theatre Company produce the Doll.

The Doll was not an obvious choice. In 1954, it shared first prize with Oriel Gray’s The Torrents in a playwrights competition. But this meant little. Australian plays often achieved literary recognition. It was getting them staged that was the problem.

Challenges continued into rehearsals. In 1965, Niall Brennan, the Union Theatre’s front of house manager, recalled:

The theatre in those days was an imported thing; Australian plays, in commercial terms, were virtually non-existent […] The play was set in Carlton, literally almost over the road from the theatre. It was very hard for everyone to realise that we were so close to home. Was it a play about shearers and wombats, muttered one critic?

On November 28 1955, the Doll opened. There had been successful Australian plays before this time, notably Steele Rudd’s On Our Selection (1912) and Sumner Locke-Elliot’s Rusty Bugles (1948). It is the extent and penetration of the Doll’s impact that makes it such a signal work, as well as the quality of its dialogue, characters, and comedio-tragic narrative.

An Australian classic

Lawler’s tale of the deterioration and collapse of the unconventional relationship between two Queensland cane-cutters and their off-season, Melbourne-based lovers was both an assault on the wowserism of the times, and a clear-eyed dissection of values we would now call masculinist.

Unlike other plays of the 1950s, it retains its force and appeal. It is one of the few we can justly call an Australian classic.

Supported by the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust (predecessor to Creative Australia), the Doll toured nationally, Lawler playing the role of Barney.

With the help of Lawrence Olivier, the production then transferred to London’s New Theatre, where it had a similar seismic impact on British audiences, running for over eight months, and winning the Evening Standard Award for Best New Play.

Ken Tynan, the rising star of theatre criticism, wrote of Lawler’s “respect for ordinary people”, amazed at his ability to portray working class characters who were neither incidental nor the butt of class humour. Not until John Osborne, Arnold Wesker and Shelagh Delaney did English drama manage a similar feat.

In 1959, the Doll was turned into a film by Hecht Hill Lancaster. In 1996, it was adapted as a chamber opera by Richard Mills.

A singular event

Lawler had a long career in theatre, but never repeated the triumph of the Doll. In 1957, he left Australia to live in Denmark, Britain and Ireland. Returning in 1975, he rejoined Sumner at the Melbourne Theatre Company until both retired in 1987.

In 1975 and 1976, Lawler wrote two prequel plays, Kid’s Stakes and Other Times. Together, they make up The Doll Trilogy, complementing other trilogies in the Australian repertoire such as Peter Kenna’s Cassidy Album (1978), Janis Balodis’ The Ghosts Trilogy (1997) and Jack Davis’ The First Born Trilogy (1988).

In retrospect, two things can be said about the Doll’s success.

First, it is easy to take for granted and fall into rote deprecation of its influence, like the theatre critic Harry Kippax when complaining about a rush of subsequent plays he dubbed “the Doll clones”. Playwrights are not responsible for the drama they inspire, only the work they create. The Doll remains a singular event for Australian theatre, and for Australian culture more broadly, as it has tacked away from its British colonial origins.

Second, while many Australians have heard about Summer of the Seventeenth Doll, and a good proportion have seen it, the play remains largely unproduced overseas. Here, the drama’s strengths may count against it. The authenticity of language and character that grabbed audiences in the 1950s, and remains impressive now, is hard to reproduce for non-Australian actors.

The power and the challenge of the Doll is that it resists globalised interpretation: it remains supremely and stubbornly an Australian play.

The last word can perhaps be given to Brennan about that opening night audience:

None of us could understand it. The jinx [on Australian drama] had just gone! They clapped the house curtain when it went up, and they clapped the set. They clapped every actor who came on and the roars which greeted Ray’s own entrance were tremendous. When the curtain came down at the end, the theatre almost shook.

Julian was Associate Director and Literary Adviser at Melbourne Theatre Company 2002-2007.

– ref. Vale Ray Lawler: the playwright who changed the sound of Australian theatre – https://theconversation.com/vale-ray-lawler-the-playwright-who-changed-the-sound-of-australian-theatre-218121

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Austin, Lecturer in Theatre, The University of Melbourne

There has never been an opening ceremony quite like it.

For the first time in Olympic Games history, the ceremony took place outside a stadium arena. Despite a rainy and miserable Paris evening, enormous crowds – most who paid no fee to attend – lined the banks of the Seine to witness this outdoor promenade of history, art and sport as 100 boats carrying 10,500 athletes sailed down the river.

Designed to showcase the depth of French culture and celebrate the Olympics as a source of human greatness and unity, the ceremony combined the traditional and the irreverent.

Paris featured as the unmistakable backdrop. The ceremony marked the first since 2018 that has not had to work around COVID restrictions. As the world watched, it took place amid a global context of war, invasion and genocide. Within the performances and speeches featured in the ceremony, there were aspects designed to address and acknowledge this, and promote peace and inclusion.

A mission across Paris

The ceremony was divided into thematic chapters, including Fraternite (fraternity), Sororite (sorority), Sportive (sportsmanship), Solidarite (solidarity), Solennite (solemnity) and Eternite (eternity). These were used as prompts to underpin each section of the sprawling, epic ceremony.

Across the three hours, we travelled throughout Paris. Artists and sportspeople from across the broad spectrum of each of these fields were featured and celebrated.

All was underpinned by an amazing soundtrack featuring French electro-pop bangers, classical music and opera.

The ceremony was anchored by a masked torch bearer who initially arrived at the Olympic stadium only to realise they were in the wrong place. They embarked on a Parkour-like mission across the rooftops and streets of Paris with the torch held aloft.

Kicked off by a short film featuring French soccer star Zinedine Zidane, followed by a performance from Lady Gaga, the ceremony brought together the iconic and the unexpected.

Images of beret-wearing accordion players under bridges and the high kicks of 80 dancers in hot pink performing the can-can were interspersed with tributes to the French revolution and the contemporary rebuild of Notre Dame.

There were stylishly considered moments. A single opera performer sung the French national anthem on the roof of the Grand Palais, as tribute was paid to the history of women in France. During this moment, ten golden statues featuring prominent French female political advocates, anarchists, explorers, botanists, intellectuals, journalists, artists and writers from across history emerged from plinths situated in the river.

The moment ended with a soaring rendition of the anthem as the singer on the roof was accompanied by a chorus of children on a bridge across the river.

The ceremony brought together tradition and contemporary performance. In a stunning moment, French-Mali singer Aya Nakamura performed with 60 musicians of the Republican Choir Guard dressed by Dior (obviously).

Profoundly stunning images such as a concert pianist playing on a bridge over the River Seine on a raindrop covered piano were juxtaposed with an animated film featuring the beloved Minions (created by a French animation studio).

BMX riders, breakers and circus performers on large pontoons performed death-defying stunts in front of illuminated fountains. A fashion parade on a bridge across the river featured up and coming French designers and included a demonstration of Eurodance styles including krumping, vogueing and breaking. DJs on decks and drag performers turned the Seine into Paris’ largest outdoor nightclub.

Peace, inclusion and solidarity

Toward the end of the three hour extravaganza, Paris was plunged into darkness as a singer standing near a burning grand piano floating on a barge delivered a poignant version of John Lennon’s Imagine.

The words “We Stand and Call for Peace” in both English and French appeared on screen. This elicited an enormous cheer from the crowd, and underscored a theme appearing in speeches and theatrical images throughout the ceremony: inclusion, respect, solidarity and the role the Olympics can play in supporting these notions across global borders.

“In our Olympic World we all belong,” claimed the International Olympic Committee chair Thomas Bach in his speech.

Taking this idea further, as part of Solidarite, an illuminated silver mechanical horse carrying a rider wearing the Olympic flag appeared to gallop down the river. We watched images of Olympic moments over the years that united the world – and at times challenged dominant thinking.

The rider emerged from the river on a dappled grey horse at the Trocadero at the base of the iconic and resplendent Eiffel Tower. A parade of flag bearers from all countries assembled behind the rider as they walked together through the streets of Paris to raise the Olympic flag and sing the Olympic anthem.

It was magnificent and humbling.

Zidane returned in person near the end of the ceremony to meet the masked torch bearer and was handed the Olympic torch. As the Eiffel Tower lit up with a jaw-droppingly spectacular laser display illuminating across the city, the torch travelled back down the river on a boat with athletes Rafael Nadal, Serena Williams and Carl Lewis. It continued its journey toward its final destination with a sign-interpreted electronic dance banger in the background.

A parade of extraordinary French athletes completed the torch’s journey to the Olympic cauldron – a hot air balloon, a tribute to daring French inventors.

The cauldron was set aflame and the balloon lifted into the air above Paris to the cheers of the crowds.

Underneath the illuminated Olympic rings on the Eiffel Tour, Celine Dion sung Edith Piaf’s Hymne A l’amour. Dion’s journey to this performance has been publicly marked by illness.

Her stirring and flawless performance against the odds speaks to the Olympic spirit of perseverance and witnessing superhuman feats of the extraordinary, reminding us sport and performance have much in common.

Let’s hope the rest of the sporting event can match this creative beginning.

Sarah Austin 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. Magnificent and humbling: the Paris opening ceremony was a tribute to witnessing superhuman feats of the extraordinary – https://theconversation.com/magnificent-and-humbling-the-paris-opening-ceremony-was-a-tribute-to-witnessing-superhuman-feats-of-the-extraordinary-233665

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

The 2022 election brought the “teal wave” into parliament. The next election will test whether teals, who occupy what were Liberal seats, and other independents can maintain their momentum.

Joining us on the Podcast is one of those teals, Zoe Daniel, member for the Melbourne seat of Goldstein. Daniel, previously a veteran reporter and foreign correspondent for the ABC, discusses some current hot-button issues, including the government’s plan for extensive reform of electoral donations and spending, which has some of the independents worried.

Daniel supports change but warns of risk:

I think there’s a strong case for getting big money out of politics, […] But I think that the danger is that it ends up, either deliberately or as an unintended consequence, preventing new players from getting into politics.

We know that roughly a third of Australians are currently not voting for major parties, that the two parties – the Coles and Woollies, the duopoly of politics – may collude, to create an unlevel playing field to protect themselves and to prevent others from entering the frame.

The conduct in the CFMEU has been in the spotlight after an expose by Nine of corruption and standover tactics. Federal and state governments have reacted strongly but Daniel is concerned about their commitment:

I think where my lack of confidence is, is in whether their intent is there. I think there’s a question around wanting to be seen to do something and actually doing something.

Victorians were just shaking their heads at the news that came out about the CFMEU because there has been smoke around this issue for so long. And we look at big construction projects in Victoria and it’s very self-evident that the costs are inflated, and that the CFMEU has been pulling the strings there.

If they’re going to embark on this with now such a microscope on it, they have to make sure that they actually clean out that behaviour. […] They cannot let this go this time without completing the job.

Daniel’s electorate has one of the highest Jewish populations in the country. She says:

It’s been an incredibly challenging time for Jewish people, across the world, but also specifically in my electorate since October 7th. The vast majority of the Jewish people in Melbourne are either Holocaust survivors or direct descendants of Holocaust survivors. There is absolute intergenerational trauma.

The thing that I’ve been trying to do is to separate what’s happening in Israel and Gaza, which Australia as a country can have influence on through its international partners, but to separate that from what’s going on in our community.

So to pressure the government initially to get flights into Israel, to get people evacuated, to then fast track security grants for synagogues and schools, to then address the doxing of Jewish creatives, which the government has done, to appoint an anti-Semitism envoy which the government has done.

Finally, as a former ABC foreign correspondent in the United States, Daniel observes of of Kamala Harris’ prospects,

I think no matter who they put in at this late stage, it was going to be extremely difficult to beat Donald Trump from a kind of standing start.

I must say that my instinct has been, has always been, that she wouldn’t be able to beat Trump. But I note that there’s a lot of momentum behind her and sometimes circumstances pan out differently to the way that you might expect. So maybe she’s got a shot at it.

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: ‘Teal’ Zoe Daniel on political donations, representing Jewish voters and Kamala Harris’ prospects – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-teal-zoe-daniel-on-political-donations-representing-jewish-voters-and-kamala-harris-prospects-235518

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Xu Yi-chong, Professor of Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University

Seven years seems a lifetime in politics. In 2017, President Donald Trump announced the United States would withdraw from the Paris Agreement. It prompted Canada, China and the European Union to convene an urgent meeting to reaffirm political commitment to global climate action.

The successful meeting became an annual event which, this week, took place in Wuhan, China – just as the prospect of another Trump presidency looms large.

Australia’s Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen represented Australia at the invitation-only meeting of climate ministers and senior officials from nearly 30 countries.

The group gathered to progress global climate negotiations in the lead-up to the next United Nations climate conference (COP29) in Baku, Azerbaijan. Setting stronger emissions reduction targets should send clear signals for investment, which has been lagging in Australia – but not China.

China is making remarkable progress in the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. Analysts have observed record growth in solar and wind – reducing coal’s share in electricity generation – alongside a boom in manufacturing of low-carbon technologies, including batteries and electric vehicles.

All of this means China’s greenhouse gas emissions may have peaked, which would be great news for the planet. It also means Australia must get a move on if it wants to become a renewable energy superpower.

China’s quiet approach to climate diplomacy

China clearly wants to play more of a global leadership role in the energy transition, but also put pressure on its own industries and firms to take climate action. China’s decision to host this week’s meeting, and others, reflects this aspiration.

Earlier this month, China hosted a five-day meeting of “like-minded developing countries” in Shandong. Then there was a “BASIC” ministerial meeting on climate action with Brazil, India and South Africa last weekend.

The big meeting this week was formally known as the 8th Ministerial on Climate Action. It involved in-depth discussions on issues surrounding COP29 and COP30, strengthening international cooperation and promoting energy transition.

At the meeting, UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell called for bolder climate action from all nations, especially the rich G20. Under the Paris Agreement, every nation must submit new national climate plans and targets by February next year. As Stiell says:

Done well, these plans are the key to stronger economic growth, more jobs and prosperity, much less pollution and better health.

The transition to a low-carbon economy requires structural changes that are both politically difficult and time-consuming. But China’s efforts to develop the technology for renewable energy revolution are starting to bear fruit, as I outline below.

Electricity

About 40% of China’s CO₂ emissions come from electricity generation, mainly coal, but the share of renewable energy is growing .

Wind capacity expanded from 61 gigawatts (GW) in 2012 to 441GW in 2023, while solar capacity rose from 3.4GW in 2013 to 610GW.

Coal-fired power plants are being built too, though at a much slower rate. Hydropower experienced several successive years of drought.

New storage technologies are being developed to manage the rapid expansion of solar and wind. These include water-pump storage, chemical storage, compressed-air storage, and virtual power plants. Long-distance transmission grids will enable better use of renewables.

China is also experimenting with climate policy including emissions trading and offsetting through carbon markets. A dual system that managed both energy consumption and intensity for nearly 30 years is being redesigned, because the government wants to target fossil fuel consumption instead.

The plan is to replace direct coal burning with electricity, coal with natural gas, and combustion engines with electric vehicles.

Transport

In 2023, global electric vehicle sales exceeded 13 million. China has the largest domestic electric vehicle market with more than 7 million units sold, representing a third of car sales.

In addition, China exported 1.2 million electric vehicles in 2023. This was 80% more than the previous year.

Electric vehicles are already cheaper than cars with internal combustion engines in China, because they have such a high market share. Local carmakers already offer nearly 50 different small, affordable electric models.

Steel

In April, China announced it was preparing to extend emissions trading to the steel industry. This sector is the country’s second largest CO₂ emitter, behind power.

Emissions trading is a market-based approach to controlling pollution. The government allocates permits that allow release of a certain amount of CO₂ over a set period of time. These permits can be bought and sold, or traded.

China accounts for more than half of the world’s steel production. But the industry also supports the energy transition, because steel is used in renewables and electric vehicles manufacturing. Nearly 70% of the world’s key components of wind turbines and 80% of solar panel components are made in China.

The government is encouraging industry to work with universities and research institutes to reduce emissions. It will not be easy, and it will be costly.

China is the world’s largest hydrogen producer, but 80% comes from fossil fuels. Investment in green hydrogen research and development is increasing, with some firms determined to take the lead. If steel-making could be powered by green hydrogen, it would be a major breakthrough.

A glimpse of the future

Given the uncertainty surrounding the US election in November, China’s steady hand in climate diplomacy is welcome.

China is also showing Australia and other nations what’s possible if the energy transition is turned into an opportunity for innovation. The scale of the renewable energy rollout in China is staggering, but so too is the pace of technology development to support renewables – to efficiently store wind and solar power to supply electricity on demand.

As the International Energy Agency said in 2020, more than two-thirds of global greenhouse gas reduction will be supported by the technologies that are still in development. China wants to get there first and corner the market. And there’s every indication it will succeed.

Xu Yi-chong 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. China: still the world’s biggest emitter, but also an emerging force in climate diplomacy – https://theconversation.com/china-still-the-worlds-biggest-emitter-but-also-an-emerging-force-in-climate-diplomacy-235311

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Musgrave, Senior lecturer in Pharmacology, University of Adelaide

A major Federal Court class action has been dismissed this week after Justice Michael Lee ruled there was not enough evidence to prove the weedkiller Roundup causes cancer.

Plaintiff Kelvin McNickle, now aged 41, developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) in his family’s vegetation management business for more than 20 years.

More than 800 others joined the class action against German chemical and pharmaceutical company, Bayer, which produces Roundup. Bayer has long maintained glyphosate doesn’t cause cancer, despite a number of court cases around the world. It said this week’s ruling was a “win for Australian farmers”.

The court acknowledged the scientific community had mixed views on whether glyphosate causes cancer. Justice Lee looked at three types of scientific evidence – epidemiological, animal studies and evidence showing the mechanisms involved in the development of cancer – in his ruling.

Yet in 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified the herbicide as “probably carcinogenic to humans”.

So what does the science say?

What is glyphosate?

Glyphosate is one of the most used herbicides worldwide, and has been used in agriculture, public parks and footpaths, and in home gardens in Australia for more than 40 years.

It kills weeds by targeting a specific pathway (the shikimic acid pathway) that exists in plants and a type of bacteria (eubacteria), but not animals (or humans).

In terms of short-term exposure, glyphosate is less toxic than table salt. For example, a 70Kg person would need to eat a quarter of a kilogram of table salt in order to die, but would need to eat around half a kilogram of glyphosate to die.

However, it is chronic, or long-term, exposure to glyphosate that’s causing the controversy.

What does ‘probably carcinogenic’ to humans mean?

Those who believe glyphosate causes cancer often refer to the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) 2015 report that classified the herbicide as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. This was based on:

convincing evidence that these agents cause cancer in laboratory animals.

However, IARC arrived at its conclusion using a narrower base of evidence than other peer-reviewed papers and governmental reviews. Also, unlike other regulatory bodies, it flags any possibility of causing cancer, rather than risk from plausible exposures.

The Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization joint meeting on pesticide residues report in 2016 concluded that glyphosate was unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.

In contrast to the IARC’s confident conclusion that glyphosate had convincing evidence of causing cancer in laboratory animals, the joint meeting concluded:

glyphosate is not carcinogenic in rats but could not exclude the possibility that it is carcinogenic in mice at very high doses.

Australia’s regulator, the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, reviewed the safety of glyphosate after IARC’s determination and concluded:

there is no reliable evidence that products containing glyphosate pose a risk of causing cancer in humans.

What have epidemiological studies found?

The IARC considered ten cohort studies, where research participants are studied over a period of time, and nine case control studies, where people who have the disease are compare with groups that do not have the disease, to try and identify possible causes. There was no evidence of cancer association.

However, three small studies suggested an association with non-Hodgkin lymphoma, but this association was not statistically significant. This means the association could have occurred by chance alone.

A 2016 meta-analysis which reviewed all the available evidence at the time, suggested a small but non-statistically significant association of glyphosate with non-Hodkin lymphoma, but no causal relationship was established.

In 2018, the Agricultural Health Study was published. This was a long-running study of 54,251 participants licensed to use glyphosate, where their exposure could be followed. This strong study, which controlled for a number of factors that could cloud the conclusion, found no statistically significant associations with glyphosate use and cancer at any site.

What does the research in animals say?

There have been multiple animal studies of glyphosate and cancer. In these studies, rodents are typically exposed to high but sub-lethal concentrations for at least 80% of their total lifespan. These concentrations will be higher than humans would be likely to be exposed to.

In the European Food Safety Authority review in 2015, there were nine rat studies where no cancers were seen.

There were also five mouse studies in the review above. Of these, three were negative. One found sporadic tumours that were not dose-dependent (indicating glyphosate was not the causative agent). In the other study, researchers found tumours at highest doses in males only.

The animal studies show no consistent evidence of developing cancer, and no equivalent of human non-Hodgkin lymphoma was seen. The European Food Safety Authority therefore concluded glyphosate was unlikely to be a carcinogenic hazard to humans.

Read more:
Research Check: do we need to worry about glyphosate in our beer and wine?

In the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) report that classified the herbicide as “probably carcinogenic to humans”, there were six rat studies. Cancer was seen in only one study, but again this was not dose-dependent. This indicates glyphosate was not the causative agent.

There were two mouse studies; one was negative and the other found a “trend” for a cancer that forms in the glandular tissue in males, but not females.

No equivalent of human non-Hodgkin lymphoma was seen.

While the IARC considered there was sufficient evidence of cancer causation in animals, there was no consistency in tumour type (mouse versus rat) or location.

What mechanisms could be involved?

There are a number of ways that chemicals can cause cancer, typically through damage to DNA or chromosomes.

For glyphosate, there is little evidence these classical mechanisms are involved.

Bacterial mutation studies looking for damage to bacterial DNA have been negative, mutation studies in mammalian cell lines have been negative, chromosomal damage studies have been largely negative. These studies involve concentrations and routes of exposure that humans will never encounter.

Oxidative stress occurs when there is imbalance of toxic free radicals and antioxidants in your body that leads to cell damage. Oxidative stress is involved in cancer, and it has been suggested that oxidative stress could be a plausible mechanism for inducing cancer. While this damage may be implicated in causing cancer, it may also be part of the mechanism the body uses to fight cancer.

However, while oxidative stress has been shown in cellular studies and animal studies of exposure to glyphosate, the levels were much higher than what humans are exposed to.

While glyphosate exposure can alter markers of oxidative stress in humans, these changes are relatively minor. Given the lack of evidence for cancer induction in animal studies and human epidemiology, the significance of these small changes is unclear.

Over all, there is currently no plausible mechanism for glyphosate to cause cancer at the levels of glyphosate humans are likely to be exposed to.

Ian Musgrave receives funding from the NH&MRC funding for projects not related to pesticides or herbicides. Ian is a member of the Australasian Society for Clinical and Experiment Pharmacology and Toxicology and the Forensic and Clinical Toxicology Association.

– ref. Federal Court finds insufficient evidence Roundup weedkiller causes cancer. What does the science say? – https://theconversation.com/federal-court-finds-insufficient-evidence-roundup-weedkiller-causes-cancer-what-does-the-science-say-235580

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rebecca Bennett, PhD Student, Associate Research Fellow, Deakin University

Last week, a drone delivery company called Wing (owned by Google’s parent company, Alphabet) started operating in Melbourne. Some 250,000 residents in parts of the city’s eastern suburbs can now order food from cafes and restaurants via the DoorDash app and have it brought to them in minutes by a small aircraft.

This is the first large-scale rollout of autonomous food delivery in Australia. What does it mean for our food ordering, and our health? Research (including ours) into online food delivery platforms suggests this extra convenience may come at a cost to public health.

Online food delivery is booming – but most of it’s unhealthy

In Australia, more than 7 million people use food delivery services such as DoorDash and UberEats. The typical users are 25–34-year-olds in capital cities.

The online food delivery industry is growing rapidly. In 2023, DoorDash generated US$8.6 billion (A$13.1 billion) in revenue, increasing from US$885 million (A$1.4 billion) in 2019.

Research has shown that the food available and promoted through Australian online food delivery platforms is mostly unhealthy, and more unhealthy food is available in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Our own research has also shown that unhealthy foods are also more likely to be promoted with discounts and higher visibility than healthy options on these platforms.

Autonomous delivery promises greener convenience

At the moment, most food delivery is carried out by humans. However, delivery via robots and drones is on the rise.

This is often referred to as “autonomous delivery”, but these machines are not truly autonomous. Instead they have some human supervision, much like a “self-driving” car. Wing says it has up to 50 drones being supervised by a single human pilot.

Autonomous food deliveries are operating in the United States, United Kingdom, and parts of Europe and Asia. Robots loaded with food have travelled along footpaths in Los Angeles and elsewhere in the US, as well as the UK, Finland and Estonia. Due to the small scale, the potential public health impacts of autonomous delivery are currently not well understood.

Beyond greater convenience, autonomous delivery has been hailed as an eco-friendly alternative to traditional methods, as a small electric quadcopter produces significantly less carbon emissions than a delivery van. One study found the environmental footprint of drone delivery is roughly one-sixth that of motorbike delivery. One robot manufacturer claims a delivery with one of its devices uses less energy than boiling a kettle.

Australians think they will use drone delivery to eat more junk

Drone deliveries have been operating in Australia on a small scale since 2017. Wing has trialled a handful of locations in Queensland and Canberra, but has faced resident complaints and bird attacks.

What do people think about drone delivery? Research suggests the Australian public has generally positive attitudes towards the idea.

Australians surveyed in one study believe drones would allow for lower delivery costs due to replacing human drivers. Another study found Australians say they would likely use autonomous delivery for groceries, fast food and alcohol.

However, survey respondents also believed the availability of drone delivery might lead to more consumption of unhealthy food and alcohol.

Given unhealthy foods saturate online food delivery platforms, the enthusiasm for drone delivery raises serious public health concerns.

Drone delivery may further concentrate power in the food industry

Online food delivery platforms are primarily operated by large, multinational technology companies. Powerful companies have faced criticism for their influence over the food system, the marketing of unhealthy food, and treatment of gig economy workers.

If drone food delivery becomes widespread, it is likely to further concentrate power in the hands of a few online food delivery companies and the big tech firms operating the drone services. Efforts by large companies to sway political decision-making in favour of commercial interests are increasing, and growing concentration in the food industry has led to companies prioritising profits over the health of their customers.

In Australia, Wing – one of only two companies licensed to make drone deliveries, with the other focused on medical supplies – has been an active contributor to the drafting of new drone regulations. The company is also getting in on the ground floor of drone air traffic management software.

As autonomous delivery becomes more common, we may well see people using it to consume more unhealthy food and alcohol – unless delivery platforms begin to promote health as well as convenience.

Kathryn Backholer receives funding from the National Heart Foundation, the Ian Potter Foundation, NHMRC, ARC, VicHealth, UNICEF and WHO. She is Vice President (Development) for the Public Health Association of Australia.

Rebecca Bennett 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. Drone food delivery is spreading across Australia. Research suggests we will eat more junk food as a result – https://theconversation.com/drone-food-delivery-is-spreading-across-australia-research-suggests-we-will-eat-more-junk-food-as-a-result-235429

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonathan Foo, Lecturer, Physiotherapy, Monash University

In the next 40 years in Australia, it’s predicted the number of Australians aged 65 and over will more than double, while the number of people aged 85 and over will more than triple.

If you’re not really interested in aged care, you should be. Given these figures, you will almost certainly be engaging with aged care services at some stage – either for yourself, or supporting family members or friends seeking aged care.

One service you are likely to encounter is residential aged care homes. In the past few years this sector has been under more scrutiny than ever before. Changes to legislation, workforce and funding are in motion. But the question remains as to whether these changes can happen fast enough to meet our ageing population’s needs.

One area of need not being adequately met at present is nutrition. In a new study, we’ve found four in ten older Australians living in residential aged care are not receiving enough of the right types of nutrients, resulting in loss of weight and muscle. This is known as malnutrition.

Good nutrition is essential for healthy ageing

Malnutrition in older people is associated with poorer overall health, such as increased risk of falls and infections. This can accelerate loss of independence for older people, including the need for extra assistance with basic activities such as bathing and dressing.

Older people are at increased risk of malnutrition for a range of reasons. These can include decreased appetite, difficulties with chewing and swallowing, and the presence of other chronic diseases such as Parkinson’s disease or dementia.

Importantly, ensuring adequate nutrition is about more than just offering healthy foods. We eat not only to meet nutritional requirements, but for enjoyment and socialisation. We each have different preferences around what we want to eat, when and with whom.

Food provision poses a challenge for residential aged care providers who must navigate the range of residents’ preferences together with dietary restrictions and texture modifications. This must also be balanced against the practicalities of having the right number of appropriately trained kitchen and mealtime assistance staff, and working within funding constraints.

Understanding more about who is malnourished in aged care can help providers better address this problem.

Malnutrition is an ongoing problem in aged care

We looked at more than 700 aged care residents in New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia. We assessed participants for malnutrition using a screening tool that collects data on medical history and dietary intake, and includes a physical examination of muscle and fat.

We found 40% were malnourished, including 6% who were severely malnourished. This likely underestimates the true rate of malnutrition, as residents with dementia were excluded. International studies have shown an average of 80% of aged care residents with dementia are malnourished or at risk of developing malnutrition.

Our findings are broadly in line with a synthesis of 38 international studies, which reported an average malnutrition rate in residential aged care of 52%.

In Australia, malnutrition was highlighted as a priority for immediate attention in the 2021 Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Its report cited an Australian study of 215 residents, published in 2017, which found 68% were malnourished or at risk of malnutrition.

It’s difficult to directly compare malnutrition rates between studies due to differences in diagnostic measurements. But it’s clear malnutrition is an ongoing challenge in aged care.

What can we do about it?

Since the royal commission, we’ve seen the strengthening of the quality standards to be included in the new Aged Care Act, anticipated to be introduced to parliament in 2025.

The strengthened quality standards provide an important framework to guide action by aged care providers on malnutrition. Key requirements include partnering with residents to design food options, regular assessment and reassessment of resident nutrition requirements, developing systems to monitor and improve satisfaction with food, designing pleasant dining environments, and providing staff with the training they need to achieve all of the above.

However, achieving these standards will require investment of money and time. At the moment, 64% of residential aged care providers in Australia are operating at a financial loss. While we know carers and facility managers want to provide the best care possible, it’s difficult to achieve this when contending with underlying financial problems.

As such, our teams at Monash and Griffith universities are focusing on strategies that minimise the burden on staff and providers.

We are working on automating malnutrition screening. Current tools take 10–15 minutes and should be used when a new resident moves into an aged care home and regularly during their stay. But anecdotal evidence suggests providers lack the staff and funding needed to routinely carry out this screening.

Instead, we aim to use existing data from aged care providers, including quarterly reports from the National Aged Care Mandatory Quality Indicator Program, to detect malnutrition automatically. This will allow staff to focus more on care.

Given the complexity of malnutrition, it’s likely that addressing the issue at a national scale will take some time. In the short term, for those with loved ones in aged care homes, we encourage you to be actively involved in their care, including noticing and speaking up if you think more can be done to optimise their nutrition.

Jonathan Foo received funding from ARIIA: Aged Care Research & Industry Innovation Australia.

Marie-Claire O’Shea received funding from ARIIA: Aged Care Research & Industry Innovation Australia

– ref. Our research shows 4 in 10 Australians in aged care are malnourished. What can we do about it? – https://theconversation.com/our-research-shows-4-in-10-australians-in-aged-care-are-malnourished-what-can-we-do-about-it-235507

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Antje Deckert, Associate Professor (Criminology), Auckland University of Technology

Despite the connection between institutional harm and gang membership made clear in this week’s mammoth royal commission abuse-in care report, the government seems unlikely to soften its “get tough on crime” policies.

Since taking office last year, the coalition has moved quickly to make good on its election promises. As well as reintroducing boot camps and bringing back the three-strikes sentencing policy, its crackdown on gangs is well underway.

The Gangs Legislation Amendment Bill seeks to make gang membership an aggravating factor in sentencing, ban gang patches from public spaces, and restrict gang members’ right to congregate in public or communicate with each other. A specialised National Gang Unit will focus on enforcing those policies.

All of this will cost money. When a new offence (such as violating the patch ban or a non-consorting order) is added to the Crimes Act, more must be spent on policing, courts and prisons.

Taxpayers may approve of such additional government spending if the policies work. But the research evidence suggests these costly anti-gang measures may well have the opposite of the desired effect.

How anti-gang policies backfire

The government promises banning gang patches and giving police more dispersal powers will “restore law and order” and reduce crime. But there is no research evidence to support these claims.

As Australian gang law expert Mark Lauchs has noted, there is no conclusive data that “gang-busting” legislation reduces gang-related crime. Some suggest such measures may simply push criminal activity further underground.

It seems counterintuitive, but there is also evidence of anti-gang policies actually increasing offending, due to the increased contact between police, gang members and their whānau (extended family).

As one Norwegian study recently found, “criminal justice involvement increases rather than decreases criminal behaviour”. The study surveyed individuals at high risk of offending over a period of 30 years. One group was exposed to frequent police contact, while the other was not. The former group reported committing more crimes than the latter.

The researchers concluded contact with police “labels” individuals as criminals, who then act according to the label. Simply put, frequent police contact can mean more crimes being committed. More crimes also mean more people being victimised.

The risk in New Zealand extends to increased police contact not only with patched gang members but also with innocent young Māori caught up in surveillance operations or investigations.

In 2021, police were found to have illegally obtained tens of thousands of photographs of young Māori, including “non-voluntary” pictures (taken without consent or knowledge) during gang investigations. The police then missed the mandated deadline to delete the images.

In sum, the research evidence suggests the current government approach may in fact perpetuate the “gang problem” it seeks to solve. On the other hand, there is considerable evidence and expert knowledge – both academic and “grassroots” – that could inform better policy.

What expert knowledge can offer

Gang members, their whānau, and organisations that provide social support for so-called hard-to-reach communities have extensive experience with previous government gang policies.

These non-academic experts know what works, fails and backfires. But their vast institutional knowledge continues to be ignored or dismissed by policymakers.

In our recently published special issue of the Decolonization of Criminology and Justice journal, we showcase the more nuanced understandings these expert voices have to offer.

Among them are Harry Tam, Angie Wilkinson and Joanna Wilkinson from H2R Research and Consulting, a social support provider focused on community-led solutions. They explain how gangs originally formed in response to structural racism in postwar New Zealand, as outlined in this week’s royal commission abuse-in-care report.

Successive governments met the rapid urban migration of Māori with policies that left them disadvantaged in all aspects of life: housing, education, employment and social support. Thousands of Māori children were uplifted and systematically abused in state care.

The survivors, deprived of whānau and cultural connections, naturally formed support groups – later to become the Mongrel Mob and Black Power gangs. The members of these organisations behaved, unsurprisingly, in ways that reflected the multifaceted harms inflicted on them.

Instead of addressing the causes, governments focused on the symptoms. They labelled survivors “gang members” and sought to monitor, suppress and criminalise gang activity.

But this response – central to the current government’s approach – failed to arrest the growth in gang membership or offending by those involved.

Evidence as the basis of policy

Also in our journal edition, authors Sonny Fatupaito, Paula Ormsby and Steve Elers provide insights into the whakapapa (genealogy) and meaning of the gang “patch” or insignia.

They explain how the patch evolved from a stylised symbol of aggression and confrontation to a “korowai” (cloak) symbolising a transition from problematic past behaviours such as violence and drug offending toward rehabilitation and positive community engagement.

The authors offer a counter to perceptions of the patch as intimidating. Misrepresenting or ignoring this cultural shift, they argue, effectively obscures significant changes in gang identity and culture over the past 20 years.

The lack of engagement with this kind of expert knowledge has enabled governments to dominate public commentary on gangs and sideline scholars and practitioners who work with gang whānau.

We argue the current anti-gang policies will not reduce crime, but are likely to further alienate hard-to-reach communities.

Policies informed by evidence and expert knowledge would not only result in better understanding of gangs and the patch, they would also be more effective in protecting the interests of the public in general.

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. Gang crackdown: why anti-patch policies backfire – and what would actually work – https://theconversation.com/gang-crackdown-why-anti-patch-policies-backfire-and-what-would-actually-work-234655

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian Studies, Australian National University

The Middle East is on the brink of a possibly devastating regional war, with hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah reaching an extremely dangerous level.

Washington has engaged in intense diplomacy to persuade the protagonists to pull back from the brink. But US efforts have not paid off so far, given its lack of sufficient leverage with both sides.

A grand bargain involving Israel, Hezbollah and their outside supporters is now urgently needed to avoid a regional war.

Netanyahu hanging on by a thread

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s handling of the Gaza war has emboldened the Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon and its supporters.

Israel’s failure to achieve its two main objectives in the war – destroying Hamas and rescuing the Israeli hostages – has left Netanyahu isolated and weakened. His pursuit of scorched-earth operations in Gaza, with no plan for how to end the war or to manage the enclave afterwards, have imperilled his position, as well as that of Israel.

A majority of the Israeli public now want him to leave office. He is hanging onto power with narrow support from the extremist elements in his cabinet and the Israeli Defence Force leadership. He is even alienated from his traditional ultra-Orthodox Jewish supporters, who refuse to serve in the military, and is widely distrusted in Washington, Israel’s life-long backer.

Israeli generals have also expressed concerns about shortages of ammunition and troop exhaustion in Gaza. They have called for him to accept a ceasefire with Hamas, so Israel can confront Hezbollah effectively.

But the prime minister has remained defiant and inaccurately accused the Biden administration of holding back arms supplies that could enable him to end the Gaza campaign sooner and pivot to taking on Hezbollah.

Hezbollah’s power

No doubt, Hezbollah has been a thorn in Israel’s side for a long time.

In his address to the joint session of the US Congress on Wednesday, Netanyahu stressed that fighting Hezbollah and its patron, Iran, was in the interests of not only Israel, but also America.

80,000 of our citizens in northern Israel evacuated their homes, becoming effectively refugees in their own land. We are committed to returning them home. We prefer to achieve this diplomatically.

But let me be clear: Israel will do whatever it must do to restore security to our northern border and return our people safely to their homes.

Israel has attempted several times to weaken or destroy Hezbollah since its emergence as a major political and paramilitary force in Lebanon from the early 1980s.

Yet Israel’s efforts, most notably its military campaign of 2006, have failed. Hezbollah’s ability to survive has added to its strength and that of Iran and its other affiliates, including Hamas, in the region.

Hezbollah today is the most powerful, sub-national militant group in the world. It reportedly has 100,000 battle-hardened fighters, a vast arsenal of weapons (including advanced missiles and drones) and a remarkable degree of organisational strength and infrastructural support.

Read more:
Does Israel really want to open a two-front war by attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon?

It is a critical element in the Iran-led, predominantly Shia “axis of resistance”, whose members consider martyrdom to be an article of faith.

The newly elected Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who comes from the reformist faction of Iran’s politics, has reaffirmed Tehran’s unwavering support for Hezbollah against Israel as part of its regional security complex.

In the event of a war, Hezbollah can count on thousands of fighters joining it from Iran and its other proxies, as well as Islamic fighters from outside the region. The Taliban, for instance, has already promised to send many fighters from Afghanistan to aid Hezbollah.

Although Israel, the US and many of their allies have treated Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, the Arab League recently decided not to label the group as a terrorist outfit, in view of its growing popularity in the Arab and Muslim world.

A grand bargain

Israel is no longer regarded as the dominant power in the region. The Gaza war and its escalating military exchanges with Hezbollah, the Yemeni Houthis and Iran have revealed Israel’s vulnerabilities.

It may still possess the necessary firepower to flatten Beirut in a similar manner to what it has inflicted on Gaza, but it would need direct US involvement to come out of a war with Hezbollah with any degree of resilience or wellbeing.

The US continues to stress its iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security, but supporting a war in Lebanon would be very difficult for the US, particularly with a pivotal election coming. This would likely trigger Russian, Chinese and North Korean support for Iran and, by extension, Hezbollah and other elements of the “axis of resistance”.

In a grand bargain, Israel, Hezbollah and their outside backers would need to reach a diplomatic settlement to create mutually acceptable buffer security zones on both sides of the Israeli-Lebanese border.

To achieve this, Israel and Hamas must first agree on a Gaza ceasefire and an exchange of hostages and prisoners as a foundation for a lasting settlement of the Palestinian issue. Netanyahu has so far resisted this. He fears it would force him out of office and potentially land him in prison on pending charges of bribery and fraud.

The history of the Middle East has repeatedly shown armed conflicts and outside interventions have never resulted in peace and stability. Instead, they have merely compounded the region’s problems. The Middle East situation is explosive, and level heads must prevail to prevent further inflammation.

Amin Saikal 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. Can Israel and Hezbollah be pulled back from the brink of war? – https://theconversation.com/can-israel-and-hezbollah-be-pulled-back-from-the-brink-of-war-235515

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Elizabeth Eades, Rheumatologist, Monash University

Lupus is an inflammatory autoimmune illness, where the body’s immune system mistakenly attacks itself. Lupus can affect virtually any part of the body, although it most commonly affects the skin, joints and kidneys.

The symptoms of lupus, also known as systemic lupus erythematosus (or SLE), can range from mild to life-threatening. It can result in significant disability, economic burden and lower quality of life.

Lupus most commonly affects women of childbearing age and is among the top ten causes of death for young women in the United States.

Lupus is more common, and more severe, among people of certain ethnicities, including people of Asian and African ethnicity, as well as First Nations peoples in Australia and worldwide.

Health effects of colonisation

Following colonisation in 1788, government policies have discriminated against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This has created long-standing oppression and structural racism, which many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples still experience today.

As a result, health outcomes are poorer for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples compared to the general Australian population, with life expectancy eight years lower, on average.

Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples also experience significant socioeconomic disadvantage.

Lupus is no exception

Lupus is two to four times more common in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples compared to those who do not identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. Lupus is also more common in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, with rates four to 18 times that of the general Australian child population

Lupus also tends to present with different symptoms, and is more severe, in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. For example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples tend to develop more of the severe, life-threatening or organ-threatening symptoms of lupus, such as kidney problems. And they tend to develop less of the milder, non-life threatening symptoms of lupus, such as skin rash and arthritis.

As a result, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients with lupus have high rates of kidney failure, and are more likely to require dialysis than non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients.

Death is also more common. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with lupus are up to six times more likely to die than non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with lupus. Death also often occurs at a younger age and shorter disease duration in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with lupus.

Why is it more common and more severe?

The reasons for the increased rates and severity of lupus in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are not well understood. However, it’s likely that socioeconomic factors, environmental factors and biological factors all play a role. To date, no published studies have specifically explored this.

A number of socioeconomic factors may contribute to increased rates and severity of lupus in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. These include:

• increased likelihood of living in rural and remote areas with reduced access to specialist care
• language barriers
• lack of trust in the health system, due to structural racism and a lack of cultural sensitivity.

Environmental factors, such as increased exposure to certain infections, may also contribute.

Certain molecules, such as genes and proteins, belonging to what we call biological “pathways” drive lupus severity in non-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

For example, in people of Asian ethnicity with lupus, a particular pathway (called the “type 1 interferon pathway”) which causes inflammation is often active.

However, what we don’t know is which pathway(s) are active in lupus affecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

What can we do about it?

Once researchers identify the active biological pathways, new medicines could be developed.

Drugs already in use which target these genes or proteins could also be better selected for patients who are likely to benefit from them. This may help treat lupus more effectively in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the future.

Other strategies to improve outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with lupus include:

• improving access to specialist care for patients living in rural and remote areas
• eliminating structural racism in health care
• raising awareness of lupus in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.

To design these management strategies and identify additional areas of need, it will be vital to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in a community-led, holistic way, with strong Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander governance. Only then will we achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples with lupus.

Laura Elizabeth Eades is supported by funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (PhD scholarship 2014036).

Fabien B. Vincent is supported by funding from National Health and Medical Research Council (Emerging Leadership 1; Grant 1196112), and has received support from Rebecca L Cooper Medical Research Foundation, and Arthritis
Australia. FBV has received support from Janssen-Cilag and CSL Limited for research projects, and from Pfizer, Lupus Research Alliance and SomaLogic for conference/meeting sponsorship. Fabien B. Vincent is affiliated with the Australian Rheumatology Association (ARA), Victorian Branch.

Alex Brown and Rury Liddle 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. Lupus is more common and severe in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Learning why is crucial – https://theconversation.com/lupus-is-more-common-and-severe-in-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples-learning-why-is-crucial-232397

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonti Horner, Professor (Astrophysics), University of Southern Queensland

On any clear night, if you gaze skywards long enough, chances are you’ll see a meteor streaking through the sky. Some nights, however, are better than others.

At certain times of year, Earth passes through particularly dirty parts of its orbit, ploughing through debris left behind by comets and asteroids. During those times, we see that debris crashing into our atmosphere, and a meteor shower is born.

Some meteor showers are better than others. The faster the debris is travelling, or the more debris there is, the more meteors you will see. But generally, these showers are annual events – recurring whenever Earth returns to the same place in its orbit.

The end of July is one such time, with Earth going through several swathes of our Solar System’s debris at once.

Two of those showers reach their peak around July 31. While neither ranks among the very best showers of the year, taken together the two can put on a lovely show in the depths of our cold winter nights.

The Southern Delta Aquariids: the fast ones

The first, and most active, of the two showers is the Southern Delta Aquariids. For stargazers in Australia and New Zealand, they are the third-strongest meteor shower of the year (after the amazing Geminids, in December, and the Eta Aquariids, which peak in early May).

The Southern Delta Aquariids are dust from comet 96P/Machholz – a dirty snowball that moves on a highly elongated and tilted orbit within the inner Solar System. 96P/Machholz is the largest object in a broad stream of debris which produces several meteor showers throughout the year.

The Southern Delta Aquariids are active for around six weeks, from mid-July to late August, and reach their peak on July 31. In a typical year, the shower is at its best for around 48 hours. During the peak, observers under perfect conditions can see up to 20 to 25 meteors per hour.

While many meteors from this shower are relatively faint (and so become harder to see if the Moon is above the horizon, or if you’re observing from a light-polluted site), the shower is known for producing some brighter meteors, particularly around their peak.

In addition, the Southern Delta Aquariids have produced at least two unexpected outbursts in the past, with enhanced rates observed in 1977 and 2003 – a reminder that meteor showers can sometimes throw up nice surprises!

The Alpha Capricornids: slow, with occasional fireballs

The Alpha Capricornids is a significantly weaker shower than the Southern Delta Aquariids – it produces fewer meteors per hour. Even at their best, on the nights of July 30 and 31, it is rare for observers to see more than four or five meteors from the shower in any given hour.

But where the Southern Delta Aquariids are plentiful, fast and often faint, the Alpha Capricornids are slow, and often bright. Indeed, the shower has a reputation for producing spectacular bright meteors and fireballs. Its meteors, infrequent as they are, are often the highlight of a winter night’s observing.

In 2010, two of the world’s leading meteor scientists identified the parent of the Alpha Capricornid meteor shower – a dim comet called 169P/NEAT. They suggest it’s just a small piece of a larger object which fragmented between 4,500 and 5,000 years ago.

Currently, Earth only passes through the very outer layers of a vast debris stream laid down by that ancient fragmentation. The scientists who identified it predict that in just 200–300 years we will instead move through the very centre of the stream.

If that comes to pass, the Alpha Capricornids will one day become by far the best meteor shower of the year.

Where and when should I look?

This year, the peak of both meteor showers falls mid-week, on Wednesday July 31. However, both showers have relatively broad peaks and will produce respectable numbers of meteors for a few days.

If you’re planning a camping trip on the weekend of July 27–28 or August 3–4, you might still get a decent show, particularly in the early morning hours after midnight.

But for the best rates you should head out on the nights of Tuesday July 30 and Wednesday July 31.

From across Australia and New Zealand, you can start observing from 9pm or 10pm, when the radiants for both showers – the place in the sky from which meteors appear to radiate – rise in the east. At first, rates from the showers will be low, but the higher in the sky the radiants rise, the more meteors will be visible.

The bright stars Altair and Fomalhaut are useful guides. As a bonus, the planet Saturn can be found in the same part of the sky, shining as bright as the brightest stars.

The longer you’re willing to stay out, the better your chance of seeing meteors. As the night progresses, the radiants will move across the sky, climbing higher until they culminate in the north after midnight. The best rates will be visible when the radiants are highest: between around 11pm and 3am.

Head out somewhere well away from city lights. Our eyes take a significant amount of time to adjust to the darkness, so it’s best to watch for at least half an hour, if not longer – particularly since meteors are not equally spaced out. You can wait 20 minutes and see nothing, then spot several in just a minute or two!

If you’re fortunate enough to find a site where the sky is dark in all directions, you should look to the northeast in the evening, to the north in the hours around midnight, and then northwest in the pre-dawn hours.

The darker the sky, the more you’ll see. By the peak of the two showers, the Moon will be all but out of the way, rising only a couple of hours before dawn.

As a result, this year is the ideal time to head out and watch an annual winter spectacle. And who knows, you might just get lucky and see a spectacular fireball caused by the debris shed by a dying comet 5,000 years ago.

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. Not one, but two meteor showers are about to peak – here’s how to catch the stellar show – https://theconversation.com/not-one-but-two-meteor-showers-are-about-to-peak-heres-how-to-catch-the-stellar-show-235176

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Slee, Associate Professor, Clinical Academic Neurologist, Flinders University

Migraine is many things, but one thing it’s not is “just a headache”.

“Migraine” comes from the Greek word “hemicrania”, referring to the common experience of migraine being predominantly one-sided.

Some people experience an “aura” preceding the headache phase – usually a visual or sensory experience that evolves over five to 60 minutes. Auras can also involve other domains such as language, smell and limb function.

Migraine is a disease with a huge personal and societal impact. Most people cannot function at their usual level during a migraine, and anticipation of the next attack can affect productivity, relationships and a person’s mental health.

What’s happening in my brain?

The biological basis of migraine is complex, and varies according to the phase of the migraine. Put simply:

The earliest phase is called the prodrome. This is associated with activation of a part of the brain called the hypothalamus which is thought to contribute to many symptoms such as nausea, changes in appetite and blurred vision.

Next is the aura phase, when a wave of neurochemical changes occur across the surface of the brain (the cortex) at a rate of 3–4 millimetres per minute. This explains how usually a person’s aura progresses over time. People often experience sensory disturbances such as flashes of light or tingling in their face or hands.

In the headache phase, the trigeminal nerve system is activated. This gives sensation to one side of the face, head and upper neck, leading to release of proteins such as CGRP (calcitonin gene-related peptide). This causes inflammation and dilation of blood vessels, which is the basis for the severe throbbing pain associated with the headache.

Finally, the postdromal phase occurs after the headache resolves and commonly involves changes in mood and energy.

What can you do about the acute attack?

A useful way to conceive of migraine treatment is to compare putting out campfires with bushfires. Medications are much more successful when applied at the earliest opportunity (the campfire). When the attack is fully evolved (into a bushfire), medications have a much more modest effect.

Aspirin

For people with mild migraine, non-specific anti-inflammatory medications such as high-dose aspirin, or standard dose non-steroidal medications (NSAIDS) can be very helpful. Their effectiveness is often enhanced with the use of an anti-nausea medication.

Triptans

For moderate to severe attacks, the mainstay of treatment is a class of medications called “triptans”. These act by reducing blood vessel dilation and reducing the release of inflammatory chemicals.

Triptans vary by their route of administration (tablets, wafers, injections, nasal sprays) and by their time to onset and duration of action.

The choice of a triptan depends on many factors including whether nausea and vomiting is prominent (consider a dissolving wafer or an injection) or patient tolerability (consider choosing one with a slower onset and offset of action).

As triptans constrict blood vessels, they should be used with caution (or not used) in patients with known heart disease or previous stroke.

Gepants

Some medications that block or modulate the release of CGRP, which are used for migraine prevention (which we’ll discuss in more detail below), also have evidence of benefit in treating the acute attack. This class of medication is known as the “gepants”.

Gepants come in the form of injectable proteins (monoclonal antibodies, used for migraine prevention) or as oral medication (for example, rimegepant) for the acute attack when a person has not responded adequately to previous trials of several triptans or is intolerant of them.

They do not cause blood vessel constriction and can be used in patients with heart disease or previous stroke.

Ditans

Another class of medication, the “ditans” (for example, lasmiditan) have been approved overseas for the acute treatment of migraine. Ditans work through changing a form of serotonin receptor involved in the brain chemical changes associated with the acute attack.

However, neither the gepants nor the ditans are available through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for the acute attack, so users must pay out-of-pocket, at a cost of approximately A$300 for eight wafers.

What about preventing migraines?

The first step is to see if lifestyle changes can reduce migraine frequency. This can include improving sleep habits, routine meal schedules, regular exercise, limiting caffeine intake and avoiding triggers such as stress or alcohol.

Despite these efforts, many people continue to have frequent migraines that can’t be managed by acute therapies alone. The choice of when to start preventive treatment varies for each person and how inclined they are to taking regular medication. Those who suffer disabling symptoms or experience more than a few migraines a month benefit the most from starting preventives.

Almost all migraine preventives have existing roles in treating other medical conditions, and the physician would commonly recommend drugs that can also help manage any pre-existing conditions. First-line preventives include:

• tablets that lower blood pressure (candesartan, metoprolol, propranolol)
• antidepressants (amitriptyline, venlafaxine)
• anticonvulsants (sodium valproate, topiramate).

Some people have none of these other conditions and can safely start medications for migraine prophylaxis alone.

For all migraine preventives, a key principle is starting at a low dose and increasing gradually. This approach makes them more tolerable and it’s often several weeks or months until an effective dose (usually 2- to 3-times the starting dose) is reached.

It is rare for noticeable benefits to be seen immediately, but with time these drugs typically reduce migraine frequency by 50% or more.

‘Nothing works for me!’

In people who didn’t see any effect of (or couldn’t tolerate) first-line preventives, new medications have been available on the PBS since 2020. These medications block the action of CGRP.

The most common PBS-listed anti-CGRP medications are injectable proteins called monoclonal antibodies (for example, galcanezumab and fremanezumab), and are self-administered by monthly injections.

These drugs have quickly become a game-changer for those with intractable migraines. The convenience of these injectables contrast with botulinum toxin injections (also effective and PBS-listed for chronic migraine) which must be administered by a trained specialist.

Up to half of adolescents and one-third of young adults are needle-phobic. If this includes you, tablet-form CGRP antagonists for migraine prevention are hopefully not far away.

Data over the past five years suggest anti-CGRP medications are safe, effective and at least as well tolerated as traditional preventives.

Nonetheless, these are used only after a number of cheaper and more readily available first-line treatments (all which have decades of safety data) have failed, and this also a criterion for their use under the PBS.

Mark Slee receives funding from The Flinders Foundation and the National Health and Medical Research Council.

Anthony Khoo 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. What happens in my brain when I get a migraine? And what medications can I use to treat it? – https://theconversation.com/what-happens-in-my-brain-when-i-get-a-migraine-and-what-medications-can-i-use-to-treat-it-227559

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lee White, Senior Lecturer and Horizon Fellow, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Sydney

Australia was slow to introduce minimum building standards for energy efficiency. The Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) only came into force in 2003.

Older homes tend to have very poor energy efficiency. They need more electricity or gas to heat to a comfortable temperature, and more electricity to cool them in summer. This can get expensive.

We now suspect the energy efficiency of a person’s home also shapes how they respond to electricity rates that vary with time of use.

Our research suggests people in homes with low energy efficiency are turning off their heaters more when they’re on time-of-use rates, which likely means colder homes. But those in more efficient homes didn’t reduce their use or save money on time-of-use rates, even though they should be more able to shift demand to cheaper off-peak times without causing themselves discomfort.

What’s the point of time-varying rates?

Time-varying rates are becoming more common. Their purpose is to provide an incentive (lower rates) for people to use more electricity when it’s plentiful, and less electricity when expensive gas peaking plants need to be turned on at times of high demand (when higher “peak” rates apply).

For time-of-use rates (a subset of time-varying rates), peak times usually follow a set schedule. Costs are higher in the early morning and in the evening, matching when people leave for work and return home.

By nudging demand to better match supply, these rates might allow us to defer expensive upgrades to the power grid and investments in batteries (or, worse, more gas-fired generation with its carbon dioxide emissions).

However, these time-varying rates rely on the assumption that people can shift their electricity use to times when it’s cheaper. That’s not always the case.

People might not be home during the day to do laundry or dishes at off-peak times. They might have to organise meals, entertainment and cleaning around work and school schedules. They might not know which appliances are most energy-hungry and end up shifting minor uses while keeping major uses during peak times. Or they might simply not be able to shift their electricity use without their home getting too cold or too hot.

How inefficient homes have knock-on effects

Heating and cooling account for up to 50% of energy use in Australian homes, varying by climate zone and heating technology. A simple fan heater or bar heater uses three to six times as much electricity as a reverse-cycle air conditioner to produce the same amount of heat.

If your old home with old technology loses heat almost as fast as you add it, you don’t have many options. You can turn the heater off and avoid the on-peak charges in a chilly house, or leave the heater on and bear the cost.

To understand which option people were choosing, we analysed changes in electricity use and estimated bills for households in the ACT that had moved between time-of-use rates and flat rates. Utility company ActewAGL Retail provided the data.

It looks like people in homes with low energy efficiency are going with the option of turning off their heaters when on time-of-use rates. This saves money – bills for low-efficiency homes were cheaper for those on time-of-use rates than on flat rates.

Because we only have quarterly electricity bills to analyse, we don’t know for certain these people actually felt colder or were turning off the heating as opposed to other electricity uses. But households that relied on electricity for heating reduced their use on time-of-use rates – and it’s pretty hard to be warm in a Canberra winter if your heater is off.

In energy-efficient homes, you should be able to “pre-heat” or “pre-cool” your home during an off-peak time. You can then turn off the heating to avoid higher on-peak costs and your home should stay reasonably comfortable for a while.

But, interestingly, people in high-efficiency homes didn’t reduce their electricity use when on time-of-use rates. Their bills didn’t decrease either.

Where we did see a change for high-efficiency homes, bills and energy use tended to be slightly higher – the opposite of what we expected. We can only speculate on the reasons, but it’s clear time-of-use rates weren’t having the intended effect.

Building efficiency isn’t the only complication

Time-varying rates can disadvantage vulnerable households in other ways. A study in a US state with a hot climate found electricity bills rose for the elderly and those with disabilities after switching to time-of-use rates.

Both groups are likely to need more electricity to keep their homes warm or to run equipment essential for their health. This means they have less flexibility about when they need to use electricity.

That same study found ethnic minorities had more heat-related health problems after switching to time-of-use rates, although they had lower bills. Households where someone had a disability had both higher costs and worse health outcomes.

What does this mean for Australian homes?

These differences in response to time-varying rates could further widen the gap in home comfort between those who can secure an energy-efficient home and those who can’t. These rates could pinch households even further in a cost-of-living crisis.

If they are on a quarterly billing cycle, this adds to their problems. People can better understand and shift their electricity use when they receive immediate feedback such as through in-home displays.

If households can’t shift their electricity use, time-varying rates won’t achieve the goal of better matching supply and demand. As Australia rolls out these rates, we need to remember not everyone is able to respond to these price signals.

Our housing stock is shaping the way people respond. The divide in energy efficiency will continue to shape a divided response to interlinked energy costs and comfort.

Time-varying rates should be accompanied by more immediate feedback on energy use, more support to upgrade energy efficiency, and ways for people to opt out if these rates aren’t working for them financially. These simple measures have been recommended before, but still aren’t universally in place.

The ACT-based work discussed in this article received funding from the ActewAGL and Icon Water Endowment Fund, which is administered by the Australian National University. ActewAGL Retail also provided the Canberra data that was analysed, allowing the study to take place.

– ref. How old, inefficient housing and time-of-use electricity rates are leaving some households worse off – https://theconversation.com/how-old-inefficient-housing-and-time-of-use-electricity-rates-are-leaving-some-households-worse-off-234921

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Sherwood, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Climate Change Research Centre, UNSW Sydney

The past century of human-induced warming has increased rainfall variability over 75% of the Earth’s land area – particularly over Australia, Europe and eastern North America, new research shows.

The findings, by Chinese researchers and the UK Met Office, were published overnight in the journal Science. They provide the first systematic observational evidence that climate change is making global rainfall patterns more volatile.

Climate models had predicted this variability would worsen under climate change. But these new findings show rainfall variability has already worsened over the past 100 years – especially in Australia.

Past studies of the observational record either focused on long-term average rain, which is not systematically changing globally, or rainfall extremes where changes are hard to measure accurately. This study looks solely at variability, which refers to uneven timing and amount of rainfall.

The results are consistent with previous research, including ours. This means dry periods are drier than in the past, and rainy periods are wetter.

Alarmingly, the problem will worsen as global warming continues. This raises the risk of droughts and floods – a pertinent issue for Australia.

What the study found

The research shows a systematic increase in rainfall variability since the 1900s. Day-to-day rainfall variability increased by 1.2% per decade, globally. The trend was more pronounced in the latter half of the century, after 1950.

The increase in variability means rain is more unevenly distributed over time. It might mean a year’s worth of rain at a given location now falls in fewer days. It can also mean long, dry periods are interspersed by torrential downpours, or drought and flooding in quick succession.

The researchers examined observational data and found since the 1900s, rainfall variability has increased over 75% of the land areas studied. Europe, Australia and eastern North America were particularly affected. These are areas for which detailed and long-running observations are available.

In other regions, the long-term trend in rainfall variability was less prominent. The authors said that may be due to random changes in variability, or errors in the datasets.

The increase in daily rainfall variability occurred in all four seasons worldwide, although seasonal differences emerged at smaller, regional scales.

The authors say the increase is largely the result of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, which have created a hotter and more humid atmosphere, more intense rain events and greater swings between them.

They say the findings pose new challenges for weather and climate predictions, as well as for resilience and adaptation by societies and ecosystems.

How global warming affects rainfall

To come to grips with these findings, it helps to understand the factors that determine how much heavy rain a storm produces – and how these factors are being affected by global warming.

The first factor is how much water vapour is present in the air. Warm air can contain more moisture. Every degree of global warming creates a 7% increase in the average amount of water vapour over a given patch of the surface.

Scientists have known about this problem for a long time. Earth has warmed 1.5°C since the industrial revolution – equating to a 10% increase in water vapour in the lower atmosphere. So this is driving storms to become rainier.

Second is how strong the storm winds can get, and third is how easily large raindrops form from smaller cloud particles. More research is needed to understand how these factors are affected by climate change, but the current evidence is that together they further amplify increases in rainfall over short time intervals and for very extreme storms, while reducing the increases for weaker storms.

How does this fit in with Australian research?

The findings released overnight confirm research by us and others into rainfall variability in Australia.

Analysis of daily extreme rainfall totals across Australia in present and future simulations revealed future increases were likely to exceed expectations from many past studies. Rainfall is likely to increase more sharply in the most extreme events, and appears to do this nearly everywhere on the continent.

In 2022, we looked at rainfall hour-by-hour in Sydney using radar data. We found the maximum hourly rainfall increased by 40% in Sydney over the past two decades.

Our findings have major implications for Sydney’s preparedness for flash flooding. More intense downpours are likely to overwhelm stormwater systems designed for past conditions. But it is not clear how much of this remarkable regional increase in severe rains is due to climate change, or how widespread it is.

Increasing variability also means a greater risk of drought. Climate models suggest rainfall variability in many parts of Australia will keep increasing, unless greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly reduced.

A change in only a handful of heavy rainfall days can make or break a drought in Australia. This means even small changes in variability can bring more devastating droughts in the future as dry periods become drier.

Heeding the warning

Policymakers can often be overly focused on whether their part of the world is becoming wetter or drier overall. But as this new research shows, it’s variability they should be worried about.

This volatility might come in the form of worse droughts. Or it might mean much bigger increases in extreme rainfall and flooding.

The variability will challenge governments and communities in many ways, from managing scarce water resources to coping with natural disasters. We should start preparing for these future challenges now.

And as this dire global problem worsens, the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming, becomes ever more pressing.

Steven Sherwood receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Anna Ukkola receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Landmark new research shows how global warming is messing with our rainfall – https://theconversation.com/landmark-new-research-shows-how-global-warming-is-messing-with-our-rainfall-233432

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Heynen, Program Coordinator, Sustainable Energy, The University of Queensland

As Paris prepares to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games, the sustainability of the event is coming under scrutiny.

The organisers have promoted Paris 2024 as the greenest Olympics ever, aiming to halve the carbon emissions of previous Olympics. They have drastically cut back on building new stadiums and venues, and have relied heavily on wood as a building material for new infrastructure and used low-carbon concrete. This approach has another benefit: it’s cheaper.

But hosting the world’s biggest sporting event, with thousands of athletes and millions of spectators, will still come at an environmental cost.

This has led to calls for a radical rethink of the Olympic Games, including for it to be scaled back. But longer term, Paris 2024’s sustainability efforts may create a lasting legacy for the city – and for future games.

The Greenest Games?

The vision for Paris 2024 is simple: “do more with less, do better and leave a useful legacy”.

These Games will be the first to align with the sustainability-focused New Norm plan outlined by the International Olympics Committee.

Hosting the Olympics is a huge undertaking. Previous Olympics have seen host cities spend billions on new stadiums and competition venues. But once the competition is over, many of these expensive buildings are little used – or even abandoned.

It’s also carbon intensive. Paris organisers intend to halve the emissions of London 2012 and Rio 2016, but even so, these games will add an estimated two million tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere – the same as the annual emissions of a small country like Malta or the Bahamas. Paris won’t have the lowest emissions of recent Olympics – the COVID-affected, spectator-free Tokyo 2020 Games takes that title.

How are these games greener?

To make the Paris Games greener than they have been, organisers have come at the challenge from many directions.

First, authorities are using what they already have. Fully 95% of all Olympic infrastructure was already there. Temporary stadiums have been built near famous landmarks, to make use of the spectacular setting. But only one permanent venue has been built – the aquatics centre, built largely from carbon-storing timber, covered in solar panels and with an advanced water recycling system. After the games, it will become a community venue.

Athletes will certainly notice the focus on sustainability. The athletes’ village – which will be repurposed afterwards as social housing – has no built-in air conditioning. Instead, it was meant to rely on natural breezes and a geo-thermal cooling system. This move proved controversial, and many teams – including Australia’s – began planning to bring portable aircon to ensure athletes can sleep well during the summer nights. Organisers have changed course, and have moved to install 2,500 portable units.

Athletes and spectators will notice a change in their food. Over 60% of meal options will be vegetarian, helping to lower the carbon footprint.

The Olympic venues will be powered exclusively by renewable energy. This is a big change. Previous games have powered their venues with noisy generators, to ensure there are no power outages.

As part of a “circular economy” approach, 90% of the products used for Paris 2024 come from recycled materials or will be re-used later. The medals, for example, are of fully recycled metal, including an original piece of iron from the Eiffel Tower. Mattresses from the athletes’ village will be re-used by the French army. In the background, apps and checklists are being used to map and assess the carbon footprint of every aspect of games delivery.

So why are there still lingering concerns? Critics have pointed out these laudable efforts can only go so far.

About 50% of the emissions from the Paris Games will come from the travel and accommodation of athletes, officials and millions of spectators. These emissions – especially from air travel – are very hard to reduce. Organisers will use carbon offsets in a number of countries to compensate for these emissions. As our recent assessment of Brisbane’s 2032 Games shows, relying on offsets is not the most sustainable option compared with reducing emissions in the first place.

Are the Olympics compatible with a greener future?

Allegations of “greenwashing” have been levelled at some of the over-hyped credentials of the Paris Games. And more generally, critics have argued the Olympics in their current form are not compatible with a greener future. Some want the Olympics to adopt a decentralised model sharing hosting over multiple countries.

The World Cup will use this model in 2030, but still faces mounting criticism of the transport emissions necessary as teams and spectators traverse three continents.

Others have argued the games should be rotated on a roster of just three or four cities, which already have the appropriate infrastructure.

For their part, the International Olympic Committee has pointed to the power of the ames to bring the world together in fractious times.

There are other benefits to the current system. Cities which host the Olympics Games have a rare opportunity to think bigger. In Paris, authorities have invested a whopping A$2.2 billion in infrastructure to clean up its long-polluted river – allowing it to be used for open-water swimming and triathlon in the Olympics and providing a cleaner river for Parisians to enjoy. As Olympic authorities focus on sustainability, host cities can use the Paris example and go further to become global role models.

We may well need novel forms of carbon accounting to quantify the legacy of hosting the Olympics. The new idea of Scope 4 emissions allows researchers to account for emissions avoided in the future due to Olympic initiatives. For example, the 415km of cycleways connecting Paris’s Olympic venues will be used by the public long after these games end.

The Paris Games may well be remembered not only for photo finishes and new records, but for the sustainability efforts of the organisers. While these games aren’t emissions-free, they are a substantial improvement over their predecessors. Let’s hope the organisers of future games, including Brisbane, pick up the baton.

Alexandre Urban contributed to this article

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. Timber venues, river swimming and re-use: how the Paris Olympics is going green – and what it’s missing – https://theconversation.com/timber-venues-river-swimming-and-re-use-how-the-paris-olympics-is-going-green-and-what-its-missing-233435

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Wright, Professor in Marine Geology, University of Canterbury

The decline in the number of doctoral candidates at New Zealand universities is a worrying sign for the country’s effort to build a knowledge-based economy.

Aotearoa New Zealand’s economic trajectory has long been characterised by its reliance on primary commodities, such as unprocessed forestry exports, where high volume and relatively low value are common.

Successive governments have recognised the need to shift towards a more knowledge-intensive economy – one that fosters innovation, higher productivity and greater value.

This transition is not only about economic growth. It also carries an implicit social contract promising improved living standards, better public services and support for vital societal outcomes.

But over the past two decades, New Zealand has fallen short when it comes to diversifying its national income and cultivating a high-value, high-knowledge workforce.

This is particularly the case when it comes to funding higher research degrees and doctoral graduates – the very individuals we need to drive our future high-tech industries.

Funding squeeze

Studying at a postgraduate level in New Zealand has been financially draining for many students.

In 2013, eligibility for student allowances was removed for students studying above the honours level. Students had to be financially independent, borrow or receive a stipend (an annual scholarship from a university for a period of study) for masters and doctoral-level research.

And while universities spent NZ$82 million on scholarship stipends for doctoral students in 2022, government funding per student across all levels of study has declined by 16%. At the same time, university costs have typically increased by around 1.4 times the consumer price index.

University funding for doctoral stipends has been largely static (and crucially declining in real terms) over the past eight years. In 2021, the average doctoral stipend was less than the minimum wage.

Funding for the Centres of Research Excellence (CoRE) and the Performance Based Research Fund (PBRF) – sources of financial support for researchers – has also been largely static since 2016 and 2018 respectively, with a consequential decrease of 19% in real dollar terms for both since 2019.

Last year, all of New Zealand’s universities increased the value of doctoral stipends. But the higher stipends are being drawn from the same static funding sources, making it more difficult to increase the number of doctoral students.

In fact, the number of doctoral students has declined since 2019 due to funding pressure. This 6.6% decline between 2019 and 2023 contrasts with the slight 1.3% increase in Australia between 2019 and 2022.

The economic value of higher education

The decline in doctoral students is a bellwether for the health of New Zealand universities. But, more importantly, it is diminishing and delaying the prospect of the country growing a “higher knowledge and value” economy.

There’s a strong correlation between a country’s per-capita gross domestic product and the number of doctoral graduates residing within its borders. According to research from Universities New Zealand, a 10% increase in higher education research spending would eventually increase GDP by 1.75% to 1.84%.

New Zealand is not investing anywhere near enough in higher research degrees and doctoral graduates, especially if we want them to be the core of a future high-tech workforce.

Building back better

All is not lost, however. The current government has commissioned two parallel reviews of the science system and university sector. Review recommendations will be released in the coming months.

If the reviews call for more money, the government will need to weigh these up against other investments, such as in health and infrastructure.

However, New Zealand’s university sector must not fall again into the trap of benign neglect and unintended consequences.

To secure the economic future, the government must prioritise funding for higher research degrees, incentivise doctoral studies, and nurture the next generation of experts and innovators. Only then can New Zealand move toward a high-value, high-knowledge economy – one that fulfils the promise of improved living standards and robust public services.

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

– ref. Declining PhD student numbers are a warning sign for NZ’s future knowledge economy – https://theconversation.com/declining-phd-student-numbers-are-a-warning-sign-for-nzs-future-knowledge-economy-235191

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laurie Berg, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

Migrant worker exploitation is entrenched in workplaces across Australia. Tragically, a deep fear of immigration consequences means most unlawful employer conduct goes unreported.

On Wednesday, however, the government officially launched a two-year pilot of innovative visa reforms that could bring these workers out of the shadows.

A new short-term “workplace justice visa” will allow migrant workers to stay and work in Australia for six months while they pursue a labour claim.

There will also be new visa protections for migrants who want to take action against their employers, but might otherwise have stayed silent because they had breached their visa conditions.

These reforms may go much further than recovering entitlements for individual workers. This matters to us all – when claims aren’t pursued, all information about exploitative employers is lost, creating a cycle of impunity.

The innovative structure of these visa protections may substantially expand labour enforcement in Australia.

Why is migrant exploitation so hard to detect?

In previous surveys of thousands of migrant workers, we found three-quarters were paid less than the casual minimum wage. Among underpaid workers, nine in ten told nobody.

Many migrant workers fear that speaking out will jeopardise their current or future visas. And when they reach the end of their stay – and could potentially pursue a labour claim without risking their job or visa – they must swiftly return home.

This problem has existed as long as large numbers of migrants have worked on temporary visas. But the government labour regulator, the Fair Work Ombudsman, has limited enforcement capacity. On top of this, most migrant workers are extremely reluctant to seek its assistance.

In 2017, the federal government attempted to encourage migrants to approach the Fair Work Ombudsman by implementing an “assurance protocol”.

Under this scheme, the Department of Home Affairs committed to generally not cancel a worker’s visa for breaching work conditions, if that worker was assisting the Fair Work Ombudsman with its inquiries. But it has not been effective, with only around 13 migrants gaining protection each year.

Read more:
Recovering lost wages is nearly impossible for Australia’s underpaid migrant workers. Here’s how to fix the problem

This regulatory failure has broader implications. Exploitative employers have come to expect they will not be held to account. Underpayment of migrant workers has become a successful business model, meaning that in some industries, employers who are doing the right thing become uncompetitive.

It also makes it difficult for businesses to detect wage theft or modern slavery in supply chains because migrant workers will not report it to auditors or the regulator.

Bringing workers out of the shadows

The government’s pilot introduces a new temporary “workplace justice visa”. This will allow a migrant to stay in Australia while they pursue a labour claim against their employer, which could include for underpayment, workplace injury, sexual harassment or discrimination.

Importantly, there is no application charge and visa holders will have the right to work in Australia while they pursue any claims.

We proposed these reforms in our 2023 Breaking the Silence report (with Sanmati Verma from the Human Rights Law Centre) and participated in a co-design process with the Department of Home Affairs.

Implementing our recommendation, to apply for the visa in the pilot, a migrant must obtain formal certification. This includes evidence they have experienced workplace exploitation and they are committed to seeking redress.

But significantly, it’s not just the government who can provide this certification. Other third parties that migrants trust – including community-based legal services, trade unions or university legal services – can also play this role.

This is critical because many migrants would never report directly to government – either because they fear the government of their home country or are simply terrified of jeopardising their precious foothold in Australia. Using third-party certifiers means migrants can be highly confident of qualifying for the visa before an application is lodged.

For affected migrants, this transforms the accessibility of justice.

For example, a sponsored worker who was injured at work but too afraid to take action could access a short-term visa to pursue workers compensation before returning home.

Or an exploited backpacker who was about to leave Australia but didn’t want to report sexual harassment during their fruit-picking job could stay for an additional six months to hold their employer to account.

A guarantee against visa cancellation

The Department of Home Affairs is now also prohibited from cancelling the visas of some migrants who have breached their work conditions, as long as they’ve obtained a similar labour claim certification.

For example, an underpaid international student who had worked more than 48 hours a fortnight in breach of their visa – possibly to make ends meet on unlawfully low wages – could now bring a claim against their employer, knowing their visa wouldn’t be cancelled because they’d worked too many hours.

Expanding the enforcement of labour law

By permitting workers to obtain certification from trusted third parties, the pilot visa program provides choice and agency in how they assert their labour rights. This is without precedent anywhere else in the world.

Unlike a scheme which depends on government certification of claims alone, this pilot encourages migrants to join unions and equips unions with a new tool to organise and represent them.

Not only will this embolden exploited workers to come forward, it will also expand the universe of labour law enforcement beyond the Fair Work Ombudsman to union and community lawyers.

This sets the new global best practice for countries seeking to realise migrant workers’ access to justice and business’ accountability for labour exploitation.

Laurie Berg is Co-Executive Director of the Migrant Justice Institute.

Bassina Farbenblum is Co-Executive Director of the Migrant Justice Institute.

The reforms discussed in this article were proposed in the Migrant Justice Institute and Human Rights Law Centre’s 2023 Breaking the Silence report. The authors participated in a co-design process with the Department of Home Affairs.

– ref. Migrant workers have long been too scared to report employer misconduct. A new visa could change this – https://theconversation.com/migrant-workers-have-long-been-too-scared-to-report-employer-misconduct-a-new-visa-could-change-this-235415

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vaughan Cruickshank, Senior Lecturer in Health and Physical Education, University of Tasmania

Paris is about to host its third summer Olympics. While we don’t yet know what the legacy of this year’s games will be, let’s take the opportunity to reflect on the city’s previous Olympics of 1900 and 1924 – the first of which nearly ended the modern Olympic movement, whereas the second set it alight.

The disaster of Paris 1900

The 1900 Paris Olympics was negatively impacted by the decision to link the games with the World Fair, held in Paris at the same time. The committee of the much larger and more popular fair was given control of organising everything, despite its minimal knowledge of sport. The organisers saw the Olympics as far less important than the fair’s exhibits, focused on fashion and new technologies such as escalators and audio recorders.

As a result, the Olympic games were treated like a sideshow. This poorly organised event was held at inadequate venues over nearly six months and almost ended the modern Olympic movement in its infancy.

Sports historians refer to 1900 as a farcical games and have debated whether it should even be considered an Olympics. The founder of the modern Olympics, Pierre de Coubertin, later commented it was a miracle the Olympic movement survived.

Confusing scheduling led to few spectators. Minimal venues were built and there were no officially agreed rules and regulations, which led to numerous disputes. There were no opening or closing ceremonies and many athletes were unaware they were competing in the Olympics.

Competing for one’s country was also not a concept yet, so numerous medals were won by teams with athletes from different countries. One Danish journalist became a last-minute substitute on a combined Danish-Swedish tug-of-war team that defeated France in the final. A young unknown French boy was also pulled out of the crowd to cox a Dutch rowing team to a gold medal, because the team had decided the adult cox was too heavy.

Australian sprinter Stan Rowley, who referred to the games as a “huge joke”, became the only person to win medals for two different countries in the same Olympics. He won medals in athletics for Australia and then as part of the British cross country team. The strange points system meant he just had to finish and record a time for the British team to win – so he walked. In the end he didn’t even have to finish; officials got sick of waiting and awarded him last place so they could leave.

Some people who attended the World Fair signed up for the Olympic games while they were there. One example is Margaret Abbott, who entered the golf tournament along with her mother and won gold. These were the first Olympic games that saw women competing. Unfortunately, the poor organisation meant Abbott was never informed of her victory as the United States’ first female Olympic gold medallist. Her family was notified by a sports historian years after her death in 1955.

Athletics events took place in a wet, uneven field with trees in the way. Discus and hammers ended up in the trees or the crowd, as the area was too narrow. The long jumpers had to dig their own pit before they could start competing. Fencing events were held in the cutlery section of the World Fair.

Swimming events took place in the polluted Seine river – which had a strong current, resulting in unrealistically fast times. The shooting events used live pigeons. And the marathon winner was accused of taking short cuts – and didn’t receive his medal until the dispute was settled 12 years later.

Many of the events held in 1900 are no longer part of the Olympics, such as fishing, cannon shooting, obstacle course swimming, kite flying, motor racing and hot air ballooning. One competitor in the long-distance ballooning competition landed in Russia and was arrested for not filing a passport request. The winner of the contest landed some 2,000 kilometres away in modern-day Ukraine and had to make his own way back to Paris.

These, and other strange events out of de Coubertin’s control, resulted in him pushing for the International Olympic Committee to be in charge for the next Paris Olympics in 1924, which was his last Olympics as president of the committee.

Paris 1924

The success of the 1924 games is often considered to have saved the Olympic movement. The games were widely regarded as a major success that announced the arrival of the Olympics as a major international event. The number of countries and athletes taking part significantly increased from previous games, as did the number of spectators. More athletes from lower social classes also boosted public interest.

The event’s rising popularity was confirmed by worldwide media coverage. More than 1,000 journalists reported on the games, including with live radio coverage for the first time. This attention made superstars of gold medallists such as the Uruguayan football team, Finnish runner Paavo Nurmi and US swimmer Johnny Weissmuller, who went on to become a Hollywood actor.

And while female athletes were still rare in those years, the media coverage allowed them to grab headlines and reshape perceptions of women in sport. Athletes of colour also started to gain more recognition when US athlete DeHart Hubbard won the 1924 long jump, becoming the first black sportsman to win an individual Olympic gold medal.

The 1924 Olympics remained famous in popular culture for decades. They were even the subject of the 1981 Oscar-winning film Chariots of Fire, based on the true story of British runners Eric Liddell and Harold Abrahams.

Many Olympic traditions were first seen at the 1924 Paris games. It was the first games to use the closing ceremony ritual of raising four flags – the Olympic flag, the flag of Greece (which hosted the first modern Olympics in 1896), the host nation’s flag, and the next host nation’s flag.

It was also the first games in which athletes stayed together in a purpose-built Olympic Village, the first time the Olympic motto, “Citius, Altius, Fortius” (“Swifter, Higher, Stronger”) was used, and the first time a 50-metre pool was used for swimming events. This pool, Piscine des Tourelles, is still operational and will be used as a practice venue for swimmers and triathletes in 2024.

Another lesser known but potentially more influential impact of the 1924 games was the organisers’ decision to establish exclusive rights to all photos and videos of the games. This model – and the lucrative media and sponsorship deals it has garnered over the past 100 years – have been a key contributor to the funding and success of the Olympic movement.

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 chaotic history of the Olympics in Paris, where one games nearly ended the movement – and the other helped save it – https://theconversation.com/the-chaotic-history-of-the-olympics-in-paris-where-one-games-nearly-ended-the-movement-and-the-other-helped-save-it-235092

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hugh Breakey, Deputy Director, Institute for Ethics, Governance & Law, Griffith University

In the wake of the assassination attempt on former US President Donald Trump, there were calls from both sides of US politics, as well as internationally, to reduce the brutal, take-no-prisoners language that has become part of our ordinary political discourse.

But within days Trump returned to being, well, Trump. At a campaign rally on Saturday, he referred to former US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as a “dog” and a “bed bug”.

And there has been no shortage of vicious invective targeting the Democrats’ new presumptive presidential nominee, Kamala Harris.

Why is savage rhetoric so harmful?

Incendiary language typically creates more heat than light on political issues, inflaming emotions but rarely illuminating nuanced arguments.

This increases general disillusionment with politics. When politicians behave like children, it’s not surprising overall trust in political institutions plummets.

Worse, sharp moralising language creates polarisation and encourages people to see their opponents as hated enemies.

For example, in the aftermath of the Trump assassination attempt, President Joe Biden apologised for his earlier comments about putting Trump in a “bullseye”, admitting it was a mistake.

The use of such language makes it harder to engage constructively with those who think differently, and to make the compromises required in democratic law-making.

Finally, brutal escalating rhetoric can lead to violence.

For example, Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance, once called the former president “America’s Hitler”. If Trump really is like Hitler, then doesn’t it make sense — isn’t it morally right — to use violence to stop him?

All sides of politics can agree these are undesirable outcomes. Everyone benefits from civil, constructive political discourse.

That sounds great. So, why can’t we dial it down?

Being civil is hard. When someone argues with us on matters of values, it feels psychologically like we are under attack. Responding defensively with a verbal onslaught is a natural, salient response.

Attacking opponents also feels good in the moment. We can feel like we’re at least doing something to defend our values.

In addition, ideological vitriol works to cement and affirm our identity within our chosen political tribe. Many like-minded thinkers will applaud their allies for “owning” their opponents.

But perhaps the greatest reason that brutal, uncompromising attacks are so frequent is that they work.

In a plea this month against escalating political rhetoric in society, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese asserted:

There’s a lot of shouting going on. A point is not made more significant by being done in capital letters.

WRONG! Unfortunately, vicious moralising language makes people more likely to give in to click-bait content and share it online. And social media algorithms deliberately reward polarising rhetoric, making extreme ideas more visible.

As a result of this crowding out of moderate voices, it’s as if civil, nuanced and constructive contributions are being systematically shadow banned.

While abusive rhetoric has clear short-term gains, these benefits don’t necessarily translate into longer-term strategic achievements. Vulgar attacks often prove counter-productive as they fail to persuade, discourage understanding and alienate potential allies.

It’s hard to make clear rules for civil debate

Another problem with drawing the line at abusive political rhetoric is that hard and fast rules are difficult to apply.

Fascists, racists, conspiracies and attempts to undermine democracy are all genuine threats. People need to be able to publicly denounce such things,
even if they become heated or their language provokes outrage.

And even if we were able to develop some basic rules of civility, they could easily unravel. People would inevitably interpret their opponents as breaching those rules.

Consider the wildly different interpretations of Trump’s invocation of a “bloodbath” if he loses the 2024 presidential election.

Was he threatening actual political violence, as his Democratic opponents claim? Or was he merely referring to the economic impacts of Biden’s trade policies, as the Trump campaign claimed?

People’s judgments of others’ wrongdoing can also drive them to reciprocate with their own actions or accusations, leading to tit-for-tat escalations. This is one reason the debate over the Gaza war has become so toxic – both sides see themselves as taking the higher moral ground.

So is there a way forward?

Perhaps all we can do is draw the line at physical violence.

In the US, this approach dates back to the 17th century, when the Puritan dissenter Roger Williams coined the phrase “mere civility”.

Desperate to preserve people’s political freedoms to argue forthrightly and their religious freedoms to aggressively proselytise, Williams argued people should be able to say what they want. But socially and legally, actual violence would be prohibited.

After all, frank dialogue is a part of democracy, but as a wide consensus of voices asserted after the Trump assassination attempt, political violence is not.

Perhaps more is possible. We could try to repudiate social punishment (such as doxing, cancelling or attempting to get people fired) when people say things we disagree with.

More ambitiously, even if we can’t change the overall discourse and its perverse algorithm-fuelled incentives, we could attempt more localised fixes.

We could work to create discrete environments — such as the school room, the university tutorial or the parliamentary debate — with a formal structure that rewards civil discussions.

This would encourage people to argue ethically and disagree well. Just because social media is a quagmire doesn’t mean we can’t create alternative spaces that offer something better.

Ultimately, though, our interconnected, globalised world rewards rage and crushes empathy. No small words here, or fleeting pleas by our political leaders, will change that.

But we can still do our best to remember that hate, contempt and self-righteousness are rarely constructive for movements or individuals — even when attached to the noblest of causes.

Hugh Breakey 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. ‘Bloodbath’, ‘bullseye’, ‘America’s Hitler’: why has our political rhetoric gotten so violent and incendiary? – https://theconversation.com/bloodbath-bullseye-americas-hitler-why-has-our-political-rhetoric-gotten-so-violent-and-incendiary-235206

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Keith Rathbone, Senior Lecturer, Modern European History and Sports History, Macquarie University

Two high-profile assaults on Australians in Paris have raised concerns about security ahead of the Olympic Games.

On Saturday evening, a young woman was allegedly sexually assaulted by a group of men.

On Monday, two employees of Channel 9 were attacked during an attempted robbery.

In response, the Australian Olympic Committee has advised athletes not to travel solo or to wear their team uniform outside of the Olympic village.

The French government has prepared for a rise in crime during the games but security services have focused their energies on safeguarding events from possible terrorist attacks.

At the same time, while the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is especially mindful of the way sporting events raise the prospect of terrorism, they are also wary of how sport can provide avenues for international rivalry and individual political protest.

So as the games prepare to officially launch, what’s happening in Paris?

Security

The Paris Olympics have already kicked off with rugby sevens and soccer but even that didn’t go smoothly, with a fan invasion marring the Argentina-Morocco soccer clash.

With the opening ceremony less than 24 hours away, the French capital is under its strongest-ever security regime.

The French government, wary of another attack on a sporting event like the bombing outside of the Stade de France in 2015, have restricted access around the Seine River.

Residents and workers have to get a Games Pass QR code or an Olympic accreditation to enter the area. Many residents and tourists have been locked out of the capital’s most well-heeled neighbourhoods.

The organisers’ caution might be well-founded. Israeli athletes have already received death threats on social media: “arrive in France, we’ll kill you.”

They have also been threatened with a reenactment of the Munich 1972 games, when Black September terrorists killed 11 Israeli sportsmen.

As a result, Israeli athletes in Paris will get 24-hour security from French and Israeli officials.

Read more:
Will the Paris Olympics be a terrorist target? These three factors could be key

Geopolitics

Despite the IOC’s best efforts, international conflict shapes who can compete in the games and who cannot.

The most notable absences will be Belarussian and Russian athletes, who are limited to competing as individual, independent athletes under a neutral flag. As many as 36 Russian and 28 Belarussian athletes have qualified under these rules.

Even so, many critics point out these athletes may be used as state agents.

Ukrainian government officials have long believed the IOC’s response to the Russian invasion encouraged war and they have rejected the current IOC position that permits limited Russian participation in the games as insufficient.

Russian politicians and that country’s Olympic committee have rejected the IOC ruling as “unacceptable” and wondered openly why they are being targeted but not Israel.

Meanwhile, the Palestinian Olympic Committee has called for a ban on Israeli athletes.

While 88 Israeli athletes will be headed to Paris, only eight Palestinian athletes are making the same trip.

For the Palestinian Olympians in Paris, gold medals are not the primary goal – Palestinian Olympic Committee executive Nader Jayousi wants to make a claim for nationhood and to “show our Palestinianism”.

Sport frequently provides a space for countries to act out their international rivalries, and the Olympics are often drawn into those conflicts.

Australian and Chinese relations have been tense since COVID. Even as relations between the two countries have improved, Australian sporting officials, including Sports Integrity Australia chief executive David Sharpe, have all but accused China of running a state sponsored doping program.

The controversy reached a peak recently when it was revealed 23 Chinese swimmers tested positive to a banned drug in early 2021 and were allowed to compete at the Tokyo games six months later without sanction. Eleven of those 23 will compete in Paris.

Former Australian Olympian Grant Hackett has suggested Australian athletes might stage some visible protest in response.

Athlete politics

Athletes rarely protest during the games because the Olympics’ rules ban competitors from making statements that might be “political, religious or racial” in nature.

There have been some famous examples of athletes ignoring this mandate however, including Australian Peter Norman, who supported John Carlos and Tommie Smith’s “Black Power” protest in 1968.

Sometimes the IOC’s efforts to police athletes’ speech seem extreme: for example, Brazilian surfer Joao Chianca has been told by IOC officials he needs to remove a Christ the Redeemer motif from the bottom of his surfboard.

Religious gestures and symbols are common at the games, though – think of athletes pointing to the sky in response to a win – and different sporting organisations’ rules seem arbitrary.

Rights groups have called on the IOC to fight harder against local French Olympic Committee bans on its female athletes wearing hijab.

In reality, the unpredictable nature of athlete protest makes it impossible for the IOC to stop. Will American NBA players express opinions on the court about the US election? Will Palestinian athletes refuse to compete against Israelis? Will the French far-right use the games as an opportunity to agitate against the formation of a left-wing government?

In many ways, the IOC’s efforts are futile, because athlete speech can happen in so many places beyond the podium. Athletes with smart phones will be making statements that are visible to spectators around the world in real time.

Whatever decisions the IOC makes in Paris and in the future, the IOC’s push to make sports apolitical represents an impossible goal.

The IOC may be against the politicisation of sports but sports will always be political.

Keith Rathbone 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, security and the Seine: where the Paris Olympics’ flashpoints will be – https://theconversation.com/politics-security-and-the-seine-where-the-paris-olympics-flashpoints-will-be-235200

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew King, Senior Lecturer in Climate Science, The University of Melbourne

In the past week, Earth’s record for the hottest day was broken twice. Sunday July 21 was declared Earth’s hottest day since records began, when average surface temperature reached 17.09°C. On Monday the record fell again, when average temperatures reached 17.16°C – and Tuesday was almost as hot.

The declarations were made by Copernicus, the European climate change service. They made international headlines – especially in the northern hemisphere, which has been experiencing extreme summer heat.

Determining the global average temperature on any given day is complex. It involves thousands of observations using high-tech equipment and in some cases, sophisticated computer models.

So let’s take at look at how scientists take the planet’s temperature, and what these broken records mean.

How we know it’s hot

The global average surface temperature is the main indicator used to track how the climate is changing, and the measure used under the Paris Agreement.

It is derived from a combination of both the average temperature of air just above the land surface and in the upper layer of the ocean.

Several organisations develop estimates of Earth’s average surface temperature using a variety of methods. Aside from Copernicus, they include national organisations in the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan.

All datasets produced by these agencies point to a very clear warming trend since 1900.

Most datasets are based on directly observed temperatures from weather stations on land and floats on the ocean, both of which contain thermometers. Satellites in space are also used to gather inferred estimates.

The advanced methods used today, and the many thousands of observations, mean daily temperature data is far more accurate than in years past. The further back in time we go, the more uncertain the estimates of global average surface temperatures.

What is Copernicus?

The Copernicus Climate Change Service is part of the European Union’s Earth observation program. To generate its temperature estimates, Copernicus uses not just observations, but a computer model simulation.

The model simulates temperatures at two metres above the land surface everywhere across the globe. The results are combined with an estimate of oceans’ average surface temperature derived from direct observation and satellite information.

Copernicus’ use of information from a model simulation means its method differs slightly from other datasets. However, the method is well regarded and provides global estimates of average surface temperatures within a couple of days.

Unpicking the temperatures

We know the climate is changing at a rapid pace. But why is this record daily heat occurring now?

As the graph above shows, the global average surface temperature follows a distinct seasonal cycle. Temperatures in July are typically about 4°C higher than in January.

The difference comes down to the larger land masses of North America, Europe and Asia, as compared to those in the southern hemisphere.

Land warms up much more quickly than the ocean. By July each year, northern hemisphere land masses have usually heated substantially, while the southern hemisphere oceans are still slowly cooling. This means very high average global temperatures are only possible in northern summer and not the southern.

Still, the record high temperatures of this week are well beyond those seen before 2023. This is partly due to an El Niño – which typically brings hotter-than-average temperatures – and other factors such as high solar activity and reduced air pollution from falling shipping emissions.

Increased solar activity means the Earth receives more energy from the sun, while reduced air pollution can mean more energy from the sun reaches Earth’s surface.

Crucially, these record-high temperatures would be all but impossible without the planetary warming caused by human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.

Global carbon dioxide emissions hit record highs last year. This means we are likely to see more heat extremes and record high temperatures in coming decades.

Read more:
6 reasons why global temperatures are spiking right now

What’s coming next

In April this year, experts declared the 2023/24 El Niño had ended. This is likely to lead to a slight cooling in global average surface temperature anomalies in coming months – albeit to levels still well above pre-industrial conditions. This is on top of the cooling as we move past the July peak discussed above.

Global average surface temperature is not the only indicator of global warming. For example, scientists also use sea level rise and glacier retreat to track climate changes. Other less formal observations, such as cherry blossoms in Japan blooming earlier, are also useful.

But no matter which indicator we use, the evidence is clear: Earth is getting hotter, and human activity is to blame.

The year 2023 was the hottest in modern records. There is a decent chance 2024 will be hotter still. Only when humanity greatly reduces its greenhouse gas emissions will the pace of record-breaking temperatures slow.

Andrew King receives funding from the National Environmental Science Program and the ARC Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather.

– ref. Monday was the warmest day recorded on Earth. But how do scientists actually measure that? – https://theconversation.com/monday-was-the-warmest-day-recorded-on-earth-but-how-do-scientists-actually-measure-that-235423

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jane Louise Hunter, Associate Professor, Teacher Education, University of Technology Sydney

New South Wales has just announced a curriculum “shake-up” for primary schools to start in 2027.

As well as new content about the human body, consent and screen time, there will be a change in the way students will be taught. This involves an emphasis on “explicit instruction” and a move away from student-led or “inquiry-based learning”.

This follows recent moves in Victoria and Queensland, to implement “explicit instruction” around reading.

What does this mean?

Explicit instruction

According to the NSW Education Department, explicit instruction or teaching involves teachers “clearly explaining, demonstrating and modelling to
students” why they are learning something, what they need to learn and how it connects to what they already know.

It does not involve “students engaging in independent learning activities and problem solving before teachers provide the necessary explanations, demonstration or modelling”. This latter approach describes “inquiry-based learning”.

This approach prioritises critical and creative thinking so students can develop their abilities to ask questions, interpret evidence, form explanations and arguments, and communicate findings.

Announcing the changes this week, NSW Education Minister Prue Car said:

For the first time, primary school teachers have a set of syllabuses that make sense together […] Teachers will have clarity on exactly what they need to teach, based on evidence.

But the way this evidence is presented is problematic.

Is it really one or the other?

These changes and the media coverage around them suggest there are binaries or “either/or” options when it comes to teaching methods.

For example, those in favour of explicit teaching claim they have found “what works best” in the classroom. As the Australian Education Research Organisation notes, it “allows students to process new information more effectively”.

Yet my research on successful approaches in Australian classrooms reveals teachers use a range of strategies to teach and engage students.

This is important because research shows exposing students to different kinds of learning experiences is important for their development. One teaching approach in one school for one student in one subject will differ for another in another content area. Context matters.

So teachers need to be able to use their professional judgement in the classroom. This is why some scholars argue we should see teaching as an art and not a precise science.

Why are we having this debate?

We see regular headlines students are “falling behind” and schools are failing (even though this is not necessarily accurate). This is combined with ongoing criticism our teachers are not adequately prepared for the classroom.

But politicians have a vested interest in the school system being (or appearing to be) “successful” for parents and voters. As my co-author Don Carter’s research shows, education minister’s offices often seek rapid answers to wickedly complex challenges in schools.

Australian schools are facing acute teacher shortages, funding shortfalls and big gaps in outcomes for advantaged and disadvantaged students. These are not simple issues.

It is also important to note you can use “evidence” to justify multiple stances. For example, when it comes to the pros and cons of single sex versus co-ed schools, there is research to support both sides.

The same is true when it comes to teaching methods.

Meanwhile, some of the evidence used in these debates is from think tanks whose research is not awarded through competitive grants or peer-review by other academics.

What does this mean for schools and families?

Some of these policy changes will mean teachers are changing how they teach, but often will simply continue to do what they have always done.

But these debates can have a cost as they once more suggest teachers don’t know how to teach effectively or need more help to do so.

Current debates about teaching can also be confusing for parents who hear about falling standards and the need for new methods. It also presents schooling as a “cookie cutter” experience where a child is sent to learn and behave in certain ways.

For parents, it may help to remember the most important things have not changed: your child is progressing at school, they are engaged in what they are learning and they are happy to go.

Jane Louise Hunter has received funding from various public schools in NSW and independent schools in Victoria.

Don Carter receives funding from the Australian and Queensland governments.

– ref. Is there a ‘right way’ to teach? Recent debates suggest yes, but students and schools are much more complex – https://theconversation.com/is-there-a-right-way-to-teach-recent-debates-suggest-yes-but-students-and-schools-are-much-more-complex-235421

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

Every few weeks or months, the media reports on a new study that tantalisingly dangles the possibility of a new drug to give us longer, healthier lives.

The latest study centres around a drug involved in targeting interleukin-11, a protein involved in inflammation. Blocking this protein appeared to help mice stave off disease and extend their life by more than 20%.

If only defying the ravages of time could be achieved through such a simple and effort-free way – by taking a pill. But as is so often the case, the real-world significance of these findings falls a fair way short of the hype.

The role of inflammation in disease and ageing

Chronic inflammation in the body plays a role in causing disease and accelerating ageing. In fact, a relatively new label has been coined to represent this: “inflammaging”.

While acute inflammation is an important response to infection or injury, if inflammation persists in the body, it can be very damaging.

A number of lifestyle, environmental and societal drivers contribute to chronic inflammation in the modern world. These are largely the factors we already know are associated with disease and ageing, including poor diet, lack of exercise, obesity, stress, lack of sleep, lack of social connection and pollution.

While addressing these issues directly is one of the keys to addressing chronic inflammation, disease and ageing, there are a number of research groups also exploring how to treat chronic inflammation with pharmaceuticals. Their goal is to target and modify the molecular and chemical pathways involved in the inflammatory process itself.

What the latest research shows

This new interleukin-11 research was conducted in mice and involved a number of separate components.

In one component of this research, interleukin-11 was genetically knocked out in mice. This means the gene for this chemical mediator was removed from these mice, resulting in the mice no longer being able to produce this mediator at all.

In this part of the study, the mice’s lives were extended by over 20%, on average.

Another component of this research involved treating older mice with a drug that blocks interleukin-11.

Injecting this drug into 75-week old mice (equivalent to 55-year-old humans) was found to extend the life of mice by 22-25%.

These treated mice were less likely to get cancer and had lower cholesterol levels, lower body weight and improved muscle strength and metabolism.

From these combined results, the authors concluded, quite reasonably, that blocking interleukin-11 may potentially be a key to mitigating age-related health effects and improving lifespan in both mice and humans.

Why you shouldn’t be getting excited just yet

There are several reasons to be cautious of these findings.

First and most importantly, this was a study in mice. It may be stating the obvious, but mice are very different to humans. As such, this finding in a mouse model is a long way down the evidence hierarchy in terms of its weight.

Research shows only about 5% of promising findings in animals carry over to humans. Put another way, approximately 95% of promising findings in animals may not be translated to specific therapies for humans.

Second, this is only one study. Ideally, we would be looking to have these findings confirmed by other researchers before even considering moving on to the next stage in the knowledge discovery process and examining whether these findings may be true for humans.

We generally require a larger body of evidence before we get too excited about any new research findings and even consider the possibility of human trials.

Third, even if everything remains positive and follow-up studies support the findings of this current study, it can take decades for a new finding like this to be translated to successful therapies in humans.

Until then, we can focus on doing the things we already know make a huge difference to health and longevity: eating well, exercising, maintaining a healthy weight, reducing stress and nurturing social relationships.

Hassan Vally 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. A drug that can extend your life by 25%? Don’t hold your breath – https://theconversation.com/a-drug-that-can-extend-your-life-by-25-dont-hold-your-breath-235313

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guy Castley, Associate Professor, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University

Banknotes and coins help shape our national identity. The images they display emphasise historical events, prominent personalities, or scientific, industrial and technological advances. Sometimes they highlight biodiversity, including distinctive plants and wildlife.

Our new research studied wildlife imagery on banknotes from across the globe. We wanted to find out how often native animals appeared, and which species were most commonly depicted.

Almost one in six of the 4,541 notes we analysed, from 207 countries, featured wildlife. We identified intriguing patterns of use in different countries, from mammals in Africa and birds in South America to marine life in island nations. Some countries readily embraced wildlife, while others neglected them altogether.

Our research highlights an opportunity to raise public awareness of wildlife more broadly. In particular, showcasing threatened species on banknotes may lift their profile. This should be part of a broader conversation effort that builds community support for protecting biodiversity.

What we found

We trawled through a book titled Standard Catalog of World Paper Money and recorded every image of native animals on banknotes between 1980 and 2017.

Our analysis showed a wide range of animals depicted on banknotes. In most cases we could identify the species.

Images of wildlife appeared on more than 15% of the 4,541 notes we reviewed, from 207 countries. We identified 352 individual species.

In total, we found 883 depictions of native wildlife on 689 banknotes from 92 countries. That leaves 115 countries with banknotes devoid of wildlife.

Birds (195 species) and mammals (96 species) were the most widely used across all countries, followed by fish (25 species), reptiles (15 species) and invertebrates (15 species), then frogs or toads (6 species).

Significant differences existed among countries and regions. For example, currency from African nations frequently featured mammals.

In contrast, banknotes in South and Central American nations often featured birds. This reflects the higher diversity of birds in these tropical rainforest regions.

Island nations frequently depicted marine wildlife such as swordfish, whale sharks and green turtles. But they also included land-based species found only on these islands.

The results suggest that for many countries, native wildlife is valued and forms part of their national identity.

Some nations have started to make explicit links between animals depicted on their currency and their values and aspirations.

In South Africa, the Reserve Bank links the iconic “big five” native animals on their banknotes to its core values:

• rhino: protecting a shared future and accountability
• African buffalo: unity and cohesion through open communication
• African savanna elephant: stability, confidence and the building of social bonds to preserve respect and trust
• lion: leadership and guidance to achieve excellence
• leopard: independence, integrity and honour.

What about Australian currency?

Just two of the Australian notes in the series we analysed depicted wildlife. The $5 note has an eastern spinebill, while the $10 note has a sulphur-crested cockatoo.

However, more banknotes have been issued since we conducted our analysis. In 2019 the Reserve Bank added a bird to each banknote denomination, as well as an accompanying plant (typically an Acacia species). These images are part of the latest banknote security features, as follows:

• $5 eastern spinebill

• $10 sulphur-crested cockatoo

• $20 laughing kookaburra

• $50 black swan

• $100 Australian masked owl.

Depicting threatened species

Almost a third (30%) of all wildlife depicted represented threatened species. For most groups of animals this is higher than the proportion of species currently listed as threatened with extinction. Species on banknotes include the critically endangered black rhinoceros, blue-throated macaw and hawksbill turtle.

In 2012, Fiji introduced a range of threatened species on their banknotes to raise awareness of their plight. So popular is their so-called “flora and fauna currency”, the community often refers to the notes by the species depicted on them, rather than the denomination. We have observed locals saying an item for sale costs a kulawai (red-throated lorikeet), rather than $5, or one nanai (Fijian cicada), instead of $100.

Australia could certainly do more to raise the prominence of our unique and threatened wildlife on its currency. Images currently used depict iconic and recognisable species – and not those most in need of conservation attention.

There is some evidence, albeit limited, to suggest featuring threatened species on banknotes may be used to aid their protection. For example, magazines published by conservation groups tend to use images of popular, attractive or well-known animals (“charismatic fauna”) that may or may not be threatened, to raise awareness and funds. Recent research analysing social media has also shown that sharing wildlife imagery led to direct conservation action.

And researchers have suggested advertisers using wildlife images should pay a fee, such as a royalty, which could then be spent on conservation efforts.

Looking beyond banknotes

Showcasing species on currency is an opportunity to foster national pride and raise awareness of each nation’s unique fauna. But for threatened species, there is no guarantee this will ultimately lead to their protection.

The depiction of animals on banknotes should be accompanied by other efforts to raise public awareness of their plight, such as education campaigns, public policy initiatives and fundraising drives.

More research is needed into the public impact of wildlife imagery on banknotes and how this might translate into conservation gains.

The authors wish to acknowledge the significant contribution made by Beaudee Newbery in collating and analysing the wildlife depictions on global banknotes as part of his research at Griffith University.

Guy Castley receives funding from the Australian Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation, local councils and Griffith University. He is affiliated with the Glossy Black Conservancy and is a member of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand, Society for Conservation Biology and BirdLife Australia.

Clare Morrison currently receives funding from the Queensland Department of Environment, Science and Innovation, local councils and Griffith University. She is a member of the Society of Conservation Biology, Australian Society of Herpetologists and advisor to the local conservation non-government organisation NatureFiji-MareqetiViti in Fiji.

– ref. Almost 1 in 6 of the world’s banknotes feature wildlife – and they’re not always the creatures you’d expect – https://theconversation.com/almost-1-in-6-of-the-worlds-banknotes-feature-wildlife-and-theyre-not-always-the-creatures-youd-expect-234174