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

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Jakubowicz, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Technology Sydney

A year ago, the government instigated an independent review of the national multicultural framework.

As more than half of Australia’s population is either born overseas or has one parent who was, this policy is important. It underpins how multiculturalism works in almost every part of life. It aims to ensure equity and inclusion for people from minority groups, and attempts to whittle away at structural racism.

Now the review report has been released. This comes against a backdrop of growing antisemitism and Islamophobia in Australia, as well as the fallout from the failed Voice to Parliament referendum and the vicious racism many communities experienced during the COVID crisis.

The report includes 29 recommendations for improving Australia’s multicultural society. The government has committed $100 million over the next four years to implement the recommendations, though it is still working through the details and timeline. Here’s what it found.

What did the panel find?

The panel received nearly 800 submissions – more than 120 of which were in languages other than English – and held 200 consultations.

The report points to dozens of examples where a multicultural perspective has produced better outcomes for those involved.

It also highlights too many cases where ignorance of cultural diversity has led to poor outcomes in health, disability and education services. For example, mental health services often fail to take into account the counselling support needs of people from different faith communities.

Some of the recommendations are symbolic and have appeared in every multicultural review over the past 50 years. But other recommendations are far more concrete.

Firstly, it suggests there be a federal Multicultural Commission (a proposal the Greens have had on the parliamentary agenda without Labor support for some years). This body would be empowered to provide leadership on multicultural issues, hold opponents of human rights to account, and promote close collaboration between stakeholders at all levels.

Secondly, the panel proposes breaking up the Department of Home Affairs. This would be an attempt to reverse the surveillance and punishment approach that many believe the department to have towards migrants, refugees and some ethnic groups.

Instead, it suggests a new-look, nation-building, Cabinet-level Department of Multicultural Affairs, Immigration and Citizenship.

And from a policy perspective, the report recommends:

• better ways to protect people’s languages
• a citizenship process that is less about learning cricket scores and more about appreciating diversity and the importance of mutual respect
• diversifying our media sector so it more effectively reflects and involves our minority communities
• and ensuring the arts and sports sectors are spaces for intercultural collaboration and cooperation.

Overall, the report shows how marginal multicultural affairs have become in government – these ideas would go a long way toward refocusing the government’s attention where it is needed.

Why was this review needed?

The review was tasked with assessing how effective Australia’s institutions, laws and policy settings are at supporting a multicultural nation, particularly one that’s changing rapidly. This included looking at the challenges of refugee and immigrant settlement and integration, as well as the impact of world events on Australia’s multicultural society.

There’s also an economic element. The review looked at how we can ensure the wide-ranging talents of Australia’s residents are fully harnessed for personal and broader societal benefit.

These questions point to the need to bring together political, economic, cultural and social priorities in our government programs and policies. They also recognise the deeper challenges of racism, social marginalisation and isolation, which are often compounded by other factors, such as age, gender, class, health and disability.

These are not new questions. What is new is the recommendation for a strategy to engage in a sustained and interconnected way with the causes and consequences of our current failures. It is very unusual for a government to ask a review to do this.

The findings also bring together the perspectives and insights that many advocates in this space have long championed, but which have been swept aside and neglected for over two decades.

Importantly, the report stresses that a national commitment to multiculturalism demands bipartisanship.

I made an argument for a research strategy element in the review in 2023, and was later commissioned to develop a paper on research and data for a multicultural Australia.

The panel has now recommended that a national multicultural research agenda be developed by the new Multicultural Commission, taking account of my recommendations.

What will the government do?

There is still a long row to hoe – none of the recommendations have been publicly accepted (nor dismissed) by the government, and as yet no specific resources have been committed (despite the $100 million commitment overall). Significant action, however, is likely over the coming months and in future budgets.

While it is unlikely Home Affairs will be broken up immediately, some major moves to upgrade the capacity of the public service to deliver on the government’s commitments are likely. The courage of the government to advance these priorities in the election will depend in part on public reactions to the report and its implementation, as well as the stance of the Opposition.

Will the panel’s extensive work improve cohesion, enable better community relations, and unleash the social and economic benefits of a more collaborative society? The first test will be in how a proposed Multicultural Commission would be structured, led and resourced. We may not have long to wait.

Andrew Jakubowicz was commissioned by a community agency to prepare its submission to the review. He was commissioned by the panel to prepare a paper on research strategy that was included in the review. He had no executive control over whether or how the work would be used.

– ref. A major multiculturalism review has recommended bold reforms. How far is the government prepared to go? – https://theconversation.com/a-major-multiculturalism-review-has-recommended-bold-reforms-how-far-is-the-government-prepared-to-go-235414

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shona Halson, Associate professor, school of Behavioural and Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University

Although the Olympics are an exciting time for sport enthusiasts worldwide, you may be faced with the gruelling test of lining up your viewing schedule with the Paris time zone.

Your sleep schedule might be challenged with late nights and early mornings to catch the live action.

Although thrilling at the time, you may have regrets when the alarm sounds the following day and sleep feels like a distant memory.

Such a scenario is a prime example of sleep deprivation.

What is sleep deprivation?

Sleep deprivation occurs when you do not get the amount and quality of sleep that you need.

The amount of sleep an individual needs can vary but it is typically recommended that healthy adults sleep for seven to nine hours per night.

During this time, you will experience different stages of sleep. Getting the optimal amount of sleep in each stage results in good quality sleep.

But when experiencing sleep deprivation, the duration and quality of sleep is often reduced, which can reduce reaction time and decision-making abilities, disrupt mood and increase risk of accident and injury.

Essentially, you might feel less alert, less productive and a little bit flat after some late night viewing.

Importantly, the negative consequences of sleep deprivation can accumulate over time. You should consider this if you repeatedly cut sleep short when glued to the coverage across the Olympic period.

But I have Olympic fever – how can I minimise sleep deprivation?

In similar ways to how athletes compete at night, those of us supporting from home might consider strategies to prepare for late nights and early mornings.

One approach is “banking sleep” which involves extending sleep in the week leading into the period of sleep deprivation. You can think of it as frontloading your sleep prior to the event.

By adding an extra hour or so to your normal sleep period, you may lessen the acute symptoms you experience from sleep deprivation.

Another thing to consider is evening light exposure. Your body’s natural rhythm for sleep and wake is affected by the amount and timing of light exposure. When viewing in the evening and night, consider turning off or dimming overhead lights and other sources of unnecessary light.

Finally, you should consider what you are going to eat and drink while viewing.

Although alcohol may be a popular choice, it can reduce your sleep quality and may worsen sleep deprivation.

Also, when you are sleep deprived, your appetite can change and you may crave foods that are high in sugar. Preparing and having healthy food readily available might minimise the chances of you making poor diet decisions.

By considering the challenges of late nights and early mornings, you can aim to promote good sleep quality even if your duration is cut short.

What about napping … or coffee?

Napping can be a helpful tool if you are sleep deprived.

However, as sleepiness is driven by a brain chemical called adenosine, which increases while you are awake and reduces when you are asleep, it is important to be mindful of the timing and duration of your nap.

The ideal nap time is between 1pm and 4pm, as napping too late in the day can make it harder for you to sleep at night.

Similarly, if you nap for too long, it can also make it more challenging to sleep at night – the ideal nap duration is 20 to 90 minutes. Napping longer than this can be helpful if you are sleep deprived but it can increase the chance that you will experience sleep inertia (the groggy feeling upon waking).

If you are sleep deprived and can’t nap, caffeine may be a suitable alternative to reduce sleepiness.

Caffeine works by blocking adenosine in your brain. This means caffeine can improve mood and performance.

It’s important to be aware that caffeine doesn’t reduce the amount of this chemical, so when it wears off, you can feel extra sleepy and may experience the dreaded caffeine crash.

Another important consideration is the timing and amount of caffeine you consume – caffeine can reduce the quantity and quality of your next sleep episode, so try to limit your intake to the morning if possible.

How long will it take to ‘get back to normal’?

Losing sleep to enjoy the Olympics may mean you will be dealing with added daytime fatigue, and it is important to understand it can increase your risk of having an accident or injury during this time.

This is particularly important if you need to perform tasks that require you to focus and react, such as driving – fatigue is responsible for about 20% of road accidents.

So, if you’re going to sacrifice your sleep to catch the Olympic action, it might be useful to consider public transport options if available.

When the Olympics are finished, the time it will take to re-establish your normal sleep and wake schedule will depend on how different the timing of your interrupted sleep was – that is, if you usually fall sleep at 10pm but stayed up until 11pm, it will take less time to adapt than if you were awake until 1am.

A good idea is to focus on consistent sleep timing as soon as possible. A regular sleep and wake schedule will give you the best chance of getting good quality sleep.

In the meantime, just as the athletes are preparing to give their best performance, prepare your strategies to give yourself the best chance at minimising the effects of sleep deprivation.

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. Surviving the Olympiczzzzz: how fans can best cope with sleep deprivation during major overseas events – https://theconversation.com/surviving-the-olympiczzzzz-how-fans-can-best-cope-with-sleep-deprivation-during-major-overseas-events-227902

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fethi Mansouri, Deakin Distinguished Professor/UNESCO Chair-holder; Founding Director, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

President Joe Biden’s recent decision to step down from the 2024 presidential elections in the United States and support Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic nominee has led to a landslide of sexist and racist reactions.

As a woman of Indian and Jamaican heritage, Harris is facing a flood of disinformation, stereotypes and deeply offensive racist slurs against her. These include suggestions her political rise is due to the fact she is a “woman of colour” rather than because of her ability to govern.

Harris proudly refers to herself as a “woman of colour”, as do many feminist activists in the US and in Australia. So why the controversy around the use of this phrase?

To answer this, we need to take a quick look at the history of race relations in the US and put this phrase into context. The term “people of colour” can be traced back to the 16th century, when European explorers used it to describe native Americans in contrast to their own imagined “whiteness”. By the 18th century, the term “people of color” was not only used in the English-speaking world but was also a French term, gens de couleur and an Italian one, gente de color.

In this context, we can see why this phrase, and its focus on skin tone, perpetuates a racial hierarchy based in a history of oppression and discrimination. It reflects an idea of white people being at the top.

Even today, many people dislike the term because lumping everyone who is not considered white together in a category like “people of colour” can further reinforce “whiteness” as the norm. It therefore can erase the huge diversity that exists across this group.

However, with the start of the US civil right movements in the 1960s, which called for racial justice, gender equality and an end to all forms of discrimination and oppression, many historians note that Black feminists coined, or reclaimed, the term “women of colour”.

A famous example is the 1977 Combahee River Collective Statement, which reads:

As Black women we see Black feminism as the logical political movement to combat the manifold and simultaneous oppressions that all women of color face.

In this context, the term is intended to express solidarity and collective power.

We can see a similar example in Martin Luther King junior’s 1963 “I have a dream” speech. In this he coined the term “citizens of colour”. It projected a newfound sense of pride in being American citizens of African heritage.

Later generations of African American activists, including prominent athletes and artists and, in the case of Harris, politicians, have proudly embraced their “black”, Latina/Latino and other racial identities (and gender identities) as a form of liberation and empowerment.

In the decades that have followed, in response to calls for greater equality and diversity, some governments and organisations have introduced policies emphasising diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in workplaces and key institutions. These policies had the explicit aim of promoting the fair treatment and full participation of all people, particularly those who have historically been under-represented or discriminated against, including many people of colour.

Yet DEI policies have recently faced mounting criticism and resistance in many Western societies, especially the USA. There they have become synonymous with much more controversial affirmative action policies.

In such a racialised context, there is no doubt describing Harris as a “person or woman of colour” could be offensive, especially if it implies she is less qualified for the top job or is only in politics because of her race or gender, rather than her political ability.

Indeed, her political opponents branded her as “one hundred percent DEI hire […] her record is abysmal”.

As is the case with language more generally, how these phrases are understood can change over time in ways that perhaps make it more acceptable. Language has always been an essential part of intergroup dynamics and intercultural understanding. Ultimately, often the extent to which such phrases can be offensive, even racist, depends on who is saying it and in what context.

Perhaps in relation to the debate about Harris, the public commentary in mainstream media in particular should desist using such loaded terms and focus instead on her policies and credentials as a potential president. If there is a need to discuss her personal life and ethnic heritage, then referring to her mixed Indian-Jamaican background would be accurate and inoffensive. It is ironic that a phrase that evolved from a spirit of solidarity and respect has become a cover for avoiding the complexities of identities.

Fethi Mansouri receives funding from The Australian Research Council

– ref. Kamala Harris refers to herself as a ‘woman of colour’. Is it okay if everyone else does too? – https://theconversation.com/kamala-harris-refers-to-herself-as-a-woman-of-colour-is-it-okay-if-everyone-else-does-too-235324

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael Freeman, Associate Professor of Dermatology, Bond University

Social media is full of claims that everyday habits can harm your skin. It’s also full of recommendations or advertisements for products that can protect you.

Now social media has blue light from our devices in its sights.

So can scrolling on our phones really damage your skin? And will applying creams or lotions help?

Here’s what the evidence says and what we should really be focusing on.

Remind me, what actually is blue light?

Blue light is part of the visible light spectrum. Sunlight is the strongest source. But our electronic devices – such as our phones, laptops and TVs – also emit it, albeit at levels 100-1,000 times lower.

Seeing as we spend so much time using these devices, there has been some concern about the impact of blue light on our health, including on our eyes and sleep.

Now, we’re learning more about the impact of blue light on our skin.

How does blue light affect the skin?

The evidence for blue light’s impact on skin is still emerging. But there are some interesting findings.

1. Blue light can increase pigmentation

Studies suggest exposure to blue light can stimulate production of melanin, the natural skin pigment that gives skin its colour.

So too much blue light can potentially worsen hyperpigmentation – overproduction of melanin leading to dark spots on the skin – especially in people with darker skin.

2. Blue light can give you wrinkles

Some research suggests blue light might damage collagen, a protein essential for skin structure, potentially accelerating the formation of wrinkles.

A laboratory study suggests this can happen if you hold your device one centimetre from your skin for as little as an hour.

However, for most people, if you hold your device more than 10cm away from your skin, that would reduce your exposure 100-fold. So this is much less likely to be significant.

3. Blue light can disrupt your sleep, affecting your skin

If the skin around your eyes looks dull or puffy, it’s easy to blame this directly on blue light. But as we know blue light affects sleep, what you’re probably seeing are some of the visible signs of sleep deprivation.

We know blue light is particularly good at suppressing production of melatonin. This natural hormone normally signals to our bodies when it’s time for sleep and helps regulate our sleep-wake cycle.

By suppressing melatonin, blue light exposure before bed disrupts this natural process, making it harder to fall asleep and potentially reducing the quality of your sleep.

The stimulating nature of screen content further disrupts sleep. Social media feeds, news articles, video games, or even work emails can keep our brains active and alert, hindering the transition into a sleep state.

Long-term sleep problems can also worsen existing skin conditions, such as acne, eczema and rosacea.

Sleep deprivation can elevate cortisol levels, a stress hormone that breaks down collagen, the protein responsible for skin’s firmness. Lack of sleep can also weaken the skin’s natural barrier, making it more susceptible to environmental damage and dryness.

Can skincare protect me?

The beauty industry has capitalised on concerns about blue light and offers a range of protective products such as mists, serums and lip glosses.

From a practical perspective, probably only those with the more troublesome hyperpigmentation known as melasma need to be concerned about blue light from devices.

This condition requires the skin to be well protected from all visible light at all times. The only products that are totally effective are those that block all light, namely mineral-based suncreens or some cosmetics. If you can’t see the skin through them they are going to be effective.

But there is a lack of rigorous testing for non-opaque products outside laboratories. This makes it difficult to assess if they work and if it’s worth adding them to your skincare routine.

What can I do to minimise blue light then?

Here are some simple steps you can take to minimise your exposure to blue light, especially at night when it can disrupt your sleep:

• use the “night mode” setting on your device or use a blue-light filter app to reduce your exposure to blue light in the evening

• minimise screen time before bed and create a relaxing bedtime routine to avoid the types of sleep disturbances that can affect the health of your skin

• hold your phone or device away from your skin to minimise exposure to blue light

• use sunscreen. Mineral and physical sunscreens containing titanium dioxide and iron oxides offer broad protection, including from blue light.

In a nutshell

Blue light exposure has been linked with some skin concerns, particularly pigmentation for people with darker skin. However, research is ongoing.

While skincare to protect against blue light shows promise, more testing is needed to determine if it works.

For now, prioritise good sun protection with a broad-spectrum sunscreen, which not only protects against UV, but also light.

Michael Freeman is a founder of The Skin Centre, a private dermatology practice on the Gold Coast, Queensland. The centre has developed its own range of skincare products.

– ref. Yes, blue light from your phone can harm your skin. A dermatologist explains – https://theconversation.com/yes-blue-light-from-your-phone-can-harm-your-skin-a-dermatologist-explains-233335

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Toni Moate, Chair, National Marine Science Committee and Director, CSIRO National Collections and Marine Infrastructure, CSIRO

On August 23 1969, the coastal freighter MV Noongah departed Newcastle bound for Townsville with a cargo of steel and 26 crew. The 71-metre ship had been a regular sight along the eastern seaboard for a decade as it hauled cargo between cities up and down the coast.

Two days later, the vessel disappeared in the night beneath ten-metre waves, lashed by a violent storm. Tragically, only five of the 26 crew would be rescued during one of the largest searches for survivors in post-war Australian maritime history. As for the MV Noongah, its resting place would remain a mystery.

Until now.

While on a research voyage to study submarine canyons off the New South Wales coast, a team aboard the CSIRO research vessel RV Investigator became the first to set eyes on MV Noongah in nearly 55 years. This discovery was no accident. It was part of a collaborative project and a targeted investigation to help identify a mysterious shipwreck.

It’s also no coincidence there have been several shipwreck discoveries in the news recently. Australia’s national science ship has developed an impressive record as a shipwreck sleuth.

What is RV Investigator?

RV Investigator is part of the Marine National Facility – a national research infrastructure operated by CSIRO, Australia’s national science agency.

All Australian researchers and their international collaborators can access the capabilities of RV Investigator. This makes it a collaboration hub for marine research. And it’s been an important factor in many of the recent shipwreck discoveries.

Over the past ten years of operation, more than 150 institutions have collaborated to deliver science on voyages. Usefully, RV Investigator can accommodate multiple projects on each voyage. The research has ranged from fisheries’ surveys and seafloor mapping to atmospheric studies and, of course, maritime heritage surveys.

RV Investigator is equipped with a suite of advanced acoustic systems. It also has three seafloor mapping systems, called multibeam echosounders. These allow for high-resolution measurements (bathymetry, literally meaning “deep measurement”) of the seafloor, from shallow coasts to full ocean depth.

These systems map the seafloor everywhere the vessel goes, both through data collection while underway, and through targeted surveys.

Both the distance RV Investigator travels during its annual research program and the volume of bathymetric data it collects are immense. This greatly increases the likelihood of making seafloor discoveries.

Over the past ten years, RV Investigator has travelled more than 500,000 kilometres and mapped more than 3 million square kilometres of Australia’s marine estate. It has circumnavigated the continent several times.

All this has provided an opportunity to investigate many suspected shipwreck sites. These are often “piggyback” projects – ones that are added to the voyage but use no additional resources.

The power of collaboration

Shipwreck discoveries are impossible without collaboration. The maritime community, heritage agencies, research agencies and members of the public have all contributed to the recent shipwreck finds.

It is not uncommon for searches to be targeted by local knowledge from fishing communities, volunteer shipwreck hunters and even historians who have pieced together clues on the potential location of shipwrecks.

Outreach to those affected by the findings is also invaluable. This includes the survivors of these tragedies and the families of those lost at sea, to keep them informed throughout the process.

Shipwreck discoveries can literally change lives – like the reunion of two siblings who spent their lives apart as orphans after their father died onboard SS Iron Crown in 1942.

‘Eyes’ in the depths

RV Investigator also has specialised drop cameras that can provide a view of the seafloor at depths up to 5,000 metres. The visuals provided by these have been essential for identifying shipwrecks once found.

In 2023, a CSIRO team used this camera system to help identify the wreck of SS Nemesis, a steamship that was lost in 1904 off the coast of New South Wales. Also in 2023, an unidentified wreck off the southwest coast of Tasmania gained a name – it was the coastal freighter MV Blythe Star which capsized and sank in 1973.

The large areas of seafloor mapped by RV Investigator have also led to unexpected discoveries. The wreck of the 1890s iron barque Carlisle in Bass Strait in 2017 was a “chance encounter” for the vessel.

Why hunt for shipwrecks?

These discoveries are important for several reasons. Finding and analysing a shipwreck can help us understand the circumstances that led to these tragedies. It can also help provide closure to affected communities whose loved ones were lost at sea.

Knowing the current state of the shipwreck is important for heritage professionals and agencies who manage and protect the sites. Some shipwrecks are at risk of creating environmental damage such as fuel or oil leaks, so having data on them is vital for managing those risks.

RV Investigator is currently scheduled for a series of scientific upgrades, including its acoustic systems. With 8,000 shipwrecks scattered around Australia’s coastline, and more than half of those undiscovered, there are many more maritime mysteries to solve.

Several of the shipwreck surveys mentioned in this article were conducted on behalf of state maritime heritage agencies and supported by grants of sea time on RV Investigator from the CSIRO Marine National Facility.

Emily Jateff is a Member of the CSIRO Marine National Facility National Benefit Advisory Committee.

– ref. Why are we finding so many Australian shipwrecks lately? There’s one research vessel helping uncover the past – https://theconversation.com/why-are-we-finding-so-many-australian-shipwrecks-lately-theres-one-research-vessel-helping-uncover-the-past-235219

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alex Beattie, Lecturer, Media and Communication, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

In an age when connectivity is constant, many New Zealanders find it hard to unplug from the internet. Despite a desire to switch off, the reality of disconnecting is challenging. Soon it might even come at a cost.

These were key findings from the first ever internet unplugging study in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Around the world, and in New Zealand, there is increasing interest in disconnecting. School phone bans, calls for a right to disconnect from work, and the proliferation of screen-time apps all speak to a collective concern about how constantly connected we are.

Spending time offline and using strategies to help manage screen time are being recognised as critical skills. Learning them may benefit wellbeing and productivity, and help to set boundaries around social media use.

We set out to find out whether New Zealanders do disconnect from the internet, and how. We surveyed over 1,000 people and asked them how often they intentionally disconnect, as well as their motivations and challenges in disconnecting.

Reducing distractions and social demands

We found most New Zealanders disconnect infrequently or not at all: 86% of participants reported they never (22%), rarely (32%) or sometimes (32%) disconnect.

We also found people are primarily motivated to disconnect in order to reduce online distractions. The most common reason to disconnect was to be more present with whānau and friends, or focus on an offline leisure activity, such as reading a book.

Another notable motivation was a desire to avoid the social demands associated with being online or on social media. We also found Māori are more likely to disconnect than Pākeha, due to not feeling safe online.

Notably, nearly a quarter of participants reported never intentionally disconnecting. This could either be a choice or because disconnecting can be challenging.

For example, we found there are several barriers to unplugging. The first is the now basic need to access services – banking, paying bills, transport, two-step login verification – that require an internet connection.

Many also use a smart device for leisure pursuits, including exercise and entertainment, that prevents them unplugging. With so many aspects of life intertwined with devices, leaving your phone at home is not a simple calculation these days.

Read more:
Would you pay to quit TikTok and Instagram? You’d be surprised how many would

The privilege of disconnecting

All of this partly explains the rise of luxury “digital detox” retreats and bespoke offline experiences. With the default of everyday life being connected, unplugging is something we increasingly need to simulate – and even pay for.

We also found there are social costs associated with disconnecting. Participants not only reported FOMO (fear of missing out) as a reason why disconnecting is hard, but they acknowledged expectations about social availability have changed.

Nearly a third reported they do not disconnect because their family or friends expect them to be available. Women were more likely to say this, which may reflect lingering social norms about being available for others. This in turn suggests there may be a gendered privilege to switching off.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found younger people (18-24) struggle to disconnect more than older people (75+). Older participants described disconnecting with great ease, saying they would just “turn the Wi-Fi off” or “put my phone away”.

This type of disconnection would be quite extreme for young people. Having grown up with connectivity as the default, they prefer to use productivity or wellbeing apps to limit their screen time.

Disconnection as a skill

It is unfair to label young people as merely addicted to their phones, however. Social media serve as a crucial platform for friendship, identity formation and self-expression in today’s digital age.

Additionally, we need to recognise the billions of dollars invested in making social media and other apps habit-forming.

Given this, the recent high school phone ban may be missing an opportunity to teach young people crucial skills for thriving in the digital age. Our research shows we should be focused on how to learn and live well with phones, rather than banning them outright.

Teaching young people how to disconnect, rather then doing it for them, will be crucial in an ever-more-connected future.

Local communications giant One NZ’s partnership with SpaceX promises to connect the country on an unprecedented scale. No longer will New Zealanders be able to disconnect by going bush or travelling to remote places.

Disconnecting will become a choice people have to make for themselves. Knowing how to do this, and why, will only become more important.

Alex Beattie receives funding from Internet NZ

John Kerr works for the Public Health Communication Centre, which is funded by a philanthropic endowment from the Gama Foundation.

– ref. The struggle to unplug: why Kiwis find it so hard to disconnect from the internet – https://theconversation.com/the-struggle-to-unplug-why-kiwis-find-it-so-hard-to-disconnect-from-the-internet-235096

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catherine Legg, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, Deakin University

The human eye registers three colours of light: red, green and blue. But pigeons (and many other animal species) can also see a fourth colour, ultraviolet.

The “four-dimensional” colour space pigeons see may contain millions more colours than ours. To a pigeon, for example, many flowers show patterns that are invisible to us.

Despite the long history of close association between our species, we might say humans and pigeons live in quite different worlds. If different species effectively live in different worlds, does that mean our biology constructs reality?

The question of whether reality exists outside or inside our heads has troubled philosophers for millennia. In a recent paper, my colleague André Sant’Anna and I propose a pragmatic way to resolve this dilemma, based on inquiry and action.

How many worlds are there?

There is a long tradition in philosophy called “realism”. In the realist view, there is just one world with pre-given features that are independent of the mind observing them – and discovering these features is the job of science.

But if something is entirely independent of our minds, how can we know it with our minds? Isn’t this a contradiction in terms?

So there is an equally long history of philosophical argument that the features of reality somehow depend on experience. These thinkers claim that reality does not come pre-carved (at what Plato famously described as a natural set of “joints”). There are as many worlds as there are sets of experiences, and each set of experiences creates a unique perspective (or what Edmund Husserl called a “life-world”).

This deep dispute over the nature of reality and worlds has arisen in almost every generation of philosophers.

How do our bodies shape our experience of the world?

There is an increasingly popular alternative to traditional realism called “enactivism”, which draws inspiration from cognitive science.

Enactivism made its debut in 1990, in a book by Francisco J. Varela, Eleanor Rosch and Evan Thompson called The Embodied Mind. Bringing together scientific biology, Husserl’s life-worlds and Buddhist philosophy, the authors theorised that just as a living creature grows and repairs its own body, it “enacts” its own environment as having features of importance to itself, such as food or danger.

As Thompson later wrote,

a cognitive being’s world – whatever that being is able to experience, know, and practically handle – is conditioned by that being’s form or structure.

The limits of the life-world

On the face of it, though, enactivism leaves certain important questions unanswered.

First, how do species successfully interact with each other when their perceptual capacities seem to put them in quite different life-worlds? For instance, during the first world war, a pigeon named Cher Ami heroically carried a message that saved the lives of 200 British soldiers despite being shot down by enemy fire, for which he was awarded a gold medal.

Second, it seems scientists should be able to investigate how different species’ different bodies create different perceptual experiences. But if all species – including ourselves – are “locked up” in their own life-worlds, such inquiry is impossible.

These two issues are what we set out to resolve in our recent paper.

Do shared experiences and actions create reality?

We propose a new alternative to the dilemma of understanding reality as either pre-given or located in subjective individual experiences, drawing on the ideas of pragmatist philosopher Charles Peirce. We argue for an inquiry-based realism, whereby reality depends on our minds but is still public and objective.

As we explain it, reality is grasped through pragmatic agreement. This means individuals align their expectations about what others will do in similar lived situations.

So, for instance, although a WWI soldier and a pigeon with their different eye structures perceive a shooting enemy quite differently, they pragmatically agree that he is dangerous when they both move away. As we saw with Cher Ami, humans and pigeons can also agree on the supreme importance of reaching “home base” with a delivery.

This highlights a key characteristic of pragmatist philosophy. It does not define cognition as a kind of consciousness, an idea that has led to apparently insoluble philosophical problems.

Rather, pragmatists view knowledge of reality as implicit in what we can do, most especially what we can do with others.

Pragmatic agreement with other species

Of course, there will be many matters on which different species do not currently have pragmatic agreement. For instance, while humans and pigeons both understand the danger of an enemy firing a gun, it would be lost on a dung beetle happily feeding in the same WWI trench.

But we should not hastily conclude from this that reality must always be plural. Peirce’s inquiry-based account of reality expresses an optimistic hope that over time we can find ways to bring species into ever greater pragmatic agreement.

What is required is that we put ourselves into the same environments, do similar things, and develop shared goals. Thus Peirce defined truth as “the opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate”.

We believe our account provides a nuanced and original vision of reality for enactivism. It allows creatures’ unique perceptual powers a role in shaping their own reality, but it also allows that reality is objective, in a different way than traditional realism.

We are arguably only beginning to understand how to understand the realities in which non-human animals live. Peirce’s philosophy shows us how such understanding can be achieved over time. And if we can manage to increase our pragmatic agreement with other species, we stand to receive many gifts in widening the reality in which we ourselves live.

Catherine Legg 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. Your world is different from a pigeon’s – but a new theory explains how we can still live in the same reality – https://theconversation.com/your-world-is-different-from-a-pigeons-but-a-new-theory-explains-how-we-can-still-live-in-the-same-reality-232479

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Damien Fordham, Associate Professor of Global Change Ecology, Adelaide University

New Zealand was once home to giant flightless birds called moa. They had grown accustomed to life without predators. So the arrival of humans in the mid-13th century presented a massive – and ultimately insurmountable – challenge to their existence.

Moa were unable to cope with even low levels of hunting by people. All nine species of moa were driven to extinction soon after first contact with humans. These moa populations collapsed and disappeared so swiftly it seemed impossible to trace their declines, until now.

In our new research, we reconstructed patterns of population decline, range contraction and extinction for six moa species. We simulated interactions of moa with humans and their surroundings using hundreds of thousands of scenarios. Then we validated these simulations against information from fossils.

We found all six species collapsed and converged on the cold, isolated mountains of New Zealand’s North and South Islands. These happen to be the same sites where the last of New Zealand’s flightless birds can be found today.

The Polynesian colonisation of New Zealand

Oceanic islands tend to be hotspots of biodiversity, harbouring some of the most bizarre evolutionary marvels on Earth. They include daisies the size of trees, elephants the size of great Danes, and countless species of flightless birds.

Unfortunately, islands are also hotspots of extinction. This is particularly true for oceanic islands in the Pacific, which were among the last areas on the planet to have been settled and transformed by humanity.

Human expansion across the Pacific began some 4,000 years ago, when people set out on extraordinary sea voyages from Taiwan. They first headed south into the Philippines, and then onto some of the most isolated islands on the planet.

These daring journeys required impressive seafaring vessels and navigational skills to cross thousands of kilometres of open waters.

Migration into central and east Polynesia was the final phase of these ancient voyages. It culminated in the colonisation of the New Zealand Archipelago in the mid-13th century by Polynesians, the ancestors of Māori.

People started fires, hunted animals and introduced invasive species – including Pacific rats. Accordingly, New Zealand’s unique biodiversity was decimated in one of the largest and most rapid collapses of native wildlife in the Pacific.

Range collapses and extinctions of moa

Moa disappeared within three centuries of human arrival. But they didn’t all go at once.

Our research suggests Mantell’s moa went first, within just 100 years. Almost another 100 years would pass before the extinction of any other moa species.

Mantell’s moa was especially vulnerable to extinction because of its slow population growth rate. Unfortunately, even low but sustained harvesting well exceeded the bird’s capacity to reproduce and compensate for these losses.

Other species were slightly more resilient. They benefited from attributes such as higher growth rates, larger ranges, bigger populations or better abilities to live at higher altitudes (far from people).

The stout-legged moa lasted the longest. It finally disappeared some three centuries after human arrival.

Our research suggests all moa disappeared from high-quality lowland habitats first. These were places favoured by people.

The rate of population decline then decreased as you go higher into the mountains and further away from the coastline.

It was previously thought the ranges of species under pressure would contract to their optimal or preferred habitats, where they were most abundant, rather than as far away from people as they could get.

Today’s flightless birds cling to moa refuges

Our research also took a closer look at the distribution of New Zealand’s living flightless birds.

It turns out ancient moa refuges now harbour populations of endangered native flightless birds including the takahē, weka and great spotted kiwi. Moa refuges were also the last mainland habitats for the critically endangered kākāpō.

These sites do not provide optimal habitat for living flightless birds either. Rather, they remain the most isolated and relatively untouched by humanity.

While New Zealand’s remaining flightless birds are no longer being hunted to extinction, threats to their survival still align with human activity.

Habitat loss and impacts of invasive species follows waves of European settlement across New Zealand, which gradually progressed from lowland sites to the less hospitable, cold and mountainous regions.

Efforts to conserve New Zealand’s remaining flightless birds can heed lessons from the ghosts of species past. The sad demise of the moa highlights the immense importance of isolated areas. If we are to prevent future extinctions, we need to protect and preserve these remote, wild places.

Our research also offers a new approach to understanding past extinctions, especially on islands where fossil and archaeological data are limited.

Damien Fordham receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Jamie Wood, Mark V. Lomolino, and Sean Tomlinson 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. Ghosts of species past: shedding new light on the demise of NZ’s moa can help other flightless birds – https://theconversation.com/ghosts-of-species-past-shedding-new-light-on-the-demise-of-nzs-moa-can-help-other-flightless-birds-228362

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joseph Ibrahim, Professor, Aged Care Medical Research Australian Centre for Evidence Based Aged Care, La Trobe University

Elder abuse is an emerging public health and safety issue for communities of high-income countries.

The most recent data from Australia’s National Elder Abuse Prevalence Study, which surveyed 7,000 older people living in the community, found one in six self-reported being a victim of some form of abuse. But this did not include older people living in residential aged care or those with cognitive impairment, such as dementia – so is likely an underestimate.

This week the Australian government announced a multi-million dollar advertising campaign it hopes will address this serious and abhorrent abuse.

But is investing in community awareness of elder abuse the best use of scarce resources?

What is elder abuse?

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines elder abuse as

[…] a single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person.

Australia usually defines older people as those over 65. The exact age varies between countries depending on the overall health status of a nation and its vulnerable population groups. The WHO definitions of an older adult for sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is over 50. And there are communities with poorer health status and shorter lifespans within country borders, including our First Nations people.

Elder abuse can take on many different forms including physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, or financial abuse and neglect.

Living longer and wealthier

The number of older people in our society is greater than it has ever been. Around 17% Australians are aged 65 and over. By 2071, older Australians will make up between 25% and 27% of the total population.

People are living longer, accumulating substantial wealth and are vulnerable to abuse due to cognitive, physical or functional limitations.

Longer lifespans increase the time of possible exposure to abuse. Australian men aged 65 can expect to live another 20.2 years, while women aged 65 are likely to live another 22.8 years. (Life expectancy for First Nations men and women remains significantly shorter.)

Australian men are now 143 times more likely to reach the age of 100 than they were in 1901. Women are 82 times more likely.

Older people hold a large proportion of our nation’s wealth, making them vulnerable to financial abuse. Recent research by the Australian Council of Social Service and UNSW Sydney reveals older households (with people over 65) are 25% wealthier than the average middle-aged household and almost four times as wealthy as the average under-35 household.

Finally, older people have higher levels of impairment in their thinking, reasoning and physical function. Cognitive impairment, especially dementia, increases from one in 67 Australians under 60 to almost one in two people aged over 90.

Over half of Australians aged 65 years and over have disability. A particularly vulnerable group are the 258,374 older Australians who receive government-funded home care.

Who perpetrates elder abuse?

Sadly, most of the perpetrators of elder abuse are known to their victims. They are usually a member of the family, such as a life partner, child or grandchild.

Elder abuse causes significant illness and even early death. Financial abuse (across all ages) costs the community billions of dollars. Specific data for financial elder abuse is limited but indicates massive costs to individual survivors and the community.

Despite this, the level of awareness of elder abuse is likely to be much lower than for family violence or child abuse. This is partly due to the comparatively recent concept of elder abuse, with global awareness campaigns only developed over the past two decades.

Is an advertising campaign the answer?

The federal government has allocated A$4.8 million to an advertising campaign on television, online and in health-care clinics to reach the broader community. For context, last year the government spent $131.4 million on all media campaigns, including $32.6 million on the COVID vaccination program, $2 million on Japanese encephalitis and $3.2 million on hearing health awareness.

The campaign will likely benefit a small number of people who may be victims and have the capacity to report their perpetrators to authorities. It will generate some heartbreaking anecdotes. But it is unlikely to achieve broad community or systemic change.

There is little research evidence to show media campaigns alter the behaviour of perpetrators of elder abuse. And suggesting the campaign raises awareness of the issue for older people who are survivors of abuse sounds more like blaming victims than empowering them.

We don’t know how the government will judge the success of the campaign, so taxpayers won’t know whether a reasonable return on this investment was achieved. There may also be opportunity costs associated with the initiative – that is, lost opportunities for other actions and strategies. It could be more effective and efficient to target high-risk subgroups or to allocate funding to policy, practice reform or research that has direct tangible benefits for survivors.

But the campaign can’t hurt, right?

Actually, the dangers that could come with an advertising campaign are two-fold.

First it may well oversimplify a highly complex issue. Identifying and managing elder abuse requires an understanding of the person’s vulnerabilities, their decision-making capacity and ability to consent, the will and preferences of victim and the role of perpetrator in the older person’s life. Abuse happens in the context of family and social networks. And reporting abuse can have consequences for the victim’s quality of life and care.

Consider the complexities of a case where an older person declines to have her grandson reported to police for stealing her money and medication because of her fear of becoming socially isolated. She might even feel responsible for the behaviour having raised the grandson and not want him to have a criminal record.

Secondly, a public campaign can create the illusion government and our institutions have the matter “in hand”. This might slow the opportunity for real change.

Ideally, the campaign will strengthen the argument for better policies, reporting procedures, policing, prosecution and judgements that are aligned. But these ends will also need investment in more research to build better communities that take good care of older people.

Joseph Ibrahim previously received funding from state and federal governments.

– ref. Older people’s risk of abuse is rising. Can an ad campaign protect them? – https://theconversation.com/older-peoples-risk-of-abuse-is-rising-can-an-ad-campaign-protect-them-235303

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathryn MacCallum, Associate Professor of Digital Education Futures, University of Canterbury

The government recently announced ambitions to expand the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in New Zealand’s classrooms. But as the technology rapidly changes, it is not clear how this would work or what it will mean for teachers and learners.

Science Minister Judith Collins’ vision is for every student to have their own AI tutor. As Collins explained in a recent interview,

So instead of having to be wealthy enough to employ a tutor to help the children with the maths or science questions, or something else that the parent doesn’t know much about maybe, is to enable that child to have their own [AI] tutor.

But like AI itself, the concept of an AI tutor is still evolving. The idea of creating a “teaching machine” has been around for 100 years or so, and “intelligent tutoring systems” have been around since the 1980s with limited results.

The more recent advances of AI have rekindled the elusive promises of these systems. But while the technology has evolved, the basic concept of a machine taking over some of the responsibilities of the teacher has remained the same.

The risk of replacing human tutors

An AI tutor is a proxy for a human tutor — supporting and “scaffolding” a student’s learning. Scaffolding is the space between what a learner can do without assistance and what they can learn next with the support of someone who is more knowledgeable.

In theory, an AI Tutor can play this role. But there are inherent dangers. What if your more knowledgeable tutor is not, in fact, more knowledgeable, but just makes things up? Or shows bias? Or favours uncritical, shallow material over more reliable resources?

The features that give generative AI its capabilities to interact with users also create its flaws. AI relies on the data it is trained on. However, this data can be wrong, and AI neither validates what goes into it, nor what comes out.

This issue has raised concerns about fairness. As AI tools consume quantities of unfiltered data, the risk is they will reinforce existing biases in this data, perpetuating gender stereotypes and other negative outcomes.

For people from Indigenous cultures, including Māori and Pacific peoples, AI provides both opportunities and threats.

If AI systems are trained on biased data or without considering diverse perspectives, there is a high likelihood decisions being made based on these systems will favour one group over others, reinforce stereotypes, and ignore or undervalue different ways of living and thinking.

The concern isn’t just about the influence AI can have on us but also how AI consumes and processes data. AI systems are trained on vast amounts of data, often without properly acknowledging the sources or respecting creators’ copyrights.

For Indigenous peoples, this can infringe upon their data sovereignty rights and exploit their cultural and knowledge heritage. This exploitation can perpetuate inequality and undermine the rights and contributions of Indigenous communities.

A “walled garden” approach

A commonly proposed answer to this problem is to train AI systems on carefully curated data.

Book publisher Pearson, for example, has recently integrated AI in 50 of their textbooks. This allows students to use AI chatbots to engage with the texts.

According to Pearson, these tools are developed using a “walled garden” approach. The AI is trained only on the contents of these books. This, Pearson claims, reduces the risks of inaccuracies.

However, the walled garden approach also has major drawbacks, since it limits content to that selected and approved by the supplier. What does this mean for cultural knowledge and rights? Critical perspectives? Innovation in learning?

Pearson has, for example, been criticised for the content of some of its books. In 2017, the company apologised for a medical textbook considered “racist”.

If a New Zealand AI tutor were to be created from local data, how could we ensure tikanga Māori protocols are safeguarded? As highlighted by Māori scholar Te Hurinui Clarke, there are significant challenges around the respectful and ethical handling of Māori knowledge.

Protecting knowledge

When it comes to AI tutors, policy makers need to ask who would be the custodians of this data, whose knowledge would be used and who has the rights to access?

If done well, a walled garden approach might provide a comprehensive, inclusive, culturally sustaining pathway to better learning. However, given the challenges of such an undertaking (never mind the expense), the chances of success in practice are extremely small.

Meanwhile, we can’t just wait for AI tutors. AI is a reality in schools, and we need to prepare students for what they face now and in the future. Specific tools are important, but our focus should be on developing AI literacy across the educational sector.

This is why we are researching what it means to be AI literate and how this can empower critical evaluation and ethical use, ensuring AI complements rather than replaces human teaching.

We see the development of AI literacy, supported by suitable frameworks, as a priority, something all students, no matter their age, need to have. It is only through this that we can harness AI’s benefits while safeguarding the core values of education.

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. AI tutors could be coming to the classroom – but who taught the tutor, and should you trust them? – https://theconversation.com/ai-tutors-could-be-coming-to-the-classroom-but-who-taught-the-tutor-and-should-you-trust-them-234660

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Humphery-Jenner, Associate Professor of Finance, UNSW Sydney

ANZ is being investigated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) amid serious allegations the bank manipulated markets when it facilitated a A$14 billion sale of government bonds in April last year.

ASIC has now publicly stated it suspects ANZ broke the law. Speaking to the Australian Financial Review on Tuesday, ASIC Chairman Joe Longo said:

It’s a matter for the CEO of ANZ how he wants to characterise it, but it’s on the public record that it is an investigation, which means by definition we suspect a contravention of the law.

Earlier this month, ANZ launched its own internal probe into alleged misconduct within its markets division. ANZ says it is treating the allegations “with the utmost seriousness” and has engaged external legal counsel to assist with its investigations.

ANZ has also been accused of inflating the value of its bond trading by billions of dollars to win “lucrative” government mandates that accrue to firms trading big quantities.

Bond markets? Government mandates? You’d be forgiven for feeling a bit lost.

On its face, the alleged wrongdoing might seem quite esoteric and technical. But the Australian Financial Review has suggested the matter could end up becoming “the biggest scandal” in ANZ’s 182-year history.

To be clear, these are allegations amid an ongoing investigation by Australia’s corporate regulator. But it’s important to understand exactly what the bank has been accused of here, and how what happens in the bond market has the potential to affect us all.

It’s all about government borrowing

To understand the allegations against ANZ, you need a good grasp of a slightly dry-sounding and fairly routine transaction.

The Australian government often borrows money. It does this by selling so-called “bonds” to investors.

An investor buys a bond – which used to be a piece of paper but is now electronic – and in return receives (usually fixed) interest payments called “coupons”, one each month or year.

At the expiry of the bond, be it after three years, ten years, 20 years or more, the investor gets her or his money back.

You don’t need to understand everything about the way bonds work. You just need to know that bonds are traded in an open market – investors can sell them to other investors, and their price can fluctuate.

The investors’ returns come from a combination of both (a) receiving those coupons, and (b) the difference between what they pay for the bond and the final principal amount they receive at maturity.

If general interest rates climb above the coupon rate on the bond, the price of the bond will fall. This is because the bond simply would not pay enough relative to what they demand for an investment with that level of risk.

Conversely, if general interest rates fall, the bond price is likely to climb.

Banks are appointed to manage bond issues

New government bonds are issued by an arm of the Commonwealth Treasury, known as the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM). For big bond sales, AOFM typically appoints a bank – or banks – to manage the process and engage with investors.

In April 2023, the government contracted ANZ to help manage a large A$14 billion bond sale. This gave ANZ access to confidential information, including details about when the offering would occur.

As part of the role, ANZ was to buy bonds from investors who wished to exchange them for the new bonds. The price of those bonds would depend on the return investors require on government bonds. Recall that if a bond is paying a return that is too low relative to what is required, its price falls. Thus, if the required return increases, the price ANZ has to pay decreases.

You might have heard the adage: buy low and sell high. Well, ANZ allegedly sought to do just that.

It’s alleged ANZ sought to raise bond yields by trading in what is called the “futures market”, which is essentially a market that allows traders to bet on future interest rate moves.

Those bets also influence the reference rate that is used to set the price of new bonds. This is because the government looks to the futures rate to assess what return the market requires on its debt and to set the coupon rate on the bonds it issues.

If that futures rate climbs, then so too does the coupon rate on the government’s new bond issues. This increases the government’s total interest bill.

ANZ is alleged to have manipulated futures yields higher, enabling it to buy bonds from investors at a low price.

ANZ allegedly then reversed its futures trades, letting general interest rates fall and the price of the bonds it held climb, giving it a profit.

If the allegations are true, then ANZ would have engaged in both market manipulation and insider trading. This would be illegal.

The Australian Financial Review says trading data points to unusual price movements on and around April 19 last year.

Market ten-year bond yields either side of April 19 issue being priced

The data appears to show bond prices falling (yields rising) up until the bond was issued on April 19, then climbing as yields fell.

But it’s important to note this graph says nothing about causation. Prices might have fallen for reasons completely unrelated to ANZ.

Overstated success

ANZ has also been accused of overstating its trading success to the government, to secure lucrative bond management opportunities.

The government selects managers based on their experience and activity in trading government bonds. It is alleged ANZ misrepresented how much trading it did.

According to the Australian Financial Review, ANZ told the government it had “facilitated” $137.6 billion in bond trades to the year ended June 2023, when it had really only facilitated $83.2 billion – a discrepancy of $54.4 billion.

It might feel far removed from everyday life, but what happens in the bond market has the potential to affect us all.

If found to be true, ANZ’s alleged manipulation could reportedly have cost taxpayers as much as A$80 million.

That figure reflects how much extra interest the government might be having to pay if it issued bonds with a higher interest rate than it needed to.

Mark Humphery-Jenner 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. ANZ is embroiled in allegations it manipulated government bond sales – what exactly does that mean? – https://theconversation.com/anz-is-embroiled-in-allegations-it-manipulated-government-bond-sales-what-exactly-does-that-mean-234486

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Troon, Research Assistant and Sessional Teaching Associate, School of Media, Film and Journalism, Monash University

For decades, the “disaster” film genre has been critically overlooked yet perennially popular.

These movies, which usually depict some kind of global catastrophe, deal with a number of social and ecological issues. But they’ve historically done so in socially conservative ways, veering away from politics.

The latest disaster blockbuster, Twisters, has also omitted any explicit mention of climate change. Some outlets have called this a missed opportunity.

But I’d argue the movie still gets the climate message across in other ways. Director Lee Isaac Chung’s take on the genre updates the old formulaic approach, adapting it – with notable nuance – to suit the current climate crisis.

Disaster movies and the environment

Quite often, disaster movies will feature catastrophic scenarios with tenuous scientific plausibility. Nonetheless, these rich melodramas tap into complex social tensions relating to gender, race, class and environmental and climate issues.

The environment has been a core theme of disaster movies since the 1970s. Films such as The Poseidon Adventure (1972), Towering Inferno (1974) and Earthquake (1974) showed the forces of nature as out-of-control, threatening the advancement of human society.

During the 1990s, natural disaster movies such as Volcano (1997) and the original Twister (1996) came alongside apocalyptic sci-fi spectacles including Independence Day (1996) and Armageddon (1998).

Blockbusters in the 2010s upped the ante yet again with the likes of San Andreas (2015) and Independence Day: Resurgence (2016), in which parts of Earth are literally turned upside down.

The disasters in these films set the stage for contests of human bravery and ingenuity. Macho heroes played by men such as Charlton Heston, Bruce Willis, Will Smith and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson (with his equally earth-shattering muscles) emerge to save the citizens from doom and display their mastery of the natural environment.

The less worthy candidates perish spectacularly, like the cowardly property developer in San Andreas who is crushed by a shipping container on the collapsing Golden Gate Bridge.

Since disaster movies are incredibly formulaic, their heroes conform to particular archetypes: they are men, usually white, who are frequently either ex-military or scientists. In this way, disaster movies consolidate the idea that major ecological threats can be overcome with a gung-ho attitude, brute strength and military and scientific power.

How Twisters is different

Twisters joins the disaster movie canon by partly conforming to these norms, but also departs from them in key ways.

The film’s male leads, Tyler (played by Glenn Powell) and Javi (Anthony Ramos), reflect the masculine heroes of previous disaster movies. Tyler is a maverick, tornado-wranglin’ YouTuber and former cowboy. Javi is an ex-military tech entrepreneur backed by a disaster capitalist.

The hero, however, is a young woman marked by traumatic loss. Kate (Daisy Edgar-Jones) retired from storm chasing after her hubristic early scientific ambition led to the deaths of her friends. But her desire to save the people of Oklahoma (her home state) from increasingly devastating tornadoes pulls her back into the fold with Tyler and Javi.

While Tyler and Javi use scientific equipment, drones and data to predict the appearance of tornadoes, Kate relies on intuitive genius – the film repeatedly shows her gazing perceptively at imposing clouds.

As a character, Kate reflects certain stereotypes about women and the environment, including the notion that women are caregivers. That said, in a genre that is so patently chauvinistic, her inclusion at the heart of Twisters is significant.

She is motivated not by vainglorious self-promotion like Tyler, or monetary gain like Javi’s financier, but by a sincere care for the people and communities she grew up with. The film seems to suggest scientific and technological solutions to environmental problems are futile if they don’t come with genuine human empathy.

Focusing on maternal care also leads the film to point towards climate change, albeit not by name, but still rather overtly. Later in the plot Kate retreats to her mother’s house, where her mother (Maura Tierney), a farmer, attests very clearly to a recent increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events.

Hollywood and climate change: a way forward?

Since the 2000s, disaster movies have been linked in various ways to climate action efforts and awareness campaigns.

The 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth (2006) was partly inspired by producer Laurie David viewing The Day After Tomorrow (2004).

Don’t Look Up (2021) – a film about an approaching comet – is widely understood as allegorical of the climate crisis. And the film’s star, Leonardo DiCaprio, is a notable climate campaigner.

Behind the scenes, various international initiatives are addressing how the theme of climate change can be incorporated into filmmaking. Locally, for instance, Sustainable Screens Australia encourages Australian filmmakers to embed sustainable practices and storytelling.

There’s no shortage of ways through which cinematic storytelling might deal with the climate crisis and related issues.

Twisters director Lee Isaac Chung has spoken about not wanting to make the film “message-oriented”. Instead, he posits that films “should be a reflection of the world”. While criticism of various approaches is valid, reckoning with an issue as significant and severe as climate change will require the full array of approaches.

Simon Troon has received funding from Australian Research Council Discovery Projects funding schemes (project DP190101178 and DP200103360).

– ref. The twist in Twisters: for a film that doesn’t mention climate change, the latest disaster flick is both nuanced and effective – https://theconversation.com/the-twist-in-twisters-for-a-film-that-doesnt-mention-climate-change-the-latest-disaster-flick-is-both-nuanced-and-effective-235408

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Moro, Associate Professor of Science & Medicine, Bond University

Cranberry juice has been used medicinally for centuries. Our new research indicates it should be a normal aspect of urinary tract infection (UTI) management today.

While some benefits of cranberry compounds for the prevention of UTIs have been suspected for some time, it hasn’t been clear whether the benefits from cranberry juice were simply from drinking more fluid, or something in the fruit itself.

For our study, published this week, we combined and collectively assessed 3,091 participants across more than 20 clinical trials.

Our analysis indicates that increasing liquids reduces the rate of UTIs compared with no treatment, but cranberry in liquid form is even better at reducing UTIs and antibiotic use.

Are UTIs really that bad?

Urinary tract infections affect more than 50% of women and 20% of men in their lifetime.

Most commonly, UTIs are caused from the bug called Escherichia coli (E.coli). This bug lives harmlessly in our intestines, but can cause infection in the urinary tract. This is why, particularly for women, it is recommended people wipe from front to back after using the toilet.

An untreated UTI can move up to the kidneys and cause even more serious illness.

Even when not managing infection, many people are anxious about contracting a UTI. Sexually active women, pregnant women and older women may all be at increased risk.

Why cranberries?

To cause a UTI, the bacteria need to attach to the wall of the urinary bladder. Increasing fluids helps to flush out bacteria before it attaches (or makes its way up into the bladder).

Some beneficial compounds in cranberry, such as proanthocyanidins (also called condensed tannins), prevent the bacteria from attaching to the wall itself.

While there are treatments, over 90% of the bugs that cause UTIs exhibit some form of microbial resistance. This suggests that they are rapidly changing and some cases of UTI might be left untreatable.

What we found

Our analysis showed a 54% lower rate of UTIs from cranberry juice consumption compared to no treatment. This means that significantly fewer participants who regularly consumed cranberry juice (most commonly around 200 millilitres each day) reported having a UTI during the periods assessed in the studies we analysed.

Cranberry juice was also linked to a 49% lower rate of antibiotic use than placebo liquid and a 59% lower rate than no treatment, based on analysis of indirect and direct effects across six studies. The use of cranberry compounds, whether in drinks or tablet form, also reduced the prevalence of symptoms associated with UTIs.

While some studies we included presented conflicts of interest (such as receiving funding from cranberry companies), we took this “high risk of bias” into account when analysing the data.

So, when can cranberry juice help?

We found three main benefits of cranberry juice for UTIs.

1. Reduced rates of infections

Increasing fluids (for example, drinking more water) reduced the prevalence of UTIs, and taking cranberry compounds (such as tablets) was also beneficial. But the most benefits were identified from increasing fluids and taking cranberry compounds at the same time, such as with cranberry juice.

2. Reduced use of antibiotics

The data shows cranberry juice lowers the need to use antibiotics by 59%. This was identified as fewer participants in randomised cranberry juice groups required antibiotics.

Increasing fluid intake also helped reduce antibiotic use (by 25%). But this was not as useful as increasing fluids at the same time as using cranberry compounds.

Cranberry compounds alone (such as tablets without associated increases in fluid intake) did not affect antibiotic use.

3. Reducing symptoms

Taking cranberry compounds (in any form, liquid or tablet) reduced the symptoms of UTIs, as measured in the overall data, by more than five times.

Take home advice

While cranberry juice cannot treat a UTI, it can certainly be part of UTI management.

If you suspect that you have a UTI, see your GP as soon as possible.

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. Cranberry juice really can help with UTIs – and reduce reliance on antibiotics – https://theconversation.com/cranberry-juice-really-can-help-with-utis-and-reduce-reliance-on-antibiotics-235314

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Grantham, Lecturer in communication, Griffith University

The Liberal National Party Queensland (LNP) has recently taken a bold step in its political strategy by employing artificial intelligence (AI) to shape public perception of the current premier, Steven Miles. This move has not only highlighted the innovative potential of AI in political campaigning but also sparked significant debate about its ethical implications.

Globally, the use of AI in political campaigns is on the rise. In recent elections worldwide, AI has been harnessed to analyse voter behaviour, craft targeted messages, and even generate persuasive content.

We saw the use of AI in the UK general elections through the development of an AI-generated politician. In February 2024, there was another powerful use of AI in Pakistan when Imran Khan and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party generated an AI video of Khan to deliver a victory speech written while in prison.

However, the LNP’s approach in Queensland marks a notable escalation in the Australian context, albeit with a much more light-hearted approach. This video depicts Miles in a realistic portrayal of dancing to a popular early 2000s song with the caption:

POV: my rent is up $60 a week, my power bill is up 20%, but the premier made a sandwich on TikTok.

It aims to sway voter opinion by casting doubt on Miles’ leadership.

It’s clever, but is it ethical?

While technologically impressive, the role of AI in political campaigning is in question. Negative campaigning is a common strategy used worldwide. Society has come to expect negative posts or commentary from opposing parties. For instance, during the 2022 Australian federal election, the Labor Party used technology and video editing tools to manipulate images of then prime minister Scott Morrison.

What makes the Queensland LNP example unique is the use of AI to manipulate the individual’s actual form.

The Labor Party also came under scrutiny recently for an AI-generated TikTok video featuring opposition leader Peter Dutton.

This video leverages AI to manipulate Dutton’s appearance and behaviour. It also exemplifies how AI technology can be used to create realistic and persuasive content.

AI’s ability to be convincing yet misleading at the same time challenges the boundaries of acceptable political debate. It also underscores the need for robust regulatory frameworks.

The Electoral Commission of Queensland has said that while the state’s electoral act does not explicitly mention AI, it does cover the publication of false statements about a candidate’s character or conduct. However, political freedom of expression does allow for negative campaigning.

When politics and pop culture collide

From an election campaigning perspective, there has been a significant shift towards a more lighthearted and culturally relevant approach. Short-form video platforms serve as an excellent method to engage a generation of people who may not yet be politically aligned.

These platforms are exceedingly powerful tools. But platforms like TikTok are driven by algorithms, requiring content to be crafted to capture the algorithm’s interest. One effective strategy to achieve this is incorporating elements of popular culture and current trends. This can transform a serious topic into more entertainment-driven content.

Consequently, for politicians, governments, and large organisations to use these platforms effectively, they must adopt these popular culture methods, regardless of the seriousness of the topics being addressed. This has resulted in a rising trend of “politainment” by political figures.

However, politicians are also increasingly engaging with these platforms to develop a sense of authenticity. In Queensland, the two party leaders are using personal accounts to portray themselves as an “ordinary” Australian. The techniques they use to do this centre around domestic tasks such as cooking. A connection to food has been seen internationally, particularly in Italy, but is a relatively new approach in Australia.

Scott Morrison used to delight in showcasing his cooking skills. However, this was not always to positive effect.

Ultimately, political parties are not new to using digital manipulation for strategic purposes. However, the question remains whether there should be rules governing the use of AI in election campaigns.

AI is mostly fine – but it should be clearly labelled as such

While freedom of speech in political campaigning is crucial, clear identification of AI use is essential to maintain transparency and trust. Restricting official accounts might push AI-generated content to more unofficial, harder-to-regulate sources, complicating the issue further.

The case in Queensland highlights the opportunities and challenges of integrating advanced technologies into political campaigns. As AI continues to evolve, its role in shaping political landscapes will grow.

Political parties, regulators, and the public must navigate this terrain carefully, ensuring that the integrity of democratic processes is upheld while embracing the innovative potential of AI.

Susan Grantham 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. When it comes to political advertising, is AI ever OK? – https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-political-advertising-is-ai-ever-ok-235323

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Iryna Skubii, Mykola Zerov Fellow in Ukrainian Studies, School of Historical and Philosophical Studies, The University of Melbourne

Russia’s war in Ukraine has caused immense suffering to the civilian population. Tens of thousands are believed to have been killed, though an exact figure is impossible to know. Russia’s aggression has also sparked the biggest refugee crisis in Europe since the second world war, with 6.5 million people fleeing Ukraine since February 2022.

What has received far less attention has been the impact of the war on the country’s animal population.

With an estimated 25% of Ukraine’s protected nature areas occupied by Russian forces, entire ecosystems have been disrupted or destroyed. Some biologists believe tens of thousands of Black Sea dolphins have been killed, though verifying this has proved to be difficult.

Given the destruction to natural landscapes and wildlife, Ukrainian authorities have discussed ways to pursue a war crimes case against Russia based on “ecocide” – unlawful attacks on the environment that can lead to long-term impact on ecosystems and wildlife.

As for domestic animals, there were approximately 5.5 million cats and 750,000 dogs in Ukraine before the war. Many have been killed or abandoned by their owners, causing the stray population to explode.

In response, many organisations have launched efforts to help shelter and treat wounded animals.

When Russia launched a new offensive in the Kharkiv region in May, for instance, local authorities and volunteers leapt into action to try to evacuate pets left behind, some locked in cages or chained in yards, others roaming free.

Many Ukrainians fleeing the country, meanwhile, have taken their pets with them, as the only remaining connections to their homes and their pasts.

Animal refugees and evacuation efforts

Within days of Russia’s invasion in February 2022, instructions were being circulated to residents on how to prepare to evacuate with their pets in tow.

For those fleeing abroad, animals were initially allowed to pass through borders without meeting European Union veterinary requirements. The regulations were tightened again, however, after a fierce debate over the biosecurity risks, given the prevalence of rabies in Ukraine.

Although it is hard to provide an exact number of refugee animals, in 2022 alone, more than 10,000 animals are believed to have crossed the Ukrainian-Polish border. Some pets later came back to Ukraine with their owners, while others stayed in Europe or were moved further around the globe.

Among them was my cat Tyhra, a female cat named after her tiger-coloured fur (tyhr means tiger in Ukrainian), who was evacuated in September 2022 from the Kharkiv region. Her story is unique, as she was initially taken to Canada, and recently relocated with me to Australia.

A few of the more fortunate animals have even become social media celebrities. A cat named Stepan, whose fame on Instagram (with 1.5 million followers), for example, helped its owners to escape from Kharkiv to Monaco when it was intensively shelled in early 2022.

And in June 2023, when Russia’s army destroyed the Kakhovka Dam on the Dnipro River, an image of a rescued dog hugging the leg of a man went viral, becoming a vivid illustration of how the war has affected Ukraine’s animals.

After the dam was blown up, animals rights activists asked people to take their pets with them if possible, and if not, to “untie them and let them go. Give them a chance to save themselves.”

Evacuating animals from the frontline is not enough. It is becoming even more important to provide those who have been abandoned with accommodation and food.

Most shelters are now very overcrowded. And in some cities and villages near the frontline, the problem of stray dogs is becoming a major problem.

Animals and the army

Some of the cats and dogs that have been left in the combat zone have even become “active members” of the Ukrainian army. Many were rescued by soldiers from abandoned houses or after their owners had been killed in the fighting.

Cats are particularly valued for their skills in preventing the spread of mice in trenches. Cats are also excellent for fundraising – so much so, they’ve been called “Ukraine’s secret weapon”.

Trained dogs, meanwhile, are adept in demining. One of the most widely known examples is the terrier dog Patron (which means bullet or cartridge in Ukrainian). After the Chernihiv region was liberated in 2022, Patron became a celebrity for his skills in sniffing out landmines.

Livestock become targets

The fate of livestock is much grimmer. Many barns, for example, have become direct targets of Russian army shelling and missiles.

In March 2022, for example, the Russian army killed 100 cows and calves on a farm as they advanced in the Chernihiv region. Later that year, a missile strike killed 45 cows and injured a dozen and a half in another village in the region.

Earlier this year, a dairy industry figure estimated that some 200,000 cows in total had been killed.

And at a chicken factory in the Kherson region – then the biggest in Europe – four million chickens died when the feeding system was disabled due to the destruction of a nearby power station.

There are many more tragic stories like these about the ecological toll of the war across the entire frontline area of Ukraine.

And despite the efforts being made in Ukraine and on the international level to help these animals, they still remain in dire need of care and protection.

Iryna Skubii 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. Russia’s war in Ukraine has been devastating for animals – but they’ve also given the nation reason for hope – https://theconversation.com/russias-war-in-ukraine-has-been-devastating-for-animals-but-theyve-also-given-the-nation-reason-for-hope-231929

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jamie Pittock, Professor, Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University

The condition of Australia’s environment continues to decline. Many Australians wonder if it’s possible to reverse this depressing trajectory – and our landmark assessment released today shows the answer is yes.

Our report, launched today by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, demonstrates how repairing Australia’s landscapes is not only achievable and affordable, it’s in the national interest.

Using the best available science and expert advice, we identified 24 actions worth
A$7.3 billion each year over 30 years, which could repair much of the past two centuries of degradation.

For context, the investment amounts to about 0.3% of Australia’s gross domestic product. It’s also far less than the estimated $33 billion a year Australians spend on their pets.

This report is the most comprehensive of its kind undertaken in this country. It is a tangible, practical pathway which challenges the notion that repairing our continent is a task too big and expensive to tackle.

The strong case for repair

Australia’s population is projected to grow to 37 million by 2052.
Earth’s population will reach ten billion in the same period. Global food demand will increase and competition for land will intensify.

Climate change makes the environmental repair task more pressing. The Australian continent has already warmed almost 1.5°C since records began. We have experienced shifts in rainfall patterns, droughts, bushfires, flooding and more. Extreme weather is predicted to become even more frequent and severe.

About half Australia’s land surface has been significantly modified
since European settlement, and at least 19 ecosystems are collapsing due to climate change and other pressures.

And the capacity of agricultural landscapes to maintain productivity has significantly declined, and they are becoming less able to support native species and ecosystems.

Our key findings

Our assessment focuses on five key landscape components identified as
degraded in successive State of the Environment reports: soils, inland
water, native vegetation, threatened species and coastal environments.

We defined objectives for each component, and actions to meet them, based on public policy ambitions and expert advice. We then sourced data to identify where in the landscape each action is required, and the spending it would entail. Independent experts reviewed our findings.

Our blueprint identifies 24 practical actions needed now to repair Australia’s degraded landscapes. See the below infographic for full details.

The list includes:

• applying lime and gypsum to agricultural soils to improve productivity

• remediating high-risk gullies

• encouraging landholders to restore vegetation along the banks of rivers, streams,
  lakes and wetlands

• restoring 13 million hectares of degraded native vegetation

• addressing key threats and restoring habitat for threatened species

• maintaining or improving the condition of degraded salt marsh ecosystems.

We estimate investment of $7.3 billion each year (in 2022 dollars) is needed from 2025 to 2054 to deliver these all actions. That includes:

• $580 million to repair the productive base of agricultural soils

• $2.9 billion to fix fragmented, degraded river systems

• $1.7 billion to restore ecosystems to at least 30% of their pre-1750 extent

• $1.2 billion to mitigate imminent extinction risk and ensure medium-term survival of Commonwealth-listed threatened species

• $35 million to maintain and improve estuary health

• $640 million in transaction costs (such as legal fees, data and compliance)

• $250 million a year to maintain the improvements (such as monitoring, and management of pests, weeds and fire).

How will Australia pay for this?

We cannot accurately measure the true cost of environmental degradation to the environment, people and the economy. But evidence suggests these costs far outweigh the cost of nature repair.

Our report proposes measures for Australia that are feasible and fiscally responsible.

And they also address multiple objectives. For example, restoring native vegetation across 13 million hectares would also abate almost one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent – equal to 18% of Australia’s net emissions over the next 30 years.

Through carbon markets, private landholders could be paid to regenerate native vegetation. Our analysis shows this could generate 7% to 15% of the investment needed.

The investment we propose would also support employment and jobs in the short- and
long-term. This would promote a strong circular flow of income, generating government revenue in the form of income tax, GST and associated revenues.

A broad range of financing mechanisms is needed to enact this plan. As a starting point, we suggest:

• significantly increased public investment for stewardship programs, Indigenous land managers and threatened species recovery

• revenue-neutral changes to the tax system to encourage conservation and remove subsidies that degrade the environment

• public investment in the federal government’s green bond program, which will enable investors to back public projects that contribute to environmental repair

• using markets and other emerging private sector solutions to encourage conservation on private land

• fundraising via philanthropy.

Indigenous Australians are key

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have been stewards of Country for more than 60,000 years and have continuing cultural connections to land and waters.

We propose four key measures to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples leading roles in managing and repairing landscapes:

• increase Indigenous ownership and management of land and water

• recognise the value of traditional knowledge in areas such as managing species and using fire to maintain the health of Country

• establish and improve programs to employ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to repair and manage Country, such as expanding Indigenous ranger programs and providing resources and long-term funding

• ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are supported to generate meaningful, commercially sustainable employment and businesses on Country through land and water ownership.

A healthier, more resilient Australia

All Australians are stewards of this unique land and seascape. It is our responsibility to ensure nature is preserved for its own sake, and for current and future generations.

Our plan expands on successful efforts to conserve the environment. It won’t fix everything – for instance, it did not address air quality, urban settlements or marine environments.

But the actions we propose – if done together, at scale, and built into broader public policy reforms – will leave our landscapes healthier and more resilient.

Australians don’t have to choose between a healthy environment and a productive economy – we can have both.

The report underpinning this article was prepared by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists with input from more than 60 experts. See the report for the full list of contributors.

Jamie Pittock is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. He also chairs the ACT Natural Resources Management Advisory Committee, is on the board of NRM Regions Australia, and is a member of the Biodiversity Assessment Expert Reference Group advising the federal government. He holds other roles with environmental non-government organisations. The report underpinning this article was funded with support from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Purves Environmental Fund, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation through the Eldon & Anne Foote Trust, and the John T. Reid Charitable Trust.

Bradley J. Moggridge is affiliated with the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, WWF Australia and the Biodiversity Council. The report underpinning this article was funded with support from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Purves Environmental Fund, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation through the Eldon & Anne Foote Trust, and the John T. Reid Charitable Trust.

Martine Maron is a member of the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and co-authored the report mentioned in this article. She has received funding from various sources including the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Department of Environment and Science, and the federal government’s National Environmental Science Program, and has advised both state and federal government on conservation policy. She is a director of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, a councillor with the Biodiversity Council, a governor of WWF-Australia, and leads the IUCN’s thematic group on Impact Mitigation and Ecological Compensation under the Commission on Ecosystem Management. The report underpinning this article was funded with support from the Ian Potter Foundation, the Purves Environmental Fund, the Lord Mayor’s Charitable Foundation through the Eldon & Anne Foote Trust, and the John T. Reid Charitable Trust.

– ref. Yes, Australia’s environment is on a depressing path – but $7 billion a year would transform it – https://theconversation.com/yes-australias-environment-is-on-a-depressing-path-but-7-billion-a-year-would-transform-it-235305

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kim Davis, General paediatrician and paediatric infectious diseases specialist, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute

What’s the difference? is a new editorial product that explains the similarities and differences between commonly confused health and medical terms, and why they matter.

It’s the time of the year for coughs, colds and sore throats. So you might have heard people talk about having a “strep throat”.

But what is that? Is it just a bad sore throat that goes away by itself in a day or two? Should you be worried?

Here’s what we know about the similarities and differences between strep throat and a sore throat, and why they matter.

How are they similar?

It’s difficult to tell the difference between a sore throat and strep throat as they look and feel similar.

People usually have a fever, a bright red throat and sometimes painful lumps in the neck (swollen lymph nodes). A throat swab can help diagnose strep throat, but the results can take a few days.

Thankfully, both types of sore throat usually get better by themselves.

How are they different?

Most sore throats are caused by viruses such as common cold viruses, the flu (influenza virus), or the virus that causes glandular fever (Epstein-Barr virus).

These viral sore throats can occur at any age. Antibiotics don’t work against viruses so if you have a viral sore throat, you won’t get better faster if you take antibiotics. You might even have some unwanted antibiotic side-effects.

But strep throat is caused by Streptococcus pyogenes bacteria, also known as strep A. Strep throat is most common in school-aged children, but can affect other age groups. In some cases, you may need antibiotics to avoid some rare but serious complications.

In fact, the potential for complications is one key difference between a viral sore throat and strep throat.

Generally, a viral sore throat is very unlikely to cause complications (one exception is those caused by Epstein-Barr virus which has been associated with illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and certain cancers).

But strep A can cause invasive disease, a rare but serious complication. This is when bacteria living somewhere on the body (usually the skin or throat) get into another part of the body where there shouldn’t be bacteria, such as the bloodstream. This can make people extremely sick.

Invasive strep A infections and deaths have been rising in recent years around the world, especially in young children and older adults. This may be due to a number of factors such as increased social mixing at this stage of the COVID pandemic and an increase in circulating common cold viruses. But overall the reasons behind the increase in invasive strep A infections are not clear.

Another rare but serious side effect of strep A is autoimmune disease. This is when the body’s immune system makes antibodies that react against its own cells.

The most common example is rheumatic heart disease. This is when the body’s immune system damages the heart valves a few weeks or months after a strep throat or skin infection.

Around the world more than 40 million people live with rheumatic heart disease and more than 300,000 die from its complications every year, mostly in developing countries.

However, parts of Australia have some of the highest rates of rheumatic heart disease in the world. More than 5,300 Indigenous Australians live with it.

Why do some people get sicker than others?

We know strep A infections and rheumatic heart disease are more common in low socioeconomic communities where poverty and overcrowding lead to increased strep A transmission and disease.

However, we don’t fully understand why some people only get a mild infection with strep throat while others get very sick with invasive disease.

We also don’t understand why some people get rheumatic heart disease after strep A infections when most others don’t. Our research team is trying to find out.

How about a vaccine for strep A?

There is no strep A vaccine but many groups in Australia, New Zealand and worldwide are working towards one.

For instance, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute and Telethon Kids Institute have formed the Australian Strep A Vaccine Initiative to develop strep A vaccines. There’s also a global consortium working towards the same goal.

Companies such as Vaxcyte and GlaxoSmithKline have also been developing strep A vaccines.

What if I have a sore throat?

Most sore throats will get better by themselves. But if yours doesn’t get better in a few days or you have ongoing fever, see your GP.

Your GP can examine you, consider running some tests and help you decide if you need antibiotics.

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. What’s the difference between ‘strep throat’ and a sore throat? We’re developing a vaccine for one of them – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-strep-throat-and-a-sore-throat-were-developing-a-vaccine-for-one-of-them-230292

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bayu Anggorojati, Assistant Professor, Cyber Security, Monash University

The internet, a vast and indispensable resource for modern society, has a darker side where malicious activities thrive.

From identity theft to sophisticated malware attacks, cyber criminals keep coming up with new scam methods.

Widely available generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools have now added a new layer of complexity to the cyber security landscape. Staying on top of your online security is more important than ever.

The rise of dark LLMs

One of the most sinister adaptations of current AI is the creation of “dark LLMs” (large language models).

These uncensored versions of everyday AI systems like ChatGPT are re-engineered for criminal activities. They operate without ethical constraints and with alarming precision and speed.

Cyber criminals deploy dark LLMs to automate and enhance phishing campaigns, create sophisticated malware and generate scam content.

To achieve this, they engage in LLM “jailbreaking” – using prompts to get the model to bypass its built-in safeguards and filters.

For instance, FraudGPT writes malicious code, creates phishing pages and generates undetectable malware. It offers tools for orchestrating diverse cybercrimes, from credit card fraud to digital impersonation.

FraudGPT is advertised on the dark web and the encrypted messaging app Telegram. Its creator openly markets its capabilities, emphasising the model’s criminal focus.

Another version, WormGPT, produces persuasive phishing emails that can trick even vigilant users. Based on the GPT-J model, WormGPT is also used for creating malware and launching “business email compromise” attacks – targeted phishing of specific organisations.

What can we do to protect ourselves?

Despite the looming threats, there is a silver lining. As the challenges have advanced, so have the ways we can defend against them.

AI-based threat detection tools can monitor malware and respond to cyber attacks more effectively. However, humans need to stay in the mix to keep an eye on how these tools respond, what actions they take, and whether there are vulnerabilities to fix.

You may have heard keeping your software up to date is crucial for security. It might feel like a chore, but it really is a critical defence strategy. Updates patch up the vulnerabilities that cyber criminals try to exploit.

Are your files and data regularly backed up? It’s not just about preserving files in case of a system failure. Regular backups are a fundamental protection strategy. You can reclaim your digital life without caving to extortion if you are targeted by a ransomware attack – when criminals lock up your data and demand a ransom payment before they release it.

Cyber criminals who send phishing messages can leave clues like poor grammar, generic greetings, suspicious email addresses, overly urgent requests or suspicious links. Developing an eye for these signs is as essential as locking your door at night.

If you don’t already use strong, unique passwords and multi-factor authentication, it’s time to do so. This combination multiplies your security, making it dramatically more difficult for criminals to access your accounts.

Read more:
What is multi-factor authentication, and how should I be using it?

What can we expect in the future?

Our online existence will continue to intertwine with emerging technologies like AI. We can expect more sophisticated cyber crime tools to emerge, too.

Malicious AI will enhance phishing, create sophisticated malware and improve data mining for targeted attacks. AI-driven hacking tools will become widely available and customisable.

In response, cyber security will have to adapt, too. We can expect automated threat hunting, quantum-resistant encryption, AI tools that help to preserve privacy, stricter regulations and international cooperation.

The role of government regulations

Stricter government regulations on AI are one way to counter these advanced threats. This would involve mandating the ethical development and deployment of AI technologies, ensuring they are equipped with robust security features and adhere to stringent standards.

In addition to tighter regulations, we also need to improve how organisations respond to cyber incidents and what mechanisms there are for mandatory reporting and public disclosure.

By requiring companies to promptly report cyber incidents, authorities can act swiftly. They can mobilise resources to address breaches before they escalate into major crises.

This proactive approach can significantly mitigate the impact of cyber attacks, preserving both public trust and corporate integrity.

Furthermore, cyber crime knows no borders. In the era of AI-powered cyber crime, international collaboration is essential. Effective global cooperation can streamline how authorities track and prosecute cyber criminals, creating a unified front against cyber threats.

As AI-powered malware proliferates, we’re at a critical junction in the global tech journey: we need to balance innovation (new AI tools, new features, more data) with security and privacy.

Overall, it’s best to be proactive about your own online security. That way you can stay one step ahead in the ever-evolving cyber battleground.

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. FraudGPT and other malicious AIs are the new frontier of online threats. What can we do? – https://theconversation.com/fraudgpt-and-other-malicious-ais-are-the-new-frontier-of-online-threats-what-can-we-do-234820