Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis Altman, Vice Chancellor’s Fellow and Professorial Fellow, Institute for Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University

It’s well known that Donald Trump consumes television broadcasts and often makes policy based more on Fox News punditry than advice from political or government advisors. So it’s unsurprising that one of his most influential advisers, Tucker Carlson, has never held a political or government appointment.

Of course, Carlson, an early sceptic about the Iraq War, last week called the attack on Iran “absolutely disgusting and evil”. Trump responded by saying “Tucker has lost his way” and “he’s not MAGA”.

While this may signal the end of his hold over Trump, they’ve weathered disagreements before – as when Carlson attacked last year’s strikes on Iran, as well as consistently pressing Trump over the Epstein files.

Review: Hated By All the Right People: Tucker Carlson and the unravelling of the conservative mind – Jason Zengerle (Scribe)

But if Carlson’s ruptures with Trump widen, some observers told the author of a new book, “he could then portray himself to a disillusioned MAGA base as the true leader of their movement – and run for president himself in 2028”.

The great mystery of Tucker Carlson is how a once-serious journalist, whose writing for the likes of New York magazine and Esquire was admired, wandered into the crazy world of the American far right and came to dominate it.

In his book, Hated By All the Right People, Jason Zengerle (a contributing writer for the New York Times magazine) traces Carlson’s evolution over past 30 years. It is, he writes, the story of what has happened to the United States in that period.

Origin stories

Carlson was born in 1969 to a prominent conservative father and a bohemian heiress mother: they divorced before his eighth birthday and Carlson’s father got sole custody. His mother lived mostly abroad. “I don’t know this person,” Carlson reported feeling as she was dying. She left him a dollar in her will.

He failed to graduate from college, where, Zengerle writes, he was an “abysmal student”, but charmed his way into a succession of small conservative media outlets, and a few national magazines. By the turn of the century, he discovered the lure of television and went through a series of attempts to break into mainstream broadcasting.

First CNN, where Jon Stewart essentially ended Carlson’s contract and his show by savaging it, at length, while appearing as a guest. Then PBS, and MSNBC – where Carlson picked liberal self-described “butch lesbian” talk radio host Rachel Maddow to be his sparring partner. (Maddow is now one of the most high-profile media defenders of progressive politics in the US.)

At his lowest point, he became a political analyst at the only cable-news network he’d yet to work at, Fox News – or, as he’d once described it, “a mean, sick group of people”.

His rise (and increased air time) was tied to Donald Trump’s: he was the rare conservative or Fox News pundit who didn’t initially dismiss him. Fox gave him his own show days before Trump was elected in 2016.

For seven years, Carlson was a mainstay of Fox right-wing cheerleading, until he was unceremoniously dumped in 2023. Just why he was removed is not clear. Carlson came to believe it was part of Fox’s settlement in the Dominion lawsuit. Zengerle speculates Rupert Murdoch finally lost patience with Carlson (despite his closeness to Lachlan Murdoch), as he had on several occasions with Trump too.

Considered for Trump’s ‘veep’

Carlson bounced back, creating his own successful network, on which he hosted interviews with Andrew Tate, Nazi apologist historian Darryl Cooper and Trump himself (including an interview aired on X at the same time as Fox’s first presidential primary debate, in which Trump refused to participate).

In 2024, he campaigned vigorously for Trump’s second term. Trump even told reporters, Zengerle writes, that he “was entertaining the idea of tapping Carlson as his veep”.

Carlson had endeared himself further by presenting a three-part series, Patriot Purge, which presented the riots at the Capitol on January 6 2021 as “a false flag operation, instigated by undercover FBI operatives in the crowd, so that the Biden administration could then persecute Americans for the crime of being conservative”.

During the Biden years, a bizarre crowd of conspiracy seekers and racist right-wingers paid court to Trump. Carlson was among the most important: possibly even more than Elon Musk. As Zengerle writes, he was active behind the scenes in the vice-presidential selection of JD Vance, whom he had helped mentor into politics, and at least two cabinet members: Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Tulsi Gabbard.

Vance’s “remarkable dressing-down” of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky was “a direct echo” of Carlson’s criticisms on his shows for the previous three years. Carlson’s criticisms of Zelensky drew on antisemitic tropes, calling him “ratlike” and “a persecutor of Christians”.

Zengerle credits Carlson with providing much of the mismatch of policies that have marked Trump’s second term (as well as the border wall with Mexico, which Carlson argued for as far back as 2005).

Trump has consistently expressed hostility to immigrants, with the notable exception of white South Africans – whose cause Carlson seems to have pioneered – and promoted Viktor Orban’s Hungarian authoritarian regime, which Carlson called a “lesson” for America after he visited to interview Orban, before anyone in the US had paid him much attention.

Unsurprisingly, Carlson has expressed sympathy for Vladimir Putin. He became the first American journalist to obtain a one-on-one interview with Putin after the invasion of Ukraine.

It was widely believed Putin played him, avoiding any difficult questions about respect for Ukrainian sovereignty: just as he had played Trump in his infamous meeting in Helsinki in 2018. Zengerle does not explore whether there is any connection between the two men’s remarkable sympathy for the Russian dictator.

Since Trump’s re-election, Carlson has become less sycophantic, particularly on Iran and the Epstein files. At one point, he claimed Epstein was working at the behest of Israel’s government: part of the increasingly antisemitic and anti-Israeli raves that characterise the contemporary Carlson.

Carlson and the Republican journey

Carlson, like Vance before he became vice president, has become a strident America Firster, opposed to involvement in foreign wars or desire for regime change.

Given the uncertain outcome of the current war on Iran, it is impossible to predict whether Carlson’s position as perhaps the most significant right-wing ideologue in the American media is doomed to burn out, or to become yet more influential.

Either way, Zengerle is right to point to Carlson’s career as a symbol of the way the Republican Party has been captured by a set of beliefs and principles previous Republican leaders would have denounced as racist and undemocratic. The two Republican candidates for president before Trump, John McCain and Mitt Romney, would no longer find a home in their party.

But of course, they both lost to Barack Obama. Trump’s 2016 victory caused a major reversal in American politics and many of the people who originally abhorred him are now part of his inner circle. Both Vance and secretary of state Marco Rubio had declared him totally unfit for office. Zengerle reminds us that while a senator, Rubio supported immigration reforms he has now disavowed in fealty to the president.

Carlson shared these doubts about Trump in 2016, though he was one of the first to recognise the strange charisma that would propel Trump to the top.

As the Republican Party has moved increasingly into territory that used to be regarded as frankly conspiratorial and crazed, so too has Carlson. But while Zengerle does an excellent job of charting this transformation, he does little to explain why it happened.

He writes well, as befits a veteran of the best US print media, but there is a surplus of information and a lack of real analysis. Take the example of Carlson’s increasingly virulent antisemitism. Early in his career, he worked with and for many prominent Jewish intellectuals, like neoconservative writers Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz. Zengerle demonstrates that Carlson is providing increasing time to extreme antisemites, but makes no real attempt to explain it.

Calculation or genuine belief?

But his drift towards the fringes of overt racism seem to date back to his founding of the briefly successful website The Daily Caller in 2010.

While it began with some claim to journalistic integrity, The Daily Caller soon found space for that particularly virulent antisemitism that ties together ancient tropes about Jews with fear and hatred of African Americans and Muslims. Carlson’s willingness to host antisemites on his program has meant his criticism of Israel’s behaviour in Gaza is too easily dismissed by the powerful Israeli lobby in the US.

Reading Carlson’s increasing attraction to fringe irrationality, I wondered how far this is political calculation and how far it represents genuinely held beliefs. Does Carlson ever wake in the night and ask himself if he bears any responsibility for Trump’s cruelty to alleged illegal aliens – or Republican attempts to disenfranchise electors?

Hated by all the Right People is a revealing title, akin to Hillary Clinton’s comment about the “basket of deplorables” who voted for Trump. But I would have liked to see Zengerle explore the reasons for Carlson’s appeal. As he concludes, Carlson now speaks to millions. Maybe he should have spoken to some of these millions, to better understand why they listen to him.

– ref. Tucker Carlson helped make Donald Trump and JD Vance. Could he be the next president? – https://theconversation.com/tucker-carlson-helped-make-donald-trump-and-jd-vance-could-he-be-the-next-president-275937

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sergi Basco, Profesor Agregado de Economia, Universitat de Barcelona

After the US and Israel began their military strikes on Iran on February 28, oil and gas markets were plunged into chaos and energy prices shot up. As of today, Brent Crude Oil prices are 20% higher than in late February. They went from around $70 a barrel in late February to quickly surpassing $100, before falling to around $90 on March 10. The main reason for the fall was Donald Trump’s market-calming announcement that the war will end “very soon”.

The fall in oil prices is reminiscent of events that followed the April 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs. After the announcement, stock markets plummeted, but when Trump paused the tariffs just days later, the stock market responded by rising again – just as oil prices have fallen in response to his reassurances about the war ending.

If the war is indeed drawing to a close, markets may be right to start pushing prices down, but there is a caveat to this optimism. War is not tariffs – the US administration can impose and pause tariffs, but if Iran rejects potential terms for ending the conflict, it will continue.

Despite Trump’s announcement, it remains very unclear when the Middle East’s production – and the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping route, which 20% of the world’s oil passes through – will get back to business as usual. It’s therefore extremely difficult to predict when prices will go down to February-like levels. This is a major cause for concern in Europe, which depends heavily on imported energy sources.

How oil shocks hit Europe

An increase in oil prices is different from other economic shocks because it has a direct, immediate effect. For consumers, it means instantly higher petrol and energy prices. For producers, it means an immediate increase in the cost of manufacturing and delivering goods.

To understand potential damage to the EU economy, we can take a look at the bloc’s oil consumption and production patterns.

The EU imports most of its oil and gas, and this means that, in addition to rising prices, access and supply may also be constrained by the war in the Middle East. On the positive side, however, Europe has seen a steady decline in overall energy use, and an increase in renewable energy production. With electric and hybrid cars becoming more common, many consumers will be shielded from immediate impacts like a price hike at the pump.

Diversity of energy sources and more efficient technology all mean that we are better protected than we were during, for example, the oil crisis of the 1970s. Nevertheless, some countries and industries will be more affected than others.

The EU’s main energy consumers are its biggest economies: Germany, France, Italy and Spain. These countries will be the most interested in controlling the increase in retail oil prices. Road transportation makes up the lion’s share of oil consumption (around half), while the continent’s other high energy consumption industries include chemical, paper and steel.

What can Europe do?

In February 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted the continent’s gas supplies, subsequently pushing up electricity prices. To understand what’s on the table today, it’s worth looking at what the European Central Bank (ECB) and European Commission did to help EU citizens during the continent’s last energy crisis.

After an oil shock, both inflation and unemployment tend to rise, and this presents any Central Bank with a conundrum. It can reduce inflation by increasing interest rates, but this also creates more unemployment – higher borrowing costs slow growth and business activity, resulting in layoffs.

The Central Bank therefore needs to choose which objective is more important: its primary goal of keeping inflation in check (around 2% in Europe), or protecting jobs.

In July 2022, the ECB opted to raise interest rates (which were then at -0.5%) and kept raising them until they reached 4% in September 2023. But the situation then was very different, as the economy was still recovering from the large spike in inflation (9% in June 2022) caused by the Covid pandemic.

Today, interest rates stand at 2%, and the ECB will need to decide which risk is bigger: an increase in inflation (which was 1,9% in February, below the ECB’s target of 2%) or an increase in unemployment.

Beyond monetary policy

The European Commission and national governments have more direct and effective ways of dealing with the oil shock. During the 2022-2023 energy crisis, the Commission rolled out several initiatives to stabilise energy prices, including recommendations to minimise consumer energy use.

Perhaps most importantly, there were also price caps, and measures that allowed national governments to directly help their citizens, such as continent-wide joint gas purchases.

On the national level, governments have the option of borrowing to fund subsidies, as many did in 2022. However, this is a less viable option than it was in 2022, as global interest rates are now higher. Investors will be wary that many EU countries – including France, Italy and Spain – have government debt that is above 100% of their GDP. These governments were some of the most active during the last energy crisis, and also those most exposed to the oil shock today.

The EU now faces a real risk of recession. If there’s any silver lining, it may give the continent a much-needed push towards renewable energy development, but even this will depend on how national governments tackle the crisis over the coming months.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

– ref. Iran oil shock: the EU has very few options to limit the war’s economic impact – and prevent a recession – https://theconversation.com/iran-oil-shock-the-eu-has-very-few-options-to-limit-the-wars-economic-impact-and-prevent-a-recession-277992

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University

It’s clear that regime change is among the biggest objectives of the U.S. war in Iran.

“I have to be involved in the appointment” of Iran’s next leader, President Donald Trump said on March 5, 2026.

Trump has also said he might put U.S. boots on the ground to get the job done.

Trump now joins a long list of modern U.S. presidents – from Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – who started wars to either overthrow hostile regimes or support embattled friendly governments abroad.

For all the parallels to history, though, Trump’s Iran war is historically unique in one critically important way: In its early stages, the war is not popular with the American public.

A recent CNN poll found that 59% of Americans oppose the war – a trend found in poll after poll since the war began.

As an expert on U.S. foreign policy and regime change wars, my research shows that what’s likely generating public opposition to the Iran war today is the absence of a big story with a grand purpose that has bolstered public support for just about every major U.S.-promoted regime change war since 1900. These broad, purpose-filled narratives generate public buy-in to support the costs of war, which are often high in terms of money spent and lives lost when regime change is at stake.

Two historical examples

In the 1930s and ’40s, a widely accepted – and largely true – story about the dangers of fascism spreading and democracies falling galvanized national support in the United States to enter and then take on the high costs of fighting in World War II.

Likewise, in the 2000s a dominant narrative about preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and stopping terrorism brought strong initial public support for the war in Afghanistan, with 88% support in 2001, and the war in Iraq, with 70% support in 2003.

With no comparable narrative around Iran today, Trump and Republicans could face big problems, especially as costs continue to rise.

No anti-Iran narrative

Iran has been a thorn in the side of many American presidents for a long time. So, what’s missing? Why no grand-purpose narrative at the start of this war?

Two things.

First, grand-purpose narratives are rooted in major geopolitical gains by a rival regime – the danger to the U.S. For the anti-fascism narrative, those events were German troops plowing across Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For the anti-terrorism narrative, it was planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Gains like these by rivals prove traumatic to the nation. They also dislodge the status quo and provide the opportunity for new grand-purpose narratives with new policy directions to emerge.

Today, most Americans see no existential danger around Iran. A Marist poll from March 3, 2026, found that 55% of Americans view Iran as a minor threat or no threat at all. And the number who see Iran as a major threat, 44%, is down from 48% in July 2025.

By contrast, 64% of Americans saw Iraq as a “considerable threat” prior to the 2003 U.S. war in Iraq.

The poll numbers on Iran aren’t surprising. Iran is far from a geopolitical menace to the United States today. To the contrary, it’s been in geopolitical retreat in the Middle East in recent years.

In the summer of 2025, Iran’s nuclear nuclear enrichment facilities were significantly damaged – “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump, though there is no confirmation of that claim – during the 12-Day war between Iran and Israel.

And in recent years, Tehran has lost a major ally in Syria and witnessed its proxy network all but collapse. Iran has also faced crippling economic conditions and historic protests at home.

As the polls show, none of that has sparked a grand-purpose narrative.

Missing a good story

The second missing factor for narrative formation today is any strong messaging from the White House.

In the months prior to World War II, Roosevelt used his position of authority as president to give speech after speech, setting the context of the traumatic events of the 1930s, explaining the dangers at hand and outlining a course going forward. Though less truthful in its content, Bush did the same for nearly two years before the Iraq War.

Trump did almost none of this storytelling leading up to the Iran war. Five days before the war started, the president devoted three minutes to Iran in a nearly two-hour State of the Union Address.

Prior to that, he made a comment here and there to the press about Iran, but no storytelling preparing the nation for war. Likewise, since the war began, the administration’s stated reasons for military action keep shifting.

No wonder 54% of Americans polled disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran and 60% of Americans say Trump has no clear plan for Iran. Also, 60% disapprove of Trump’s handling of foreign policy in general.

By comparison, Americans approved of Bush’s handling of foreign policy by 63% in early 2003.

Absent a cohesive, unifying story, it’s also no surprise there is lots of political fracturing today.

Partisan divides run deep – Democrats and independent voters strongly oppose the war. But Trump’s MAGA coalition is cracking too, with people like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene sharply criticizing the war.

The way out

If he opts for it, there is an off-ramp for Trump from the Iran war. It’s one he knows well.

When U.S. leaders get caught up in costly regime change wars that outrun national support, they tend to back down, often with far fewer political costs than if they’d continued their unpopular war.

When the disaster referred to as Black Hawk Down hit in Somalia in 1993, killing 18 U.S. Marines, President Bill Clinton opted to end the mission to topple the warlords that ruled the country. Troops came home six months later.

Likewise, after the Benghazi attack killed four Americans in Libya in 2012, Obama pulled out all U.S. personnel working in Libya on nation-building operations.

And just last year, when Trump realized that U.S. ground troops would be necessary to topple the Houthi militant group in Yemen, he negotiated a ceasefire and ended his air war in that country with no significant political fallout.

With Trump’s Iran war, gas prices keep rising, more soldiers are likely to die, and stocks are highly volatile.

Backing down makes a lot of sense. History confirms that.

– ref. Trump’s war against Iran is uniquely unpopular among US military actions of the past century – https://theconversation.com/trumps-war-against-iran-is-uniquely-unpopular-among-us-military-actions-of-the-past-century-277586

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jagannadha Pawan Tamvada, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Kingston University

When US and Israeli forces launched airstrikes on Iran, the shock waves were felt far beyond the region. As the conflict escalates, understanding who benefits from this crisis might be as important as counting its costs.

The timing could hardly be worse for the UK economy. Official forecasts for GDP growth in 2026 had already been downgraded to 1.1% before a single missile was fired. Predictions that inflation might dip now look optimistic; and expectations of an interest rate cut on March 19 have fallen sharply.

The energy shock is immediate. Tanker traffic in the strait of Hormuz has fallen by around 90%. Qatar, the world’s second largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, halted production indefinitely. Although the UK sources little gas directly from the Gulf, energy markets are global so UK households could see more than £500 added to their annual bills.

Beyond energy, UK stocks have fallen, the pound has come under pressure and the UK government’s £23.6 billion fiscal headroom could erode rapidly.

For defence stocks, however, the picture is different. London-based BAE Systems surged around 6% on the first day of the conflict. And the American defence industry seems determined to quadruple production of some weapons.

Peace benefits ordinary citizens, small businesses, global supply chains and the planet’s climate trajectory. The beneficiaries of war are more concentrated.

One of the most uncomfortable truths about this conflict is that while it inflicts pain on some, it creates windfalls for others. In my co-authored research, we call this the “paradox of incentives”. Determining who benefits is essential to understanding why wars persist long after it may seem rational to stop.

Defence contractors and the arms economy

On Wall Street, defence firms including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and RTX rose between 4% and 6% on the first day of the strikes. The three firms’ combined shareholder gain on that one day was US$25–30 billion (£18.7-£22.5 billion).

In Israel, Elbit Systems briefly became the country’s most valuable listed company, with its shares up 45% since January. In Europe and the UK, defence stocks surged against a falling FTSE 100.

The rally ‘round the flag effect

Wars may also be good for incumbent politicians in the short term. Before the strikes began, the fallout from the release of the Epstein files was reverberating globally, and piling scrutiny on to many with connections to the White House. Within hours of the first strikes, web searches for the Epstein files collapsed.

But perhaps the most counterintuitive application of the paradox concerns Iran itself. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) controls up to half of Iran’s oil exports. Its engineering arm, Khatam al-Anbiya, has become one of the largest contractors in the country, controlling construction, telecoms, agriculture and energy.

Economic sanctions designed to weaken Tehran have actually entrenched the power structures they were meant to erode. As foreign firms exited and domestic companies struggled, IRGC-linked entities used access to informal trade routes, currency controls and security networks to expand their dominance.

At the same time, according to the World Bank, close to 10 million ordinary Iranians fell into poverty between 2011 and 2020 as the sanctions tightened.

The energy windfall

The oil and gas price shock is already providing a windfall in unexpected places. The US could benefit as Europe’s reliance on American energy exports, accelerated by the Ukraine war, grows even more.

For the Gulf petrostates, the picture is nuanced. Saudi Arabia and the UAE together hold a huge share of the world’s spare production capacity. They face real costs from the conflict, but their exposure to the Hormuz closure is lower than neighbours Kuwait, Qatar and Iraq. Both countries built bypass pipelines specifically to export oil without transitting the Strait.

And for Russia, the war diverts price-sensitive buyers such as India and China away from competing suppliers in the Gulf.

The green transition

Higher oil and gas prices make new fossil fuel extraction more commercially attractive. The same crisis that bolsters the case for renewables also makes fossil fuels more profitable. This could slow the transition by redirecting attention back towards oil and gas.

In our research, we argue that breaking the paradox of incentives is possible. But it would require the financial interests of powerful actors like those mentioned above to become aligned with solutions. In the context of this conflict, that principle points towards four routes.

The first would be a windfall tax on companies benefiting exceptionally from wars. The UK already has a precedent: its energy profits levy hits oil and gas profits above a set threshold until 2030. Although this levy has come under fire recently, there is a strong case for extending its principles to defence contractors whose share prices and profits surge during conflicts.

For oil-producing nations, a release of emergency stocks coordinated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) could cap price spikes. This happened in 2022 when IEA member countries released 60 million barrels from strategic reserves. The G7 nations have now said they “stand ready” to do this.

On the political side, democratic accountability, independent economic institutions and a free press all narrow the window within which leaders can exploit wartime popularity. These things can’t always be changed from the outside however, and underline the need for robust domestic institutions.

The green transition paradox is perhaps the hardest to address in the short term, but it is also where the fix is clearest. It has been argued that the more dependent economies become on the profits of war through arms exports, fossil fuel revenues or defence procurement, the harder it becomes to divert funding and attention to climate issues.

The solution is not to stop countries defending themselves – but to ensure that the transition to a green and secure energy system proceeds, precisely because of crises like this one.

The costs of this war are already being counted in energy markets. Before long, they will show up in national and household budgets. What makes this crisis particularly hard to resolve is the paradox at its heart: the actors best placed to end it are among those with the most to gain from its continuation.

– ref. Who profits from war with Iran? Understanding that will be key to resolving the conflict – https://theconversation.com/who-profits-from-war-with-iran-understanding-that-will-be-key-to-resolving-the-conflict-277889

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben JJ Walker, Researcher, UNSW Sydney

Animals are noisy. And their noises can travel a long way.

But making sounds can be a double-edged sword: it can help them communicate, sometimes over long distances, but it can also reveal them to predators.

In new research published in the Journal of Mammalian Evolution, my colleague and I studied how far the sounds of 103 different mammal species travel, and discovered some surprising patterns.

What’s more, these patterns hint at an overlooked impact humans may be having on our fellow creatures: not only changing their sonic landscapes through our own noise, but also changing the world their sounds are travelling through, with unknown effects.

What’s happening in the water?

In aquatic mammals, the relationship between the size of an animal and the farthest distance its call travels is simple. Bigger animals can be heard farther away.

On a perfect day in perfect conditions, the call of a blue whale (the largest animal in history) can travel up to 1,600 kilometres. Its (slightly smaller) cousin the fin whale can be heard over a similar distance.

These are the longest-travelling animal sounds ever reported.

What’s happening on land?

On land, the story is very different. Environmental factors are crucial to how far the sound of a terrestrial mammal travels.

Things that matter include the size of an animal’s home range (the area in which it lives and defends resources), whether a call is territorial (to defend against other animals), whether the environment is open versus densely vegetated, and if the animal is very social or solitary.

On a good day in the savannah, lions and elephants have sounds that travel 8km and 10km, respectively.

How does this work?

Our research is centred around the idea that your sound reveals you to predators, and that revelation leads to a higher risk of injury and death (potentially before you pass on your genes, and hence reducing what evolutionary biologists call “fitness”). This would be because the predator can more quickly locate its calling prey.

There is a delicate balance between using sounds to communicate and using sounds in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

If sound is revealed at the wrong distance, it may mess up the reason an animal uses the sound in the first place.

Animals that cannot adapt to changes in the sound environment may reveal themselves and be eaten, or may be unable to find their friends.

Where does this fit?

In the midst of human-induced environmental and species change, understanding how animals use sounds to communicate and find each other has become valuable to conservation. Many ecosystems are being cleared on land to make way for development and agriculture.

Our finding that land mammals in closed habitats have evolved to have relatively farther sound distances is important because of what happens when the environment changes.

If a possum has evolved in a eucalyptus forest, for example, and the forest is cleared, its sounds will travel farther (because there are fewer trees to muffle it). As a result, the possum may reveal itself to a predator when it doesn’t mean to.

This in turn means the animal’s call leaves it more exposed than it “should” in evolutionary terms. The animal may not have the same tools to escape predators that animals evolved for open environments do, and so may be more easily eaten.

What are humans doing?

Many species have reduced in body size due to things like harvesting activities and climate change.

It’s a well documented fact that many whale species have been getting smaller as a result of human whaling activities and environmental impacts.

Since 1981, for example, the length of northern right whales has become about 7% smaller. Among gray whales, animals born in 2020 are estimated to be 1.65 metres shorter than animals born in the 1980s.

Given our finding that larger body sizes mean farther-travelling sounds in aquatic mammals, smaller whales may not be able to be heard as far away.

This means that when smaller whales call to their friends or family members, their calls may not reach these individuals over the enormous distances the species travel.

What can humans change?

Our findings add a new dimension to our understanding of how humans are affecting animals, and may help inform future conservation decisions.

Do they mean anything in our everyday lives?

For one thing, they remind us to take a moment to listen to the world around us.

We might find out where an animal is. We might observe a new species.

We might even find a quiet space in the landscapes around us to sit and connect again with the world and ourselves.

– ref. Animals can talk over huge distances – but humans might be changing their range – https://theconversation.com/animals-can-talk-over-huge-distances-but-humans-might-be-changing-their-range-277742

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristen Foley, Research Fellow, Centre for Public Health, Equity and Human Flourishing, Torrens University Australia

Ellidy pops into the bottle shop on her way out to dinner with friends.

She’s faced with rows of evocative labels – using artwork, imagery and symbols to help portray the essence and style of the alcohol on sale.

She narrows it down by wine variety, something local and in her price range. She chooses between two eye-catching labels: one with vivid pink flowers and another with a young woman’s face on the label, hidden by clouds.

She grabs one she thinks will mean something to the group of people she’s going to see.

Ellidy is a fictional shopper. But the labels she’s faced with are real examples from our research on how alcohol labels are designed to appeal to women.

This includes pink labels, and those featuring women’s body parts, high heels or needlework.

Here’s what else our research, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, found.

What we did and what we found

We visited ten bottle shops in South Australia over a period of two years. We photographed products that used gendered cues on labels, bottles and packaging.

We analysed 473 products – including wine, spirits and ready-to-drink products – and spotted five themes.

1. Pink, purple and glitter

Companies used pink, purple, petals and glitz (such as glitter, embossed glass, sparkles, and images of diamonds) in the product design and label.

This “pinkwashing” appeals to some women. But it perpetuates the stereotype of the pink, hyper-feminine consumer.

2. Names, bodies and body parts

Labels featured stereotypical and sexualised versions of women’s names, bodies and body parts. Examples included names such as “la femme” and “madame sass”, and images depicting breasts and an orgy.

Australia’s alcohol advertising code prohibits advertising that suggests social, sexual or other success.

3. Wellness

Our analysis found labels suggested alcohol was a form of wellness, balance and connection.

This included a wine called “Mother’s Milk”. This suggests alcohol may provide replenishment in a woman’s life and care for her as she cares for others.

Another was “One Lovely Day”, which featured young women holding hands in a forest.

4. Strong women

Alcohol promoted women’s strength, resilience and confidence. For instance, it showed them in positions traditionally associated with men (playing cricket, owning a vineyard) or exercising choice and power.

These depictions are typical of postfeminism, sometimes called “backlash” feminism, which focuses on individual women who succeed in the face of gendered adversity. This may be “doing it all” while keeping a happy, confident and “feminine” disposition.

Their success is then used to downplay the structural forces that disadvantage women. This includes sexism and misogyny, as well as gendered expectations around unpaid care and emotional labour.

Examples in this category included wines featured children with shiny purple and pink text saying “follow your dreams” or “chin up”.

5. Escaping reality

This group of products promoted the dissipation and disassociation alcohol can enable. This includes the wine label Ellidy looked at with clouds drifting over a woman’s face.

These kinds of marketing suggest alcohol can provide psychological distance from life’s pressures, somewhat like anaesthetic.

We found products that referenced mental health states such as “muddled up moscato” or “better days”. Others reflected desires for freedom, revelry or rest, such as “freebird”, “tail spin” or “silence”.

Reinforcing stereotypes

Marketing alcohol this way can reproduce harmful gendered stereotypes.

Such “femmewashing” can also be confusing for women. Alcohol may be marketed as sexy, empowering and offering escapism. Yet there’s a growing understanding of the health risks of drinking alcohol, including breast cancer.

And while it is laudable for companies to recognise women and celebrate their strengths and talents, not everyone’s a fan of this type of gendered marketing. Some feel powerless to stop it.

In other research, Australian women told us it communicates that women need to be hyper-feminine, sexy and happy if they want to succeed.

As part of Kristen’s PhD research, one woman said:

I think that there should be regulation of it […] it’s very cynical and destructive, I totally see that.

Another participant said women were conscious they were being targeted to prop up industry profits:

Large companies clearly prey on exhausted, time-poor women tempting them to find their ‘me time’ in a glass or several of wine.

Is this legal?

Our research with women shows they can often see through this marketing spin. However, it can also work in the background to reinforce harmful gendered norms, and associate drinking with femininity.

In Australia, there is no current regulatory mechanism to restrict gendered alcohol marketing, but this is needed for a number of reasons. For a start, it would bring Australia into line with World Health Organization advice to reduce gender stereotypes in alcohol control policies.

We also need to be cautious of repurposing feminism as a cheap gimmick to market empowerment as a commodity.

Some suggest commoditising feminism ironically worsens gender inequality by hiding its social and political drivers. It gives the impression that merely buying the right products will enable you to succeed as a woman.

You can report any concerning alcohol marketing to the Alcohol Advertising Review Board.

– ref. Sex, pink and empowerment are used to sell alcohol to women. They don’t always like it – https://theconversation.com/sex-pink-and-empowerment-are-used-to-sell-alcohol-to-women-they-dont-always-like-it-277610

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Goutam Roy, PhD Candidate in STEM education, Charles Sturt University

Parents of young children will be aware of the need to encourage early reading and maths skills in their kids. They know it’s important to make time to read with their children. Or point out that “cat” starts with the letter “c”. Similarly, they will help their children begin to count (“how many sausages are on your plate?”).

But what about science skills? Studies suggest parents may not be as confident about teaching these skills in every day family life.

Our study, published in The Australian Educational Researcher outlines five practical ways parents can help their children develop their science skills and scientific literacy at home.

Parents can lack confidence

We know Australians science skills are slipping. For example, there are gaps in Year 12 enrolments in key areas including agricultural science, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, data science and climate science.

One way we can address this is by fostering scientific knowledge from a young age.

Children can gain scientific knowledge from everyday contexts. We know parents can play a significant role in extending children’s science literacy at home before they go to school.

But studies have found many parents believe they do not have adequate science knowledge to teach their children or respond to their questions.

However, parents do not need to be experts in science to do this. Simple science activities at home can gradually enhance scientific learning.

Here are five ways to do it.

1. Encourage science play at home

Helping your child’s science skills does not need to be about formal lessons and explanations. You can do this through play.

Parents can regularly arrange small activities at home to extend children’s interest in science. For this, they do not need specialised knowledge. They can build upon a child’s existing areas of interest.

For example, if a child shows interest in colours, provide three primary colours (red, yellow, and blue) in paints and ask children to experiment with how many colours they can produce using those three.

This experiment provides children with a greater sense of colour mixing. Parents do not need to discuss chemistry, but this experience plants a root in children’s minds about chemical reactions.

Or you could cook something like pancakes together. This shows how mixing certain ingredients and adding heat can transform them into another form. At the same time, children gain an understanding of a step-by-step approach.

2. You already have the materials

Parents do not need to offer high-cost or specialist materials. The household or nature can provide what you need.

What happens if you mix flour and water? How many different-shaped leaves can you find in the park? What insects live in our garden?

Existing toys can also help. Lego blocks can used to build an understanding of engineering (how high can you stack the tower before it wobbles?). Toy cars can be used in a game to see what surfaces are quickest.

3. Keep the emphasis on play

With little kids, creating interest in science is not about talking about abstract concepts. It’s about helping a child to understand the concept in action. And hopefully, extending their curiosity.

This is why it’s important to play or engage in the activity together.

For example, rather than discuss what text books say about photosynthesis, role play what happens to a flower in the sun. The flower needs the sun to grow, but too much sun (or not enough water) will see the flower wilt.

Sometimes parents can initiate play activities, sometimes they can follow their children’s lead.

4. Try and answer questions

Children’s questions can be tricky. And sometimes we don’t know the answer. But rather than say “magic” or “I don’t know”, tell your child you can find out together.

This might be through looking something up or doing your own experiment.

For example, “why does ice cream melt so quickly when we eat it but not in the freezer?”

You could then experiment by keeping ice cream in different places, such as at room temperature, in the freezer, and in the refrigerator. You could see how long it takes for the ice cream to melt at each temperature.

5. Get suggestions from your child’s educators

If you need some ideas for science-based games or activities, talk to your child’s educators at daycare or preschool/kinder.

Educators regularly arrange a variety of play activities at early learning centres and know how to tailor play to children’s specific interests and needs.

What now?

Keep in mind, not all development is visible. Children can internalise their learning and apply it in a new situation in their own way.

But if parents regularly talk about science and incorporate it into play, they can help build their child’s logical thinking, problem-solving, and conscious decision-making.

This paves the way for them to enjoy and engage with science subjects when they reach school.

– ref. All it takes is paint and pancakes. How to boost your preschooler’s science skills – https://theconversation.com/all-it-takes-is-paint-and-pancakes-how-to-boost-your-preschoolers-science-skills-275226

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Locky Xianglong Liu, Research fellow, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University

The war in Iran has once again exposed how vulnerable the world’s energy markets are to geopolitical disruption. In wild swings, benchmark crude oil prices spiked as high as US$120 per barrel, roughly 50% higher than before the conflict, before sliding below $100.

Energy price surges hit households quickly. Higher petrol prices raise transport costs and push up everyday prices. This is the second major energy price spike in the past five years due to war.

The federal government faces a familiar question: what policy tools should it use to respond to sudden global oil price shocks and rising living costs?

For Australia, the answer is more complex because of its unique position in global energy markets. But right now, there is a strong case for taxing windfall gas profits to help households – as long as we get the policy right.

Australia’s unique position in energy markets

Australia imports most of its crude oil and refined petroleum products. Like many other oil-importing countries, it is exposed to the adverse effects of higher oil prices on transport costs, consumer prices and business costs.

But at the same time, Australia is also one of the world’s largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Gas prices have surged about 50% in Asia and Europe since the start of the conflict, while prices for LNG export contracts typically lag by three to six months.

This means the same global energy shock that raises Australian households’ energy bills also generates very high profits for gas exporters such as Woodside, Chevron, Shell, Inpex and Santos.

However, Australia’s gas industry is largely foreign owned. This means a large share of the additional profits generated by higher energy prices flows overseas, rather than directly benefiting Australian households.

This raises an important policy question: should part of these windfall gains be captured to help households cope with higher energy costs? And how would this compare with cutting fuel taxes?

In our research, we modelled the impact of a global oil supply shock on Australia and compared two fiscal tools:

1. a fuel excise cut, similar to the one implemented in 2022, and

2. a temporary levy on supernormal profits in the energy sector.

Here are our findings.

The high cost of a fuel tax cut

Cutting the fuel excise can make petrol cheaper in the short term and cushion the shock. But it comes at a significant cost to the federal budget.

The federal government halved the fuel excise for six months during the last energy crisis after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

The policy helped reduce petrol prices – but cost the budget about A$5.6 billion in lost revenue, weakening the government’s fiscal position.

And this does not address rising gas prices. Domestic businesses and households compete with overseas buyers for Australian gas, pushing energy bills higher.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said last week the government is unlikely to repeat the fuel excise cut, saying it is “not something we’ve been considering”. Instead, he pointed to other cost-of-living measures and petrol price monitoring.

If fuel tax cuts are off the table, what other policy tools are available?

Why taxing windfall gains may work better

Our modelling suggests a temporary levy on windfall profits in the energy sector may work better.

When global energy prices surge, gas exporters can earn unusually large profits. Economists often call these “windfall gains” or “scarcity rents”. These profits arise not because companies become more productive or innovative, but from global energy price shocks.

Because much of Australia’s gas industry is foreign-owned, a significant share of these gains flows overseas. A temporary levy on windfall profits during energy shocks could capture part of these gains and redirect them to support households facing higher energy costs, without weakening the federal budget.

Global gas prices have also surged as supply from the Middle East was disrupted.

Australian gas mainly sells to Asian markets. LNG exporters benefit both from higher global LNG prices, and from rising oil-linked LNG contract prices.

This strengthens the economic case for a temporary windfall tax when Australian households face rising energy bills and cost-of-living pressures.

Designing a tax that works

Australia’s dual role as both an energy importer and exporter matters for policy design.

In our study, the energy profit levy is temporary and well defined. In practice, firms may worry that a “temporary” tax could become a precedent for repeated new taxes whenever prices rise.

This concern doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t act, but it does mean the design of the policy matters. A poorly designed tax could create uncertainty and discourage investment.

If investors feel the government will only tax the “unexpected” highs without offering support during the “unexpected” lows, they may be less likely to fund future projects. A serious policy proposal would require three features:

• Well-defined triggers: Clear rules for when the tax applies.

• Sunset clauses: A legal “expiry date” so the tax ends when the crisis does.

• A fair tax base: Applying only to windfall profits generated by global price shocks.

A carefully designed temporary levy on windfall energy profits is therefore worth exploring to help protect Australian households from global energy shocks.

– ref. Amid a surge in energy prices, a windfall tax on gas profits could be the best way to protect households – https://theconversation.com/amid-a-surge-in-energy-prices-a-windfall-tax-on-gas-profits-could-be-the-best-way-to-protect-households-277729

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Roberts, Professor of Sociology, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

Over the past two years, viral clips, news headlines and TV series such as Adolescence have ensured much of the public has encountered the “manosphere” – an online ecosystem that repackages misogyny, anti-feminism and male grievance as self-improvement and hustle.

Journalist Louis Theroux is further lifting the lid on this dangerous ideology with his new Netflix documentary, Inside the Manosphere, in which he showcases the individuals driving this culture.

In his measured and sometimes risky style, Theroux traces not only the rhetoric of “high-value men”, but also the livestream formats and business models that sustain this world. The result is both illuminating and unsettling.

An insidious ideology

What emerges in Theroux’s exposé is not just provocation, but a clear misogynistic worldview. Across interviews and through influencers’ own content, we see the defence of a regressive gender hierarchy – and attempts to restore it.

Women are described as having innate value through their beauty and sexuality, yet dismissed as less rational and emotionally stable. Monogamy is framed as binding for women, but optional for men. Gender equality is blamed for cultural decline.

At times the language is openly authoritarian. Infamous influencer Myron Gaines describes himself to Theroux as a “dictator” in his romantic relationship. He casts intimacy as something he permits, and domestic care as something owed to men.

But Gaines also rejects that he is a misogynist; he claims he loves women, but that women don’t know what they want, and must be led.

The hypocrisy is striking. Several manosphere figures such as Harrison Sullivan publicly deride women who use platforms such as OnlyFans, while claiming to privately profit from managing their accounts.

Misogyny as a business model

Theroux also shows how the audiences of these influencers form.

In one early scene, young boys who look to be around tween age (with blurred faces) repeat lines about hating women and gay people with unsettling ease. Later, young adult men speak of having “no value” unless they accumulate wealth, status and dominance. Working a nine-to-five job is framed as submission to the “matrix” and the “hustle” as freedom.

The complaint that stable work no longer guarantees security will resonate with many. But in the manosphere, economic strain becomes personal failure: if you are struggling, you have not worked hard enough. This is not just ideology. It is a business model.

Subscription “academies”, private groups and coaching schemes convert insecurity into income. In one example from the documentary, we see American influencer Justin Waller promoting The Real World – an online university run by his close friend and business partner Andrew Tate (who is currently facing charges of rape and human trafficking in multiple countries).

Young men and boys are told they are deficient unless wealthy, muscular and emotionally invulnerable, and then charged for access to the mindset said to fix them. The hierarchy that elevates dominant men and denigrates women simultaneously and exploitatively monetises the boys beneath it.

The worldview is not confined to provocation. In one segment, Waller’s partner Kristen explains that she feels fulfilled staying in her “lane”, and caring for the children and home, while he occupies his role as provider and leader.

She speaks warmly of their respective “masculine and feminine energies”, presenting inequality not as constraint but as comfort – despite viewers learning she has no legal right to his wealth as they are not legally married.

Breeding ground for conspiracies

Running alongside the hustle narrative is a thread of conspiracy theorising. The “matrix” is invoked as a metaphor for societal and institutional systems said to keep men compliant and blind to alternative paths to power.

From there it darkens into talk of shadowy elites engineering cultural decline, including “moral” decline and the erosion of men’s place in the world (which they bizarrely link to the growth of pedophilia).

The “manfluencers”, notably Sullivan and Gaines, suggest recent political developments – such as the rise of President Trump – vindicate their worldview.

Theroux’s instinct is to return to the manfluencers’ own accounts of absent fathers and unstable upbringings. That humanising impulse tilts the story toward sympathy and, problematically, to trauma as a key explanation.

But misogyny does not require trauma to flourish, nor are most boys who experience hardship drawn into sexist worldviews. These ideas are ideological and structural, with long-standing gender hierarchies repackaged and broadcast at scale.

The real-life consequences

Inside the Manosphere does acknowledge harms to women, but doesn’t dwell on it very long.

One segment on schools uses news clips from English-speaking countries to signal the spread of misogynistic language among boys. But the documentary could have done more to highlight these significant manosphere-inspired flow-on effects.

Research I conducted with Stephanie Wescott and colleagues extensively documents how manosphere narratives have permeated schools internationally. This has resulted in higher levels of harassment and gender-based violence by some boys against girl peers and women teachers, eroding women’s workplace safety and girls’ participation.

Theroux is right to suggest we are all, in some sense, now living inside the manosphere. Understanding what drives the men at its centre matters – as does focusing on the real-world harms they cause.

Read more: Andrew Tate’s extreme views about women are infiltrating Australian schools. We need a zero-tolerance response

Louis Theroux: Inside the Manosphere is on Netlix from today.

– ref. Louis Theroux’s Inside the Manosphere exposes the business model of misogyny – https://theconversation.com/louis-therouxs-inside-the-manosphere-exposes-the-business-model-of-misogyny-277509