Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adriana Vargas Saenz, Lead Researcher at Atlassian & Honorary Fellow, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne

Intimate partner violence is a global scourge. One in four Australian women have experienced physical or sexual violence at the hands of an intimate partner. The perpetrators are overwhelmingly heterosexual men.

Many factors contribute to this form of violence. Persistent gender inequality is a fundamental systemic cause, but researchers have identified additional risk factors. These include alcohol and drug use, past experience of family violence, financial stress and sexist attitudes.

One psychological factor that may be implicated in intimate partner violence is objectification. Feminist thinkers such as Cambridge scholar Rae Langton and American philosopher Martha Nussbaum have proposed men who treat their partners as “object-like” are disposed to harm them because they fail to see them as fully human.

Objectification can involve men judging their partner’s value in her physical appearance, seeing her as a possession, or denying her agency and autonomy. The common thread is a subtle or not-so-subtle form of dehumanisation.

Recent psychological research has tried to test these ideas, with intriguing results.

Our new research

Past research found young men who sexually objectify women are especially likely to perpetrate sexual violence. It also showed that men who unconsciously associate women with objects have a relatively high propensity for sexual harassment.

In our recently published work, we moved from considering violence towards women in general to violence towards men’s intimate partners. You might expect men would be less likely to objectify those they claim to love. The appalling statistics on intimate partner violence suggest otherwise.

Our new article presents findings from three studies on the role of objectification in intimate partner violence. Each study sampled American men aged 18 to 35 who were in a committed romantic relationship of at least one year’s duration.

In our first study, men completed a computer-based task – the Implicit Association Test – commonly used to measure unconscious bias. We adapted the task to assess how much they automatically associated women with inanimate objects or animals.

The group also responded to questionnaires measuring how often they engaged in a range of abusive and sexually coercive behaviours towards their current partners. Although based on self-reporting, and therefore open to distortion, these measures are valid predictors of violent behaviour.

As expected, men with relatively strong tendencies to associate women with objects reported higher rates of violent and coercive behaviour. This effect did not occur because these men held more hostile sexist attitudes toward women.

Objectification and sexism were distinct predictors of intimate partner violence, suggesting that objectification independently contributes to this form of violence.

Read more:
Stalking rates in Australia are still shockingly high – one simple strategy might help

Voodoo dolls

Our second study extended the first in two ways. First, we adapted the association test to examine how much men automatically associated their partner with objects, rather than women in general.

Second, we added a more behavioural test of violence. The Voodoo Doll Task allows participants to use “pins” to stab a doll, presented on a computer screen, that shares their partner’s name.

Each participant has an opportunity to use as many pins as he wishes after vividly imagining a provocative scenario. He is at a bar with his partner when she starts flirting with another man and expressing discontent with her current relationship.

Stabbing a virtual doll with digital pins is not the same as inflicting actual violence, of course. However, people who use more pins are more prone to real-world violence. Their inhibitions against acting violently are likely weaker.

In our study, men who tended to associate their partners with inanimate objects reported higher rates of violence, as in the first study. They also stabbed the voodoo doll with more pins if they were highly upset by the provocative scenario.

The objectifying mindset

Our first two studies examined objectification as the tendency to associate a person with objects. Our third considered it as the tendency to focus on the person’s physical appearance.

In our experiment, men were randomly assigned to write several sentences about their partner’s appearance or about her personality. They then completed the Voodoo Doll Task and several short questionnaires.

As we predicted, young men induced to focus on their partner’s appearance stabbed the doll with more pins. They also rated their partner as having fewer personality traits associated with being emotional and capable of action (which contrasts the inertness of inanimate objects).

What this means in the real world

Our three studies indicate objectification plays a role in men’s intimate partner violence against women. Men who implicitly see their female partners as object-like are at greater risk of acting violently towards them.

Inducing an appearance mindset may also promote intimate partner violence, suggesting objectification may be implicated in violence even among men who are otherwise not prone to it.

These findings offer a new perspective on intimate partner violence and how to prevent it. Fundamentally, they imply this violence is partially rooted in a failure of empathy. Some men are unwilling or unable to appreciate their partners as complete humans.

Cultural changes that boost or encourage men’s appreciation of women’s experiences, and reduce their focus on their physical appearance, may help reduce the terrible toll of violence in heterosexual intimate relationships.

For information and advice about family and intimate partner violence contact 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732). If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, contact 000. Men’s Referral Service (call 1300 766 491) offers advice and counselling to men looking to change their behaviour.

Nick Haslam receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Adriana Vargas Saenz 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. Young men who see women as objects are more likely to be violent towards their partners: new research – https://theconversation.com/young-men-who-see-women-as-objects-are-more-likely-to-be-violent-towards-their-partners-new-research-242578

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

A national Newspoll, conducted November 4–8 from a sample of 1,261, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, unchanged since the previous Newspoll in early October. Primary votes were 40% Coalition (up two), 33% Labor (up two), 11% Greens (down one), 5% One Nation (down two) and 11% for all Others (down one).

Anthony Albanese’s net approval slid one point to -15, with 55% dissatisfied and 40% satisfied. Peter Dutton’s net approval rose three points to -11. Albanese’s better PM lead dropped to 45–41 (45–37 previously).

It’s the first time this term that Dutton has had a better net approval than Albanese and Albanese’s smallest better PM lead.

Here is the graph showing Albanese’s net approval in Newspoll. The plus signs are data points and a smoothed line has been fitted.

While economic data has been better for Labor recently, with Morgan’s consumer confidence rising above 85 in mid-October for the first time since January 2023, this is not yet flowing through to improved ratings for Labor and Albanese. The Qantas upgrades scandal could be a factor.

For the first time this term, the Coalition has taken the lead in analyst Kevin Bonham’s two-party aggregate, and now leads by 50.1–49.9. If One Nation preference flows are assigned using their flows at the Queensland election, the Coalition leads by 50.6–49.4.

Resolve poll: Dutton’s ratings surge

A national Resolve poll for Nine newspapers, conducted November 6–10 from a sample of 1,621, gave the Coalition 39% of the primary vote (up one since early October), Labor 30% (steady), the Greens 11% (down one), One Nation 5% (steady), independents 11% (down one) and others 4% (up one).

Resolve doesn’t usually give a two-party estimate, but this poll would be a 50–50 tie by 2022 election preference flows, a one-point gain for the Coalition.

Albanese’s net approval improved three points to -14, with 51% giving him a poor rating and 38% a good rating. Dutton’s net approval surged six points to +5. There was a 37–37 tie on preferred PM (37–35 to Albanese previously).

By 40–29, voters thought Donald Trump’s election as US president would be bad for Australia. Trump’s net likeability was -29, with 55% having a negative opinion and 26% a positive one.

The Liberals had a 41–27 lead over Labor on economic management (38–26 previously). The Liberals led by 35–28 on keeping the cost of living low (31–24 previously).

Australian economic data

In the September quarter, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said headline inflation fell to just 0.2% from 1.0% in the June quarter. In the 12 months to September, headline inflation increased 2.8%, down from 3.8% in June.

However, core inflation increased 0.8% in the September quarter for a 3.5% 12-month rate. The Reserve Bank’s interest rate decisions will be based on core inflation.

In September the ABS said the unemployment rate dropped 0.1% to 4.1%, with 64,100 jobs created. The employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Australians that are employed) rose 0.1% to 64.4%, an equal record high, tied with May and November 2023.

Morgan’s consumer confidence in mid-October surged 4.1 points to 87.5 since the previous week, its first reading above 85 since January 2023. In early November, consumer confidence was down one point to 86.5. Higher consumer confidence should help Labor.

Morgan poll: respondent preferences give Coalition lead

A national Morgan poll, conducted October 28 to November 3 from a sample of 1,651, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the October 21–27 Morgan poll.

Primary votes were 38% Coalition (up 0.5), 30.5% Labor (up 0.5), 14% Greens (steady), 6% One Nation (up 0.5), 7.5% independents (down 1.5) and 4% others (steady).

The headline figure is based on respondent preferences. By 2022 election preference flows, Labor led by 51–49, a 0.5-point gain for the Coalition.

In a separate Morgan poll that was conducted by SMS from October 22–23 with a sample of 1,312, 57% (down three since September 2022) thought Australia should remain a monarchy while 43% (up three) thought we should become a republic with an elected president.

US election: Harris erred in not emphasising health care

After Kamala Harris’ loss, there’s been much commentary on what her campaign did wrong. I think she erred in not emphasising Trump’s record on health care, in which he attempted and nearly succeeded in repealing the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) during his first term.

Analyst Nate Silver said on October 26 that health care had very low issue salience. The Harris campaign should have reminded voters of Trump’s nearly successful attempt to repeal Obamacare.

I’ve been following late counting in the United States congressional elections for The Poll Bludger. Democrats still have a slight chance to win control of the House of Representatives. I also covered the upcoming Irish and German elections.

Queensland election final results

At the October 26 Queensland state election, the Liberal National Party (LNP) won 52 of the 93 seats (up 18 since the 2020 election), Labor 36 (down 16), Katter’s Australian Party (KAP) three (steady), the Greens one (down one), independents one (steady) and One Nation zero (down one).

Queensland won’t give us an official two-party statewide count, but the ABC estimated the two-party vote was 53.8–46.2 to the LNP, a 7.0% swing to the LNP. Primary votes were 41.5% LNP (up 5.6%), 32.6% Labor (down 7.0%), 9.9% Greens (up 0.4%), 8.0% One Nation (up 0.9%), 2.4% KAP (down 0.1%) and 5.6% for all Others (up 0.2%).

YouGov and Resolve polls were closest to the two-party estimated result, with YouGov giving the LNP a 54.5–45.5 lead and Resolve giving them a 53–47 lead. Newspoll gave the LNP a 52.5–47.5 lead and uComms was poor, giving the LNP just a 51–49 lead.

KAP contested only 11 seats, while One Nation and the Greens contested all 93. Concentration of KAP’s vote explains why it won three seats on 2.4% of statewide votes.

The Poll Bludger said Labor won the closest seat of Aspley by 31 votes (under 0.1%). In South Brisbane, if the LNP had been ahead of Labor after One Nation preferences, the Greens would have won on Labor preferences instead of Labor beating the Greens on LNP preferences. Labor was ahead at this point by 105 votes or 0.3%.

ABC election analyst Antony Green said the two-party swing against Labor was 4.9% with election day votes but 8.6% with pre-poll votes. The large numbers of pre-poll votes now are making it impossible to call elections until pre-poll booths report late on election night.

Green also said One Nation preference flows shifted to the LNP since the 2020 state election. This has implications for the next federal election if One Nation preferences go to the Coalition more than at the 2022 federal election.

SA Black byelection next Saturday

A byelection will occur in the Liberal-held South Australian state seat of Black on Saturday, following the resignation of former Liberal leader David Speirs. Speirs won Black by a 52.7–47.3 margin over Labor at the 2022 state election, which Labor won easily. Labor and the Liberals will contest the byelection.

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

– ref. Coalition retains narrow Newspoll lead as Dutton gains; where Democrats may have erred in US election – https://theconversation.com/coalition-retains-narrow-newspoll-lead-as-dutton-gains-where-democrats-may-have-erred-in-us-election-241921

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rose (Shiqi) Luo, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University

Nearly five years into the pandemic, COVID is feeling less central to our daily lives.

But the virus, SARS-CoV-2, is still around, and for many people the effects of an infection can be long-lasting. When symptoms persist for more than three months after the initial COVID infection, this is generally referred to as long COVID.

In September, Grammy-winning Brazilian musician Sérgio Mendes died aged 83 after reportedly having long COVID.

Australian data show 196 deaths were due to the long-term effects of COVID from the beginning of the pandemic up to the end of July 2023.

In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 3,544 long-COVID-related deaths from the start of the pandemic up to the end of June 2022.

The symptoms of long COVID – such as fatigue, shortness of breath and “brain fog” – can be debilitating. But can you die from long COVID? The answer is not so simple.

How could long COVID lead to death?

There’s still a lot we don’t understand about what causes long COVID. A popular theory is that “zombie” virus fragments may linger in the body and cause inflammation even after the virus has gone, resulting in long-term health problems. Recent research suggests a reservoir of SARS-CoV-2 proteins in the blood might explain why some people experience ongoing symptoms.

We know a serious COVID infection can damage multiple organs. For example, severe COVID can lead to permanent lung dysfunction, persistent heart inflammation, neurological damage and long-term kidney disease.

These issues can in some cases lead to death, either immediately or months or years down the track. But is death beyond the acute phase of infection from one of these causes the direct result of COVID, long COVID, or something else? Whether long COVID can directly cause death continues to be a topic of debate.

Of the 3,544 deaths related to long COVID in the US up to June 2022, the most commonly recorded underlying cause was COVID itself (67.5%). This could mean they died as a result of one of the long-term effects of a COVID infection, such as those mentioned above.

COVID infection was followed by heart disease (8.6%), cancer (2.9%), Alzheimer’s disease (2.7%), lung disease (2.5%), diabetes (2%) and stroke (1.8%). Adults aged 75–84 had the highest rate of death related to long COVID (28.8%).

These findings suggest many of these people died “with” long COVID, rather than from the condition. In other words, long COVID may not be a direct driver of death, but rather a contributor, likely exacerbating existing conditions.

‘Cause of death’ is difficult to define

Long COVID is a relatively recent phenomenon, so mortality data for people with this condition are limited.

However, we can draw some insights from the experiences of people with post-viral conditions that have been studied for longer, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS).

Like long COVID, ME/CFS is a complex condition which can have significant and varied effects on a person’s physical fitness, nutritional status, social engagement, mental health and quality of life.

Some research indicates people with ME/CFS are at increased risk of dying from causes including heart conditions, infections and suicide, that may be triggered or compounded by the debilitating nature of the syndrome.

So what is the emerging data on long COVID telling us about the potential increased risk of death?

Research from 2023 has suggested adults in the US with long COVID were at greater risk of developing heart disease, stroke, lung disease and asthma.

Research has also found long COVID is associated with a higher risk of suicidal ideation (thinking about or planning suicide). This may reflect common symptoms and consequences of long COVID such as sleep problems, fatigue, chronic pain and emotional distress.

But long COVID is more likely to occur in people who have existing health conditions. This makes it challenging to accurately determine how much long COVID contributes to a person’s death.

Research has long revealed reliability issues in cause-of-death reporting, particularly for people with chronic illness.

So what can we conclude?

Ultimately, long COVID is a chronic condition that can significantly affect quality of life, mental wellbeing and overall health.

While long COVID is not usually immediately or directly life-threatening, it’s possible it could exacerbate existing conditions, and play a role in a person’s death in this way.

Importantly, many people with long COVID around the world lack access to appropriate support. We need to develop models of care for the optimal management of people with long COVID with a focus on multidisciplinary care.

Dr Natalie Jovanovski, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow in the School of Health and Biomedical Sciences at RMIT University, contributed to this article.

Rose (Shiqi) Luo receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) studying the impact of long COVID.

Catherine Itsiopoulos receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council through the MRFF program. She is affiliated with the Australasian Society of Lifestyle Medicine as a Board member, a committee member of Fronditha Care and is employed by RMIT University.

Kate Anderson receives funding from the Medical Research Future Fund to study the impacts of long COVID and the way COVID-19 information is shared in the disability community. She is affiliated with the Australian POTS Foundation, a consumer-led organisation that supports many people with Long-COVID to manage the autonomic impacts of their condition.

Magdalena Plebanski receives funding from MRFF studying immune responses to COVID-19, and MRFF studying long COVID-19 management.

Zhen Zheng receives funding from MRFF as part of the RMIT University long-COVID research team.
Zhen Zheng consults and treats people with long-COVID in her private clinical practice.

– ref. Can you die from long COVID? The answer is not so simple – https://theconversation.com/can-you-die-from-long-covid-the-answer-is-not-so-simple-239184

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt McDonald, Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

The next major United Nations meeting on climate change, known as COP29, is about to get underway in Baku, Azerbaijan. These annual meetings are the key international summits as the world attempts to address the unfolding climate crisis.

The talks this year are crucial as climate change worsens. In recent years, a series of climate-fuelled disasters and extreme events, from Australia’s bushfires to Spain’s floods, have wrought havoc around the world.

What’s more, the continuing upward trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions suggests the window to limit warming 1.5°C is almost closed. And the re-election of United States President Donald Trump casts a pall over global climate action.

So, let’s take a look at the agenda for this vital COP meeting – and how we can gauge its success or failure.

The big issue: climate finance

COP stands for Conference of the Parties, and refers to the nearly 200 nations that have signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Like last year’s conference in Dubai, the choice to hold this year’s meeting in Baku is controversial. Critics say Azerbaijan’s status as a “petro-state” with a questionable human rights record means it is not a suitable host.

Nevertheless, the meeting is crucial. COP29 has been dubbed the “finance COP”. The central focus is likely to be a much bigger target for climate finance – a mechanism by which wealthy countries provide funding to help poorer countries with their clean energy transition and to strengthen their climate resilience.

At the Copenhagen COP talks in 2009, developed countries committed to collectively providing US$100 billion a year for climate finance. This was seen as the big outcome of otherwise unsuccessful talks – but these targets are not being met.

The meeting also represents an opportunity to engage the private sector to play a bigger role in driving investment in the renewable energy transition.

But controversial questions remain. Who should be giving money and receiving it? And how do we ensure wealthy countries actually make good on their commitments?

The big outcome from last year’s COP was the establishment of a fund for unavoidable loss and damage experienced by vulnerable states as a result of climate effects. We’ve since seen some progress in clarifying how it will work.

But the US$700 million committed to the fund is far short of what is already required – and finance required is certain to increase over time. One estimate suggested US$580 billion will be needed by 2030 to cover climate-induced loss and damage.

Alongside these issues, the Baku talks will hopefully see some movement on adaptation finance, enabling further funds for building climate resilience in developing countries. To date, contributions and commitments have been well short of the goal set in 2021.

A final issue will be how to clarify rules around carbon markets, especially on the controversial topic of whether nations can use carbon trading to meet their Paris Agreement emission cut targets.

Talks on the latter have been stalled for years. Some analysts see movement on carbon markets as crucial for building momentum for the transition from fossil fuels.

Storm clouds over Baku

By far the biggest shadow over the Baku talks is the election of Republican Donald Trump as United States president.

Trump famously withdrew the US from the climate agreement in 2016, and has declared climate change as “one of the greatest scams of all time”.

Trump’s re-election will significantly affect US cooperation on climate change at a time when the stakes for the planet could barely be higher.

More broadly, geopolitical tensions and conflicts – from Gaza to Ukraine – also risk crowding out the international agenda and undermining the chance of cooperation between key players.

This especially applies to Russia and China, both of which are crucial to international climate efforts.

At past COPs, difficult geopolitics elsewhere haven’t been fatal for cooperation on climate policy – but it does make things harder. For this reason, Azerbaijan has called for a “truce” in global conflicts to coincide with the conference.

National commitments loom large at Baku

This COP represents the last big climate talks before national governments have to publicly state their new emission cut goals – known as “nationally determined contributions” – which are due in February 2025.

A few big players – such as Brazil, the United Kingdom, and the United Arab Emirates – have already indicated they’ll be announcing their new targets at Baku.

There will also be plenty of pressure on other nations to ramp up their targets. That’s because existing commitments put the world far off track to meeting the globally agreed target of limiting planetary warming to 1.5°C – a threshold beyond which devastating climate harms are expected.

The host nation Azerbaijan is also keen to increase transparency around reporting obligations for countries, to make it easier to track progress against emissions targets.

What about Australia?

Australia will almost certainly not be outlining a new emissions target in Baku. It has already signalled it may announce its updated targets after the February 2025 deadline.

For Australia, the main issue at Baku may be whether we – alongside at least one Pacific country – will be announced as the hosts of COP31 in 2026. Australia is tipped to win, but Turkey is a significant competitor.

Read more:
It’s a big deal if Australia and the Pacific are chosen to host UN climate talks. Here’s why

What does success look like?

Azerbaijan sees agreement on a new collective quantified goal for climate finance as the most important outcome of the conference.

This and other finance outcomes will be important in ensuring a fair distribution of costs from the impact of climate change and the necessary energy transition.

Action on long stalled carbon trading cooperation would also be a win, and could turbocharge the global energy transition.

But real success would come in the form of significant new emissions targets and explicit endorsement of the need to move away from fossil fuels. Sadly, the latter is not prominent on the Baku agenda.

Humanity has run out of time to prevent climate change, and we are already seeing real damage. But an opportunity remains to minimise the future harm. We must pursue urgent and sustained international action, regardless of who is in the White House.

Matt McDonald has received funding from the Australian Research Council and the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council.

– ref. The COP29 climate talks are about to kick off in Baku, Azerbaijan. Here’s what to expect – https://theconversation.com/the-cop29-climate-talks-are-about-to-kick-off-in-baku-azerbaijan-heres-what-to-expect-242706

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harry Moore, Adjunct Research Fellow, School of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia

Perth is no stranger to hot and dry summers, but the period from October 2023 to April 2024 was exceptional. The city’s rainfall for these seven months was only 23 millimetres, the lowest since records began in the 1870s. It was also one of the warmest summers on record, with temperatures 1.7°C higher than the long-term average.

The “canary in the coalmine” is a metaphor for an early warning that something is wrong. In this case, though, it wasn’t the birds that first alerted us. Rather, we saw the drought’s impacts on our iconic and unique vegetation.

Jarrah, marri, karri and banksia trees, some as old as 100 years, began to die. The die-offs created a mosaic of brown patches across 1,000 kilometres of south-west Australia’s otherwise green forest.

The region’s ecosystems are diverse and complex. As the drought took hold, there were more subtle changes beyond the visible tree deaths. Perth has a community of avid birdwatchers who began noticing bird species rarely seen in the city, or known to be infrequent visitors.

We analysed bird observation data from the global citizen science platform, eBird, to determine which species had increased in the Perth metropolitan area at this time. We found a dramatic spike in reporting rates for four species – the black-shouldered kite, black-tailed nativehen, tawny-crowned honeyeater and western spinebill. Some species were reported up to nine times more than usual.

Birds sought refuge in the city

These shifts hint at how extreme weather can push wildlife into new and unexpected spaces.

The black-shouldered kite, a nomadic bird of prey, is often found in heath and woodlands in south-western Australia, as well as in rural landscapes. The black-tailed nativehen is more commonly associated with inland wetlands but is known to appear suddenly in large numbers in new habitats and then disappear just as quickly. Honeyeaters, such as the tawny-crowned honeyeater and the western spinebill, tend to favour coastal heathlands and forests. So why were they turning up in Perth city?

We suggest it’s likely because the drought stripped their usual habitats of vital resources, particularly food and water.

The city, on the other hand, although also hot and dry at this time, had water in remnant wetlands, the Swan River, artificial lakes and ponds, and people’s gardens. These areas may also have nectar-rich plants for the honeyeaters, insect populations perhaps eaten by the black-tailed nativehen, and rodents or rabbits for the black-shouldered-kite. We think these urban environments became temporary refuges, providing a different water and food source for these birds.

A long history of bird immigration

This isn’t the first time birds have flocked to Perth during challenging environmental conditions.

Galahs, for example, were confined historically to inland areas. Early explorers such as John Gould and John Forrest noted their absence around the Swan River colony. They weren’t common in this area until after the second world war, following a series of dry years.

In many cities in Australia, cockatoos are known to take advantage of watered lawns, sports fields, parks and artificial lakes in cities. These resources have created a novel urban habitat for these birds.

This also happens in rural towns. Parrots, birds of prey and our beloved “bin chickens” (white ibis) have increased in these towns as inland rainfall declines.

The short-term movement of species such as the black-shouldered kite, western spinebill and tawny-crowned honeyeater into cities represents a new chapter in this urban immigration story. Perhaps we should expect more drought migrants as the climate crisis continues to impact their natural habitats.

On the front-line of climate change

South-west Western Australia is a global biodiversity hotspot. It is also considered one of the most climate-vulnerable regions in the world.

In Perth, annual rainfall has decreased by around 130mm (15%). That’s a drop from about 860mm to 730mm over the past 30 years (1993–2023) compared to the previous 30 years (1959–1988).

This long-term drying trend, combined with rising temperatures, puts immense pressure on the ecosystems local wildlife depends on. The drought event of 2023–24 may be a precursor of what’s to come. More research is needed to understand the movements of birds and other wildlife in response to these events.

To the relief of those watching the landscape turn brown, it started raining in May 2024. We bought ourselves a rain gauge to celebrate, and waited to see what the next months of eBird data would reveal. The data showed all four drought immigrants retreated from the city almost as quickly as they had arrived.

This movement supported the theory that these birds were using the city only as a temporary refuge during the harshest drought months.

Observations of unusual bird behaviour highlight the complex relationship between wildlife and urban environments under climate stress. While cities may offer some refuge, they are not a long-term solution for wildlife facing habitat loss. Indeed, the spread of urban areas poses its own major threats to bird communities.

As the climate crisis intensifies, integrating urban areas into conservation plans could be crucial for supporting species during extreme events. Individuals, councils and urban planners may be able to increase the quality of the refuges in cities in relatively simple ways. Planting more native vegetation and providing safe water sources for visiting wildlife would be a good start.

Harry Moore receives funding from the Western Australian Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions.

Anna Cresswell 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. In a record-breaking drought, bush birds from around Perth flocked to the city – https://theconversation.com/in-a-record-breaking-drought-bush-birds-from-around-perth-flocked-to-the-city-241795

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kathleen McGuire, Senior Lecturer in Education (Music), National School of Education, Faculty of Education and Arts, Australian Catholic University

The iconic sound of an orchestra tuning is highly recognisable, even for those who’ve never set foot in a concert hall. Many of us first heard it while watching a Looney Tunes cartoon.

Have you ever wondered why the oboe begins the tuning? How is the starting note decided? With access to electronic tuning devices, along with advancements in materials and manufacturing enabling instruments to better sustain their pitch, is the tuning ritual still needed? What is the purpose, beyond building excitement or signalling the conductor’s entrance?

Whether or not professional orchestras’ tuning rituals are required, there is something inherently comforting about it for audiences.

Enter the oboe

The earliest orchestras, in the Baroque era, comprised a non-standard set of instruments. One combination could have been a harpsichord, a few string players (violin, viola, viola da gamba), one or more wind instruments, and perhaps even timpani.

As the number of string players grew in the orchestra, the flute replaced the quiet recorder.

The oboe brought complex, contrasting overtones, plus a limited yet stable tuning range controlled mostly by a pair of “fixed” reeds.

These factors made the oboe the practical choice as the tuning instrument in the Baroque era.

By the 1800s, the size and instrumentation were much like the modern orchestra. An order was added to the tuning ritual, with each “family” of instruments taking its turn to tune with the oboe.

When a fixed-pitch instrument, such as an organ, was included with the orchestra, the oboe would be tuned to it before the ritual began.

These tuning traditions continue today.

Constantly retuning

The tuning ritual heard by the audience is just the tip of the iceberg. Many instruments need micro-tuning adjustments throughout a performance.

Tuning can also slip, which may be caused when string or brass instruments need to use a mute. The mute lowers the volume and adds a different tonal quality, but it can also slightly alter the pitch of the instrument.

Tuning is also affected by changes in temperature or humidity as the instrument warms while being played or cools due to external changes.

Consider the weather during the opening ceremony of the 2024 Paris Olympics – it would have been challenging to keep the instruments in tune in the rain and extreme humidity.

Depending on the instrument, sometimes when the pitch slips it cannot be adjusted mid-performance.

In a recent concert I conducted at St Patrick’s Cathedral, Melbourne, the yidaki was slightly out of tune after being perfectly in tune two hours earlier in rehearsal. The difference? The yidaki’s wood was affected by a sudden drop in temperature when a thunderstorm came through mid-concert.

Pipe organs suffer the same fate at the mercy of the weather with their large, metal components.

What makes an ‘A’?

The traditional tuning note is A. This stems from the open A string being common to all orchestral string instruments.

The oboist plays a long A when instructed by the concert master – usually the lead violinist – who stands and indicates to the oboist and then to each section of the orchestra when it’s time to tune.

The string players tune their A strings, from which they can tune their other strings. In turn, other sections of the orchestra also tune to A. When the tuning ends and the instruments are silent, the orchestra is ready to perform.

This all seems straightforward, but there are variations on what an A should sound like. An audio frequency of A=440 hertz (Hz) is considered standard or “concert” pitch, although this is a fairly modern concept.

Tuning forks were invented in Europe in the early 1700s, around the same time as the emergence of orchestras. Based on tuning forks and organs remaining from the 18th and 19th centuries, such as Beethoven’s tuning fork, historians have identified concert pitches ranging from 395 to 465Hz.

Efforts to standardise concert pitch at A=440Hz arose in the 19th century, further reinforced in the 20th century.

Today, the pitch used may be decided by historically informed performance, adopting the likely tuning from when the music was composed. Giuseppe Verdi, for instance, campaigned for Italy to adopt concert pitch A=432Hz. Using the slightly lower tuning for Verdi’s Messa da Requiem is justifiable, allowing for the choir to execute extended high passages more comfortably.

In the 1960s, conductor Herbert von Karajan decided the Berlin Philharmonic sounded “brighter” when tuned to A=443–444Hz. This trend continues today for several prominent orchestras: The New York Philharmonic tunes to A=442Hz, and the Vienna Philharmonic to A=443Hz.

Changing rituals

Is the tuning ritual essential? It depends.

Earlier this year I saw Wicked. The orchestra tuned very quickly. Practicalities can trump ritual – especially on days with matinee and evening shows, each running almost three hours.

Symphony orchestras comprise mostly acoustic instruments. In contrast, modern musical theatre orchestras often include electronic instruments and a rhythm section, with synthesizers that don’t need tuning.

Compared with a large auditorium, a pit may have fewer temperature fluctuations. When needed, pit players use electronic tuning devices. Some play multiple instruments in each performance, which are tuned in advance and during the performance.

Despite contemporary advancements, the tradition of an orchestra tuning in the presence of an audience is a special, transcendent moment, unique to the live concert experience.

Kathleen McGuire has worked for organisations that have received funding from Creative Victoria (State Government of Victoria), the City of Boroondara and the City of Melbourne. She has received grants from Australian Catholic University, the University of Melbourne, and other entities in the United States.

– ref. Why is the oboe used to tune an orchestra? And other questions about tuning, answered – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-oboe-used-to-tune-an-orchestra-and-other-questions-about-tuning-answered-238203

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

US President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to fire the chair of the US Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell.

Up until this week, that may have seemed like a distant and outlandish prospect. Now, we again have to take it seriously.

Powell himself certainly is – and has already begun pushing back on the front foot. Responding to the threat on Thursday, he insisted he will not resign. Further, he said any attempt by Trump to remove him was “not permitted under the law”.

Whether Trump actually attempts to follow through on his threat will provide an early litmus test of any potential authoritarian tendencies.

Powell’s dismissal would breach long-standing norms of central bank independence. If successful, such a move could have a serious impact on democracy and the separation of powers, with consequences around the world.

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

An old quarrel

The feud between Trump and Powell is nothing new. Trump himself actually appointed Powell to the Federal Reserve governorship back in 2018. However, like many of his other appointees, Trump soon turned against Powell.

Criticising the Federal Reserve for not cutting interest rates quickly enough in 2019, Trump called Fed officials “boneheads”, accusing Powell of having “No ‘guts’, no sense, no vision!”

Beyond Trump, many economists have praised Powell’s management of monetary policy, which has successfully reduced spiralling inflation rates. President Joe Biden was sufficiently convinced to appoint Powell to a second four-year term as chair which began in 2022.

Trump, though, only stepped up his criticisms, many of which became inconsistent with his earlier position. In February this year, he was suddenly blasting Powell for even contemplating interest rate cuts.

Trump claimed baselessly that it was a political move by Powell – a lifelong Republican – to help Democrats win the presidential election.

Could Trump actually fire Powell?

Trump has repeatedly claimed he has the power to fire Powell, and that as president he should have influence over the setting of interest rates.

The relevant legislation holds that a member of the Federal Reserve board may be “removed for cause by the president”. But in this context, courts have interpreted “for cause” to refer to misconduct or impropriety. The president cannot remove the members of the board purely for policy or political reasons.

However, Trump could attempt to demote Powell from chair to an ordinary member of the Federal Reserve, and put another candidate in charge. Here, there is less of a legal precedent. Previous presidents have always assumed they did not have the power to do this.

The closest historical precedent lies in an attempt by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to fire the commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission in 1933. Here, the courts ultimately found in favour of the commissioner’s independence.

But the legal landscape has changed. It is possible that a Supreme Court sympathetic to Trump – which has previously found in favour of expanded executive presidential power – might reach different conclusions.

Inflation, inflation, inflation

If Trump does attempt to remove Powell, it will radically affect the independence of the Federal Reserve. That could seriously impact its ability to set interest rates free from direct political interference.

This would likely increase inflation in the long run. If markets believe politicians are likely to interfere in the setting of interest rates to favour their own short-term political interests, investors will expect lower interest rates in the future.

This expectation alone is sufficient to cause inflation, and a major reason why most developed countries now insulate their central banks from direct political control.

Ironically, promising to reduce inflation was a central plank of Trump’s successful election campaign. How Trump approaches Powell’s future will therefore be closely watched by markets.

Checks and balances

Trump’s view that the president should have power over both independent government agencies and interest rates reflects his widely noted “populist” approach to politics.

Populist politicians claim to embody the popular democratic will. Accordingly, they often oppose institutional checks and balances on their powers, viewing them as impediments to the democratic mandate they claim to represent.

The US political system has historically had a lot of checks and balances. The idea is to limit the amount of power any one politician or party can accrue.

The “separation of powers” – a cherished principle in the United States and beyond – seeks to spread power out across different institutions such as the judiciary, the legislature, the presidency and other independent institutions.

If Trump fires Powell, it will provide a strong indicator of how a second Trump presidency will approach the separation of powers, and suggest concerns about Trump’s future authoritarian intentions are justified.

Read more:
With Trump returning to the White House, what will happen to his court cases?

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

– ref. Trump has threatened to fire the chair of the US Federal Reserve. That could be bad news for inflation – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-threatened-to-fire-the-chair-of-the-us-federal-reserve-that-could-be-bad-news-for-inflation-243260

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

The $7 billion Australian mining giant Mineral Resources (MinRes) is facing a governance crisis.

Chris Ellison, the company’s founder and managing director, faces allegations of tax evasion and using company resources for his personal benefit.

Ellison is now set to stand down as managing director in the next 12 to 18 months. He’ll also pay the company almost $9 million in penalties.

But serious questions remain about how the company got into this situation in the first place. Concerns about the way the MinRes board handled the situation have hurt the company’s standing.

So, can MinRes regain its credibility and avoid future crises? And what are the broader corporate governance issues for Australia’s business community?

A number of allegations

Recent media reporting has raised a number of allegations of unethical conduct and lack of transparency against Chris Ellison.

Ellison and some other (yet to be named) senior executives have been accused of using offshore entities to bypass Australian tax reporting. This allegedly enabled personal spending and inflated equipment sales at the expense of shareholders.

There are also allegations he and unnamed others charged the company above-market rent on properties owned by executives.

On Monday, the board updated shareholders on findings from its own investigation.

It concluded Ellison had “on occassion” used company resources for his own personal projects. A new independent committee will continue to review related party transactions involving Ellison.

The board concluded Ellison’s use of company resources hadn’t caused MinRes any material financial harm. But its findings still raise serious questions about governance oversight at the firm – and in Australia more generally.

A slew of problems

Key concerns include perceptions that:

• the board failed to act promptly
• conflicts of interest were inadequately managed
• the decision to keep Ellison on for another 12 to 18 months – despite the board describing his actions as “profoundly disappointing” – could harm the firm’s public image.

MinRes has also relied heavily on Ellison’s leadership since its founding, raising questions about succession planning.

Both the Australian Institute of Company Directors and G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance emphasise the importance of regularly refreshing leadership.

Long-term reliance on any single leader should be avoided.

Some may also argue the board wasn’t transparent enough when it first learned about many of the allegations back in 2022.

To regain the trust of shareholders and the public, the MinRes board will have to address all these issues and strengthen its commitment to ethical oversight.

A governance wake-up call

The crisis at MinRes offers some essential lessons for boards across Australia.

The long-term financial consequences will depend heavily on how well the board can take decisive action and stabilise investor confidence. A mishandled scandal could permanently impair the company’s valuation, especially if any further issues come to light.

However, governance failures can have ripple effects that extend beyond the companies directly involved. They can erode public trust in corporate Australia as a whole.

We’ve recently seen a range of high-profile examples, including PwC Australia’s misuse of confidential government information and the unlawful termination of 1,700 Qantas workers.

This only underscores the urgent need to repair trust in the business sector, with strong, ethical governance standards.

The role of a company board

Despite the board’s ultimate findings, questions remain about whether the governance practices were robust enough to detect and address these issues sooner.

The role of the board of any organisation is always going to be complex. Under Australian law, their overarching requirement is to:

exercise their powers and discharge their duties in good faith in the best interest of the corporation and for a proper purpose.

From the outside, the current board of MinRes appears to tick all the boxes of good governance.

It is made up of nine members, eight of whom are independent, with the remaining position held by the managing director.

There appears to be no indication the board was compromised – which may occur if board members are large shareholders or have financial interests in other companies that MinRes might deal with.

It could therefore be expected that they have been acting in the best interests of MinRes, to the best of their ability.

But did the board have the skills and ability, for example, to be aware of the use of company resources by the managing director?

Adviser to institutional investors, CGI Glass Lewis, has called for more accountability for former directors who were on the board at the time the allegations took place.

Where were the regulators?

The nation’s corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), has now commenced a formal investigation. But some stakeholders might feel earlier regulatory intervention could have helped.

Ellison reportedly sought an agreement with the Australian Tax Office to keep his offshore tax arrangements confidential, potentially limiting broader regulatory awareness.

It’s too early to say what the corporate regulator will find. But there appears to be an opportunity for regulators to evaluate how they approach oversight in complex, high-stakes corporate environments.

Gerhard is a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors, CFA Institute and CFA Societies Australia.

Deborah Cotton is a member of the Australian Insititute of Company Directors and the Australian Sustainable Finance Institute.

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

– ref. What does the Mineral Resources crisis tell us about the state of corporate governance in Australia? – https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-mineral-resources-crisis-tell-us-about-the-state-of-corporate-governance-in-australia-243038

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicholas Xavier Dynon, Doctoral Candidate, Centre for Defence & Security Studies, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

Facial recognition technology is becoming more widely used, but this has not been matched by wider acceptance from the public.

Controversies continue to hit the media, with both public and private sector organisations frequently outed for flawed deployments of the technology.

The New Zealand Privacy Commissioner is currently evaluating the results of retailer Foodstuff North Island’s trial of live facial recognition in its stores.

The commissioner is also considering a potential code on the use of biometrics that would govern the use of people’s unique physical characteristics to identify them.

But as facial recognition becomes more common, public acceptance of the technology is inconsistent.

Retail stores, for example, tend to attract controversy when using facial recognition technology. But there has been little resistance to the use of it in airports. And the vast majority of people have no problem unlocking their phones using their faces.

My research draws together 15 studies on the public acceptance of facial recognition technology from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia.

There has been little analysis of New Zealand attitudes to the technology. So, these studies offer a view into how it is accepted in similar countries.

What I found is that public acceptance of facial recognition technology depended on the location of the recording – and why it was being captured.

Trusting personal use

According to the global research, individuals tended to place trust in the facial recognition technology on their own smart phones.

According to a 2019 study from the US, 58.9% of people were comfortable with using facial recognition to unlock their smartphone. And a 2024 survey found 68.8% of Australians felt the same.

This is interesting because while individuals physically “operate” the technology via an app on their phone, they don’t control the app itself or the data it collects.

Acceptance is, therefore, a product of perception. When someone uses facial recognition technology on their own phone they feel in control.

Less trust in the government

Public acceptance of government use of facial recognition varied greatly depending on what it was being used for.

The more familiar people were with a particular technology, the higher their level of acceptance of it was.

People were comfortable with governments using facial recognition for identifying passengers at airport customs, for example. But they were less happy with its use in identifying voters at polling places.

When it came to its deployment by police, people generally accepted the use of facial recognition technology to identify terrorists and investigate serious crimes. But research found resistance to it being used to identify minor offences and antisocial behaviours, such as parking violations and littering.

People were also uncomfortable with the idea of it being used in court to gain a conviction in the absence of other forms of evidence.

The more ambiguous the use of the technology was, the greater the degree of discomfort around it.

Deployments such as “monitoring crowds as they walk down the street” and “day-to-day policing” lead to concerns over ubiquitous surveillance and the loss of “practical obscurity” (the idea that even in public spaces, you have the right to some level of privacy).

Wary of the private sector

As mixed as public acceptance of government facial recognition technology may be, it was generally greater than that for the private sector.

People place little trust in businesses’ ability to operate the technology responsibly.

According to a 2024 survey from New Zealand’s privacy commissioner, 49% of respondents said they were concerned or very concerned about the use of facial recognition technology in stores.

But as the acceptability data on government use demonstrated, context is key.

Retail-focused research found the public was more accepting of facial recognition technology to identify shoplifters, antisocial patrons and fraudsters than for other purposes – such as loyalty programs, advertising, payments and the tracking of customer behaviour.

In the workplace, security-related deployments attracted limited although greater acceptance than uses relating to employee location and behaviour tracking.

The need for social licence

The question of why facial recognition technology is controversial in some cases but widely accepted in others is an important one.

The absence of research into the public acceptance of facial recognition in New Zealand means there is no evidence basis upon which to establish the social licence for the technology.

There is also a limited understanding of the range of scenarios social licence might cover.

As private businesses and public organisations increasingly use facial recognition technology, it’s important to understand more about how the public feels about having their faces recorded and matched to their identity in real time.

The author is employed by Optic Security Group.

– ref. In your face: our acceptance of facial recognition technology depends on who is doing it – and where – https://theconversation.com/in-your-face-our-acceptance-of-facial-recognition-technology-depends-on-who-is-doing-it-and-where-242590

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Markus Wagner, Professor of Law and Director of the UOW Transnational Law and Policy Centre, University of Wollongong

US President-elect Donald Trump achieved a resounding victory on several fronts. He will comfortably govern with a likely majority in the Senate and the House of Representatives, with little to no opposition from Republican members of Congress.

Having reshaped the US federal judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court, to his liking in his first term, he now has the chance to cement this judicial legacy for decades.

But he is also the first sitting or former president to be criminally convicted. As with many things Trump, this is uncharted territory.

Until election day, the then-former president faced the possibility of spending decades behind bars. The two federal indictments against Trump will disappear either before or shortly after his inauguration. While Trump cannot wave a magic wand over the two cases before state courts, his chances of having to govern from prison are slim.

The federal cases

The two federal cases are the easiest for Trump to get out of. Attorney-General Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith as special counsel for the two cases against Trump over his efforts to undermine the 2020 elections and his handling of classified documents after stepping down from the presidency in 2021.

In June and July 2023, Trump was charged with dozens of felonies over retaining classified records after he had left the White House. In an often protracted and baffling pretrial process, the judge first postponed and then dismissed the case entirely on July 15 2024. Trump appointee Judge Aileen Cannon found Smith’s appointment was unconstitutional. The decision is under appeal.

On August 1 2023, Smith charged Trump with four crimes pertaining to federal election interference in connection with events prior to and on January 6 2021. Trump’s lawyers argued he was immune from prosecution because he acted in his official capacity as president. The Supreme Court stepped in and raised the bar for prosecuting presidents.

Along ideological lines, the court decided that presidents have “absolute immunity” for their “core constitutional powers” and “presumptive immunity” for all other official acts. The case was handed back to the trial court to determine if the charges should be partly or wholly dismissed.

Shortly before the 2024 election, Trump reiterated that he “would fire [Smith] within two seconds. He’ll be one of the first things addressed”. There are no constitutional or legal barriers to a president directing the attorney-general to dismiss federal cases against a president.

It may not have to come to that. A 1973 memorandum from the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), situated within the US Justice Department, argued against the prosecution of a sitting president. Confirming its Watergate-era findings, another OLC memorandum from 2000 stated plainly:

[T]he indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

Smith has already indicated he will likely wind the cases down.

The same rationale was used by former special counsel Robert S. Mueller in the 2019 investigation into Trump and his associates over the interference of Russia in the 2016 elections. In deciding not to pursue criminal charges against Trump, who was then president, the Mueller report relied on that memo.

The Georgia and New York cases

Trump has no formal power over state prosecutions once he assumes the presidency.

The Georgia case involves numerous charges, including an indictment over racketeering in connection with the 2020 elections. The case hit a snag when state prosecutor Fani Willis was accused of having a financial conflict of interest due to hiring Nathan Wade, with whom she had a relationship, as a special prosecutor in the case.

Trump and some of the other defendants tried to get Willis disqualified, a motion that was denied by Georgia courts. The decision is under appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for December 5 2024. The trial court proceedings are on hold, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Should Trump be convicted, he could appeal to a likely amenable Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, which is appointed by the Republican state governor.

Trump was found guilty in a case concerning the falsification of business records in the so-called “hush money case” involving a former adult film star. After a six-week trial in which Trump was held in contempt of court twice, it took a unanimous Manhattan jury less than two days to hand down a guilty verdict on all 34 felony charges brought against him by the Manhattan district attorney. Trump’s lawyers were successful in delaying his sentencing hearing, which is now set for November 26 2024. His punishment could range from a fine to prison time.

Had Trump lost the 2024 election, he would have been sentenced in New York on November 26, and possibly in Georgia at a later stage, if convicted.

Now that he has prevailed, his lawyers are arguing the cases should be thrown out (a hearing has been set for November 12). If that doesn’t work, they may lean on the untested argument that the supremacy clause of the US Constitution prevents state courts from sentencing a president-elect. If judge Juan Merchan decides against Trump, he would have the chance to appeal, including all the way to the US Supreme Court.

The most likely scenario is that Merchan will apply the spirit of the OLC legal memorandum. While it technically applies only to sitting presidents and only binds federal agencies, the requirements of a president-elect make it plausible that Trump’s hearing or his punishment would be postponed at least until he steps down or his term ends in 2029.

The January 6 defendants

Trump’s victory hasn’t only given him temporary respite from criminal punishment. Given his past statements about what happened on January 6 2021, he may also agree to pardon those who have either been convicted or who still face prosecution for the storming of the Capitol. The first applications to delay sentencing until after the Trump inauguration have already been made.

This would be yet another first in US history.

Markus Wagner 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. With Trump returning to the White House, what will happen to his court cases? – https://theconversation.com/with-trump-returning-to-the-white-house-what-will-happen-to-his-court-cases-243128

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Sussex, Associate Professor (Adj), Griffith Asia Institute; and Fellow, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University

With a resounding victory in the US presidential election, Donald Trump can now claim a sweeping mandate to implement his agenda, both foreign and domestic.

Crucially, the result shows you should never bet against self-interest: either for politicians, or for American voters prepared to disregard the most flawed of all characters in the hope he will “fix” their problems.

The guardrails that constrained Trump’s first term – a hostile Senate, opponents in the Republican Party and a public service devoted to serve the nation rather than an individual – have either been swept away, or will likely soon be bent to his will.

The global implications of a confident and unfettered Trump 2.0 will depend very much on what foreign policy path he charts and whom he decides to appoint to key positions.

Among those, we then need to watch who is selected to do his bidding and who will replace them when they inevitably fall out of favour. Early lists of potential appointees include:

• Marco Rubio and Richard Grenell, who have been mentioned as potential secretary of state

• Kash Patel, mooted as CIA director

• Mike Pompeo, the former secretary of state and CIA director during Trump’s first term in office, who may end up at the Pentagon as defence secretary.

Even Mike Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, who resigned just 22 days into his tenure after lying about contacts with Russia’s ambassador to the US, has been mentioned in discussions about senior roles.

So, too, has the self-styled strategic policy expert Elbridge Colby, a former US Defense Department official.

Trump will demand unswerving loyalty from his appointees, while claiming all the credit for their work. But, as he ages, he is also likely to rely heavily on them to take the lead on strategic policy direction.

With that in mind, here are three possible paths a Trump administration might take on the world stage.

1) America First, with compromises

Having trumpeted his credentials as a peacemaker, it is possible Trump returns the US to a position of isolationism and exceptionalism, essentially being a friend and enemy to no one.

That could mean either withdrawing completely from NATO, or making US security assistance so conditional on transatlantic fealty that Europe is essentially captive to his whims.

It could also mean:

• drawing down support for US alliances in Asia and the Pacific

• demanding ever-higher levels of defence spending from security partners

• running a critical eye over any deal that might require the US to commit the lion’s share of resources, or reduce its own military capabilities.

Australia, for instance, will be keen to extract assurances of continued White House support for the AUKUS partnership. This involves Australia buying several nuclear-powered submarines in the early 2030s, in addition to technology sharing between the US and United Kingdom.

This deal is almost certain to be scrutinised by the Trump administration, despite strong support from Republicans in the Congress and Senate.

However, Trump would likely need to make trade-offs to achieve a more isolationist stance.

First, a grand bargain with Russia will be necessary. This is not simply because of Trump’s admiration for Vladimir Putin, but because he has promised to end the war in Ukraine swiftly.

Although Russian ultranationalists are gleefully crowing about Trump’s victory, the Biden administration is scrambling to get US$6 billion (A$9 billion) in military assistance to Kyiv before the handover over power in January. Hence, Trump can’t immediately count on Ukrainian weakness as a precursor to a peace settlement.

Second, in the medium term, it may require a bargain with China. An endless trade war based on tit-for-tat tariffs will drive inflation higher in the US and bite into Trump’s blue-collar, rural voting base.

2) A muscular pivot to Asia

Repeated calls by Trump’s national security loyalists for a confrontational approach to China, coupled to his frustration with America’s European allies, who he believes are free riding on US defence spending, may lead him to pivot to Asia instead.

However, this would entail an even deeper bargain with Moscow. It would have to not only include a deal to end the Ukraine war, but also a more holistic agreement to downscale US-Russian confrontation.

While it is by no means guaranteed Putin would be amenable to this, it would free up US resources to confront China militarily, as well as economically. Trump’s new administration will include many China hawks like Trump loyalist Colby, who have been arguing for years that Beijing poses the gravest threat to US power.

But this pathway will require a firm commitment by Trump (not his strength). It will also require more concrete US security guarantees to its allies in the Asia-Pacific region – in exchange for their commitment to not only help constrain China, but be prepared to participate in a potential conflict.

If Trump does abandon America’s NATO allies, it remains to be seen how even its closest Asian partners would regard his commitment to their security or his ability to manage crises in the region.

3) Peace through strength

A third option would be for Trump to channel former US President Ronald Reagan, seeking to restore and maintain global US primacy. America would lead, but do so pragmatically – and with allies whose interests aligned with its own.

This would be a considerable undertaking, not to mention a costly one. It would require hefty military spending, investment in research and development, re‑establishing American dominance in critical technologies, and finding alternative solutions to supply chains currently dominated by China.

It would also mean doubling down on strategic competition with Beijing, and being prepared to substantially arm proxies (and not just allies) to put pressure on China.

But even this would have limits. As Trump has repeatedly demonstrated, he regards national interests and personal ones as essentially the same thing.

A desire to give Israel a completely free hand, for instance, will have to be moderated by his extensive ties to Saudi Arabia, although Riyadh would certainly approve of Trump’s desire to crack down hard on Iran.

And how Trump deals with dictators will also come under scrutiny.

In the past, his open admiration for Putin, Chinese leader Xi Jinping and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has given America’s partners pause. It has also constrained Trump from achieving his objectives.

Chaos and change

Either one of these pathways will lead to instability and tough choices for America’s partners.

Putin will likely make Trump earn any peace over Ukraine by simply refusing to negotiate until the White House puts sufficient pressure on Kyiv to capitulate. And peace on Russian terms will be fragile, entail painful Ukrainian concessions, spawn bitter insurgent campaigns and critically weaken European security.

Europe now finds itself at a crossroads. It finally has to confront the prospect of being responsible for its own security and defence against a reinvigorated Russia. It will now have to work quickly, spend far more on defence and overcome its crippling institutional inertia.

This will also accelerate the new European security order that is already taking shape, with Poland, the Baltic and Nordic states, and the UK as the main bulwarks against Russia.

In Asia and the Pacific, questions about America’s commitment to security guarantees will drive local arms races and make nuclear proliferation more likely. Countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia and the Philippines will also need to ramp up efforts to work together without the US. That will be easier for some than others.

The upshot? Trust, common values and a commitment to a stable rules-based order are what have sustained and deepened America’s security partnerships.

At the very least, Trump 2.0 will make most US allies wary for the foreseeable future. But the greatest tragedy of all would be if he proceeds with his promised campaign of revenge against internal enemies, deporting millions and using his mandate to create a Potemkin democracy.

I fervently hope that doesn’t happen. But then again, you should never bet against self-interest.

Matthew Sussex has received funding from the Australian Research Council, the Fulbright Commission, the Carnegie Foundation, the Atlantic Council and various Australian government agencies.

– ref. Grand bargain with Putin? Confrontation with China? 3 ways Trump may change America’s place in the world – https://theconversation.com/grand-bargain-with-putin-confrontation-with-china-3-ways-trump-may-change-americas-place-in-the-world-243151

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Associate, Institute for Climate Risk and Response, UNSW Sydney

If you care about saving Earth from catastrophe, you might be feeling a little down about the re-election of Donald Trump as United States president. Undeniably, his return to the White House is a real setback for climate action.

Trump is a climate change denier who has promised to increase fossil fuel production and withdraw the US from the Paris climate deal, among other worrying pledges.

But beyond Trump and his circle, there remains deep concern about climate change, especially among younger people. Support for climate policy remains high in the US and around the world. And studies based on data from 60,000 people in more than 60 countries suggest individuals’ concern about climate change is widely underestimated.

So now is a good time to remember that efforts to tackle the climate crisis – both in Australia and globally – are much bigger than one man. Here are ten reasons to remain hopeful.

1. The global clean energy transition can’t be halted

The global shift to clean energy is accelerating, and Trump can’t stop it. Investment in clean energy has overtaken fossil fuels, and will be nearly double investment in coal, oil and gas in 2024. This is a historic mega-trend and will continue with or without American leadership.

2. Clean energy momentum is likely to continue in the US

Much of the Biden-era spending on clean energy industries went to Republican states and Congressional districts. New factories for batteries and electric vehicles will still go ahead under the Trump administration. After all, entrepreneur Elon Musk – who is expected to join the Trump administration – makes electric vehicles.

Some of Trump’s financial backers are receiving subsidies for clean energy manufacturing and 18 Republican Congress members have gone on record to oppose cuts to clean energy tax credits.

3. The US still wants to beat China

There is bipartisan concern in Washington about the US losing a technological edge to Beijing. China currently dominates global production of electric vehicles, batteries, wind turbines and solar panels. So internal pressure in the US to counter China’s manufacturing might will continue.

4. The federal government is not everything in the US

When Trump was last in power, he withdrew the US from some climate commitments, such as the Paris Agreement. But many state and local governments powered ahead with climate policy, and that will happen this time around, too. For example, California – the world’s fifth largest economy – plans to eliminate its greenhouse gas footprint by 2045. Even Texas, a Republican heartland, is leading a shift toward wind and solar power.

5. The US climate movement will be more energised than ever

During Trump’s first presidency, the US climate movement developed policy proposals for a “Green New Deal”. Many of these proposals were later implemented by the Biden administration. Initial reactions to Trump’s re-election suggest we can expect similar policy advocacy this time around.

6. Global climate cooperation is bigger than Trump

If Trump makes good on his promise to leave the Paris Agreement (again), he will only be leaving the room where the world’s future is being shaped. The US has walked away from global climate agreements before – for example, refusing to join the Kyoto Protocol in 2001. But other nations rallied for global action, and will do so again.

7. The rules-based global order will remain

When a nation walks away from rules that have been agreed after decades of negotiation, responsible countries must work together to bolster global cooperation. This applies to trade and security – and climate is no different.

As our Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently explained, Australia, as a middle power on the world stage, wants:

a world where disputes are resolved by engagement, negotiation and by reference to rules [and] norms […] We don’t want a world in which disputes are resolved by power alone.

8. Australian diplomacy matters

Australia is seeking to co-host the United Nations climate talks with Pacific island countries in 2026, and is emerging as the favourite. Hosting the conference, known as COP31, would be a chance for Australia to help broker a new era of international climate action, even if the US opts out under Trump.

Hosting the talks would also help cement Australia’s place in the Pacific and assist our Pacific neighbours to deal with the climate threat.

9. Australia’s clean energy shift is accelerating

About 40% of Australia’s main national electricity grid is powered by renewables and this is set to rise to 80% by 2030. Some states are surging ahead – for example, South Australia is aiming for 100% renewables by 2027.

Australians love clean energy at home, too. One in three households have rooftop solar installed, making us a world-leader in the technology’s uptake. Trump’s occupation of the Oval Office cannot stop this momentum.

10. Trump cannot change the science of climate change

The science is clear – burning coal, oil and gas fuels climate change and increases the risk of disasters that are harming communities right now. In Australia, we need look no further than the Black Summer bushfires in 2019-20 and unprecedented Lismore floods in 2022.

And the damage is happening across the globe. In October, twin hurricanes in the US – made stronger by the warming ocean – left a damage bill of more than US$100 billion. And hundreds of people died when a year’s worth of rain fell in one day in Spain last month.

On gloomy days – like, say, the election of a climate denier to the White House – it might feel humanity won’t rise to Earth’s biggest existential challenge. But there are many reasons for hope. The vast majority of us support policies to tackle climate change, and in many cases, the momentum is virtually unstoppable.

Wesley Morgan is a Climate Council fellow.

Ben Newell receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. 10 reasons why US president-elect Donald Trump can’t derail global climate action – https://theconversation.com/10-reasons-why-us-president-elect-donald-trump-cant-derail-global-climate-action-243251

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

Republican Donald Trump won the United States presidential election by 312 electoral votes to 226 for Democrat Kamala Harris. Trump carried the seven key states of Georgia (16 electoral votes), North Carolina (16), Arizona (11), Nevada (six), Wisconsin (ten), Michigan (15) and Pennsylvania (19).

Arizona and Nevada have not yet been called for Trump, but he will win them both. Joe Biden had defeated Trump by 306 electoral votes to 232 in 2020. At this election, Trump gained Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada. He won all the states he won in 2016 against Hillary Clinton, plus Nevada.

Analyst Nate Silver’s final forecast had given Trump a 20% chance to win all seven key states. The pre-election polls did not have to be very wrong for Trump to do this.

Trump leads in the national popular vote by 50.7–47.7. When The New York Times Needle was turned off early Wednesday morning US time, Trump was forecast to win the popular vote by 1.5%. There are many more votes left in Democratic strongholds like California.

This will be the first time a Republican has won the popular vote since 2004. In 2020, Biden won the popular vote against Trump by 51.3–46.8.

The New York Times said 90% of counties with nearly complete results as of Wednesday morning had swung to Trump since 2020. The swing was greatest in counties with over 25% Hispanics, with a shift since 2020 of 9.5 points towards Trump. There were similar swings to Trump in urban and suburban counties.

New York City has five boroughs. Silver said whites have just 9% of the population in the Bronx and 24% in Queens, with Hispanics having a plurality of the population in both boroughs.

In the 2012 presidential election, Republican Mitt Romney won just 8% of the vote against Democrat Barack Obama in the Bronx and 20% in Queens. There was virtually no swing to Trump in 2016 from Romney, but he has had big swings in his favour in the following two elections. Trump won 27% in the Bronx and 38% in Queens on Tuesday.

I wrote on Wednesday about a huge shift since 2016 in Trump’s favour in Florida’s Miami-Dade county, which is heavily Hispanic. Democrats can’t rely on the Hispanic vote anymore.

The Wall Street Journal said that according to exit polls, Trump won men aged 18–29 by 55–42. In 2020, Biden won this demographic by 56–41.

As no county’s population is of young men only, county-level data cannot be used to extrapolate how young men voted, and exit polls are flawed. But if this huge swing to Trump among young men is true, it probably reflects a backlash against feminism.

Congressional elections

Republicans have won the Senate by 52–45 over Democrats (including allied independents), gaining three states that Trump won easily: West Virginia, Montana and Ohio. However, Democrats have won or are leading in four of the five presidential key states that Trump won that also held Senate contests (Pennsylvania is the exception).

If the contests in Arizona, Nevada and Pennsylvania go to the current leader, Republicans will win a 53–47 Senate majority. If Democrats have a very good 2026 midterm election, they may regain Senate control. Republicans will be defending 21 of the 34 seats up for election in 2026.

In the House of Representatives, Republicans lead Democrats by 210 seats to 198 with 218 needed for a majority. If uncalled races are assigned to current leaders, Republicans currently lead by 224–211. However, some seats still have many votes left to count, and Democrats will hope to reverse some Republican leads.

Australian Essential poll gave Harris a 41–33 lead over Trump

In an Australian federal Essential poll that was conducted before the US election (October 30 to November 3) from a sample of 1,131, Harris led Trump by 41–33. This contrasts with a Resolve poll in early October that gave Harris a 52–21 lead. By 43–29, respondents thought a Trump presidency would be bad for Australia.

On Australian voting intentions, the Coalition remained ahead by 49–47 including undecided (48–46 in late October). This was despite a primary vote movement to Labor, who were up three to 31%, with the Coalition down one to 34%, the Greens steady on 12%, One Nation up two to 9%, the UAP steady at 2%, all Others down one to 8% and undecided down one to 5%.

On abortion, 41% thought it should be legal in all cases, 38% legal in most cases, 14% illegal in most cases and 7% illegal in all cases. At least 58% thought politicians should not accept access to various special events and benefits.

Interest in the Melbourne Cup horse race has recovered since last year. Now 16% (up five since November 2023) say they have high interest, 30% moderate interest (up six), 26% little interest (down one) and 26% no interest (down nine). By 52–48, respondents said they would not bet on the Cup (61–39 last year).

Morgan poll: Labor just ahead

A national Morgan poll, conducted October 21–27 from a sample of 1,687, gave Labor a 50.5–49.5 lead, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition since the October 14–20 Morgan poll that appeared to be a pro-Labor outlier.

Primary votes were 37.5% Coalition (up one), 30% Labor (down two), 14% Greens (up 0.5), 5.5% One Nation (steady), 9% independents (steady) and 4% others (up 0.5).

The headline figure uses respondent preferences. By 2022 election preference flows, Labor led by 51.5–48.5, a 1.5-point gain for the Coalition.

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

– ref. Further US election analysis: Hispanics and young men swung big to Trump – https://theconversation.com/further-us-election-analysis-hispanics-and-young-men-swung-big-to-trump-243142

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephanie Cowdery, Research Fellow, Carer Hub: A Centre of Excellence in Cancer Carer Research, Translation and Impact, Deakin University

Across the world, one in five people are diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. By age 85, almost one in two Australians will be diagnosed with cancer.

When it happens to someone you care about, it can be hard to know what to say or how to help them. But providing the right support to a friend can make all the difference as they face the emotional and physical challenges of a new diagnosis and treatment.

Here are six ways to offer meaningful support to a friend who has been diagnosed with cancer.

1. Recognise and respond to emotions

When facing a cancer diagnosis and treatment, it’s normal to experience a range of emotions including fear, anger, grief and sadness. Your friend’s moods may fluctuate. It is also common for feelings to change over time, for example your friend’s anxiety may decrease, but they may feel more depressed.

Some friends may want to share details while others will prefer privacy. Always ask permission to raise sensitive topics (such as changes in physical appearance or their thoughts regarding fears and anxiety) and don’t make assumptions. It’s OK to tell them you feel awkward, as this acknowledges the challenging situation they are facing.

When they feel comfortable to talk, follow their lead. Your support and willingness to listen without judgement can provide great comfort. You don’t have to have the answers. Simply acknowledging what has been said, providing your full attention and being present for them will be a great help.

2. Understand their diagnosis and treatment

Understanding your friend’s diagnosis and what they’ll go through when being treated may be helpful.

Being informed can reduce your own worry. It may also help you to listen better and reduce the amount of explaining your friend has to do, especially when they’re tired or overwhelmed.

Explore reputable sources such as the Cancer Council website for accurate information, so you can have meaningful conversations. But keep in mind your friend has a trusted medical team to offer personalised and accurate advice.

3. Check in regularly

Cancer treatment can be isolating, so regular check-ins, texts, calls or visits can help your friend feel less alone.

Having a normal conversation and sharing a joke can be very welcome. But everyone copes with cancer differently. Be patient and flexible in your support – some days will be harder for them than others.

Remembering key dates – such as the next round of chemotherapy – can help your friend feel supported. Celebrating milestones, including the end of treatment or anniversary dates, may boost morale and remind your friend of positive moments in their cancer journey.

Always ask if it’s a good time to visit, as your friend’s immune system may be compromised by their cancer or treatments such as chemotherapy or radiotherapy. If you’re feeling unwell, it’s best to postpone visits – but they may still appreciate a call or text.

4. Offer practical support

Sometimes the best way to show your care is through practical support. There may be different ways to offer help, and what your friend needs might change at the beginning, during and after treatment.

For example, you could offer to pick up prescriptions, drive them to appointments so they have transport and company to debrief, or wait with them at appointments.

Meals will always be welcome. However it’s important to remember cancer and its treatments may affect taste, smell and appetite, as well as your friend’s ability to eat enough or absorb nutrients. You may want to check first if there are particular foods they like. Good nutrition can help boost their strength while dealing with the side effects of treatment.

There may also be family responsibilities you can help with, for example, babysitting kids, grocery shopping or taking care of pets.

5. Explore supports together

Studies have shown mindfulness practices can be an effective way for people to manage anxiety associated with a cancer diagnosis and its treatment.

If this is something your friend is interested in, it may be enjoyable to explore classes (either online or in-person) together.

You may also be able to help your friend connect with organisations that provide emotional and practical help, such as the Cancer Council’s support line, which offers free, confidential information and support for anyone affected by cancer, including family, friends and carers.

Peer support groups can also reduce your friend’s feelings of isolation and foster shared understanding and empathy with people who’ve gone through a similar experience. GPs can help with referrals to support programs.

6. Stick with them

Be committed. Many people feel isolated after their treatment. This may be because regular appointments have reduced or stopped – which can feel like losing a safety net – or because their relationships with others have changed.

Your friend may also experience emotions such as worry, lack of confidence and uncertainty as they adjust to a new way of living after their treatment has ended. This will be an important time to support your friend.

But don’t forget: looking after yourself is important too. Making sure you eat well, sleep, exercise and have emotional support will help steady you through what may be a challenging time for you, as well as the friend you love.

Our research team is developing new programs and resources to support carers of people who live with cancer. While it can be a challenging experience, it can also be immensely rewarding, and your small acts of kindness can make a big difference.

Dr Stephanie Cowdery is the appointed Research Fellow (Cancer Care Centre) for The Cancer Carer Hub funded by the Victorian Department of Health.

Anna Ugalde receives funding from national competitive funding bodies including Victorian Cancer Agency, MRFF, NHMRC and Department of Health and Aged Care.

Trish Livingston receives funding from competitive external granting bodies, including NHMRC, MRFF and Cancer Australia. The Cancer Carer Hub is funded by the Victorian Department of Health.

Victoria White receives funding from national competitive external granting organisations including MRFF and NHMRC, Victorian Department of Health, Breast Cancer Network Australia and Cancer Council Victoria.

– ref. Your friend has been diagnosed with cancer. Here are 6 things you can do to support them – https://theconversation.com/your-friend-has-been-diagnosed-with-cancer-here-are-6-things-you-can-do-to-support-them-239844

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eating earlier in the day

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

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

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

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

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

Eating fewer meals

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

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

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

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

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

Fasting, or time-restricted eating

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

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

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

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

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

What will work for you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What are megacity regions?

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

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

How ready is Australia for megacity regions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What makes change possible?

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

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

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

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

Ubiquitous fast internet

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

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

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

Hybrid work

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

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

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

High-speed rail

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this important now?

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

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

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

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

James Whitten, Peter Newton, and Stephen Glackin do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. How our regions can help make Australia’s growing cities more sustainable – https://theconversation.com/how-our-regions-can-help-make-australias-growing-cities-more-sustainable-240330