Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Ha, Associate, Grattan Institute

The international climate summit in Glasgow aimed to “consign coal power to history”. But while some major coal-consuming countries have agreed to phase out the fossil fuel in the 2030s, Australia is not one of them.

Under its recently released plan to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, the federal government modelled a scenario where the electricity sector still burns coal in 2050 – but only a very small amount.

Despite the federal government’s insistence on keeping coal alive, the states are making progress phasing it out. But a messy, state-by-state approach is almost certainly a higher-cost outcome for consumers than if Australia had a credible, enduring climate and energy policy at the national level.

As recent Grattan Institute analysis finds, if the phase out of coal is managed well, we can keep the lights on and slash emissions at low cost.

Coal economics don’t suit today’s grid

Australia exports far more coal than we consume. But we still have 25 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations, 23 of which produce power for the National Electricity Market (the NEM). These coal-fired power stations are ageing – two-thirds of this capacity is scheduled to close by 2040.

Market conditions are making it hard for these plants to stay profitable, as renewable energy has flooded into the NEM in recent years. Rooftop solar has dramatically cut demand for grid-electricity in the middle of the day, effectively eating coal’s lunch.

Read more:
COP26: the Glasgow climate summit demonstrates an appetite for change Australia simply can’t ignore

On days with abundant wind and sunshine, wholesale electricity prices routinely drop so low they become negative, financially penalising any generators making power at those times.

What’s more, coal-fired power stations are less flexible than batteries, hydroelectric dams, and responsive gas-fired generators. This makes it hard for coal plants to ramp up output when electricity prices are high, or ramp down when prices are low or negative.

The economics of coal-fired generators are simply not well-suited to a system with lots of solar and wind-powered electricity.

Coal stations shutting earlier than expected

Poor economics – combined with higher maintenance costs and increased risk of technical failure – make it difficult to justify keeping ageing coal plants open.

So far this year, three coal-fired power stations have had their closure dates brought forwards: Yallourn in Victoria, and Eraring and Mt Piper in NSW.

Faster closure means less coal generation capacity in future years. For example, the early closures of Yallourn and Eraring will reduce the expected coal generation capacity in 2030 by 1.5 gigawatts.

But the current closure schedule would still leave at least six coal-fired power stations operating in Australia after 2040.

As noted by the CSIRO in July, this is incompatible with Australia pursuing the Paris Agreement goal to limit global warming to 1.5℃ this century.

So what are the states doing?

South Australia closed its last coal-fired power station in 2016, and NSW is set to be next with the Mt Piper station due to close in 2040. That leaves Victoria and Queensland.

Victoria’s Loy Yang A and B power stations use brown coal, making them some of the cheapest but most polluting plants to operate. Victoria has also legislated its commitment to net-zero emissions by 2050 and, by 2030, Victoria plans to use 50% renewable energy.

Pushing even more renewable energy into the state boosts the odds of the remaining coal-fired power stations leaving. In fact, the owners of each of the Loy Yang plants have hinted that their closure dates will come forward.

Read more:
The death of coal-fired power is inevitable — yet the government still has no plan to help its workforce

Queensland is more complicated, as it has Australia’s youngest fleet of coal-fired power stations. Five of them are due to close after 2040.

But of those five, four are partly or fully owned by the Queensland government. That means the timing of their closures is as much a political as an economic question.

Queensland also boasts some of the best renewable resources in the country, including vast tracts of land suitable for renewable energy projects. Combined with its 50% renewable energy target by 2030, the state government has the levers it needs to pull coal-fired generation out of the system by 2040 or earlier.

We need strong, national policy

Grattan Institute analysis finds that a mostly renewable system with no coal – and only a limited role for gas – can maintain a reliable electricity supply while slashing emissions cheaply.

This is because the cost of wind and solar have plummeted, and energy storage such as batteries can help to smooth out daily fluctuations in demand and supply. For rare, sustained periods of high demand, low solar and low wind (which occur every few winters), gas is the lowest-cost backstop solution, at least until the economics of hydrogen become much better.

Read more:
More coal-fired power or 100% renewables? For the next few decades, both paths are wrong

Achieving this outcome by 2040 or earlier will require significant, timely investment in the transmission network within and between states, allowing states to share their supplies and reducing the overall cost to consumers. Keeping a lid on the costs of transmission projects is also crucial – the risk of cost overruns is higher the more complex the project.

There will, of course, be challenges to ensure an orderly coal exit. For example, unexpected closures or breakdowns of coal plants can lead to shortages in electricity supply because investors in the electricity market don’t have enough time to build new capacity.

A national policy to coordinate coal exit would reduce uncertainty for the electricity system.

Grattan has previously recommended coal plant operators nominate a window of time within which their plant will close, combined with a payment of at least $100 million into an escrow fund. The operators’ money would be released only if the plant closes within its nominated window – if it exits unexpectedly, the money would be kept by the market operator to deal with any reliability problems.

Governments could also require that nominated closure windows occur before 2040, not after, if they want to achieve a coal-free NEM by that date. Alternatively – and more efficiently – they could establish an emissions standard for the NEM with tradeable certificates, allowing market participants to meet the emissions standard in the lowest cost way.

Read more:
Economists back carbon price, say benefits of net-zero outweigh costs

Unfortunately, current political reality indicates neither side of politics wants to be seen to support any policy resembling a carbon price, even though carbon pricing has the overwhelming support of Australian economists and the business community.

So, the renewable energy targets of the states are most likely to determine how quickly the NEM becomes coal-free. But if governments can muster the courage, our work shows that it’s possible to achieve a vastly lower-emissions electricity system in less than two decades.

James Ha is a former associate of Grattan Institute and is now a senior associate at Aurora Energy Research. This article does not necessarily reflect the views of either the company or its board.

Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.

Alison Reeve is a former public servant.
Grattan Institute began with contributions to its endowment of $15 million from each of the Federal and Victorian Governments, $4 million from BHP Billiton, and $1 million from NAB. In order to safeguard its independence, Grattan Institute’s board controls this endowment. The funds are invested and contribute to funding Grattan Institute’s activities. Grattan Institute also receives funding from corporates, foundations, and individuals to support its general activities as disclosed on its website.

– ref. Coal plants are closing faster than expected. Governments can keep the exit orderly – https://theconversation.com/coal-plants-are-closing-faster-than-expected-governments-can-keep-the-exit-orderly-172150

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By D. Rex Mitchell, Postdoctoral Fellow, Flinders University

Each year, thousands of wild animals across the world are rescued. They can include young animals saved from abandonment, injury, disease or the death of their parents. Animal carers around the world work tirelessly to help these little animals heal and grow until they are ready to be released back into the wild.

But there can be differences between what captive animals are fed and what wild animals eat. Captive diets can include processed or pre-portioned foods, such as minced meat, peeled, diced or pureed fruit, or feed pellets.

While these kinds of foods generally meet the nutritional demands of growing animals, they are much easier to eat than a typical meal in the wild, and this can have drawbacks for young animals that are trying to grow fit and strong.

In my new research, published today in the journal Integrative Organismal Biology, my colleagues and I show how a diet of exclusively soft foods can hamper skull development in growing animals.

Over the past few decades there have been many documented examples of captive animals – including lions, monkeys and marsupial gliders – that have differently shaped skulls to their wild counterparts. These differences are most often found around the bones and locations of muscles used for feeding, prompting some researchers to suggest they are due to differences in diet.

Our research therefore asked whether growing up on a diet that doesn’t need much biting can impact the ability of an adult skull to bite effectively.

Fortunately, we had access to a large, ready-made data set that could help answer this question. Back in 2012, as part of a different research project, 40 rats were fed contrasting diets, from weaning all the way to adulthood. Some ate hard pellets that needed plenty of biting and then chewing; others ate the same food but after it was first ground into powdered meal. When they reached adulthood, CT scans were taken of their skulls.

Using these scans, I created three-dimensional digital models of each rat’s skull, and carried out bite simulations to compare the amount of stress each skull model experienced when subject to the same biting forces. Greater stress would indicate thinner bone.

Biting off more than they can chew

Bones are often thought of as simple, hard objects. But bone is actually a complex living tissue that constantly adapts to its job. Every time a bone is used to perform an action, it bends a tiny bit. The more often a bone bends over time, the thicker it can grow – especially when lifting or moving heavier things.

Sure enough, my simulations showed that the skulls of rats fed powdered meal experienced the most stress during biting. This supports the idea that the rats that ate softer foods while growing up had less bone deposited in their skull, leaving the skull weaker as a result.

What does this mean for rehabilitation and release of our furry friends during conservation programs? Well, it’s similar to exercise. When someone goes running to prepare for a race, they aren’t just training their bones and muscles to run faster, they’re also reducing their risk of injury by conditioning their body to perform a demanding task.

Read more:
Tasmanian devils reared in captivity show they can thrive in the wild

If rescued baby animals are raised on diets full of soft, processed, peeled, chopped, blended or portioned foods, much of the biting and chewing has already been done for them. This means the bones and muscles of their skulls won’t be as conditioned for the tougher foods they may need to eat in the wild. This might leave them more vulnerable to being injured or going hungry when ultimately released.

Naturally, these factors would vary between species. So, these findings simply serve as an additional consideration for all those fantastic animal carers who give their time and effort to conserving our native animals.

Read more:
Like a jackal in wolf’s clothing: the Tasmanian tiger was no wolfish predator — it hunted small prey

Current employer: Flinders University
Previous employer: University of North Texas Health Science Center (UNTHSC)

– ref. Harder foods make for stronger skulls, giving hand-reared animals the best chance of survival in the wild – https://theconversation.com/harder-foods-make-for-stronger-skulls-giving-hand-reared-animals-the-best-chance-of-survival-in-the-wild-172144

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

Australia is a marine nation. First Nations people have deep and unbroken connections to sea, 85% of us live within 50km of the coast, and our ocean territory is twice that of our land mass.

A large part of our economy – the “blue economy” – depends on the sea: tourism, ports, energy, transport, fisheries and aquaculture, and emerging industries like renewable energy, offshore aquaculture, and biotechnology.

Together, these industries are worth more than A$80 billion a year. By 2025, this figure may be $100 billion.

To manage our oceans and coasts to support a growing blue economy means we need to understand them, and that means we need science. At the National Marine Science Committee (NMSC), we have surveyed how well Australia is delivering this science. As we show in a new report, the story is mixed.

The plan

The NMSC is Australia’s peak body for marine research. Its members are almost 40 universities, research institutions and state and federal agencies.

In 2015, the Committee created a blueprint for growing Australia’s blue economy: the National Marine Science Plan: 2015-25.

This plan identified seven grand challenges facing our marine estate:

• marine sovereignty and security

• energy security

• food security

• biodiversity conservation

• sustainable urban coastal development

• climate change adaptation

• equitable, balanced resource allocation.

The plan also made eight recommendations involving initiatives, investment, and priorities to address the challenges.

We are now halfway through the plan’s ten-year scope. While many of the recommendations are on track, others need some work.

The report card

Our oceans face unique challenges, from climate change to managing increasing resource use. Despite pandemic disruptions, scientific progress has continued.

Highlights from the past five years include increasing Australia’s marine research capacity with a new icebreaker for working in the Antarctic and operation of the research ship RV Investigator for 300 days at sea. Coastal research vessels have also continued operations, and the Integrated Marine Observing System has expanded.

Read more:
Explainer: the RV Investigator’s role in marine science

The new report shows science has already helped deliver better outcomes for the blue economy, through things like strategies for fishery harvesting to balance consumer demands with economic and ecological sustainability.

The report also identifies further steps needed to ensure all recommendations are fulfilled. It offers three new recommendations, too.

First, integrate the knowledge, rights, capabilities, and aspirations of Traditional Owners into conventional marine science.

Second, establish national policy guidelines for open access to government-funded or regulatory data. This would include access to historical datasets and expand the Australian Ocean Data Network.

And third, develop an approach to increase the resilience of our coasts.

An unprecedented opportunity

After the economic shock of the pandemic, there is enormous interest in Australia’s blue economy and our ocean health. This can be realised via national and international initiatives and funding focused on sustainable growth.

The Australian government has joined 13 other nations in the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy committing to sustainably manage 100% of their marine estates by 2025.

This year also kicks off the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. The world’s eyes will be on the oceans for the next ten years.

Since 2015, Australia has been building its national marine science capability. Recent initiatives include the Reef Trust Partnership, Blue Economy Cooperative Research Centre (CRC), Marine Bioproducts CRC, investments in marine and coastal science under the National Environmental Science Program, and the [Australian Ocean Leadership Package].

The foundations are there, and the task now is to strengthen and embed our marine science sovereign capability.

A call to action

The report calls on actions from broad sectors of society to ensure Australia’s blue economy continues to grow. It asks:

• the research community to build on and amplify existing resources to establish truly national research programs that incorporate all stakeholder needs

• industry to work with marine scientists and governments to ensure science underpins operational decision-making, risk assessments and future planning, and to create efficient, sustainable businesses

• government to focus on and invest in the blue economy as an important plank in post-COVID economic recovery and a way to create long-term social, cultural and environmental benefits

• the community to recognise the responsibility we all share as a marine nation, and to play an active role in ensuring the long-term health of our oceans and coasts for all Australians.

With a strong blue economy, we can chart a course through the uncertainties of the future and create long-term prosperity for all Australians.

Read more:
In a first discovery of its kind, researchers have uncovered an ancient Aboriginal archaeological site preserved on the seabed

This article was written in conjunction with Dr David Smith, Chair of the National Research Providers Network for Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Toni Moate is Director of CSIRO’s National Collections and Marine Infrastructure.

Anthony Boxshall consults to Federal and State Government departments which could benefit from an expanded blue economy. He also owns a tiny number of shares in BHP. He has a paid appointment by the Victorian Government as the Chair of the Victorian Marine & Coastal Council under the provisions of the Marine & Coastal Act 2018. Rates are public and listed under the rules defining Victorian Government Board appointments. In this role, he advises Ministers on marine and coastal planning and management issues in Victoria.

Michelle Heupel receives funding from the Commonwealth National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, Qld state government, WA state government.

David Souter 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. Australia’s marine industries deliver $80b a year. But without more scientists, the ‘blue economy’ is at risk – https://theconversation.com/australias-marine-industries-deliver-80b-a-year-but-without-more-scientists-the-blue-economy-is-at-risk-170113

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katherine Wynn, Lead Economist, CSIRO Futures, CSIRO

Each dollar invested in research and development (R&D) would earn an average of A$3.50 in economy-wide benefits for Australia, according to evidence compiled in a new report from CSIRO.

Many Australians know research and development drives economic growth and improves our well-being and prosperity. However, few could describe the size of the relationship between Australia’s research and development spending and economic growth, or compare this to performance on other typical investment returns.

Examples of future industries that could be unlocked by research and development in Australia include the quantum technology and hydrogen industries. Examples of emerging technologies that could change the way Australians work and live include artificial intelligence and robotics.

This is significant, given recent figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show business spending on research and development as a proportion of GDP is just half the OECD average, and the lowest it has been since 2003.

We hope our analysis will raise awareness of the value of this kind of spending, and its importance for Australia’s economic recovery and long-term resilience. Investing in innovation now is crucial for the future.

In consultation with government and academic stakeholders, our team at CSIRO Futures, the strategic and economic advisory arm of Australia’s national science agency, used a new yet simple economic approach to quantify the return on investment in overall research and development spending for Australia.

By adapting a method originally developed in the US, we calculated return on investment by defining the relationship between domestic gross spending on research and development, and the growth in per capita gross domestic product (GDP) that follows as a result. This method encompasses both successful and unsuccessful research and development investments, and quantifies only monetary benefits (excluding non-monetary social and environmental benefits).

Our approach also accounts for delays between research and development investments and payoffs, and for the capital costs of integrating research and development into the economy. For example, an innovation of new computer software must be built into existing computer systems, and might therefore take a decade before its use becomes widespread.

Overall, we calculate that $1 of research and development investment creates an average of $3.50 in economy-wide benefits in today’s dollars, and a 10% average annual return for Australia.

By removing the considerations of delays and capital costs, we can also calculate an upper boundary on our estimate – that is, the maximum theoretical return on investment barring any hurdles along the way.

This unadjusted result, which does not account for the additional time and costs associated with integrating research and development into the economy, is estimated as creating $20.80 in economy-wide benefits, and a 104% average annual return for every dollar spent on research and development in Australia.

Even with our conservative estimate of $3.50 return on the dollar, the expected benefits of investing in innovation are high compared with many other types of investments. For example, Australia’s ten-year government bond returns have historically averaged around 7% per year. Private investments in the ASX200 stock index have typically yielded around 10% annually.

Perhaps even more significantly, even our conservative estimate of $3.50 return on investment suggests research and development has a cost/benefit ratio well in excess of $1 to $1. This means there is a strong economic case for this kind of spending.

But research and development investment is risky, right? This may be much less of a problem at a national level. While cost or time overruns are never favourable for any investment, building this uncertainty into our findings shows research and development investment remains economically viable even if this happens.

Results from sensitivity analysis demonstrate that if the costs of research and development spending or delays of payoffs increase by 20%, the most conservative (combined adjustment) results only fall to $3.30 return on investment, with annual yields of 9.5% (at lowest). These are still strong returns.

Read more:
New study confirms what scientists already know: basic research is under-valued

Our findings imply that so far, Australian innovation investments – whether they be in new products and services or in creating new industries – have been well worthwhile, and that increasing future investment could capture substantial economy-wide returns.

As our estimates only capture the economic benefits of innovation, actual returns are likely to be much higher when also considering the broader social and environmental benefits of Australian research and development.

Read more:
Three ways to reform research that won’t break the budget

Katherine Wynn works for the CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.

Jasmine Cohen works for the CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.

Mingji Liu works for the CSIRO, which receives funding from the Australian Government.

– ref. Every dollar invested in research and development creates $3.50 in benefits for Australia, says new CSIRO analysis – https://theconversation.com/every-dollar-invested-in-research-and-development-creates-3-50-in-benefits-for-australia-says-new-csiro-analysis-172300

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Taucher, PhD Candidate in History, Murdoch University

The Australian government established the Office of the Special Investigator last year to investigate allegations made in the Brereton Report that Australian soldiers had committed war crimes in Afghanistan.

Recently, the director-general of the office, Chris Moraitis, told a Senate Estimates Committee it could take anywhere between one to five years before evidence can be presented to the Director of Public Prosecutions, the first step in beginning a trial.

The allegations made against Australian Defence Force members attracted significant public interest when they were announced. So it may seem surprising the team of 50 investigators expect the initial phase of the investigation to take so long. But investigating war crimes is a difficult business for practical reasons, and the uncomfortable legal questions that can arise during the process.

The allegations in this investigation, for starters, go back to 2006. Witnesses may be dead, unavailable, or even unwilling to talk to investigators. Witnesses from the military may prefer to move on from the issue. Incriminating documents may have been destroyed or lost. Crime scenes have likely been irreparably tarnished.

Investigating will be extremely difficult

According to Moraitis, investigators are not currently focused on groundwork in Afghanistan. This could become an important dimension of the probe in the future, though there are obvious logistical problems that would need to be overcome.

First, the Australian government has closed its embassy in Kabul, which limits the amount of support investigators would have and denies them a potential base of operations.

Second, the security situation in Afghanistan remains uncertain, months after the Taliban takeover. Though the Taliban has claimed control of the country, this is limited in many regions. Both the Taliban’s desire and capacity to support Australian investigators is also unclear.

As Moraitis told the committee,

In this space you need to cooperate with the state. At this stage, I don’t know that we can do that. […] Then, when it gets to the operational investigation space, having investigators travel to a place like Afghanistan at the moment is extremely difficult, if not impossible, I dare say.

Moraitis also flagged legal considerations over the kinds of evidence investigators were collecting.

He noted the Brereton report was compiled under statutory powers that allowed investigators to compel witnesses to give evidence. This included self-incriminating evidence, which is inadmissible in Australian criminal courts.

This means any statements provided by witnesses as part of the Brereton report could not be used against them in a future criminal trial in current Australian courts. However, media reports suggest some military personnel are discussing immunity from prosecution if they give evidence against their fellow soldiers.

Read more:
Allegations of murder and ‘blooding’ in Brereton report now face many obstacles to prosecution

How Australia has prosecuted war crimes before

Australian authorities have dealt with difficult war crimes investigations before, such as when prosecuting Japanese war criminals after the second world war.

Back then, the answer to the challenges flagged by Moraitis was a determined investigation effort on the ground where the crimes were alleged to have occurred, and a more relaxed set of rules for evidence in specialised courts. These courts were designed according to purpose-built legislation, the War Crimes Act 1945.

Investigators were sent all over the Asia-Pacific region. Many of the sites were remote, and some were the scene of fighting between returning colonial powers, bandits, and competing political parties. Time pressures were often acute.

On Ambon Island in Indonesia, the location of one of the worst Japanese-run POW camps of the war, understaffed investigators had only three months to build a case before the Dutch colonial rulers insisted the Australians leave.

Due to these obstacles in the investigation stage and the challenges prosecutors foresaw proving war crimes allegations in court, Australia (and allied countries) changed the rules for what kinds of evidence could be submitted. Cases could be run entirely on unsworn affidavits, a form of hearsay evidence.

Hearsay evidence is when a witness or document gives a statement from another person who is not a witness before the court. It is usually prohibited because there is no way to cross-examine the author of the original statement.

Hearsay evidence was allowed in the post-war trials because it was feared war criminals would escape justice due to lack of evidence. As these courts did not feature a jury, but rather a panel of judges with more experience and understanding of different kinds of evidence, it was considered fair for the accused.

Read more:
Why Australian commanders need to be held responsible for alleged war crimes in Afghanistan

Could the International Criminal Court step in?

The practical and legal questions over the Afghanistan investigations will be difficult to resolve without resorting to similar measures used in the past.

The now-updated War Crimes Act has tightened the rules of evidence in Australian war crimes prosecutions to bring them in line with domestic courts. This means hearsay evidence is no longer admissible. With these changes, it seems unlikely the Australian government could create specialised courts for this purpose, like it did with the Japanese defendants.

It is not only the Australian public who will be anxious to see the investigations completed satisfactorily – international onlookers are concerned, too.

The International Criminal Court has already begun its own investigations into alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. The ICC, which Australia is a party to, could take the lead if it determines Australian courts are unwilling or unable to investigate and prosecute a case.

As a specialised court for these kind of cases, the ICC does permit hearsay evidence along the lines of Australia’s post-second world war trials.

The stakes for Australian investigators are high. A failure to build a case that can be taken forward under current Australian law may push the ICC to consider itself better placed to handle the allegations.

This would be a setback for a country that has endeavoured to be seen as a champion of international law, standards, and peacekeeping since the end of the second world war.

Dean Aszkielowicz receives funding from the Army Research Scheme.

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

– ref. Why investigating potential war crimes in Afghanistan just became much harder – and could take years – https://theconversation.com/why-investigating-potential-war-crimes-in-afghanistan-just-became-much-harder-and-could-take-years-171412

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC Principal Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW

Europe is facing a fourth wave of COVID. As we watch on, it is reasonable to ask whether Australia will be confronted with the same fate.

Several factors will determine this: vaccination rates, high uptake of third dose boosters, vaccination of children and whether a comprehensive strategy of ventilation with vaccine-plus measures including masks, testing and tracing are used.

New OzSAGE modelling for NSW shows possible increasing cases from mid-December with a predicted peak in February 2022, despite high vaccination rates. OzSAGE warns if contact tracing is not maintained and children 5–11 remain unvaccinated, hospitals may be overwhelmed again. But if we vaccinate young kids and maintain high testing and tracing, the outlook is good.

If not for Delta …

If the ancestral strains of the virus that dominated infections in 2020 were still in pole position, we would now have COVID well controlled in countries that achieved higher than 70% of the whole population vaccinated.

Unfortunately, just as the vaccines became available, new variants of concern began emerging. The currently dominant Delta variant raises the stakes because it is far more contagious and has some potential to escape the protection offered by vaccines. This means we need very high rates of vaccination across whole populations – probably over 90% of everyone vaccinated including younger children – to control the virus.

In addition, we need to start thinking about “fully vaccinated” being triple, not double, vaccinated.

Read more:
No, vaccinated people are not ‘just as infectious’ as unvaccinated people if they get COVID

Boosters are key

Patchy third dose booster policies in Europe may partially be to blame for the COVID surges we are seeing in countries there now.

Germany, for example, in October recommended boosters for people 70 years and over and certain risk groups. On November 18, it belatedly changed the recommendation to people aged 18 years and over in response to the large resurgence of COVID.

France, too, has been slow and restrictive in making boosters available for adults, with people over 50 eligible from this December. Likewise, Ireland only approved boosters for people 60 years and over at the end of October.

The evidence is clear that boosters are needed. So, on the background of inadequate vaccination rates ranging from 64% in Austria to 76% in Denmark, a slow and restrictive approach to boosters, together with abandoning other measures such as masks, has left many European countries vulnerable.

Read more:
Australians will soon receive COVID booster vaccines. Why do we need them, and how effective are they?

Austria, with one of the lowest vaccination rates, has one of the highest rates of COVID, prompting it to be the first European country to mandate vaccines.

Much of the fourth wave is also being driven by transmission in children. The EU has been slow to approve vaccines for younger children, prompting Austria to commence vaccinating children without EU approval.

Too much reliance on vaccines?

The fourth wave follows the relaxation of COVID restrictions like masks, density limits, testing and tracing; and failure to address safe indoor air.

The Delta virus is a tenacious beast, and the vaccine alone is not enough to tame it. Country after country has shown this, including Denmark, which ceased all restrictions, including masks in September and is now facing a large surge in cases despite relatively high vaccination rates.

The prospect of a fourth wave also depends on the epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2. There is a high probability new variants will emerge that will challenge us further, either because they are even more contagious or more vaccine-resistant.

That said, we have seen spectacular advances in science, with vaccines produced in less than a year. There are many more second generation vaccines and matched boosters in the pipeline, and promising new antivirals for early treatment. So our ability to fight this virus will keep improving.

Read more:
Pfizer’s pill is the latest COVID treatment to show promise. Here are some more

What about Australia then?

So will Australia also face a fourth wave? Yes, it’s likely because SARS-CoV-2 is an epidemic infection. It will continue to cause the waxing and waning cycles of true epidemic infections just like smallpox did for thousands of years, and like measles still does. However, it’s possible we can achieve elimination of COVID just as we have with measles, and only see small outbreaks.

If we’re successful, outbreaks may still occur – but they will not become sustained or uncontrollable. Here’s what Australia can learn from Europe and other countries:

• firstly, we need to aim for at least 90% of the whole population vaccinated – this should be done equitably for all states and territories, for remote and regional areas and for all subgroups including children

• we need to be agile and responsive to evidence, including the need for subsequent boosters. If a new vaccine or Delta-matched booster comes along that improves protection, we need to add that to the tool box rapidly

• childcare and schools are fast becoming the new frontier of COVID. We must ensure safe indoor air, masks and vaccination for younger children by the time students return from summer holidays in 2022

• vaccines alone are not enough, so let’s not be like Denmark and embark on magical thinking. We need to address safe indoor air and have a vaccine-plus strategy. That means masks in indoor settings, maintaining high testing and tracing levels, protecting younger kids until they are eligible for vaccination and ensuring high uptake of boosters.

If we acknowledge the airborne transmission of COVID and adopt effective ways of preventing this virus, we can defeat it.

But that requires a layered, comprehensive strategy of ventilation, vaccine-plus measures and the ability to move quickly with evidence as it becomes available.

New vaccines and new ways of employing them are hopefully on their way. Until they eventuate, we’ll need to be ambitious in our COVID strategy and keep using ventilation, masks and other measures to avoid a severe fourth wave.

Raina MacIntyre is a member of the WHO COVID-19 Vaccine Composition Technical Advisory group, a member of OzSAGE, and has consulted for or been on advisory boards for Janssen, AstraZeneca and Seqirus on COVID-19 vaccines. She has been on advisory boards for Sanofi and Seqirus for influenza vaccines in the past 5 years. She is currently working on a clinical trial of a non-COVID vaccine for Moderna. She currently receives funding from NHMRC (Principal Research Fellowship, Centre for Research Excellence) and the Medical Research Futures Fund, and has done COVID 19 modelling for the Tasmanian Government.

– ref. Will Australia follow Europe into a fourth COVID wave? Boosters, vaccinating kids, ventilation and masks may help us avoid it – https://theconversation.com/will-australia-follow-europe-into-a-fourth-covid-wave-boosters-vaccinating-kids-ventilation-and-masks-may-help-us-avoid-it-172296

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Akka Rimon, PhD Student, Australian National University

Our atoll nation is barely two metres above sea level, and the waters are coming for us.

Despite the progress and momentum of the COP26 climate conference in Glasgow, we are still not moving fast enough to avoid the worst of climate change.

It is heartening that more than 190 countries and organisations agreed to rapidly phase out coal power and end support for new coal power stations. More than 100 countries signed a pledge to cut methane emissions 30% by the end of the decade, and about the same number agreed to stop deforestation on an industrial scale in the same timeframe.

But even with these agreements, we in Kiribati face the death of our homeland. Co-author Anote Tong led our country as president for 15 years, alongside lead author Akka Rimon, who was foreign secretary between 2014 and 2016.

The problem is speed. Our land is disappearing faster than global action can stem climate change. Delays and a lack of global leadership mean the existence of small island states like Kiribati is now in the balance.

That means we must urgently find ways to rehome our people. It is very difficult to leave our homes, but there is no choice. Time is not on our side. We must prepare for a difficult future.

What we need is a model where displaced people can migrate to host nations when their homes become uninhabitable. Countries like Australia need workers – and we will soon need homes.

This is, increasingly, a question of justice. Australia’s actions, in particular, raise questions over how sincere it is in honouring its recent commitments at COP26.

As the world’s largest exporter of fossil gas and the second largest exporter of coal, Australia’s reluctance to change is putting its neighbours in the Pacific at risk of literally disappearing. It is the only developed nation not committed to cut emissions at least in half by 2030.

In Glasgow, Fiji urged Australia to take real action by halving emissions by 2030. Did it work? No. Australia also refused to sign the agreements on ending coal’s reign, with prominent politicians undermining the COP26 agreement as soon as the conference was over.

We desperately hope the commitments Australia did make at COP26 are not just words on paper. But if they are, that makes our need for certainty even more urgent.

Let us speak plainly: If Australia really does plan to sell as much of its fossil fuel reserves as possible and drag its feet on climate action, the least it can do is help us survive the rising seas caused by the burning of its coal and gas.

Read more:
Pacific people have been ‘pummelled and demeaned’ for too long – now they’re fighting back

To migrate with dignity

Eighteen years ago, the Kiribati government – then headed by Anote Tong – introduced a “migration with dignity” policy as a way for I-Kiribati people to adapt to climate change.

We gave our I-Kiribati workers international qualifications tailored for jobs in demand overseas. After this, Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand set up a scheme to allow workers to migrate to New Zealand if they had an offer of a job. Each year prior to COVID, 75 people from Kiribati were able to migrate through the scheme.

New Zealand is the first and only country currently offering a permanent labour migration program from Kiribati. While welcome, we will need more places for I-Kiribati as climate change intensifies.

Like New Zealand, Australia has expanded its seasonal worker schemes for Pacific workers, and is now moving towards a longer stay, multi-visa arrangement under its Pacific Labour Scheme. We expect this scheme will evolve into a permanent migration scheme similar to New Zealand.

While we wait in hope for a true safe haven for our people, our diaspora is growing. I-Kiribati are moving now to Pacific countries higher above the water level such as Fiji, the Cook Islands, Niue, Samoa and Tonga.

Are we scared? Of course. We are on the front line of this crisis, despite having done amongst the least to cause it. It is difficult to leave the only home we have known. But science does not lie. And we can see the water coming.

Labour migration will not solve climate change, but it offers hope to those of us who will be displaced first.

This is a vital question of climate justice. This upheaval is caused by high-emitting economic powerhouses like the US, China, and the European Union. But the vulnerable are paying the full cost. That is not fair.

Read more:
Climate crisis: migration cannot be the only option for people living on ‘drowning’ islands

As climate change worsens, other global leaders must consider how best to support adaptation through labour mobility. Far better to plan for this now than to let climate change rage unchecked and trigger ever-larger waves of refugees.

The question of climate justice

Consider this: in 2018, each person in Kiribati was responsible for 0.95 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. By contrast, each person in the United States was responsible for 17.7 tonnes. Despite this imbalance, the US has taken little responsibility for what is happening to Kiribati and other low-lying nations.

We are hopeful this may change, given US President Joe Biden recently pledged to make his nation a leader in climate finance by supporting nations worst hit by climate change and with the least resources to cope. It’s also encouraging that new laws have been proposed to allow people displaced by climate change to live in America.

We must work to slash emissions and devise solutions for the problems caused by the warming.

International law must recognise climate displaced populations and create ways we can be rehoused.

While other solutions such as climate-proofing infrastructure or even floating islands have been proposed for Kiribati, these cannot happen overnight and are very expensive. By contrast, labour mobility is fast and advantageous to the host country.

Kiribati’s current government is working to increase skills and employability in our workforce. We are doing our part to get ready for the great dislocation.

When I-Kiribati have to migrate, we want them to be able to do so as first class citizens with access to secure futures rather than as climate refugees.

We are doing all we can to stay afloat in the years of ever angrier climate change. But it will take the global village to save our small village and keep alive our culture, language, heritage, spirits, land, waters and above all, our people.

Akka Rimon is currently employed by the World Bank. The views expressed in this piece are hers and in no way represent the views of the bank.

Anote Tong 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. The seas are coming for us in Kiribati. Will Australia rehome us? – https://theconversation.com/the-seas-are-coming-for-us-in-kiribati-will-australia-rehome-us-172137

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sebastian Leuzinger, Professor, Auckland University of Technology

The loss of biodiversity is one of the most catastrophic developments of our time. The impacts will possibly outpace those of global warming.

Growing evidence that humans have triggered a sixth global mass extinction means the protection of remaining species is a priority beyond dispute to secure ecological services such carbon cycling, clean water and air, and healthy oceans.

The key drivers of species loss are climate change, habitat degradation, pollution, and exotic species that become invasive. This has led conservation ecologists to follow the simple rule of “protect natives, fight exotics”.

If we had an unlimited budget, I would hardly challenge this view. But in a world where natural ecosystems face many other global changes apart from species loss, I argue we should reconsider the ecological role exotic species play.

Ecosystem function over species mix

One could argue ecosystems are inherently so complex that we can never appreciate the exact contribution of an individual species, and therefore native species need to be protected at all cost.

But this argument can be turned around. In many cases, exotic species are not detrimental to the resident species communities. It is not until an exotic species becomes invasive that substantial harm happens.

Read more:
Eco-fusion is the new normal, as native and non-native species mix together

The deliberate spread of species has been an integral part of human evolution for thousands of years. Many economically important plant species are exotics in most places, but they make it possible to feed our growing population.

In a physically highly connected world, unintentional relocation of both terrestrial and marine species has now also become unavoidable.

In some cases, introduced species can even complement native ecosystems. New world succulents are now very much part of the Mediterranean landscape, without harming the local flora.

Sometimes, introduced species perform ecological functions similar to those that are (or were) performed by natives. For instance, European gorse stabilises coastal slopes in New Zealand, providing a nursery for local plants.

In one particularly spectacular case, extinct tortoises were intentionally replaced with an exotic species through “assisted colonisation”. It seems to have worked.

However, earlier and much less scientifically informed attempts of assisted colonisation, such as the deliberate introduction of cane toads in Australia’s tropical north-east, went terribly wrong.

The bias of human perception

There are many ecosystem services humanity depends on: clean water, carbon cycling, removal of pollutants and excessive nutrient loads, mitigation of global warming through land-based and marine carbon sequestration, erosion prevention, just to name a few.

The preservation of native species is one way of ensuring those services for future generations. An approach focused on ecological function weighs the cost of protecting natives and combating exotics against the role of new species assemblages shaped by human interference.

At approximately equal cost, should the addition of a breeding pair of a rare bird be prioritised over the reforestation of several hectares of land? Such decisions are often difficult and must be based on the available science.

Read more:
Birds: we studied 4,000 ‘alien introductions’ to find out why some were successful

Clearly, there may be other reasons — cultural or aesthetic values for example — to protect native species, beyond the provisioning of ecosystem services. But people seem biased by what they are used to.

For example, Switzerland provides generous subsidies to farmers for maintaining picturesque alpine meadows, even though the native vegetation before human intervention was a much less biologically diverse alpine forest.

In Central Europe, the recently introduced Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima) triggered substantial efforts to eradicate it, while the European chestnut (Castanea sativa), introduced by the Greeks and Romans some 2000 years ago, is highly valued and enjoys protection and even reforestation programmes.

The above examples illustrate why we may need a more sober approach centred on ecological function to effectively protect our remaining natural treasures and the ecosystem services they provide.

The milestones in the evolution of life did not depend on individual species or species assemblages, but on the emergence of new functional traits such as photosynthesis, predation or flight. Similarly, humankind ultimately relies on functioning ecosystems, regardless of which species provide them.

Sebastian Leuzinger receives funding from The Royal Society.

– ref. Why it’s time to reconsider the ecological contribution of introduced species — even in New Zealand – https://theconversation.com/why-its-time-to-reconsider-the-ecological-contribution-of-introduced-species-even-in-new-zealand-171195

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shih-Wen Sue Chen, Senior Lecturer in Writing and Literature, Deakin University

When students in China returned to classrooms in September 2021, they were provided with a new series of textbooks outlining China’s president Xi Jinping, or “Grandpa Xi’s”, political philosophy.

Each textbook on “Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for the New Era”, as Xi’s political philosophy is officially called, is tailored to students at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels.

“Xi Jinping Thought” was enshrined into the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) Constitution in 2017. Although the main stated aims are to remain committed to reform and build a “moderately prosperous society”, the realities of this political philosophy has been a tightening of party discipline and curtailing of social freedom.

Read more:
China’s sixth plenum will consolidate Xi Jinping’s power and chart the country’s ambitions for the next 5 years

While prior textbooks were focused on the CCP, the new versions centre on China’s paramount leader. In this way they reflect the growing personality cult of Xi Jinping, eerily reminiscent of the days of China’s founding father Mao Zedong.

The rise of the personality cult

According to China’s National Textbook Committee, the

textbooks reflect the will of the Communist Party of China and the nation and directly impact the direction and quality of talent cultivation.

In particular, the Committee stated:

Primary schools should foster love and right understanding for the Party, country and socialism in students.

The core socialist values highlighted in the textbooks include prosperity, patriotism and friendship.

Targeted at children, the moniker of “Grandpa Xi” is part of the ongoing strategy towards creating a personality cult in China. Authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union also used the grandfather figure (“Grandpa Lenin”) as part of propaganda aimed at children. This enhanced Lenin’s personality cult across the Soviet nations.

Political scientist Pao-min Chang defines the personality cult as

The artificial elevation of the status and authority of one man […] through the deliberate creation, projection and propagation of a godlike image.

Like Lenin, a personality cult around Mao Zedong emerged during China’s Cultural Revolution (1966–1976). Although later leaders Deng Xiaoping, the architect of China’s economic reform, and Wen Jiabao, who was Premier between 2003 and 2013, are popularly known as “Grandpa Deng” and “Grandpa Wen,” they did not overtly push for this image.

Xi returns to Mao in his efforts to build a personality cult around himself. Since coming to power, he has cultivated the image of being “a man of the people” in a bid to make his authoritarianism more palpable to the masses.

Little red children and Grandpa Xi

The new primary school textbooks emphasise Xi’s wisdom, friendliness and care for the children. Early signs of this strategy can be seen in government propaganda video, Grandpa Xi is Our Big Friend, that circulated online in 2015.

The video was recorded at Yan’an Yucai Primary School in Shaanxi. The location is significant because the school was founded by Mao Zedong in 1937.

Read more:
Xi Jinping puts his stamp on Communist Party history, but is his support as strong as his predecessors?

In the video, Xi Jinping is not presented as a distant authority figure. Instead, Grandpa Xi is a caring “big friend.” The children sing that his “warm smile” is “brighter than the sun.” Images of children waving sunflowers and lyrics that describe Xi’s visit as “better than the warmth of a spring day” serve to accentuate his friendly disposition.

Most importantly, the children sing about the need to “study diligently” to “achieve the Chinese Dream”. This dream is Xi Jinping’s vision for China to become a prosperous society.

The children wear red scarves and red stars in the video. These symbols represent the national flag. The colour red alludes to the blood of revolutionary martyrs. They remind children of their connection to the nation and the Party.

Xi wears a red scarf in the video. In one scene, he places a red scarf over the shoulders of a child. This accessory and gesture are depicted in the 2021 primary school textbooks as well. The act of placing a scarf on a child signifies children taking on the mantle of happily fulfilling Grandpa Xi’s vision.

The CCP’s Young Pioneers

The textbook for lower primary students contain photos of Xi planting trees with children and meeting them at school.

The books include statements such as:

Grandpa Xi Jinping is very busy with work, but no matter how busy he is, he still joins our activities and cares about our growth.

Xi shares his memories of being emotional when joining the Young Pioneers of China (the CCP’s youth organisation) in 1960. He then invites readers to describe their own feelings about becoming a part of the Young Pioneers, thus encouraging young people to join.

The textbooks use illustrations with speech bubbles to make the ideological content more interesting. Some illustrations are of students sitting around a table teaching each other Grandpa Xi’s expectations to become a person of “good moral character” and who is “diligent and thrifty”.

The books also emphasise acquiring knowledge about “science and technology,” as well as being “creative and innovative”.

The children must cultivate these markers of good citizenship to become what the books refer to as “qualified builders and successors of socialism”. This rhetoric of children as the hope of the nation has been in use since the late nineteenth century.

Read more:
Academic Chongyi Feng: profits, freedom and China’s ‘soft power’ in Australia

The emphasis on being “qualified” suggests children must live up to the expectations set out by Xi. The textbooks imply this is only possible because of Grandpa Xi’s continued care for them.

This image of Grandpa Xi as a “big friend” is a gentler form of propaganda than that seen during Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Propaganda aimed at children during the Cultural Revolution positioned the Party as the surrogate parent. It also highlighted children’s violence as they fought for the socialist cause. Young Red Guards sang patriotic songs and read the Little Red Book. These rituals fostered Mao’s cult of personality.

It remains to be seen whether the new school curriculum is a harbinger of future deification of Xi Jinping.

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

– ref. Little red children and ‘Grandpa Xi’: China’s school textbooks reflect the rise of Xi Jinping’s personality cult – https://theconversation.com/little-red-children-and-grandpa-xi-chinas-school-textbooks-reflect-the-rise-of-xi-jinpings-personality-cult-168482

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matheson Russell, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Auckland

The news last week that University of Auckland public health researcher Simon Thornley was retracting a co-authored paper about supposed vaccination risks during pregnancy raised deeper questions about the limits of academic freedom.

Thornley’s own head of department had called for the paper to be retracted due to “the anxiety it is creating for expectant parents and those planning to have a child”. Other experts in the field had strongly criticised the paper’s methodology and conclusions.

The university itself responded publicly by asserting, “As an academic staff member […] Dr Thornley has the right to exercise his academic freedom.” The vice-chancellor later said, “While the University supports academic freedom, we do require research to be conducted with a high degree of integrity.”

The controversy follows an earlier one in July, when a group of academics published an open letter questioning the scientific status of mātauranga Māori (Māori knowledge). The Royal Society Te Apārangi issued a statement rejecting their views and affirming the value of mātauranga Māori as a knowledge system.

The society is now reported to be investigating two of its fellows who were co-authors of the letter. In response, a group calling itself the Free Speech Union has called the Royal Society’s response an attack on free speech, saying it sends “a chilling message” to other academics.

Freedom and integrity

These are just two of several conflicts currently playing out in Aotearoa New Zealand over the limits of academic freedom.

Tricky trade-offs surround particular cases like these, and they are not easily resolved. But debates over difficult cases are too often hampered by shallow conceptions of the role of universities within society and flimsy understandings of academic freedom.

Public universities have a public mission: they serve society through generating new knowledge and teaching students. They also, in the language of the Education and Training Act 2020, serve as a “repository of knowledge and expertise” and play a role as “critic and conscience of society”.

Read more:
Let’s choose our words more carefully when discussing mātauranga Māori and science

University staff and students are granted certain freedoms under the act to fulfil these socially valuable functions.

Two fundamental ideas provide the rationale for academic freedom. The first is that freedom of inquiry is essential for the advancement of knowledge. Without the freedom to explore new ideas and to test received wisdom, the quest for knowledge cannot progress.

The second is the idea that universities should be free from interference that would corrupt the integrity of research and the dissemination of research findings. It is in the public’s interests that neither the state nor private individuals and corporations are allowed to muzzle researchers from publicising what they know when the public would benefit from knowing.

High ethical standards

Institutional autonomy and the right to critically question are essential if universities are to be reliable sources of knowledge and expertise for society at large. But neither implies academics should be free to do what they like or to say what they like with impunity.

The Education and Training Act couples the freedoms granted to universities with expectations of public accountability. It says tertiary institutions should have

as much independence and freedom to make academic, operational, and management decisions as is consistent with the nature of the services they provide, the efficient use of national resources, the national interest, and the demands of accountability.

Read more:
How a fake ‘free speech crisis’ could imperil academic freedom

In turn, the legislation places on tertiary institutions the responsibility to ensure the “highest ethical standards” are maintained.

That’s as it should be. Just as we expect medical associations to hold doctors accountable to high standards of competent practice and ethical conduct, so should we expect tertiary institutions to hold academics to the same high standards.

Critic and conscience

Controversial or unpopular opinions are sometimes just what society needs to hear. That’s why the law recognises a “critic and conscience of society” role for academics – the role of speaking truth to power, as we like to say.

But the usefulness of dissenting views to society cannot be defended if these opinions rest on faulty evidence or demonstrable falsehoods. Misinformation is incompatible with performing a role as critic and conscience of society.

Read more:
Four fundamental principles for upholding freedom of speech on campus

From the public’s point of view, a university is malfunctioning if it harbours and protects misinformation. It ceases to be a reliable source of knowledge and expertise.

Likewise, academic freedom does not provide an exemption from ethical standards. Like all public institutions, we should expect universities to be places that foster healthy and respectful relationships, and serve wider societal goals of improving well-being, overcoming injustices and combating environmental destruction.

Universities that tolerate bullying and harassment of staff and students, or marginalise already disadvantaged social groups, fail to live up to their public mission.

Leadership needed

New Zealand universities need to look hard at these issues. In today’s political and media environment, the challenge of mis- and disinformation is only going to intensify. Institutional culture, practices and policies need to account for this.

And universities have barely begun to address the reality that campuses are often experienced as hostile spaces by minority groups, not least Māori and Pacific staff and students.

A genuine democratisation of university life – including tackling institutional racism – is also vital to ensure all communities in Aotearoa New Zealand can see themselves as participants in and beneficiaries of what universities do. Principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi should not only be acknowledged but given meaningful expression.

Read more:
If not in a university, then where? Academia must define harm to allow open debate on difficult issues

Hard work will be required for our universities to become highly trusted institutions by all communities. This is especially true of tangata whenua and Pacific people. In fact, our tertiary institutions have a lot to learn from tangata whenua about handling disagreements and responding to unethical behaviour in a way that upholds the mana of all involved.

We would do well to take a lead from legal scholar Moana Jackson who has envisioned universities as “a marae ātea where robust debate and criticism should flourish”, but also as “a whare where relationships should be nurtured and enhanced, and where all students and staff should feel safe and free”.

To realise such a vision will require clear-headed and courageous leadership at all levels within our universities.

Matheson Russell 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. Are New Zealand’s universities doing enough to define the limits of academic freedom? – https://theconversation.com/are-new-zealands-universities-doing-enough-to-define-the-limits-of-academic-freedom-172297

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Harriette Richards, Research Associate, Cultural Studies, The University of Melbourne

Amid the catwalk shows and millinery workshops, a key theme of this year’s Melbourne Fashion Week was sustainablity, “offering designers with strong ethical foundations an opportunity to join our runways, or opening up dialogue on sustainability into our talks program”.

Events during the week included industry representatives discussing “shifting the status quo” and moving “beyond greenwashing”. On the panel at the latter event was Eloise Bishop, head of sustainability at Country Road Group, one of Australia’s largest specialty fashion retailers.

Meanwhile workers from the company were on strike, chaining themselves together and staging other protests outside Country Road stores in pursuit of better wages and working conditions.

Among the complaints of these workers, mostly women from the company’s distribution warehouse in Melbourne’s west, was being paid an average of A$23 an hour, compared to about A$30 for workers doing similar work at the Pacific Brands warehouse across the road.

On Monday the workers returned to work after reaching an agreement with the company that includes improved job security, union recognition and a 13.3% pay rise over four years. That’s about an extra $3 an hour.

While this has brought the strike to a celebratory end, questions remain. How could a company so highly regarded for its commitment to sustainability have provoked staff to strike for almost a fortnight?

Lower marks for worker empowerment

Country Road Group is a subsidiary of South Africa’s Woolworths Holdings Ltd (which also owns David Jones). The company’s clothing brands include Country Road, Witchery, Trenery, Politix and Mimco. Despite the pandemic, in the past fiscal year Country Road Group’s sales grew by 13.5% to A$1.05 billion.

The company is considered by many an industry leader on ethics and sustainability. The 2021 Ethical Fashion Guide compiled by Baptist World Aid, for example, awarded it an overall “A” grade. It did well on four of five rating criteria, scoring an “A+” on its policies and governance, “A+” for trading and risk, “A” for supplier relationships and human rights monitoring, and another “A” for environmental sustainability.

On worker empowerment, however, it scored just a “C”.

These results suggest the company has a blind spot in addressing concerns about labour conditions in its supply chain.

Supply-chain blind spots

In part because of the disparities between how the fashion industry markets its products and the way workers are treated, the global fashion industry is a notorious example of exploitation engendered by opaque supply chains.

Questions about ethics become divided across asymmetrical lines: the global North as fashion consumer and the global South as fashion producer.

Read more:
Why the fashion industry keeps failing to fix labour exploitation

Attempts to bring greater transparency and accountability to these supply chains include Australia’s Modern Slavery Act. This requires large companies to submit an annual statement to a public registry outlining efforts to identify and eliminate the risk of exploitative labour practices.

Country Road Group’s 2020 Modern Slavery statement states the company is “committed to upholding the highest social, ethical and environmental standards in its supply chains”.

But commitment to ethics is arguably easier when the “problem” of labour rights is far away and things like modern slavery statements (which rely on third party auditing) can help to conceal unethical practices. What happens when the issue is on our doorstep?

Read more:
At last, Australia has a Modern Slavery Act. Here’s what you’ll need to know

Fair pay for all

We often think about the concept of a “living wage” in relation to garment workers overseas. But these warehouse workers told their union representatives they could not afford to live on the wages paid by Country Road Group, much less clothe themselves or their children in the very garments they pick and pack at the warehouse.

According to industry body the Australian Fashion Council, 77% of the 489,000 workers employed in Australia’s fashion and textile industry’s workforce are female. This makes fair pay and conditions in the industry an important driver of women’s economic advancement. Industrial action is about more than money; it is about respect and recognition.

Responsibility for change in the fashion industry is frequently feminised. Women are not only the primary workforce; they are at the front lines of sustainable action, consumer activism and labour rights movements. It was a proposed strike by members of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union in New York in 1909 that led to the establishment of International Women’s Day.

The move towards sustainability and ethical production in the fashion industry is necessary. But if action does not extend to the realities of all workers across the supply chain, the rhetoric is empty.

Note: co-author Lauren Kate Kelly is a researcher with the United Workers’ Union, which covers Country Road warehouse employees.

Harriette Richards receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

Lauren Kelly receives funding from the Australian Research Council and works as a researcher with United Workers Union, which represents warehouse workers.

– ref. Like most of the fashion industry, there’s a blind spot in Country Road’s ethical focus – https://theconversation.com/like-most-of-the-fashion-industry-theres-a-blind-spot-in-country-roads-ethical-focus-172295

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joanna Mendelssohn, Principal Fellow (Hon), Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne. Editor in Chief, Design and Art of Australia Online, The University of Melbourne

Review: Matisse: Life & Spirit, Art Gallery of New South Wales

I saw work by Henri Matisse (1869-1954) for the first time when I was seven. It was a tapestry, Polynesia, newly acquired for the collection of the Art Gallery of NSW. I wondered at the simplicity of the clean, white, marine shapes floating on blue squares.

Matisse: Life & Spirit, the gallery’s summer blockbuster, shows how this rhythmic elegance was achieved. It includes the original maquette of that tapestry, called Polynesia, the sea, as well as its partner, Polynesia, the sky.

They hang in the final room of the exhibition, a celebration of the creativity and unerring eye of an old man, ravaged by illness.

His hand that once defined feminine beauty with a single curving line could no longer draw, but, as an accompanying video shows, he remained a master with scissors and used a stick to direct assistants where to place the shapes he cut.

Matisse’s Polynesia was the distilled memory of his visit to Tahiti in 1930. Although he had made some drawings at the time, he was never the kind of artist to paint a travelogue. Rather, years later in war-torn France, he took elements of that place of sun, sea, light and colour to make it his own.

Read more:
From the Tate to the MoMA: cross-continental perspectives of Matisse’s cut-outs

Polynesia also gave Matisse the technique of tivaevae – traditional Polynesian appliqué fabric – which he adapted to make cut-outs which Justin Paton, one of the exhibition’s co-curators, has called “one of the great flowerings of modern art”.

The greatest of these is the exquisite melancholy of The Sorrow of the King: a self-portrait in extreme old age and a contemplation of the music of death. It is so large, so fragile, it sits enthroned, shielded by glass, overseeing the final room of this very large exhibition.

It shares this room with the wild music of Jazz, Matisse’s first substantial series of cutouts devised as an illustrated book. Here, the individual pieces are placed as though they are musical notation, giving them a syncopated rhythm on the wall.

Matisse’s chapel

The architect Richard Johnson designed the exhibition, a masterly homage to great art.

This homage is most obvious in the exhibition’s centrepiece, an evocation of Matisse’s last great work, the Chapel of the Rosary at Vence.

Matisse designed the chapel, built between 1947 and 1951, as a tribute to the Dominican nuns who nursed him during his illness, and as an exploration of how spiritual values let in the light after the darkness of war.

Despite being a Christian chapel, the forms evoke both nature and plants from other cultures, so it becomes more of a universal affirmation of spirituality.

Here, the gallery’s central court has been modified to match the size and proportions of the chapel. The artist’s drawings on the tiles are screened in a video loop, while the walls are hung with full size studies for the stained glass windows.

There are the two collage designs for the chasubles (a priest’s outermost liturgical vestments), while the entrance shows both an evocation of the chapel’s exterior and a wall quoting the plain white tiles of the interior.

Matisse the sculptor

Thanks to the Centre Pompidou’s generosity in lending many works that have never travelled so far before, it is possible to see here the full range of Matisse’s art, including sculpture.

It is one thing to read of the ongoing influence of his Back series (four bronze sculptures of female backs) on his decorative paintings, but an altogether different experience to see these large bronze relief works of the bodies of powerful women.

Other, smaller, sculptures serve as a reminder of the importance of African art to Matisse as he was exploring form. This was more than a search for the exotic.

Rather, Matisse seems to have been on an endless quest for new ways of seeing and then incorporating what he found into his world.

The influences of Matisse

Matisse surrounded himself with objects and people that become recurring images within his work. This has enabled the curators to place the blocky bronze Reclining Nude (1907) adjacent to Still Life with Ivy (1916), a painting that includes the Reclining Nude sculpture.

Other works appear to quote, with variations, some of his colleagues. As with other artists of his generation, he was influenced by Cézanne, famous for his blocky, structured still lifes. Matisse painted Still life with green buffet, where the structure is flattened while the perfectly placed fruit seems to levitate into the ether.

Matisse’s career is a reminder not all artists start young. He was studying law when he suffered from appendicitis. While he was recovering, his mother gave him a paint box and he was seduced by colour.

With Matisse it was always about colour.

One of the earlier works in the exhibition is a portrait of the Italian model Bevilaqua. The sheer intensity of the pure cobalt blue of the shadows around his face show the power of colour that would first bring Matisse to critical attention with the Fauve exhibition in 1905. Then there is the brilliance of The Red Carpets, with contrasting patterns of a flamboyant, intense red.

It may be the impact of the dogmatic Cubists, or perhaps the trauma of World War I muted his tone for some time – Minimalists could learn from the rich black in French Window at Collioure. But colour and sensuous line soon reasserted themselves as his dominant mode.

The beauty of this exhibition is the way it unfolds the development of the artist’s life, underpinned by his exquisite drawings, which act as background music. As well as the art, it is enlivened by rare archival film footage – including one delightful sequence where he shows he has no power over his dog.

Matisse: Life & Spirit Masterpieces from the Centre Pompidou, Paris is at the Art Gallery of NSW until March 13 2022

Joanna Mendelssohn has received funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. Henri Matisse was an artist of colour and sensuous line; an unerring eye until the end – https://theconversation.com/henri-matisse-was-an-artist-of-colour-and-sensuous-line-an-unerring-eye-until-the-end-171817

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

With the opposition and other critics homing in on the issues of his character and integrity, Scott Morrison on Monday played right into their hands.

It was question time on the first day of parliament’s final sitting fortnight for the year (and incidentally, the last day the much-respected Tony Smith would be in the Speaker’s chair).

The issue was an old one, that had been canvassed before, giving all the more reason why the prime minister should have been careful with his words.

Labor MP Fiona Phillips, from the NSW marginal seat of Gilmore (which the government hopes to reclaim) asked Morrison why, when her electorate was burning in the bushfires of 2019, his office told journalists he wasn’t on holiday in Hawaii.

Morrison replied that he’d texted Anthony Albanese “from the plane when I was going on that leave, and told him where I was going and he was fully aware of where I was travelling with my family”.

Half of this was untrue, as Albanese knew full well. Morrison had not said “where” he was going at all. There were some angry exchanges across the table.

After question time, Albanese in a personal explanation said Morrison had not indicated his destination in the text.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Morrison gives religious discrimination bill priority over national integrity commission

Morrison then made his looseness-with-the-truth worse, redefining the meaning of “where”.

“Where I was going was on leave, Mr Speaker, and that was the important thing I sent to the leader of the opposition. […] I told him I was taking leave.”

But soon after, Morrison or his advisers realised the need to get the carpet sweeper out. The PM made another intervention.

In a rare admission, he told the House: “I wish to add to an answer. I want to confirm what the leader of the opposition said, that in that text I did not tell him the destination of where I was going on leave with my family.

“I simply communicated to him that I was taking leave.

“When I was referring to, ‘He knew where I was going and was fully aware I was travelling with my family,’ what I meant was that we were going on leave together.

“I know I didn’t tell him where we were going because, Mr Speaker, that is a private matter where members take leave, and I know I didn’t tell him the destination – nor would I and nor would he expect me to have told him where he [sic] was going.

“I simply confirmed to him that I was taking leave with my family and he was aware of that at that time.”

This is extraordinary. First the PM says he told Albanese “where” he was going and emphasised the point. Then, pushed onto the back foot, he admits he didn’t tell him that and says neither of them would have expected him to do so. It was a spectacular example of Morrison’s penchant to slip and slide around things, but one that, given the written evidence and his own logic, was always going to end badly.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Scott Morrison caught in catch-22 over the issue of his integrity

This wasn’t the only untidiness of the day.

In the Senate, five government senators crossed the floor to support Pauline Hanson’s bill to ban discrimination against the unvaccinated. The bill covered federal, state and territory government and the private sector.

Those Coalition senators who voted for the bill were two former ministers, Matt Canavan and Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, as well as Alex Antic, Gerard Rennick and Sam McMahon.

Ironically Hanson could not vote for her own bill, defeated 5-44, because she was participating in parliament remotely, which doesn’t permit casting a vote. She had to confine herself to a fiery speech, that was matched by an opposing one from another crossbencher, Jacqui Lambie, who launched a ferocious attack on One Nation.

Hanson said: “State governments are relishing this extraordinary power to command and control […]

“The Victorian government relishes this power so much
they’re trying to permanently enshrine it in law, giving the premier unprecedented authority to act like a dictator – and still the prime minister has done nothing to stop this discrimination.”

But Lambie said: “If you want to champion against discrimination, you don’t want One Nation”.

“One Nation is not a fighter against discrimination. One Nation seeks to profit from it. It’s just a fundraising exercise for them and that’s all this is.”

Read more:
White supremacist and far right ideology underpin anti-vax movements

Morrison had facilitated the bill being considered in an attempt to mollify Hanson, who is opposing government legislation generally over the vaccine mandate issue. Despite this gesture, she is maintaining her position.

Senators Rennick and Antic are withholding their votes from the government over the same issue, making the outlook in the Senate chaotic for this fortnight.

On Tuesday the Coalition party room will get the government’s religious discrimination legislation.

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

– ref. View from The Hill: Scott Morrison trips on a truth test – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-scott-morrison-trips-on-a-truth-test-172316

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Huw Griffiths, Senior Lecturer in English Literature, University of Sydney

Review: Julius Caesar directed by Kip Williams, Sydney Theatre Company

The Roman emperor Julius Caesar has been killed in the capitol, and the conspirators pause to reflect for a moment. Cassius, the main instigator of the assassination, wonders if this tale will be told again in the centuries to come.

“How many ages hence,” he asks, “Shall this lofty scene be acted over / In states unborn and accents yet unknown?”

And Brutus, Caesar’s one-time friend responds, “How many times shall Caesar bleed in sport?”

In other words, will theatres of the future put on shows about this world-changing event?

Kip Williams’ Julius Caesar (for the STC’s wonderfully refurbished Wharf 1 stage) takes this question from Shakespeare’s play and makes it the beating heart of the production.

It is not just that this 21st century Julius Caesar advertises the contemporary relevance of the story. We are also asked to consider just how political stories are told, re-told, and told again.

Modern tyranny and Julius Caesar

When Shakespeare wrote this play in 1599, the ageing Queen Elizabeth I was still on the throne after 41 years. Her reign had descended from an early promise of greater freedom and rational government.

“I would not open windows into men’s souls”, she is believed to have saidin an early speech to parliament, indicating a departure from her predecessors who had not held back from persecuting those who did not share their beliefs.

Modern historians have referred to Elizabeth’s early reign as a “monarchical republic”, a cautious blend of consultative government and royal prerogative. But, by the end of the century, the country had descended into a darkly tyrannous period of violence, factionalism and mutual suspicion.

For Shakespeare, the question of whether or not Caesar has become a tyrant is really a question about his own country’s increasingly dangerous politics. As Elizabeth’s death draws near, Shakespeare considers the tolerance of his countrymen for more autocratic forms of government. In 2021, those questions are being asked again.

‘The evil that men do lives after them’

The set-piece of Williams’ production – and the high-point of Shakespeare’s play – is a speech: Antony’s speech on the death of his friend, Caesar.

Brutus has tried to address the Roman people and explain the conspirators’ actions through reference to noble motives and truth-telling. Anthony knows that truth holds no sway over the public and that emotion will work every time.

For this production, Williams has brilliantly adapted the famous speech into a searing indictment of 20th and 21st century political charlatanism. During the course of the speech, Geraldine Hakewill playing Antony transforms from grieving friend into modern political demagogue.

Putting on her standard-issue white power suit and her Christian Louboutin shoes – like a cross between Julie Bishop and Goebbels – Hakewill’s superb performance of reveals the awful terror that lies at the heart of post-truth, political manipulation.

That Shakespeare turns the fortunes of his play’s characters – and of Rome and the world – on the reception of just one speech is a brilliant piece of writing.

Williams is not shy of a similar focus on the power of words to close debate down as well as open it up. But, if Shakespeare’s London was already at some remove from Rome, then we are now several steps further along the road of political degradation in this production.

Read more:
We get there in the end: Return to the Dirt pulls back the curtain on life and death in a funeral home

The consequences of failed politics

Shakespeare wants us to think that Brutus holds on to his nobility in the midst of the mayhem that he helps to unleash. But, to the viewer watching the play in 2021, the conspirators never seem to find a real justification for their actions and the descent into chaos happens at speed.

Ewen Leslie’s Cassius is bitter and damaged, whilst Zahra Newman’s Brutus is less a remnant of past nobility than a naive fool who never had a secure grip on his own motivations.

The three actors play all of the roles in the play, with Williams’ smart use of video fleshing out the narrative. Video also plays an integral part in our consideration of the way that political motivations distorted by the media.

Perhaps not as spectacularly innovative as in last year’s Dorian Gray, Williams’s use of video in this show is nonetheless completely in tune with the production’s focus on failed political discourse.

But that’s not to say that the physical space of Wharf 1’s new theatre in the round isn’t also put to good use. The three actors bring a manic energy to this dynamic new stage, motoring an already lean (in Shakespeare’s terms) script towards its frightening conclusion at a breakneck speed. Command of the dialogue from all three performers is superb: clear, direct, and artfully controlled.

With its clear-eyed look at the consequences of failed politics, this production of Julius Caesar is both an appropriate, and an extraordinarily well-executed inaugural show for the STC’s new stage.

Huw Griffiths 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. Sydney Theatre Company’s Julius Caesar is a clear-eyed look at the consequences of failed politics – https://theconversation.com/sydney-theatre-companys-julius-caesar-is-a-clear-eyed-look-at-the-consequences-of-failed-politics-172038

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Madi Day, Lecturer, Department of Indigenous Studies, Macquarie University

Thousands took to streets across Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Brisbane on Saturday November 20 to protest COVID-19 lockdown measures and vaccine mandates.

The rallies occurred after weeks of protests in Melbourne against the Public Health and Wellbeing (Pandemic Management) Bill 2021. The Monday prior, protesters hung an inflatable effigy of Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews on a gallows assembled in Melbourne’s CBD.

Moments like these connect anti-vax movements to far right and white supremacist extremist groups and conspiracy communities in Europe and white settler nations around the world including Australia, Canada, USA and New Zealand.

Resistance to vaccinations in Australia is due to a range of mitigating factors. Vaccine hesitancy and resistance to pandemic legislation among minority communities including Indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse communities, is due to institutional distrust caused by centuries of colonial medical and legislative violence. This could be the reason why some members of these communities are taking part in protests.

White supremacist and right-wing groups are capitalising on vaccine hesitancy to distribute conservative ideologies to new audiences via protests and social media. Among these are complex narratives about resisting a “New World Order”, which supposedly threatens a bygone Australian way of life.

Many involved in these movements probably do not realise they are aligning with people whose values and ideas are steeped in white supremacy.

Read more:
Why the Victorian protests should concern us all

White supremacism and a ‘New World Order’

Many groups have united under the banner of COVID denial and vaccine resistance. A common narrative shared on social media is that COVID, lockdown measures and vaccinations are part of a plan to implement a global totalitarian regime.

In September this year, a comment by New South Wales Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant went viral among COVID deniers and conspiracy theorists, including those involved in QANON. Chant responded to a question about how contact-tracing would work after lockdown by saying “We will be looking at what contact-tracing looks like in the new world order”.

Conspiracists in anti-vax circles have been using the term “New World Order” to refer to the theory that a secret group of powerful elites are planning global domination. Despite Chant’s intentions, mention of the term provoked a frenzy on social media and caused Google searches to skyrocket.

New World Order theory has racist and anti-semitic inferences. It comes from speculative and philosophical literature from Europeans and white settlers in the United States who have promoted paranoid myths about Jewish people’s involvement in the banking system. It has ties to fascism, racism and white libertarianism, and Satanic Panic since the second world war. It also has ties to Nazi occultism.

Essentially, resisting the “New World Order” is less about addressing existing systems of power including capitalism and colonialism that oppress and marginalise groups of people all over the world. It’s more about a battle between a perceived good and evil.

These ideas also have a long history in Christian literature including the New Testament. White Christian extremists, including the Klu Klux Klan, refer to themselves as knights engaged in a holy war to defend their liberties from racial and religious others whom they have historically oppressed.

Read more:
Getting vaccinated is the act of love needed right now to support the survival of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples during the pandemic

Far right conservatism and conspiracy theories

Anti-vax movements have proven especially appealing to white women and groups of men who feel disadvantaged by rapid changes in Western society, which have destabilised their economic and social standing.

Many anti-vaxxers believe they are resisting evil globalist forces who want to corrupt them and their children by means of tracking devices, microchips and other insidious technology allegedly hidden in COVID-19 vaccines.

Protestors carry signs inferring their sperm is untainted by the vaccine, and unvaccinated users on Tiktok refer to themselves as “purebloods”. These sentiments echo white race anxieties popularised during the Aboriginal Protectionist and White Australia Policy Era, which continue to influence Australian immigration policy and Indigenous Affairs to this day.

Conservative family values are apparent in anti-vax movements. For example, protestors in Sydney on Saturday recycled “You Can Say No” posters originally used against the ballot for marriage equality in Australia in 2017.

Far-right politicians and organisations have capitalised on rapid change and experiences of economic crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic to promote ideologies about protecting traditional family values and Western culture.

Political proponents of the anti-vax movement, such as Clive Palmer and Craig Kelly, are also anti-immigration and climate deniers. The current party line for the United Australia Party is “Make Australia Great”, mimicking Trump’s former campaign.

Kelly and Palmer are capitalising on anti-vax sentiments to gain visibility at protests and on social media. Mainstream right-wing politicians have also participated in rallies including former chief of staff to Tony Abbott as prime minister, Peta Credlin.

Who wins?

Known members of pro-fascist, white supremacist and neo-Nazi organisations, including Proud Boys and Lads Society, have been present at anti-vax rallies. These organisations have also been involved in organising and security for speakers.

Researchers have observed members of white supremacist and far right groups recruiting and grooming vaccine hesitant people via Facebook and encrypted messaging groups like Telegram. Anti-vaxxers have also systematically targeted Black and Indigenous communities with misinformation and propaganda.

Outbreaks of COVID-19 have already had devastating impacts in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Community leaders and organisations are battling the spread of misinformation in Aboriginal remote communities including myths spread by Christian groups that claim COVID-19 is a white man’s virus. Spreading anti-vaccination propaganda among Indigenous communities has severe and life threatening consequences.

It might seem like anti-vaxxers and far-right extremist groups are minorities in Australia. However, far-right poltical parties who spread vaccine misinformation are gaining followers.

The United Australia Party is now Australia’s biggest political party with 70,000 members. They provided signs for protests on Saturday that read “Freedom, Freedom, Freedom”.

The United Australia Party has been actively distributing misformation about COVID-19 and the controversial drug ivermectin.

It remains to be seen how the growing influence of the far right will effect upcoming elections and our futures. We need to think carefully about the ideas and movements we are invested in now, and who they are actually benefiting.

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

– ref. White supremacist and far right ideology underpin anti-vax movements – https://theconversation.com/white-supremacist-and-far-right-ideology-underpin-anti-vax-movements-172289

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bernadette McCabe, Professor and Principal Scientist, University of Southern Queensland

Using organic waste to make energy – think sewage, animal and crop residues, and leftover wood – has finally been put under the spotlight with last week’s release of Australia’s first Bioenergy Roadmap.

Bioenergy is a versatile form of renewable energy which produces heat, electricity, transport fuels, chemicals, and by-products like organic fertiliser. It’s a promising way to bring Australia’s emissions down, while re-purposing waste that would otherwise go to landfill.

The roadmap predicts that by the 2030s, the sector could boost Australia’s annual GDP by around A$10 billion, create 26,200 jobs, reduce emissions by about 9%, divert an extra 6% of waste from landfill, and enhance fuel security.

Still, bioenergy is complex and poorly understood. We were part of the roadmap review reference group, and believe it has a bright future, as the key to successful bioenergy projects is to match the right fuel source with the right technology.

Bioenergy state of play in Australia

Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor commissioned the Australian Renewable Energy Agency to develop the roadmap and, on Friday, announced $33.5 million in funding to implement it. This is on top of more than $118 million already provided by the federal government to help fund bioenergy projects.

This funding has been a long time coming, as the sector has struggled to get the same attention from policymakers as other forms of renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydro.

In 2020, bioenergy represented only 5% of Australia’s renewable electricity generation, putting Australia at the bottom quartile of OECD countries when it comes to bioenergy as a share of total energy supply. And yet, bioenergy is responsible for nearly 50% of Australia’s current renewable energy consumption.

But the sector has started gaining traction. In 2018, Australia had 222 operating bioenergy plants and an additional 55 projects under construction or at the feasibility stage.

Read more:
Bioenergy: Australia’s forgotten renewable energy source (so far)

One example is a new project in Logan City Council in Queensland. Each year, Logan City produces 34,000 tonnes of biosolids (treated sewage sludge).

A technology called gasification is significantly reducing the need to dispose of these biosolids, and will save about $500,000 in operating costs. Research is also underway to see how the by-product of this treatment can be sold as a soil conditioner for agriculture.

So why is it good for the environment?

Using biomass as an energy source instead of fossil fuels can reduce carbon emissions and improve air quality. Bioenergy can be emissions-neutral, especially when wastes are used as a fuel source. This is because:

• it captures methane when organic waste breaks down. This methane would otherwise have been released to the atmosphere

• it’s used in place of fossil fuels, displacing those CO₂ emissions.

For example, the recent biomethane trial at Sydney Waters Malabar plant captures methane from sewage sludge, to replace fossil natural gas in the gas network.

What’s more, a strong bioenergy industry can help support Australian farmers looking for the benefits of running a carbon-neutral operation, and boost economic growth in regional areas.

Read more:
Not just hot air: turning Sydney’s wastewater into green gas could be a climate boon

Bioenergy can also have negative impacts if not developed properly. As we’ve seen in international projects, the biggest concern is inappropriate changes to land use to supply biomass. This could, for example, lead to greater deforestation in order to supply wood.

However, bioenergy technologies are neither good nor bad per se. Avoiding unintended risks depends on appropriate governance. A good example is the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification Scheme, which aims to ensure bioenergy companies are transparent and uphold ethical values.

Critics have recently voiced their concern about the federal government’s claim that bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, also known as BECCS, will cut emissions by 15% by 2050.

The International Energy Agency has identified BECCS as a technology with the potential to be truly carbon negative, which means it can remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while producing energy for consumption.

But the Bioenergy Roadmap did not focus on BECCS. Instead, it gave an expansive overview of all bioenergy technologies in the short to medium term, outlining where bioenergy can complement other low emissions technologies, and create opportunities for industry and governments to drive commercial growth.

A snapshot of the roadmap

The roadmap was developed following extensive consultation with industry, researchers and the public. It identified major opportunities for Australia in four key areas.

First, in hard-to-abate sectors. This includes generating renewable heat for the manufacturing industry, fuel for sustainable aviation, and renewable gas (biomethane) to displace fossil natural gas in the grid. For example, sustainable aviation biofuels are the only low-emissions alternatives to traditional, high-emitting jet fuel, that are available in the short to medium term.

Read more:
Jet fuel from sugarcane? It’s not a flight of fancy

Second, to complement other markets. In road transport, for example, biofuels can offer other low-emissions alternatives such as hydrogen and electric vehicles, and, in particular, can replace diesel in long-haul transport. In the grid, bioelectricity generation can support greater penetration of renewable energy such as solar and wind.

Third, in developing our understanding of our vast bioenergy resources across agriculture, forestry, and organic waste. We need further research and innovation to turn Australia’s theoretical bioenergy resource potential – which is massive in every state – into a reality.

And finally, increasing collaboration between industry, state and federal governments. For example, developing industry guidelines and standards can help produce reliable results. This in turn helps commercialise mature technologies that are new to Australia.

Read more:
How biomethane can help turn gas into a renewable energy source

Bernadette McCabe receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Rural R & D for Profit program, the Fight Food Waste CRC and the Queensland Government. She is Australia’s National Team Leader for the International Energy Agency Task 37 Energy from Biogas since 2014. Bernadette was a Director on the Board of Bioenergy Australia (2017-2019) and is a current member of this organisation.

Since 2016, Ian O’Hara has been appointed by the Queensland Government as the Queensland Biofutures Industry Envoy to assist in supporting the growth of the Biofutures industry sector in Queensland. His research receives funding from several sources including the Australian Research Council, the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, Meat and Livestock Australia, Sugar Research Australia and partners. He has and continues to receive research funding from ARENA for bioenergy related projects. He was previously a director of Bioenergy Australia (2017-2019), and is on the International Advisory Council of the Global Bioeconomy Summit and a Senior Editor of EFB Bioeconomy Journal.

– ref. At long last, Australia has a bioenergy roadmap – and its findings are startling – https://theconversation.com/at-long-last-australia-has-a-bioenergy-roadmap-and-its-findings-are-startling-172235

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Baron, Associate professor, Australian Catholic University

Many people think that mathematics is a human invention. To this way of thinking, mathematics is like a language: it may describe real things in the world, but it doesn’t “exist” outside the minds of the people who use it.

But the Pythagorean school of thought in ancient Greece held a different view. Its proponents believed reality is fundamentally mathematical.

More than 2,000 years later, philosophers and physicists are starting to take this idea seriously.

As I argue in a new paper, mathematics is an essential component of nature that gives structure to the physical world.

Honeybees and hexagons

Bees in hives produce hexagonal honeycomb. Why?

According to the “honeycomb conjecture” in mathematics, hexagons are the most efficient shape for tiling the plane. If you want to fully cover a surface using tiles of a uniform shape and size, while keeping the total length of the perimeter to a minimum, hexagons are the shape to use.

Charles Darwin reasoned that bees have evolved to use this shape because it produces the largest cells to store honey for the smallest input of energy to produce wax.

The honeycomb conjecture was first proposed in ancient times, but was only proved in 1999 by mathematician Thomas Hales.

Cicadas and prime numbers

Here’s another example. There are two subspecies of North American periodical cicadas that live most of their lives in the ground. Then, every 13 or 17 years (depending on the subspecies), the cicadas emerge in great swarms for a period of around two weeks.

Why is it 13 and 17 years? Why not 12 and 14? Or 16 and 18?

One explanation appeals to the fact that 13 and 17 are prime numbers.

Imagine the cicadas have a range of predators that also spend most of their lives in the ground. The cicadas need to come out of the ground when their predators are lying dormant.

Suppose there are predators with life cycles of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 years. What is the best way to avoid them all?

Well, compare a 13-year life cycle and a 12-year life cycle. When a cicada with a 12-year life cycle comes out of the ground, the 2-year, 3-year and 4-year predators will also be out of the ground, because 2, 3 and 4 all divide evenly into 12.

When a cicada with a 13-year life cycle comes out of the ground, none of its predators will be out of the ground, because none of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 divides evenly into 13. The same is true for 17.

It seems these cicadas have evolved to exploit basic facts about numbers.

Creation or discovery?

Once we start looking, it is easy to find other examples. From the shape of soap films, to gear design in engines, to the location and size of the gaps in the rings of Saturn, mathematics is everywhere.

Read more:
Is mathematics real? A viral TikTok video raises a legitimate question with exciting answers

If mathematics explains so many things we see around us, then it is unlikely that mathematics is something we’ve created. The alternative is that mathematical facts are discovered: not just by humans, but by insects, soap bubbles, combustion engines and planets.

What did Plato think?

But if we are discovering something, what is it?

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato had an answer. He thought mathematics describes objects that really exist.

For Plato, these objects included numbers and geometric shapes. Today, we might add more complicated mathematical objects such as groups, categories, functions, fields and rings to the list.

Plato also maintained that mathematical objects exist outside of space and time. But such a view only deepens the mystery of how mathematics explains anything.

Explanation involves showing how one thing in the world depends on another. If mathematical objects exist in a realm apart from the world we live in, they don’t seem capable of relating to anything physical.

Enter Pythagoreanism

The ancient Pythagoreans agreed with Plato that mathematics describes a world of objects. But, unlike Plato, they didn’t think mathematical objects exist beyond space and time.

Instead, they believed physical reality is made of mathematical objects in the same way matter is made of atoms.

If reality is made of mathematical objects, it’s easy to see how mathematics might play a role in explaining the world around us.

In the past decade, two physicists have mounted significant defences of the Pythagorean position: Swedish-US cosmologist Max Tegmark and Australian physicist-philosopher Jane McDonnell.

Tegmark argues reality just is one big mathematical object. If that seems weird, think about the idea that reality is a simulation. A simulation is a computer program, which is a kind of mathematical object.

McDonnell’s view is more radical. She thinks reality is made of mathematical objects and minds. Mathematics is how the Universe, which is conscious, comes to know itself.

I defend a different view: the world has two parts, mathematics and matter. Mathematics gives matter its form, and matter gives mathematics its substance.

Mathematical objects provide a structural framework for the physical world.

The future of mathematics

It makes sense that Pythagoreanism is being rediscovered in physics.

In the past century physics has become more and more mathematical, turning to seemingly abstract fields of inquiry such as group theory and differential geometry in an effort to explain the physical world.

Read more:
Curious Kids: how was maths discovered? Who made up the numbers and rules?

As the boundary between physics and mathematics blurs, it becomes harder to say which parts of the world are physical and which are mathematical.

But it is strange that Pythagoreanism has been neglected by philosophers for so long.

I believe that is about to change. The time has arrived for a Pythagorean revolution, one that promises to radically alter our understanding of reality.

Sam Baron receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Pythagoras’ revenge: humans didn’t invent mathematics, it’s what the world is made of – https://theconversation.com/pythagoras-revenge-humans-didnt-invent-mathematics-its-what-the-world-is-made-of-172034

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Divya Mehta, Principal Research Fellow and Team Leader, Queensland University of Technology

Stress affects up to 90% of people, and we know it harms our mental and physical well-being.

Stress can impact the activity and function of our genes. It does this via “epigenetic” changes, which turn on and off certain genes, though it doesn’t change the DNA code.

But why do some people respond worse to stress, while others seem to cope under pressure?

Previous research has identified having strong social support and a sense of belonging are robust indicators of physical and mental health.

Social support means having a network you can turn to in times of need. This can come from natural sources such as family, friends, partners, pets, co-workers and community groups. Or from formal sources such as mental health specialists.

My new study, published today in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, shows for the first time that these positive effects are also observed on human genes.

Having supportive social structures buffers and even reverses some of the harmful effects of stress on our genes and health, via the process of epigenetics.

The findings suggest the DNA we are born with is not necessarily our destiny.

Read more:
How chronic stress changes the brain – and what you can do to reverse the damage

What is epigenetics?

Our genes and our environment contribute to our health.

We inherit our DNA code from our parents, and this doesn’t change during our life. Genetics is the study of how the DNA code acts as a risk or protective factor for a particular trait or disease.

Epigenetics is an additional layer of instructions on top of DNA that determines how they affect the body. This layer can chemically modify the DNA, without changing DNA code.

The term epigenetics is derived from the Greek word “epi” which means “over, on top of”.

Read more:
Explainer: what is epigenetics?

This extra layer of information lies on top of the genes and surrounding DNA. It acts like a switch, turning genes on or off, which can also impact our health.

Epigenetic changes occur throughout our lives due to different environmental factors such as stress, exercise, diet, alcohol, and drugs.

For instance, chronic stress can impact our genes via epigenetic changes that in turn can increase the rate of mental health disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety.

New technologies now allow researchers to collect a biological sample from a person (such as blood or saliva) and measure epigenetics to better understand how our genes respond to different environments.

Measuring epigenetics at different times allows us to gain insight into which genes are altered because of a particular environment.

Read more:
Extreme stress in childhood is toxic to your DNA

What did we study?

My study investigated both positive and negative factors that drive a person’s response to stress and how this changes the epigenetic profiles of genes.

Certain groups of people are more likely to face stress as a part of their routine work, such as emergency responders, medical workers and police officers.

So, my research team and I recruited 40 Australian first year paramedical students at two points in time – before and after exposure to a potentially stressful event. The students provided saliva samples for DNA and filled out questionnaires detailing their lifestyle and health at both points in time.

We investigated epigenetic changes before and after exposure to stress, to better understand:

• how epigenetics of genes was altered after exposure to stress

• which different social and psychological factors caused the epigenetic changes.

We found stress influenced epigenetics and this in turn led to increased rates of distress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms among participants.

However, students who reported high levels of perceived social support showed lesser levels of stress-related health outcomes.

Students with a strong sense of belonging to a group, organisation, or community dealt much better with stress and had reduced negative health outcomes following exposure to stress.

Both these groups of students showed fewer epigenetic changes in genes that were altered as a result of stress.

COVID has made us more isolated

The COVID pandemic has created heavy psychological and emotional burdens for people due to uncertainty, altered routines and financial pressures.

In Australia, the rates of anxiety, depression and suicide have soared since the start of the pandemic. One in five Australians have reported high levels of psychological distress.

The pandemic has also made us more isolated, and our relationships more remote, having a profound impact on social connections and belonging.

My study highlights how family and community support, and a sense of belonging, influence our genes and act as a protective factor against the effects of stress.

In such unprecedented and stressful times, it’s vital we build and maintain strong social structures that contribute to good physical and mental well-being.

Divya Mehta receives funding from the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council.

– ref. Stress is a health hazard. But a supportive circle of friends can help undo the damaging effects on your DNA – https://theconversation.com/stress-is-a-health-hazard-but-a-supportive-circle-of-friends-can-help-undo-the-damaging-effects-on-your-dna-171607

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

At the last Victorian state election in November 2018, Labor won 18 of the 40 upper house seats, the Coalition 11, the Greens just one and all Others ten. Labor came to an agreement with the Greens’ Samantha Ratnam, Reason’s Fiona Patten and Animal Justice’s Andy Meddick to pass its controversial pandemic legislation.

This agreement appeared to have the support of 21 of the 40 upper house members (MLCs), enough for a majority. But last week, former Labor MLC Adem Somyurek, who has been accused of branch stacking and subsequently expelled by Labor, said he would vote against the legislation. As in the federal Senate, a tied vote in the Victorian upper house is lost.

Labor wants to pass this legislation before their current emergency authority expires on December 16. The last sitting of the Victorian parliament for this year occurs from November 30 to December 2. Labor needs one more crossbencher to join them to make up for Somyurek’s defection, but will probably need to make significant concessions on its legislation to get that vote.

It didn’t have to be this way. The upper house has eight regions that each elect five members, so a quota is one-sixth of the vote or 16.7%. Group ticket voting (GTV), in which parties choose what happens to preferences of their voters who cast a “1” vote above the line, was still used in 2018, even though it was scrapped in 2016 for the federal Senate and by 2018 for the SA upper house.

Under the federal Senate system, voters choose what happens to their preferences by putting at least six numbers above the line, although a “1” only will be accepted as a formal vote. In the NSW, SA and now WA upper houses, there are no instructions to number at least six boxes, and a “1” only vote will expire within the party it is cast for.

If the federal Senate system had been in place for the Victorian 2018 election, my calculations say Labor would have won 19 of the 40 upper house seats, the Coalition 14, the Greens four and all Others three. That would have given Labor and the Greens 23 seats combined, enough to easily cope with one defector.

Read more:
Victorian upper house greatly distorted by group voting tickets; federal Labor still dominant in Newspoll

This is Victorian Labor’s own fault. They have been in power since November 2014, but have made no attempt to fix the shambolic and anti-democratic upper house system.

Will this experience push them into attempting to reform the upper house by the next state election in November 2022? The Coalition may cooperate, as they lost three seats they would otherwise have won in 2018.

Victorian Labor appears to detest the Greens, likely due to Greens’ threats to Labor in inner Melbourne lower house seats. On this basis, they would have been pleased that the Greens won just one upper house seat at the last election, and Labor didn’t have to rely on them to pass legislation.

Victoria is the last Australian jurisdiction that still uses GTV for its elections. I wrote about WA Labor’s electoral reforms in September, and they passed parliament last week owing to Labor’s big majorities in both chambers following the March WA state election.

Newspoll and Morgan both 58-42 to Victorian Labor

A Victorian state Newspoll, conducted November 11-17 from a sample of 1,030, gave Labor a 58-42 lead (about 57.6-42.4 to Labor in 2018 after accounting for no Liberal candidate in Richmond). Primary votes were 44% Labor (42.9% at election), 36% Coalition (35.2%), 11% Greens (10.7%) and 9% for all Others (11.2%).

56% were satisfied with Premier Daniel Andrews’ performance, and 42% were dissatisfied; his net +14 rating is down 15 points from a September premiers’ Newspoll. Opposition Leader Matthew Guy was at -8 net approval and Andrews led Guy as better premier by 54-33.

On Andrews’ handling of COVID, 21% said he’s done consistently well, 39% that he’s done most things well, but he could have done some things better, 20% that he’s done some things well, but many things poorly and 19% said consistently poor. That gave a total 60-39 good rating.

A Morgan SMS poll, conducted November 10 from a sample of 1,357, also gave Labor a 58-42 lead, a 0.5% gain for the Coalition since November 2020. Primary votes were 43% Labor (down 2%), 31% Coalition (down 3.5%), 11% Greens (steady) and 15% for all Others (up 5.5%).

A breakdown of the Others vote had 6.5% for independents (6.1% in 2018), 3% for Clive Palmer’s UAP and 2% for Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party. In a forced choice, Andrews had a 60.5-39.5 approval rating, down from 71-29 last November.

These polls both gave Labor big leads a year from next November’s election. As analyst Kevin Bonham said, the Victorian Coalition’s best hope is that federal Labor wins the federal election in early 2022, creating a drag for state Labor.

Poll of Victorian state seat of Kew has it winnable for Labor

On November 7, Liberal MP Tim Smith, who represents the Victorian state seat of Kew, announced he would resign from politics at the next election, after he crashed his car while drink driving a week before.

A Redbridge poll of Kew was conducted November 4-7 from a sample of 920. The fieldwork dates were at the most damaging for the Liberals, between Smith’s crash and his resignation announcement. The poll gave the Liberals 39%, Labor 31%, the Greens 12% and all Others 18%.

ABC election analyst Antony Green has a post-redistribution Victorian pendulum. Labor starts with 57 lower house seats to 26 for the Coalition, a two-seat gain for Labor from the 2018 results. Nine Liberal-held seats are on a 1% or less margin, with Kew at 4.5%.

If Labor’s leads in current Victorian polling were to be reflected next November, it could be very ugly for the Coalition.

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

– ref. Victorian Labor’s pandemic bill would pass easily if electoral reforms were enacted before 2018 election; Labor way ahead in polls – https://theconversation.com/victorian-labors-pandemic-bill-would-pass-easily-if-electoral-reforms-were-enacted-before-2018-election-labor-way-ahead-in-polls-172241

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Howard, Postdoctoral research fellow, Deakin University

We’ve all watched a honeybee fly past us and land on a nearby flower. But how does she know what she’s looking for?

And when she leaves the hive for the first time, how does she even know what a flower looks like?

Our paper, published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, set out to discover whether bees have an innate “flower template” in their minds, which allows them to know exactly what they are looking for even if they’ve never seen a flower before.

Read more:
One, then some: how to count like a bee

A story of partnership

Plants and pollinators need each other to survive and prosper. Many plants require animals to transport pollen between flowers so the plants can reproduce. Meanwhile, pollinators rely on plants for nutrition (such as pollen and nectar) and nesting resources (such as leaves and resin).

As such, flowering plants and pollinators have been in partnership for millions of years. This relationship often results in flowers having evolved certain signals such as colours, shapes and patterns that are more attractive to bees.

At the same time, bees’ reliance on flower resources such as nectar and pollen has led them to be effective learners of flower signals. They must be able to tell which flowers in their environment will provide a reward and which will not. If they didn’t know the difference, they would waste time searching for nectar in the wrong flowers.

Our findings show bees can quickly and effectively learn to discriminate between flowers of slightly different shapes – a bit like how humans can expertly tell faces apart.

The amazing brains of honeybees

Honeybee brains are tiny. They weigh less than a milligram and contain just 960,000 neurons (compared to 86 billion in human brains). But despite this, they demonstrate exceptional learning abilities.

Their learning extends to many cognitively challenging tasks, including maze navigation, size discrimination, counting, quantity discrimination and even simple math!

Read more:
Bees join an elite group of species that understands the concept of zero as a number

So we know bees can learn all sorts of flower-related information, but we wanted to discover how they find flowers on their first foraging trip outside the hive. We also investigated whether experienced foragers developed a bias in their foraging strategies and flower preferences.

To test this, we prompted two groups of bees to discriminate between sets of flower images. One group was raised in a hive inside a greenhouse with no flowers, and had therefore never been exposed to flowers. We put a colour mark on these bees at birth, so we could track them once they emerged from the hive to forage two weeks later.

The second group consisted of experienced foragers which had encountered many flowers in their lives.

We trained both groups to discriminate between images of two flowers found in nature, using a reward of sugar water for choosing the correct option when directed. We also trained both groups to discriminate between the same flowers with the petals separated and randomly scrambled.

How well and how quickly the bees learnt to discriminate between the images of whole flowers, versus how long they took to discriminate between the scrambled petals, would tell us which information they preferred to learn.

Both the flower-naïve and experienced foragers learnt to discriminate between the images of whole flowers better, and more quickly, than the scrambled petals. However, the flower-naïve honeybees appeared to have less bias as they also learnt to discriminate between the scrambled information, while the experienced foragers could not.

The results reveal flower-naïve bees have an innate flower template that aids them with learning new flowers and discriminating between them. At the same time, experienced foragers become biased towards certain flower shapes as they gain foraging experience.

Overall, bees use an innate flower template to first find flowers, and also draw on their past knowledge as they become more experienced.

Innate recognition in other animals

While our findings on honeybees are remarkable, they do tie into similar capabilities in other species.

Different species have evolved brains which tune into important stimuli. For example, humans and other primates can detect, process, recognise and discriminate between the faces of other members of their species. Research has shown even human infants can detect and recognise other people’s faces very well.

Our preference for faces, and ability to recognise them, has probably evolved due to the importance of needing to discriminate between friends, enemies and strangers. This is akin to the bees needing to process images of whole flower shapes better than scrambled petal images – due to the importance of recognising flower shape for survival.

Similarly, social paper wasps evaluate their relationship with hive-mates based on the different facial markings of friends and foes. Just like bees, they do this using a combination of innate mechanisms and lived experience.

Scarlett Howard receives funding from the Alfred Deakin Postdoctoral Research Fellowship, Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship, and the Fyssen Foundation. She is affiliated with Pint of Science Australia.

Adrian Dyer receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

– ref. Just like how humans recognise faces, bees are born with an innate ability to find and remember flowers – https://theconversation.com/just-like-how-humans-recognise-faces-bees-are-born-with-an-innate-ability-to-find-and-remember-flowers-172222

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thea van de Mortel, Professor, Nursing and Deputy Head (Learning & Teaching), School of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffith University

You can now buy rapid antigen tests in supermarkets and pharmacies to test yourself at home for COVID-19 in about 15 minutes.

You’ll get your results much sooner than standard PCR tests, which most of us will be familiar with.

Here’s how to make the most of these rapid antigen tests, and to increase your chance of a meaningful result.

Read more:
Rapid antigen tests have long been used overseas to detect COVID. Here’s what Australia can learn

Remind me, what’s a rapid antigen test?

A rapid antigen test detects proteins from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in a sample. You can collect the sample yourself at home using a nasal swab or saliva.

The test most of us will be familiar with, the polymerase chain reaction or PCR test, is different. It detects genetic material from the virus. PCR samples are collected by trained health workers, and are processed in the lab by trained technicians.

Rapid antigen tests can be done anywhere by any reasonably competent person. You can get a result in about 15 minutes, depending on the test, versus hours to days for a PCR result.

However, rapid antigen tests are not as reliable as PCR tests. You are more likely to get false negatives (the test indicates you don’t have COVID-19 when you do), or false positives (the test indicates you have it when you don’t).

However, the accuracy of rapid antigen tests improve if you do them when you have symptoms or within seven days of a potential exposure.

Read more:
What’s the difference between a PCR and antigen COVID-19 test? A molecular biologist explains

Why use one?

Rapid antigen tests are useful if you want to quickly check whether you have COVID-19. For instance, you might have a family gathering coming up, with lots of vulnerable, elderly relatives attending, and want to keep them safe.

You might also use a rapid antigen test if you have COVID-19 symptoms and can’t immediately get a PCR test.

Read more:
Home rapid antigen testing is on its way. But we need to make sure everyone has access

Which test to use?

Rapid antigen tests for sale in Australia need to have been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and its website lists tests approved for use at home.

Broadly, they fall into two groups. They test:

• nasal secretions, from a nasal swab, or

• saliva, from spitting into a tube or swabbing inside the mouth.

The TGA describes each approved test as having “acceptable sensitivity”, “high sensitivity” or “very high sensitivity”.

Ones with “very high sensitivity” are more likely to detect an actual SARS-CoV-2 infection and use nasal swabs.

Read more:
Goodbye, brain scrapers. COVID-19 tests now use gentler nose swabs

How do you perform the test?

Tests come with instructions (and a QR code linking to a video). You must follow the instructions to the letter to get an accurate result.

Depending on the test type, you will collect a sample of nasal secretions or saliva, which you place into a chemical solution.

You then place that chemical solution containing your sample onto an
indicator device – a bit like a pregnancy test. This shows a positive result via a detectable colour change.

7 tips to get an accurate result

These tips come from analysing instructions on the TGA website about how to use approved rapid antigen tests. Here’s what to consider:

1. check the expiry date. Don’t use a test that has expired

2. some tests need to be at room temperature for 30 minutes before use. So plan ahead

3. if you are using a nasal swab, blow your nose before collecting the sample. If using a saliva test, don’t eat or drink 10 minutes before collecting the sample

4. avoid contaminating the sample. Regardless of which test you use, instructions can ask you to clean a flat surface; wash or sanitise and dry your hands; and lay out the test items. Never, ever touch the business end of the swab (the soft end that goes in your nose) as you will contaminate it

5. follow the instructions on sample collection to the letter. For example, with a nasal swab you will be asked to insert the swab 2cm, rotate the swab five times, and do this in both nostrils. Once you have collected the sample it goes into the chemical solution

6. place a set number of drops of the solution on the indicator device. Don’t add extra “for good luck”

7. read the results at the exact time recommended. For example, the instructions may ask you to read the result no earlier than 15 minutes after adding the solution and no later than 20 minutes. After 20 minutes the result may no longer be accurate.

What do the coloured lines mean?

There are two coloured lines to look for. One is a C (the control). This tells you if the test is working properly. The other is a T (test) or Ag (antigen). And it’s the combination of these that gives the result:

• if the C coloured line fails to show, the test is invalid. The test kit may have expired, or you didn’t take the test correctly

• if the C coloured line shows and the T (or Ag) line does not, your result is negative (you’re unlikely to have COVID-19)

• if both the C and T (or Ag) lines show up, your result is positive (you’re likely to have COVID-19).

What next?

If you get a negative result and don’t have symptoms, congratulations! If you have a negative result but have symptoms, take a PCR test to be sure. Avoid contact with others in the meantime.

If you get a positive result, follow up as soon as possible with a PCR test to confirm and self-isolate in the meantime.

Thea van de Mortel teaches into the Graduate Infection Prevention and Control program at Griffith University.

– ref. Taking your first rapid antigen test? 7 tips for an accurate result – https://theconversation.com/taking-your-first-rapid-antigen-test-7-tips-for-an-accurate-result-171742

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kalervo Gulson, Professor and ARC Future Fellow, Education & Social Work, Education Futures Studio, University of Sydney

Algorithms are becoming commonplace. They can determine employment prospects, financial security and more. The use of algorithms can be controversial – for example, robodebt, as the Australian government’s flawed online welfare compliance system came to be known.

Algorithms are increasingly being used to make decisions that have a lasting impact on our current and future lives.

Some of the greatest impacts of algorithmic decision-making are in education. If you have anything to do with an Australian school or a university, at some stage an algorithm will make a decision that matters for you.

So what sort of decisions might involve algorithms? Some decisions will involve the next question for school students to answer on a test, such as the online provision of NAPLAN. Some algorithms support human decision-making in universities, such as identifying students at risk of failing a subject. Others take the human out of the loop, like some forms of online exam supervision.

Read more:
Unis are using artificial intelligence to keep students sitting exams honest. But this creates its own problems

How do algorithms work?

Despite their pervasive impacts on our lives, it is often difficult to understand how algorithms work, why they have been designed, and why they are used. As algorithms become a key part of decision-making in education – and many other aspects of our lives – people need to know two things:

1. how algorithms work

2. the kinds of trade-offs that are made in decision-making using algorithms.

In research to explore these two issues, we developed an algorithm game using participatory methodologies to involve diverse stakeholders in the research. The process becomes a form of collective experimentation to encourage new perspectives and insights into an issue.

Our algorithm game is based on the UK exam controversy in 2020. During COVID-19 lockdowns, an algorithm was used to determine grades for students wishing to attend university. The algorithm predicted grades for some students that were far lower than expected. In the face of protests, the algorithm was eventually scrapped.

Read more:
Scotland’s exam result crisis: assessment and social justice in a time of COVID-19

Our interdisciplinary team co-designed the UK exam algorithm game over a series of two workshops and multiple meetings this year. Our workshops included students, data scientists, ethicists and social scientists. Such interdisciplinary perspectives are vital to understand the range of social, ethical and technical implications of algorithms in education.

Algorithms make trade-offs, so transparency is needed

The UK example highlights key issues with using algorithms in society, including issues of transparency and bias in data. These issues matter everywhere, including Australia.

We designed the algorithm game to help people develop the tools to have more of a say in shaping the world algorithms are creating. Algorithm “games” invite people to play with and learn about the parameters of how an algorithm operates. Examples include games that show people how algorithms are used in criminal sentencing, or can help to predict fire risk in buildings

There is a growing public awareness that algorithms, especially those used in forms of artificial intelligence, need to be understood as raising issues of fairness. But while everyone may have a vernacular understanding of what is fair or unfair, when algorithms are used numerous trade-offs are involved.

Read more:
From robodebt to racism: what can go wrong when governments let algorithms make the decisions

In our algorithm game, we take people through a series of problems where the solution to a fairness problem simply introduces a new one. For example, the UK algorithm did not work very well for predicting the grades of students in schools where smaller numbers of students took certain subjects. This was unfair for these students.

The solution meant the algorithm was not used for these often very privileged schools. These students then received grades predicted by their teachers. But these grades were mostly higher than the algorithm-generated grades received by students in larger schools, which were more often government comprehensive schools. So this meant the decision was fair for students in small schools, unfair for those in larger schools who had grades allocated by the algorithm.

What we try to show in our game that it is not possible to have a perfect outcome. And that neither humans or algorithms will make a set of choices that are fair for everyone. This means we have to make decisions about which values matter when we use algorithms.

Public must have a say to balance the power of EdTech

While our algorithm game focuses on the use of an algorithm developed by a government, algorithms in education are commonly introduced as part of educational technology. The EdTech industry is expanding rapidly in Australia. Companies are seeking to dominate all stages of education: enrolment, learning design, learning experience and lifelong learning.

Alongside these developments, COVID-19 has accelerated the use of algorithmic decision-making in education and beyond.

Read more:
Artificial intelligence holds great potential for both students and teachers – but only if used wisely

While these innovations open up amazing possibilities, algorithms also bring with them a set of challenges we must face as a society. Examples like the UK exam algorithm expose us to how such algorithms work and the kinds of decisions that have to be made when designing them. We are then forced to answer deep questions of which values we will choose to prioritise and what roadmap for research we take forward.

Our choices will shape our future and the future of generations to come.

The following people were also involved in the research underpinning the algorithm game. From the Gradient Institute for responsible AI, Simon O’Callaghan, Alistair Reid and Tiberio Caetano. And from the Tech for Social Good group, Vincent Zhang.

Kalervo Gulson receives funding from the Australian Research Council that supported this research.

Claire Benn, Kirsty Kitto, Simon Knight, and Teresa Swist 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. Algorithms can decide your marks, your work prospects and your financial security. How do you know they’re fair? – https://theconversation.com/algorithms-can-decide-your-marks-your-work-prospects-and-your-financial-security-how-do-you-know-theyre-fair-171590

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Salman Shooshtarian, Research Fellow, RMIT University

It cost A$49 million to add 12.5 kilometres of extra lanes to Western Australia’s Kwinana Highway, south of Perth’s CBD. That’s not unusual. On average, building a single lane of road costs about about A$5 million per kilometre.

What is unusual about this stretch of extra freeway is not the money but the materials beneath the bitumen: two stabilising layers comprised of 25,000 tonnes of crushed recycled concrete, about 90% of which came from the demolition of Subiaco Oval (once Perth’s premier football ground).

Recycling building and construction materials remains the exception to the rule in Australia. The National Waste Policy agreed to by federal, state and territory governments has a target of 80% resource recovery by 2030. It’s currently about 40%.

Of the 74 million tonnes of waste generated in Australia in 2020, masonry materials comprised about 22.9 million tonnes. Plastics, by comparison, comprised about 2.5 million tonnes. Of the 61.5 million tonnes of “core waste” managed by the waste and resource recovery sector, 44% (27 million tonnes) came from the construction and demolition sector, compared with 20% (12.6 million tonnes) from households and local government activities.

Most of this waste – concrete, brick, steel, timber, asphalt and plasterboard or cement sheeting – could be reused or recycled. It ends up in landfill due to simple economics. It’s cheaper to buy new materials and throw them away rather than reuse and recycle.

Changing this equation and moving to a circular economy, in which materials are reused and recycled rather than discarded in landfill, is a key goal to reduce the impact of building and construction on the environment, including its contribution to climate change.

Read more:
A third of our waste comes from buildings. This one’s designed for reuse and cuts emissions by 88%

The economics of ‘externalities’

The fact it is more “economic” to throw materials away than reuse them is what economists call a market failure, driven by the problem of “externalities”. That is, the social and environmental costs of producing, consuming and throwing away materials is not reflected in the prices charged. Those costs are instead externalised – borne by others.

In such cases there is a legitimate – and necessary – role for governments to intervene and correct the market failure. For an externality such as carbon emissions (imposing costs on future generations) the market-based solution favoured by most economists is a carbon price.

Read more:
COP26: cities create over 70% of energy-related emissions. Here’s what must change

For construction material waste, governments have a few more policy levers to help create a viable market for more recycling.

Using procurement policies

One way to make recycling more attractive to businesses would be to increase the cost of sending waste materials to landfill. But this would likely have unintended consequences, such as illegal dumping.

The more obvious and effective approach is to help create more demand for recycled materials through government procurement, adopting policies that require suppliers to, for example, use a minimum amount of recycled materials.

With enough demand, recyclers will invest in further waste recovery, reducing the costs. Lower costs in turn create the possibility of greater demand, creating a virtuous circle that leads to a circular economy.

Australia’s federal, state and territory governments all have sustainable procurement policies. The federal Sustainable Procurement Guide states the Australian government “is committed to transforming Australia’s waste into a resource, where most goods and services can be continually used, reused, recycled and reprocessed as part of a circular economy”.

But these policies lack some basic elements.

Three key market-making reforms

Our research suggests three important reforms could make a big difference to waste market operations. This is based on interviewing 27 stakeholders from the private sector and government about how to improve sustainable procurement.

First, government waste policies that set aspirational goals are not supported by procurement policies setting mandatory minimum recycled content targets. All contractors on government-funded construction projects should be required to use a percentage of recycled waste materials.

Second, the nature of salvaging construction materials means quality can vary significantly. Cement recycled from a demolition site, for example, could contain contaminants that reduce its durability.

Read more:
Australia needs construction waste recycling plants — but locals first need to be won over

Governments can help the market through regularly auditing the quality of recycler’s processes, to increase buyer confidence and motivate suppliers to invest in production technologies.

Third, in some states (such as Western Australia) the testing regimes for recycled construction products are more complex than that what applies to raw materials.
More reasonable specifications would reduce compliance costs and thereby the cost of using recycled materials.

Salman Shooshtarian receives funding from Australia Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre

Savindi Caldera receives relevant funding from Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre, Australia.

Tayyab Maqsood receives funding from Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre.

t.ryley@griffith.edu.au receives funding from SBEnrc (Sustainable Built Environment National Research Centre) associated with this article.

– ref. How to make roads with recycled waste, and pave the way to a circular economy – https://theconversation.com/how-to-make-roads-with-recycled-waste-and-pave-the-way-to-a-circular-economy-164997

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Josh Roose, Senior Research Fellow, Deakin University

Over the weekend, tens of thousands of people gathered in Melbourne to protest vaccine mandates and the Victorian government’s proposed pandemic bill.

While the latest protests were relatively peaceful, they have followed a week of similar gatherings whose language and symbolism were at times violent. The protesters are a mix of groups, but the movement is riddled with far-right and alt-right extremists who, with their growing reach through social media and in the context of developments in the United States and Europe, pose one of the more significant challenges to Australian democracy in recent memory.

Read more:
‘It’s almost like grooming’: how anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, and the far-right came together over COVID

Who are the protesters?

This is not an easy question to answer because it is a complex gathering of groups.
Some are simply responding to what they see as over-reach by the state on its pandemic bill or its vaccine mandates.

However, as we’ve seen with the anti-lockdown protests during the course of the pandemic, this is a movement grounded in anger and resentment. These are people who feel a deep sense of powerlessness and frustration: they may have lost their jobs, been cut off from family and friends, and they may be deeply suspicious of, if not outright hostile to, the vaccines. To them, these protests might be empowering at a time when they feel completely disempowered and forgotten.

But there is no doubt that, at the heart of the protests – their ideological roots, so to speak – are extremism and conspiracy theories. An analysis of their online activity and forums, as well as the imagery and language of the protests themselves, offers plenty of evidence of this.

Central to it is a deep distrust of science, a strong belief in conspiracies, including the notion of “big pharma” driving public policy, and a new world order of evil “liberal elites” who abuse children and rule over global affairs.
QAnon is probably the best-known group associated with that thinking. There is also an embedded spiritual framing, patriotism and most alarmingly, anti-semitism that intersects with these far-right narratives.

One of the most important features of all this is the nuance with which it is carried out. It is a movement reliant on symbolism, hand signals, and single-word slogans such as “qui?” (French for “who?”) to get the message across.

This is all cloaked in patriotic symbology, with the Australian flag highly visible at the marches and patriotic folk songs sung over loudspeakers.

There are certainly far-right extremists at the Melbourne rallies. So why Melbourne? It may be, to a large extent, because Victoria in general, and Melbourne in particular, have borne the harshest of the lockdowns during the two years of the pandemic. But these groups are around the country, and are watching what is happening in Victoria in the hope of feeding off it.

What do they want?

Again, this is hard to know, exactly, and there will be diverse views within the protest groups. Some want simple actions: the end of vaccine mandates or the destruction of the pandemic bill. These are, of course, legitimate democratic aims whether others agree with them or not. For some, the protest is the point, offering them a sense of solidarity and belonging.

However for others, including the numerous members of far right groups pictured at the protests, steering the protests toward more extreme language, actions and recruiting from among those attending are key aims. They are often supported by so-called “citizen journalists” who are themselves closely aligned with far-right ideologies.

Direct from the US

These protests are deeply connected to what is happening in the US, the roots of which stretch back to far-right groups gaining momentum in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2007-08. They were then further encouraged by the Trump campaign and presidency. Through social media, their ideas and symbolism have been transported to Australia.

Even a cursory glance at encrypted messaging apps reveals many of those involved in planning and coordinating the Melbourne protests draw direct inspiration from events in the United States, including the January 6 Capitol insurrection.

Politicians and commentators have expressed outrage at the parading of a noose at the Victorian parliament last week, yet this was drawn directly from events on January 6, when protesters threatened to hang the US vice-president as a traitor.

Violent language at the Victorian protests, such as threats to kill Premier Dan Andrews, borrow heavily from far-right American literature and rhetoric, which suggests “traitors” will soon meet their end.

Read more:
Why QAnon is attracting so many followers in Australia — and how it can be countered

What might happen now?

It’s hard to say whether this movement is growing: it’s certainly gaining momentum through these protests, and gaining a potential base of recruitment.

But the question is how many people at these protests would still go if they knew who they were marching alongside?

Certainly, counter-terrorism police will be looking closely at all this activity, especially threats of violence against politicians and others. They will also be interested in attempts by far-right groups to recruit new members.

We now find ourselves in a highly polarised political landscape driven by two years of severe lockdown, and the politicisation of the pandemic. On the one hand, government disaster management approaches need to better account for the ways that governance in a time of crisis plays into the hands of violent extremists.

There are also important political solutions. As unlikely as it seems at this point, what we really need is a bipartisan political approach that addresses legitimate concerns while shutting down extremist and violent activity. The two have become so entangled, it is by no means an easy task, but it is an essential one.

The protests should have a sobering effect on leaders of good sense who care about democracy. As we head into a federal election year in 2022, we are seeing the pre-conditions for fringe politicians with extremist views to be elected and hold the balance of power in parliament, by doing or saying whatever it takes to hold that power.

In that respect, if developments in the United States are any measure, Australian democracy is facing one of the greatest threats it has ever known. Those of good faith need to ensure they reaffirm the fundamental values of citizenship, democracy and peace, while allowing open debate on issues of contention and concern.

Josh Roose receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP200102013) for a Discovery Project titled: ‘Far Right in Australia: Intellectuals, Masculinity and Citizenship’. Josh is a member of the Addressing Violent Extremism and Radicalisation to Terrorism Research Network (AVERT) Executive. He is a member of the Australian Labor Party.

– ref. Why the Victorian protests should concern us all – https://theconversation.com/why-the-victorian-protests-should-concern-us-all-172140

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Surinder S. Jodhka, Professor of Sociology, School of Social Sciences., Jawaharlal Nehru University

Days short of the first anniversary of the farmers’ protests, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a televised address the government had decided to repeal the three new farm laws. The prime minister also said a committee would be formed to address the farmers concerns. The committee would be made up of farmers’ representatives and agriculture policy experts.

The announcement was made on the day of an important Sikh festival that marks the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev, the first of the ten Sikh gurus. Farm leaders welcomed the move, but said the protests won’t end immediately. They say they will wait until the laws are formally repealed in the Indian parliament, and all their demands are met.

Read more:
Why Indian farmers are so angry about the Modi government’s agricultural reforms

Remind me again, what were the farmers protesting?

Farmers in India have been protesting three new laws they fear will fundamentally alter their ways of farming.

The laws, passed by the Indian parliament in September 2020, would open the agricultural sector to active commercial engagement by big corporates. Corporates could purchase, store, and even decide on what crops would be produced. Hence, farmers fear the new laws will trap them into contract farming arrangements with corporate buyers.

Once the laws were passed in September 2020, farmers across India began to protest. In November 2020, a large contingent arrived at the borders of the national capital demanding a complete withdrawal of these laws and introduction of concrete provisions for secure incomes from agriculture through a state-supported system of price security.

The protestors were not allowed to enter the city. So they sat, occupying some of the main national highways connecting the capital city to the rest of the country.

Two of these sites, at the Singhu and Tikri borders, are spread over tens of kilometres along the highway, with nearly 5,000-10,000 farmers staying at each site at any time.

They have braved the vagaries of weather, a raging COVID-19 pandemic, and a hostile bureaucratic machinery and police force.

Nearly 700 among them have died in the course of these protests. In October, four farmers were killed when a group of protestors was hit by a convoy of vehicles in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

Four farmers and a local journalist were killed, and three others died in the mayhem that followed. The prime accused in the case is the son of a junior minister in the federal government.

Read more:
Women take lead roles in India’s farmers’ protest

India’s agriculture crisis, and the genesis of farmer unrest

Two-thirds of India continues to live in rural areas. A large proportion remains dependent on agriculture, partially or solely. However, household incomes from agriculture have been steadily declining.

The average size of land holdings have been shrinking over the years, with nearly 80% of them now less than two hectares. This growing stress has been visible in the form of steadily rising cases of farmers’ suicides, mostly because of their growing indebtedness.

The farmers’ desperation manifested itself in an unprecedented set of mobilisations, as we’ve witnessed in the last year.

Read more:
India’s farmers are right to protest against agricultural reforms

How a hostile government was brought to its knees

The federal government had been largely hostile towards the protestors. But despite this, the protests have had significant political impact, especially in the states of Punjab and Haryana.

In Punjab, it’s now almost impossible for politicians of the federal-ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to step out of their homes to address political meetings or organise events. In Haryana, too, though the BJP is also in power at the state level, the situation is similar.

The chief minister of the state has been compelled to call off public meetings because protesting farmers won’t allow his helicopter to land at the site of the meeting.

The federal government had perhaps expected that the farmers would run out of steam. Since January 2021, farmers had had no formal negotiations with the government. But the movement had been gaining momentum. Besides the sit-ins, they have been holding protest meetings, maha-panchayats, across the country, attracting massive support.

Read more:
India farmers’ protests: internet shutdown highlights Modi’s record of stifling digital dissent

They have been particularly effective in the northern states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, as well as others.

Two of these are politically significant states – Uttar Pradesh and Punjab – that are set to go to the polls early next year. Given the damage these protests could have on the ruling party in the forthcoming elections the federal government appears to have decided to repeal the laws.

The farmers’ determination has been rewarded. Besides putting agriculture back on the national agenda, showing their strength as a political block, they have also managed to build new solidarities across castes and communities.

For the first time, women’s participation in agriculture, and in protest movements has been acknowledged.

This has perhaps been the longest protest movement of its kind in the recent history of India, perhaps, even globally. The protests, and its outcome, have become a source of inspiration for a wide range of political actors that wish to see democracy survive and thrive in India.

Their perseverance and grit has shown it is possible to mobilise and sustain political opposition against a powerful establishment.

Surinder S. Jodhka 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. 1 year and 700 lives lost, but Indian protestors have succeeded in repealing anti-farming laws – https://theconversation.com/1-year-and-700-lives-lost-but-indian-protestors-have-succeeded-in-repealing-anti-farming-laws-172230

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Surinder S. Jodhka, Professor of Sociology, School of Social Sciences., Jawaharlal Nehru University

Days short of the first anniversary of the farmers’ protests, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a televised address the government had decided to repeal the three new farm laws. The prime minister also said a committee would be formed to address the farmers concerns. The committee would be made up of farmers’ representatives and agriculture policy experts.

The announcement was made on the day of an important Sikh festival that marks the birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev, the first of the ten Sikh gurus. Farm leaders welcomed the move, but said the protests won’t end immediately. They say they will wait until the laws are formally repealed in the Indian parliament, and all their demands are met.

Read more:
Why Indian farmers are so angry about the Modi government’s agricultural reforms

Remind me again, what were the farmers protesting?

Farmers in India have been protesting three new laws they fear will fundamentally alter their ways of farming.

The laws, passed by the Indian parliament in September 2020, would open the agricultural sector to active commercial engagement by big corporates. Corporates could purchase, store, and even decide on what crops would be produced. Hence, farmers fear the new laws will trap them into contract farming arrangements with corporate buyers.

Once the laws were passed in September 2020, farmers across India began to protest. In November 2020, a large contingent arrived at the borders of the national capital demanding a complete withdrawal of these laws and introduction of concrete provisions for secure incomes from agriculture through a state-supported system of price security.

The protestors were not allowed to enter the city. So they sat, occupying some of the main national highways connecting the capital city to the rest of the country.

Two of these sites, at the Singhu and Tikri borders, are spread over tens of kilometres along the highway, with nearly 5,000-10,000 farmers staying at each site at any time.

They have braved the vagaries of weather, a raging COVID-19 pandemic, and a hostile bureaucratic machinery and police force.

Nearly 700 among them have died in the course of these protests. In October, four farmers were killed when a group of protestors was hit by a convoy of vehicles in the state of Uttar Pradesh.

Four farmers and a local journalist were killed, and three others died in the mayhem that followed. The prime accused in the case is the son of a junior minister in the federal government.

Read more:
Women take lead roles in India’s farmers’ protest

India’s agriculture crisis, and the genesis of farmer unrest

Two-thirds of India continues to live in rural areas. A large proportion remains dependent on agriculture, partially or solely. However, household incomes from agriculture have been steadily declining.

The average size of land holdings have been shrinking over the years, with nearly 80% of them now less than two hectares. This growing stress has been visible in the form of steadily rising cases of farmers’ suicides, mostly because of their growing indebtedness.

The farmers’ desperation manifested itself in an unprecedented set of mobilisations, as we’ve witnessed in the last year.

Read more:
India’s farmers are right to protest against agricultural reforms

How a hostile government was brought to its knees

The federal government had been largely hostile towards the protestors. But despite this, the protests have had significant political impact, especially in the states of Punjab and Haryana.

In Punjab, it’s now almost impossible for politicians of the federal-ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to step out of their homes to address political meetings or organise events. In Haryana, too, though the BJP is also in power at the state level, the situation is similar.

The chief minister of the state has been compelled to call off public meetings because protesting farmers won’t allow his helicopter to land at the site of the meeting.

The federal government had perhaps expected that the farmers would run out of steam. Since January 2021, farmers had had no formal negotiations with the government. But the movement had been gaining momentum. Besides the sit-ins, they have been holding protest meetings, maha-panchayats, across the country, attracting massive support.

Read more:
India farmers’ protests: internet shutdown highlights Modi’s record of stifling digital dissent

They have been particularly effective in the northern states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, as well as others.

Two of these are politically significant states – Uttar Pradesh and Punjab – that are set to go to the polls early next year. Given the damage these protests could have on the ruling party in the forthcoming elections the federal government appears to have decided to repeal the laws.

The farmers’ determination has been rewarded. Besides putting agriculture back on the national agenda, showing their strength as a political block, they have also managed to build new solidarities across castes and communities.

For the first time, women’s participation in agriculture, and in protest movements has been acknowledged.

This has perhaps been the longest protest movement of its kind in the recent history of India, perhaps, even globally. The protests, and its outcome, have become a source of inspiration for a wide range of political actors that wish to see democracy survive and thrive in India.

Their perseverance and grit has shown it is possible to mobilise and sustain political opposition against a powerful establishment.

Surinder S. Jodhka 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. 1 year and 700 lives lost, but the Indian protestors have succeeded in repealing anti-farming laws – https://theconversation.com/1-year-and-700-lives-lost-but-the-indian-protestors-have-succeeded-in-repealing-anti-farming-laws-172230

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dana M Bergstrom, Principal Research Scientist, University of Wollongong

We tend to think Antarctica is isolated and far away – biologically speaking, this is true. But the continent is busier than you probably imagine, with many national programs and tourist operators crisscrossing the globe to get there.

And each vessel, each cargo item, and each person could be harbouring non-native species, hitchhiking their way south. This threat to Antarctica’s fragile ecosystem is what our new evaluation, released today, grapples with.

We mapped the last five years of planes and ships visiting the continent, illuminating for the first time the extent of travel across the hemispheres and the potential source locations for non-native species, as the map below shows. We found that, luckily, while some have breached Antarctica, they generally have yet to get a stranglehold, leaving the continent still relatively pristine.

But Antarctica is getting busier, with new research stations, rebuilding and more tourism activities planned. Our challenge is to keep it pristine under this growing human activity and climate change threat.

Life evolved in isolation

Biodiversity-wise, much of the planet is mixed up. The scientific term is homogenisation, where species, such as weeds, pests and diseases, from one place are transported elsewhere and establish. This means they begin to reproduce and influence the ecosystem, often to the detriment of the locals.

Most life in Antarctica is jammed onto tiny coastal ice-free fringes, and this is where most research stations, ships and people are.

Read more:
Do assessments of fish stock sustainability work for consumers?

This includes unique animals (think Adélie penguins, Weddell seals and snow petrels), mosses and lichens that harbour tiny invertebrates (such as mites, waterbears and springtails), and an array of microbes such as cyanobacteria. The adjacent coast and ocean team with life, too.

The more we learn about them, the more outstanding life at the end of the planetary spectrum becomes. Just this week, new scientific discoveries identified that some Antarctic bacteria live on air, and make their own water using hydrogen as fuel.

When the Southern Ocean was formed some 30 million years ago, natural barriers were created with the rest of the world. This includes the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, the strongest ocean current on the planet, and its associated strong westerly surface winds, icy air and ocean temperatures.

This means life in Antarctica evolved in isolation, with flora and fauna that commonly exist nowhere else and can cope with frigid conditions. But the simplicity of Antarctica’s food webs can often mean there are gaps in the ecosystem that other species from around the world can fill.

Read more:
Explainer: how the Antarctic Circumpolar Current helps keep Antarctica frozen

In May 2014, for example, routine biosecurity surveillance detected non-native springtails (tiny insect-like invertebrates) in a hydroponic facility at an Australian Antarctic station.

This station, an ice-free oasis, previously lacked these interlopers, and they had the potential to alter the local fragile ecosystem permanently. Thankfully, a rapid and effective response successfully eradicated them.

Pressures from climate change are exacerbating the challenges of human activity on Antarctica, as climate change is bringing milder conditions to these wildlife-rich areas, both on land and sea.

As glaciers melt, new areas are exposed, which allows non-Antarctic species greater opportunity to establish and possibly outcompete locals for resources, such as nutrients and precious, ice-free space.

So far, we’ve been lucky

Our past research focused on non-native propagules – things that propagate like microbes, viruses, seeds, spores, insects and pregnant rats – and how they entrain themselves into Antarctica.

They can be easily caught on people’s clothing and equipment, in fresh food, cargo and machinery. In fact, research from the last decade found that visitors who hadn’t cleaned their clothing and equipment carried on average nine seeds each.

But few non-native species have established in Antarctica, despite their best efforts.

To date, only 11 non-native invertebrate species – including springtails, mites, a midge and an earthworm – have established across a range of locations in the warmer parts of Antarctica, including Signy Island and the Antarctic Peninsula. In the marine realm, some non-native species have been seen but it’s thought none have survived and established.

Microbes are another matter. Each visitor to Antarctica carries millions of microbial passengers, and many of these microbes are left behind. Around most research stations, human gut microbes from sewage have mingled with native microbes, including exchanging antibiotic resistance genes.

Read more:
COVID has reached Antarctica. Scientists are extremely concerned for its wildlife

Last year, for example, a rare harmful bacteria, pathogenic to both humans and birds, was detected in guano (poo) from both Adélie and gentoo penguin colonies at sites with high rates of human visitors. COVID-19 also made its way to Antarctica last December.

Both these cases risk so-called “reverse zoonosis”, where humans spread disease to local wildlife.

What do we do about it?

Three factors have helped maintain Antarctica’s near-pristine status: the physical isolation, cold conditions and co-operation between nations through the Antarctic Treaty. The Treaty is underpinned by the Environmental Protocol, which aims to prevent and respond to threats and pressures to the continent.

There is unanimous commitment from Antarctic Treaty nations towards preventing the establishment of non-native species. This includes adopting a science-based, non-native species manual, which provides guidance on how to prevent, monitor, and respond to introductions of non-native species.

Read more:
‘Existential threat to our survival’: see the 19 Australian ecosystems already collapsing

But time is of the essence. We must better prepare for the inevitable arrival of more non-native species to prevent them from establishing, as we continue to break the barriers protecting Antarctica. One approach is to tailor the newly developed 3As approach to environmental management: Awareness of values, Anticipation of the pressures, Action to stem the pressures.

This means ramping up monitoring, taking note of predictions of what non-native species could sneak through biosecurity and establish under new conditions, and putting in place pre-determined response plans to act quickly when they do.

Dana Bergstrom works for the Australian Antarctic Division and is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Wollongong. Her research and fieldwork in Antarctica was supported by the Australian Antarctic Division.

Shavawn Donoghue receives funding from Australian Antarctic Program.

– ref. Invasive species are threatening Antarctica’s fragile ecosystems as human activity grows and the world warms – https://theconversation.com/invasive-species-are-threatening-antarcticas-fragile-ecosystems-as-human-activity-grows-and-the-world-warms-172058