The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ryna Ordynat, PhD Candidate in History, Monash University

Duelling has gone down in history as a rather quaint and misunderstood practice, a butt of the joke in historical comedies and references. However, duelling was once not only common but considered the pinnacle of honour and bravery, an event that could change one’s reputation – and indeed end one’s life – in a pull of a trigger.

It is extraordinary, and a little fantastical to our modern mind to think that some of the most famous and respected individuals in history, such as Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the U.S. and the seventh President of the U.S. Andrew Jackson, both fought in many duels. Hamilton died in a duel in 1804. Jackson duelled over 100 times, was wounded in two and killed at least one man.

In our age of “trolling” and social media wars, the idea that one man may calmly, and according to proper social rules, kill another over an accusation of cheating at cards, or of being a corrupt or incompetent politician, seems utterly barbaric. This modern incomprehension frequently shows in popular media. Modern filmmakers and writers of TV series and musicals can’t help projecting their own feelings when interpreting duelling in their work.

Take, for example, the successful musical Hamilton based on Alexander Hamilton’s life. The Burr-Hamilton duel, which ended Hamilton’s life, is portrayed in several songs. In one song, founding father Aaron Burr sings, “Can we agree that duels are dumb and immature?” and declares that the whole affair is “absurd”. It must certainly have seemed so to Lin-Manuel Miranda, who wrote the lyrics, but Burr himself probably had very different feelings on the matter.

Recent TV shows set in the 18th and early 19th century, notably Poldark and the 2016 BBC mini-series adaptation of Tolstoy’s War and Peace, depict duels similarly.

In the duel between Pierre and Dolokhov in the miniseries of Tolstoy’s novel, the words “I know it’s stupid but I think I must go through with it” are put into Pierre’s mouth. They encompass what the creators probably understood about duels – that they are stupid, but must be fought, for some unknown reason.

And in season four of Poldark, the main character utters, “My only regret is that I apologised in the first place”, to drive home the point that his faulty pride regrettably caused the duel.

This is not to argue that duels were in any way positive affairs, and should be portrayed as such.

The duel was a highly ritualized activity practised mainly by the upper classes from about 1500 to 1900. It was held in private, usually at dawn, as duelling was illegal throughout Europe and America. It was seen as neither a recreational sport, nor an urge or uncontrollable male aggression – the duel was an affair of honour. In the words of Samuel Johnson:

In a state of highly polished society, an affront is held to be a serious injury. It must, therefore, be resented, or rather a duel must be fought upon it.

Honour was a most crucial concept for gentlemen, and ladies, tied up with one’s reputation. The importance placed on defending honour made refusing a duel challenge nearly impossible; the social consequences for doing so were severe. Indeed, gentlemen did not shoot each other over trivial matters, but rather over slander and accusations of falsehood or dishonesty.

Duels involving women were not fought to gain a woman’s love, as some modern adaptations try to show, but rather because men took responsibility for the protection of honour of certain women in their lives. The duel, therefore, was a way to honourably and privately resolve offences. Its causes varied from accusations of cheating to women’s infidelity.

Alexander Pushkin, considered by many to be Russia’s greatest poet, died in a duel in 1837, defending the accusations that his wife Natalya had been unfaithful. His death echoed in many ways the famous duel between Eugene Onegin and Vladimir Lensky in Pushkin’s Onegin.

Scrupulous regulation

A duel was scrupulously regulated by an elaborate and detailed set of rules, though the specifics of the duelling code varied between countries. Many codes of duelling and help manuals were published throughout the 18th and 19th century, the most popular being the Irish code duello, published in 1777.

The duelling gentlemen would always have “seconds” – friends whose role was to negotiate a resolution of the dispute to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation, usually to very little success.

The high probability of death was, of course, ever present in duels, especially when pistols became more fashionable than rapiers. Pistols could misfire and rarely shot straight, and could also be deadly in the hands of incompetent seconds, whose task it was to provide and load them.

Doctors were also indispensible in duels. The Art of Duelling, published by “A Traveller” in 1836, warns the duellist to remember to “secure the services of his medical attendant, who will provide himself with all the necessary apparatus for tying up wounds and arteries, and extracting balls”.

Public opinion (and ridicule) eventually led to the death of the duel. By the late 19th century, it was successfully banned by most countries, heavily criticised in the press, and frowned upon by the public.

This was, of course, a good thing, as we can all agree there are far better ways of resolving disputes. But next time you watch a duel on television or in a film, it might be worth recalling the history and meaning of this very serious rite of honour.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History and Associate Dean Research (Faculty of Arts), University of Adelaide

From cells that manufacture chemicals, to better crops, environmental monitoring and tailored medicine, synthetic biology presents many opportunities for Australia.

Released this week, the Synthetic Biology – An Outlook to 2030 report by the Australian Council of Learned Academies (ACOLA) describes this promise, and appeals to scientists to conduct public consultation and engagement about synthetic biology.

But we are concerned that without the right regulation and engagement, we risk letting the promise of synthetic biology slip through our fingers.

Read more: The synthetic biology revolution is now – here’s what that means

Synthetic biology involves the application of engineering principles to biology. It allows living systems to be designed and built at the level of DNA.

As the report details, there have been limited studies on public awareness of and attitudes to synthetic biology, and what social values people may associate with it (such as feeling positive about the economic and medical promise, or seeing it as “tinkering” with nature, and something to be feared).

Without addressing this issue, Australia might be at risk of putting substantial resources behind technologies that create products nobody wants – or that some people actively reject (such as has occurred for some types of genetic modification research). Conversely, without knowing more about the social values in this context, we may not prioritise areas where synthetic technologies are most needed, and most likely to be accepted.

We strongly agree with the synthetic biology report that mistakes associated with past efforts at public engagement about genetic modification should be actively avoided.

The public should be involved in true deliberation over our shared futures for 2030 and beyond, and what synthetic biology might contribute.

What people think of synthetic biology

Data from 2017 demonstrate the general public has low awareness of the term “synthetic biology”. But once it is defined, 62% of people have positive attitudes about its potential to improve our lives.

More recent research indicates that a majority of Australians (88%) view science as having made life easier. But many of us have clear concerns about the use of animals for research and genetic modification.

Based on these studies, we anticipate that people will hold diverse perspectives and values in relation to synthetic biology, particularly about different types of applications. This has implications across scientific disciplines.

If synthetic biological approaches in health are seen to be good, but those in agriculture worrisome, for example, how will Australia generate a consistent response to these types of technologies?

Read more: Perceptions of genetically modified food are informed by more than just science

Small sector can present benefits

Australia hosts considerable biological and technological expertise relevant to synthetic biology – but it’s a small sector. Some see this as a disadvantage for innovation, especially with uncertain funding.

However, from the perspective of regulation, small size can be an advantage. Australian research currently occurs mostly in the public sector (that is, within universities and the CSIRO) rather than in more commercialised settings – as happens in countries such as the United States.

This means that scientists, social scientists and the public can come together to collaboratively shape future research agendas in Australia. They can communicate in a relatively open fashion, without concerns about “commercial in confidence” strictures.

The public nature of research here in Australia allows (or even forces) us to focus on and transparently debate as a society what we want to explore and build using synthetic biology. Such debates can occur at the level of institutional ethical review committees, via grant processes and even through public involvement in policy reviews.

For example, consultation and participation of the general public plus the medical and scientific communities was influential in recommending reforms to Australian laws around the use of human embryos in research.

Is existing regulation fit for purpose?

Synthetic biology is a diverse field, covering the design of viruses, bacteria, human and plant cells, as well as the engineering of cells integrated with technology.

This diversity makes the field different to the more familiar, if heavily contested, terrain of genetic modification.

Nevertheless, existing Australian regulation within the Gene Technology Act does address many of the concerns likely to arise in synthetic biology.

Where there are gaps, regulations can be refined and detailed to address them, as shown by a consultation process over 2017-18 that recommended amendments to the original act of 2001.

Other agencies such as the Therapuetic Goods Administration (TGA) may need to review the regulatory framework governing medical devices, and how therapeutic products are defined, as the technologies associated with synthetic biology evolve.

Read more: Proposed new regulations for 3D printed medical devices must go further

It’s also important to acknowledge that capability to work at the level of DNA could create the potential for development of bioweapons such as more virulent viruses or modified bacteria. These present challenges not only for biosafety but also biosecurity.

Such risks must be proactively addressed as the field evolves by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and the TGA, together with international players under the auspices of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention.

The activities of bio-hackers and others who operate outside of usual research settings present additional challenges for regulation.

We’re in a good position

Australia is recognised as having efficient pathways and internationally standardised approaches to biotechnology regulation. This puts us in a strong position to devise innovative and effective policy solutions for synthetic biology.

Early regulatory consideration of the likely impacts of emerging approaches in synthetic biology will be critical, including where existing regulation can be redeployed.

As is typically the case with emerging technologies, there are likely to be high hopes and even hype, along with questions and fears about how these approaches can be used to promote shared social goods.

If we don’t do this well, we risk alienating members of the public. We risk closing doors for scientists pursuing promising research.

Our futures are shared, and so too should be our approaches to synthetic biology.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Priscilla Wehi, Conservation biologist, Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research

Museums throughout Aotearoa New Zealand feature displays of enormous articulated skeletons and giant eggs. The eggs are bigger than two hands put together. This is all that remains of the moa.

Tracing extinctions that happened centuries ago is difficult, but our collaborative analysis of ancestral sayings, or whakataukī, found that early Māori paid attention to their local fauna and environment and recognised the extinction of these giant, flightless birds that were an important food resource.

After Europeans arrived, some whakataukī used moa as a metaphor for the feared extinction of the indigenous Māori people themselves, which emphasises the powerful cultural impact the extinction of moa had.

To go the way of the moa

Moa once walked the uplands and forests of Aotearoa New Zealand, before they were hunted to extinction some 500 years ago. Although moa belong to a time long gone, their story still packs a powerful punch. Especially as we attempt to save the many threatened species at risk of disappearing in our own time.

Read more: A sperm race to help save one of New Zealand’s threatened birds, the sugar-lapping hihi

Although we know when moa disappeared, and why, we know far less about how people alive then responded to the giant birds’ extinction. The loss of the world’s big animals – megafauna including mammoths, cave bears, giant kangaroos – is a repeating theme. These extinctions mostly happened so long ago that we can no longer flesh out the relationships humans had with these species, except in bare bones terms.

But New Zealand was one of the last places on earth that people settled (around AD 1280), and Māori oral traditions retain clues about the species these early settlers discovered, and the ecological relationships they forged.

E koekoe te tūī, e ketekete te kākā, e kūkū te kererū
The tui chatters, the parrot gabbles, the wood pigeon coos

It takes all kinds to study the past. Our team includes a conservation biologist, a linguist, a bioinformaticist and experts in Māori culture. Together, we delved into the wealth of ecological knowledge embedded in Māori oral traditions. We unpicked language cues, historical events and cultural contexts to understand habitats, animals, landscapes and the relationships between them.

Many whakataukī (pithy sayings like English proverbs) reveal intimate observations about nature. The link between flowering times and animal activity expose seasonal cycles. Whakataukī note the abundance of food resources.

Of those that refer to birds, a disproportionate number talk about moa. What they looked like. How they trampled through the forest with their heads in the air. How best to eat them.

He koromiko te wahie i taona ai te moa
The moa was cooked with the wood of the koromiko

Oral traditions can be highly practical. Māori whakataukī are no exception. Many refer to large birds that made excellent meals, from tītī (muttonbirds) to shags. This tallies with the abundance of bones from large bird species that are found in the rubbish dumps of New Zealand archaeological sites.

But whakataukī tell us more. Sometimes, what is missing from a body of knowledge reveals more than what is actually there. We searched the whakataukī for bird species that became extinct in the first few centuries after Māori arrived in New Zealand. There were none, apart from moa, and the giant eagle, or pouakai, that preyed on moa. Pouakai tracked moa on the highway to extinction.

We know that many large bird species existed at this time – giant adzebills, a large goose, the New Zealand raven. But their Māori names are lost. Extinction is reflected in the whakataukī, but sometimes in the gaps.

Kua ngaro i te ngaro o te moa
Lost as the moa was lost

Losing the names of birds that died out centuries ago illustrates one powerful connection between language, culture and biodiversity. When a species goes extinct, the words and knowledge associated with that species start to disappear from the world, too. This extinction pattern is particularly acute in oral cultures.

In contrast, we still recall the birds that went extinct after European arrival – huia, piopio, koreke (the New Zealand quail), whekau (the laughing owl). The changes wreaked on our environment over the last two centuries remain abundantly clear.

Many whakataukī highlight the disappearance of the moa, a sign that moa represented more than just another extinction. They were a poster species. A hashtag. Many sayings lament the loss of the moa, using different words and different phrasing, but with an echo that repeats over and over.

Huna i te huna a te moa
Hidden as the moa hid

Māori recalled the moa after Europeans arrived, too. Māori were suffering badly from diseases and deprivation in the late 1800s. It was as though the Māori world was being felled along with the forests. There was a very real fear among both Māori and Europeans that Māori people and culture would also disappear, just like the moa.

Ka ngaro ā-moa te iwi nei
The people will disappear like the moa

Thankfully, of course, the Māori world is growing. Its whakataukī speak of ecology and history, but more than this, they highlight timeless issues, as relevant today as when they were written, framed as observations of the natural world. A recurrent underlying reminder is that our own future is directly interconnected with our environment. Let’s listen to the lessons in whakataukī, so we can create an enduring legacy for the future.

Whaowhia te kete mātauranga
Fill the basket of knowledge

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Dodd, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, University of Melbourne

If you’ve seen the movie Spotlight, about the Boston Globe investigative reporters who uncovered the staggering extent of child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in the US, you’re already familiar with the work of Walter V. Robinson. He’s the one played by Michael Keaton in the film.

In today’s episode of Media Files – a podcast about the media and how it works – Robinson shares some insights into where the Spotlight investigation began: from scratch.

“I mean, we made our living doing mostly stories about government corruption and malfeasance and we didn’t have a single file anywhere in all of our file cabinets that had the word ‘priest’ or ‘church’,” he says in today’s episode of Media Files.

“I said, look, let’s do this: let’s assemble a list of everybody we can think of who’s ever had anything to do with this sexual abuse of children in Massachusetts and let’s call them all and see what we can find out.”

The initial trickle of leads would soon turn into a flood.

“We had 300 victims just in Boston alone who contacted us in the first two or three weeks after we published,” he said, adding that, for many, “we were the first people they had ever told and they all thought that they were the only ones that this had ever happened to.”

Read more: Review: Spotlight’s revealing story of child abuse in my home town – and maybe yours

As Australia’s Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has now made clear, the horrors the Spotlight team uncovered were not a uniquely US problem.

Australian journalist Chad Watson was editing the Newcastle Herald on the day investigative reporter Joanne McCarthy filed a column that contained a chillingly prescient line.

“Part of that column was the line, ‘There will be a royal commission into clergy abuse in Australia because there must be’. I remember reading that line before we went to print and I thought, ‘Yep, tomorrow I’ll talk to Joanne about that’,” Watson says on Media Files.

“And at that stage, Joanne had been writing about clergy abuse for 10 years; she had probably written 500 stories about it. And we thought, well, what are we going to do about it?”

McCarthy’s reporting, published while Watson was editor of the Newcastle Herald, lit the fuse that led to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Watson told Media Files there were endless challenges along the way.

“We had legal threats from the Catholic Church. We had priests from the pulpit mentioning the Newcastle Herald. I was actually in mass myself – and now I don’t go to church much anymore – when the priest mentioned that there was a statement at the back of the church to be collected about reports in the Newcastle Herald,” he said. “And I have had friendships fracture.”

In today’s episode of Media Files, we talk about the challenges in covering clergy abuse, how media outlets handle accusations against people who have since died and how journalists work with vulnerable survivors of abuse.

Read more: How investigative journalists are using social media to uncover the truth

Media Files is produced by a team of journalists and academics who have spent decades working in and reporting on the media industry. They’re passionate about sharing their understanding of the media landscape, especially how journalists operate, how media policy is changing, and how commercial manoeuvres and digital disruption are affecting the kinds of media and journalism we consume.

Media Files will be out every month, with occasional off-schedule episodes released when we’ve got fresh analysis we can’t wait to share with you. To make sure you don’t miss an episode, find us and subscribe on Apple Podcasts, in Pocket Casts or wherever you find your podcasts. And while you’re there, please rate and review us – it really helps others to find us.

You can find more podcast episodes from The Conversation here.

• Suicide Call Back Service: 1300 659 467
• Lifeline 24-hour counselling: 13 11 14
• Mental Health Crisis Helpline in each state and territory.

Recorded at the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Advancing Journalism. Producer: Andy Hazel and Gavin Nebauer.

Additional audio

Theme music by Susie Wilkins.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Holden, Lecturer in Dental Ethics, Law and Professionalism, University of Sydney

The effect of teeth whitening was discovered quite by accident. In the past, dentists tried to treat gum disease with mouth rinses containing hydrogen peroxide. They noticed teeth became whiter over time following use of these mouthwashes.

In modern-day Australia, teeth whitening is offered by dentists, other dental practitioners and by cosmetic businesses on the high street. Many teeth-whitening products are also available over the counter for home application, including gels and strips. So which option is best and safest?

Read more: Curious Kids: My tooth fell out. Why is it so spiky on the bottom?

How do they work?

Teeth whitening has also been commonly called teeth bleaching, mainly because the active ingredient in most products is hydrogen peroxide (or products that release hydrogen peroxide when mixed with water or air).

Teeth whitening is somewhat controversial; different countries have different rules regarding the permitted concentrations of hydrogen peroxide released by products and who may provide these.

In Australia, only a dental practitioner may provide products that release more than 6% hydrogen peroxide. In New Zealand, non-dentists may apply up to 12% hydrogen peroxide to whiten teeth. In the UK, it’s illegal for anyone other than dentists to use concentrations higher than 0.1%.

Despite lay practitioners in New Zealand using far higher concentrations of hydrogen peroxide, we don’t really have any evidence of harm to the public from this difference in policy.

Dentists in Australia are able to use high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide. Some in-chair whitening systems use 35% hydrogen peroxide. At this concentration, hydrogen peroxide can effectively permeate deep into the enamel structure. Weaker concentrations act only at the surface of the tooth enamel.

While hydrogen peroxide is the active ingredient in most whitening products, some teeth-whitening gels contain carbamide peroxide or sodium perborate. Both of these agents break down to release hydrogen peroxide.

What’s the difference?

So what’s the difference between teeth whitening by a dentist, in a cosmetic setting, and do-it-yourself home kits?

Recently, the lines between these categories have blurred somewhat. Many dentists now offer teeth-whitening treatments that are then taken home and used by consumers. Non-dentists are also offering “in-chair” whitening treatments, often with products that require light activation. Both of these methods work by releasing hydrogen peroxide, but in-chair systems tend to use products that release higher levels of hydrogen peroxide, especially those used by dentists.

Lab-based research suggests in-chair whitening by dentists increases the strength of enamel, making it more resistant to erosion from acid. In contrast, home whitening was shown to increase the loss of mineral content within enamel, which over time may lead to weakness.

The researchers suggest home systems should be used under the supervision of a dentist. Whitening products bought over the counter, when used excessively, could lead to damage to teeth over time.

Read more: Bad teeth? Here’s when you can and can’t blame your parents

The main difference is dentists will take a mould of your teeth and use that to make a whitening tray. This ensures the treatment touches your teeth only and not your gums. It’s important hydrogen peroxide isn’t left in contact with gums for a long time as this can cause burns.

Many outlets offering teeth whitening claim to use “peroxide-free” products. Consumers should ask what these actually contain. Products might be free of peroxide before use, but then release hydrogen peroxide when activated.

Products that genuinely don’t contain or release hydrogen peroxide are unlikely to be very effective in whitening teeth.

Enamel that is bleached by DIY whitening products may be vulnerable to damage from abrasive toothpastes. Prolonged use of home whitening products may weaken the surface of the enamel, making it more vulnerable to acid damage or wear.

Once teeth have been whitened, you don’t have to keep on whitening them, but the effects will gradually fade over time. These usually last 6-12 months, depending on brushing and diet.

It doesn’t take too much searching to find a huge range of home remedies for teeth whitening. From rubbing banana peel on your teeth, to brushing with a mixture of lemon juice and bicarbonate of soda, there are lots of quick-fix teeth-whitening solutions. While many of these home remedies simply don’t work, many contain acids, sugars and powerful abrasives, which may lead to tooth damage and poorer dental health if used routinely.

Toothpastes that contain charcoal have increased in popularity in recent times. Some promote these products as beneficial for oral health and teeth whitening. However, a recent review in the Journal of the American Dental Association found insufficient evidence to support these claims.

Read more: Explainer: what are wisdom teeth and should I get mine out?

Before you go

Before you undergo any course of teeth whitening, it would be a good idea to have a check-up to make sure your mouth is healthy. It’s quite common for teeth-whitening products to cause sensitivity. Usually this is temporary in effect. Identifying any dental health issues beforehand will reduce the risk of experiencing too many surprises.

One limitation of any type of whitening treatment is that dental restorations, such as tooth-coloured fillings, veneers and crowns (caps), won’t change colour, as the whitening only takes effect on natural teeth.

This can then result in a mismatch between the whitened natural teeth and any such restorations. It’s a factor to consider when having teeth whitened by someone without formal dental training as they might not be able to predictably identify which teeth will not whiten.

Treatment by dentists typically costs more, but comes with more assurances for patients. Dentists can use stronger products, are more likely to understand what is achievable with each type of whitening (office-based or home) and can also help more effectively if anything goes wrong.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Skarbek, CEO at ClimateWorks Australia, Monash University

While Australia is coming to terms with yet another new prime minister, one thing that hasn’t changed is the emissions data: Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions are not projected to fall any further without new policies.

Australia, as a signatory to the Paris Agreement on climate change, has committed to reduce its total emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030, and reach net zero emissions by 2050.

Read more: Why is climate change’s 2 degrees Celsius of warming limit so important?

New analysis by ClimateWorks Australia has found Australia has three times the potential needed to reach the federal government’s current 2030 target, but this will not be achieved under current policy settings.

Energy is not the only sector

Australia’s emissions were actually falling for more than half a decade, but have been steadily increasing again since 2013. If Australia sustained the rate of emissions reduction we achieved between 2005 and 2013, we could meet the government’s 2030 target. But progress has stalled in most sectors, and reversed overall.

Emissions are still above 2005 levels in the industry, buildings and transport sectors, and only 3% below in the electricity sector. It is mainly because of land sector emissions savings that overall Australia’s emissions are on track to meet its 2020 target, and are currently 11% below 2005 levels.

Despite the current focus on the energy market, electricity emissions comprise about one-third of Australia’s total greenhouse emissions. So no matter what policies are proposed for electricity, other policies will be needed for the other major sectors of industry, buildings, transport and land.

Fortunately, Australia is blessed with opportunities for more emissions reductions in all sectors.

Read more: Keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees: really hard, but not impossible

ClimateWorks’ analysis assessed Australia’s progress on reducing emissions at the halfway point from the 2005 base year to 2030, looking across the whole of the economy as well as at key sectors.

We found emissions reductions since 2005 have been led by reduced land clearing and increased forestation, as well as energy efficiency and a slight reduction in power emissions as more renewable energy has entered the market. But while total emissions reduced at an economy-wide level, and in some sectors at certain times, none of the sectors improved consistently at the rate needed to achieve the Paris climate targets.

Interestingly, some sub-sectors were on track for some of the time. Non-energy emissions from industry and the land sector were both improving at a rate consistent with a net zero emissions pathway for around five years. The buildings sector energy efficiency and electricity for some years improved at more than half the rate of a net zero emissions pathway. These rates have all declined since 2014 (electricity resumed its rate of improvement again in 2016).

Looking forward

Looking forward to 2030, we studied what would happen to emissions under current policies and those in development, including the government’s original version of the National Energy Guarantee with a 26% emission target for the National Electricity Market. Our analysis shows emissions reductions would be led by a further shift to cleaner electricity and energy efficiency improvements in buildings and transport, but that this would be offset by population and economic growth.

As a result, emissions reductions are projected to stagnate at just 11% below 2005 levels by 2030. Australia needs to double its emissions reduction progress to achieve the federal government’s 2030 target and triple its progress in order to reach net zero emissions by 2050.

So, while Australia is not currently on track to meet 2030 target, our analysis found it is still possible to get there.

Read more: What is a pre-industrial climate and why does it matter?

The gap to the 2030 target could be more than covered by further potential for emissions reductions in the land sector alone, or almost be covered by the further potential in the electricity sector alone, or by the potential in the industry, buildings and transport sectors combined. Harnessing all sectors’ potential would put us back on track for the longer-term Paris Agreement goal of net zero emissions.

Essentially this involves increasing renewables and phasing out coal in the electricity sector; increasing energy efficiency and switching to low carbon fuels in industry; increasing standards in buildings; introducing vehicle emissions standards and shifting to electricity and low carbon fuels in transport; and undertaking more revegetation or forestation in the land sector.

The opportunities identified in each sector are the lowest-cost combination using proven technologies that achieve the Paris Agreement goal, while the economy continues to grow.

Read more: Australia can get to zero carbon emissions, and grow the economy

In the next two years, countries around the world, including Australia, will be required to report on the progress of their Paris Agreement targets and present their plans for the goal of net zero emissions. With so much potential for reducing emissions across all sectors of the Australian economy, we can do more to support all sectors to get on track – there is more than enough opportunity, if we act on it in time.

The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alan Morris, Research Professor, University of Technology Sydney

Public concern about housing affordability in Australia is well documented. It would be reasonable to assume our local governments are giving the supply of affordable housing the attention it deserves. However, our national survey reveals that while it’s a growing concern for many local governments across the country, especially in metropolitan areas, most councils do not view the provision of affordable housing as a priority for them.

The survey results strongly suggest that local governments do not feel they have the capacity to intervene in a meaningful way.

The survey included a range of questions about local governments’ engagement with housing-related activities in their area. We asked about the priority given to housing issues, how important housing is relative to other council issues, and what kinds of policies and initiatives they plan to implement to help resolve the problem.

All 546 local governments in Australia were invited to participate in the survey. We received 213 responses. The majority, 72%, came from non-metropolitan areas (there are a lot more non-metropolitan local governments).

Do councils think it’s a problem in their area?

Almost all the metropolitan councils saw housing affordability as an issue (Figure 1). Half saw it as a very substantial or substantial issue. Only 13.5% said it was not an issue.

In contrast, only 26.6% of non-metropolitan councils responded that housing affordability is a substantial or very substantial issue.

The responses to the question about what proportion of housing stock in the council area is affordable were remarkable (Figure 2).

Half of the metropolitan councils said only 5% of the housing in their local government area (LGA) was affordable. Three-quarters said 10% or less. Even in the non-metropolitan areas, 43% of councils said only 15% of housing was affordable.

What are councils doing about it?

Despite recognising the problem, very few councils appear to be making the provision of affordable housing a priority. Just 13.5% of respondents from metropolitan areas and 15.5% from non-metropolitan LGAs said their councillors gave housing affordability a substantial or very substantial amount of attention (Figure 3).

Linked to this lack of attention, few councils viewed “finding ways to provide adequate affordable housing” in their LGA as a priority (Figure 4). Not one metropolitan council answered to a “very substantial extent”. Only a quarter said to “a substantial extent”.

About four in ten metropolitan councils and over half of the non-metropolitan councils viewed finding ways to provide adequate affordable housing locally as a non-priority. These councils had put this on the far backburner.

Local governments were also asked what priority had been given to housing relative to other council issues (Figure 5). Just 1.8% of respondents in metropolitan areas and 5.2% in non-metropolitan areas said housing had been given “very high” priority.

More encouraging was that about four in ten councils in metropolitan areas did say they had given it high priority relative to other issues. Very few non-metropolitan councils, about one in five, said housing was a high priority or very high priority relative to other issues.

Do councils have policies, targets or strategies in place?

Fewer than half of those surveyed said they had a “housing policy, housing plan or housing strategy” in place (Figure 6).

Those that reported having a formal policy said it focused on such issues as housing affordability, residential land development, population change, urban design, social and public housing, and energy efficiency.

However, our survey reveals that those policies are not perceived as being particularly extensive. Figure 7 shows just one in four local governments in metropolitan areas and 10% from non-metropolitan areas believe their council’s housing policies are “comprehensive” to a very substantial or substantial extent.

The data suggest that having an explicit housing affordability target was viewed as unrealistic. Only 17.3% of metropolitan councils and 10.1% of non-metropolitan councils said they had an explicit target (Figure 8).

Whose responsibility is it to provide affordable housing?

It’s noteworthy that, out of 213 councils, only one felt local government should be primarily responsible for “addressing the problems associated with housing in Australia” (Figure 9). The overwhelming sentiment was that state government or a combination of all levels of government should be responsible.

The results suggest that improving housing affordability in a meaningful way is beyond the remit of local government. State and federal governments need to take the lead.

Although many councils are well aware that housing affordability is an issue in their area, they feel unable to respond in a meaningful way. An explanation for this is a unanimous view that Australia’s housing affordability problem is beyond the capacity of local governments to resolve. Almost all councils believe the provision of affordable housing is the responsibility of state and/or federal governments.

This is not surprising when we consider that local government accrues only 3.5% of all tax revenue. Local councils lack the fiscal capacity to develop affordable housing.

Further, state governments often override local governments’ efforts through the planning approvals to ensure all new developments have an affordable housing component.