Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tess Newton Cain, Associate professor, Griffith University

There has been a flurry of international media and commentary attention on Solomon Islands in recent months. Since the news broke of Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare’s intention to sign a security agreement with the People’s Republic of China, scrutiny of his every move and word has been intense.

There have been two recent developments that have caused yet more scrutiny of the Sogavare government – the government’s intention to delay next year’s federal election and moratorium on some international ships from its ports.

Once again, too much of the reporting and commentary casts these events through the overly narrow lens of geo-strategic competition. The interplay of domestic political dynamics is overlooked or oversimplified, yet it is only by understanding these dynamics that a full picture of what is happening in Solomon Islands can be drawn.

Read more:
In the Solomon Islands, Wong takes first tentative steps in repairing a strained relationship

Efforts to delay next year’s election

This week, the government will seek to suspend standing orders of the parliament to allow for a fast-track of a controversial bill to amend the Constitution. The effect of this legislation is to defer the general elections that are due next year until 2024.

The actions of the government to push through the bill during the coming week mean the normal process of taking public submissions will not take place. The government’s reason for this amendment to the Constitution is that because Solomon Islands will host the Pacific Games in 2023, and holding elections the same year puts too great a strain on finances and logistics.

This argument has been poorly received by the parliamentary opposition and civil society groups. Opposition Leader Mathew Wale said Sogavare was demonstrating he was not interested in good parliamentary practice or good governance. He has described the attempt to push back the election as an abuse of process that sets a bad precedent for the future.

Wale has advised members of the public who are concerned about this issue to speak to their elected representatives and seek to influence them to vote against the bill. He has also expressed concern that Sogavare’s actions run the risk of triggering public protests given the level of concern in the community.

Ban on international ships

During the past week, it was reported the Solomon Islands government had issued a moratorium on port visits by foreign naval vessels. The news followed an incident involving the USGS Oliver Henry, which diverted to Port Moresby after failing to obtain clearance to call at Honiara to refuel and replenish.

The US government subsequently confirmed it had received written advice from the government of Solomon Islands that all visits by foreign naval vessels are suspended until further notice. The Prime Minister’s Office issued a statement explaining that the rationale for the moratorium was to review the processes and protocols associated with ship visits.

In Parliament on Monday morning, PM Sogavare advised that the ban did not apply to Australian or New Zealand vessels. Regarding the USGS Oliver Henry, the government has said there was a delay in communication and that when the clearance to call at was given, the ship had already departed for Papua New Guinea (PNG).

Read more:
Australia should not overstate the threat of China in the Pacific, and mend relationships in the region

Regional impact and response

It is unlikely this action is indicative of any particular strategic intention on the part of Sogavare, though it will probably have strategic implications. The newly installed PNG foreign minister, Justin Tkatchenko, cautioned the moratorium may have adverse “repercussions” on regional relationships in the future.

The moratorium is complicated by the fact that Honiara is home to the Forum Fisheries Agency, whose mandate is to coordinate surveillance of Pacific waters to guard against illegal fishing. This is a significant security concern for the region and partners such as Australia and the US have been working to increase the amount of support they provide, including the deployment of their own ships.

Domestic impression

Many Solomon Islanders have been sceptical of claims that the election needs to be pushed back due to the Pacific Games. Some have wondered why the government can’t call on its international partners to provide electoral assistance if money and logistics are such an issue.

Questioned earlier this year on their thoughts about their current government and its policies, more than 90% of residents across the island nation did not want their fortunes tied to China, and believed corruption in government was high and rising. With these numbers, it is little surprise the actions of the Sogavare government have caused both national and international concern.

Read more:
As China flexes its muscles in the Indo-Pacific, Canada and Australia must step up

‘Charm offensive’

For the US, amid a concerted programme of re-engagement in the region, these two recent developments are too easily seen as a “win” for China. Despite their importance and significance, they divert focus and energy from issues that merit as much if not more attention.

Making a meaningful commitment to clearing the huge amounts of unexploded ordnance that litter the country is an example. It’s a security issue that is very important to the people of Solomon Islands and is recognised as a priority by the US administration.

The US and its allies have been advised to continue their “charm offensive” with Honiara in order to improve current tensions. By committing meaningful resources to address unexploded ordnance and other domestic issues, the US and other members of the international community can elevate relationships with the Solomon Islands beyond geopolitics and into ones of genuine partnership.

Tess Newton Cain 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. Solomon Islands’ election postponement plans ensure global scrutiny will continue – https://theconversation.com/solomon-islands-election-postponement-plans-ensure-global-scrutiny-will-continue-189865

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Roland Crocker, Associate Professor of Astronomy, Australian National University

A glowing blob known as “the cocoon”, which appears to be inside one of the enormous gamma-ray emanations from the centre of our galaxy dubbed the “Fermi bubbles”, has puzzled astronomers since it was discovered in 2012.

In new research published in Nature Astronomy, we show the cocoon is caused by gamma rays emitted by fast-spinning extreme stars called “millisecond pulsars” located in the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, which orbits the Milky Way. While our results clear up the mystery of the cocoon, they also cast a pall over attempts to search for dark matter in any gamma-ray glow it may emit.

Seeing with gamma rays

Thankfully for life on Earth, our atmosphere blocks gamma rays. These are particles of light with energies more than a million times higher than the photons we detect with our eyes.

Because our ground-level view is obscured, scientists had no idea of the richness of the gamma-ray sky until instruments were lofted into space. But, starting with the serendipitous discoveries made by the Vela satellites (put into orbit in the 1960s to monitor the Nuclear Test Ban), more and more of this richness has been revealed.

The state-of-the-art gamma-ray instrument operating today is the Fermi Gamma Ray Space Telescope, a large NASA mission in orbit for more than a decade. Fermi’s ability to resolve fine detail and detect faint sources has uncovered a number of surprises about our Milky Way and the wider cosmos.

Mysterious bubbles

One of these surprises emerged in 2010, soon after Fermi’s launch: something in the Milky Way’s centre is blowing what look like a pair of giant, gamma-ray-emitting bubbles. These completely unanticipated “Fermi bubbles” cover fully 10% of the sky.

A prime suspect for the source of the bubbles is the Galaxy’s resident supermassive black hole. This behemoth, 4 million times more massive than the Sun, lurks in the galactic nucleus, the region from which the bubbles emanate.

Most galaxies host such giant black holes in their centres. In some, these black holes are actively gulping down matter. Thus fed, they simultaneously spew out giant, outflowing “jets” visible across the electromagnetic spectrum.

Thus a question researchers asked after the discovery of the bubbles: can we find a smoking gun tying them to our Galaxy’s supermassive black hole? Soon, tentative evidence did emerge: there was a hint, inside each bubble, of a thin gamma-ray jet pointing back towards the galactic centre.

With time and further data, this picture became muddied, however. While the jet-like feature in one of the bubbles was confirmed, the apparent jet in the other seemed to evaporate under scrutiny.

The bubbles looked strangely lopsided: one contained an elongated bright spot – the “cocoon” – with no counterpart in the other bubble.

Read more:
Astronomers have detected one of the biggest black hole jets in the sky

The cocoon and where it comes from

Our recent work in Nature Astronomy is a deep examination of the nature of the “cocoon”. Remarkably, we found this structure has nothing to do with the Fermi bubbles or, indeed, the Galaxy’s supermassive black hole.

Rather, we found the cocoon is actually something else entirely: gamma rays from the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy, which happens to be behind the southern bubble as seen from the position of Earth.

The Sagittarius dwarf, so called because its sky position is in the constellation of Sagittarius, is a “satellite” galaxy orbiting the Milky Way. It is the remnant of a much larger galaxy that the Milky Way’s strong gravitational field has literally ripped apart. Indeed, stars pulled out of the Sagittarius dwarf can be found in “tails” that wrap around the entire sky.

What’s making the gamma rays?

In the Milky Way, the main source of gamma rays is when high-energy particles, called cosmic rays, collide with the very tenuous gas between the stars.

However, this process cannot explain the gamma rays emitted from the Sagittarius dwarf. It long ago lost its gas to the same gravitational harassment that pulled away so many of its stars.

So where do the gamma rays come from?

We considered several possibilities, including the exciting prospect they are a signature of dark matter, the invisible substance known only by its gravitational effects which astronomers believe makes up much of the universe. Unfortunately, the shape of the cocoon closely matches the distribution of visible stars, which rules out dark matter as the origin.

One way or another, the stars were responsible for the gamma rays. And yet: the stars of the Saggitarius dwarf are old and quiescent. What type of source amongst such a population produces gamma rays?

Millisecond pulsars

We are satisfied there is only one possibility: rapidly spinning objects called “millisecond pulsars”. These are the remnants of particular stars, significantly more massive than the Sun, that are also closely orbiting another star.

Under just the right circumstances, such binary systems produce a neutron star – an object about as heavy as the Sun but only about 20km across – that rotates hundreds of times per second.

Because of their rapid rotation and strong magnetic field, these neutron stars act as natural particle accelerators: they launch particles at extremely high energy into space.

These particles then emit gamma rays. Millisecond pulsars in the Sagittarius dwarf were the ultimate source of the mysterious cocoon, we found.

Read more:
This newly discovered neutron star might light the way for a whole new class of stellar object

The hunt for dark matter

Our findings shed new light – pun intended – on millisecond pulsars as sources of gamma rays in other old stellar systems.

At the same time, they also cast a pall over efforts to find evidence for dark matter via observations of other satellite galaxies of the Milky Way; unfortunately, there is a stronger “background” of gamma rays from millisecond pulsars in these systems than previously realised.

Thus, any signal they produce might not be unambiguously interpreted as due to dark matter.

The hunt for dark matter signals goes on.

Read more:
We don’t know if dark matter exists. So why do astronomers keep looking?

Roland Crocker receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Gamma rays from a dwarf galaxy solve an astronomical puzzle – https://theconversation.com/gamma-rays-from-a-dwarf-galaxy-solve-an-astronomical-puzzle-189784

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allen Cheng, Professor in Infectious Diseases Epidemiology, Monash University

The CSIRO has delivered a comprehensive report on how we should prepare for future pandemics.

The report identifies six key science and technology areas such as faster development of vaccines and onshore vaccine manufacturing to ensure supply, new antivirals and ways of using the medicines we already have, better ways of diagnosing cases early, genome analysis, and data sharing.

It also recommends we learn more about viruses and their hosts across the five most concerning virus families. These causes of disease could fuel the next pandemic.

We asked leading experts about the diseases they can cause and why authorities should prepare well:

1. Coronaviridae

COVID-19, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), severe acquired respiratory syndrome (SARS)

The first human Coronaviruses (229E and OC43) were found in 1965 and 1967 respectively. They were low-grade pathogens causing only mild cold-like symptoms and gastroenteritis. Initial understanding of this family came from study of related strains that commonly infect livestock or laboratory mice that also caused non-fatal disease. The HKU-1 strain in 1995 again did not demonstrate an ability to generate high levels of disease. As such, coronaviridae were not considered a major concern until severe acquired respiratory syndrome (SARS-1) first appeared in 2002 in China.

Coronaviridae have a very long RNA genome, coding up to 30 viral proteins. Only four or five genes make infectious virus particles, but many others support diseases from this family by modifying immune responses. The viruses in this family mutate at a steady low rate, selecting changes in the outer spike to allow virus entry into new host cells.

Coronaviridae viruses are widespread in many ecological niches and common in bat species that make up 20% of all mammals. Mutations spread in their roosts can spillover into other mammals, such as the civet cat, then into humans.

Coronaviridae genome surveillance shows an array of previously unknown virus strains circulating in different ecological niches. Climate change threatens intersections of these viral transmission networks. Furthermore, pandemic human spread of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) has now seeded new transmissions back into other species, such as mink, cats, dogs and white-tailed deer.

Ongoing viral evolution in new animal hosts and also in immune-compromised HIV patients in under-resourced settings, presents an ongoing source of new variants of concern.

– Damian Purcell

Read more:
Long COVID: How researchers are zeroing in on the self-targeted immune attacks that may lurk behind it

2. Flaviviridae

Dengue fever, Japanese encephalitis, Zika, West Nile fever

The flaviviridae family causes several diseases, including dengue, Japanese encephalitis, Zika, West Nile disease and others. These diseases are often not life-threatening, causing fever, sometimes with rash or painful joints. A small proportion of those infected get severe or complicated infection. Japanese encephalitis can cause inflammation of the brain, and Zika virus can cause birth defects.

While all these viruses may be spread by mosquito bites, when it comes to each individual virus, not all mosquitoes bring equal risk. There are key mosquito species involved in transmission cycles of dengue and Zika virus, such as Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus, that may be found in close to where people live. These mosquitoes are found in water-holding containers (such as potted plant saucers, rainwater tanks), water-filled plants, and tree holes. They also like to bite people.

The mosquitoes that spread these viruses are not currently widespread in Australia; they’re generally limited to central and far north Queensland. They are routinely detected through biosecurity surveillance at Australia’s major airports and seaports. With a rapid return to international travel, movement of people and their belongings may become an ever-increasing pathway of introduction of the diseases and mosquitoes back into Australia.

Different mosquitoes are involved in the transmission of West Nile virus and Japanese encephalitis. These mosquitoes are more likely to be found in wetlands and bushland areas than backyards. They bite people but they also like to bite the animals most likely to be carrying these viruses.

The emergence of Japanese encephalitis, a virus spread by mosquitoes between waterbirds, pigs, and people, is a perfect example. Extensive rains and flooding that provide idea conditions for mosquitoes and these animals create a “perfect storm” for disease emergence.

– Cameron Webb & Andrew van den Hurk

Read more:
Japanese encephalitis virus has been detected in Australian pigs. Can mozzies now spread it to humans?

3. Orthomyxoviridae

Influenza

Before COVID-19, influenza was the infection most well-known for causing pandemics.

Influenza virus is subdivided into types (A, B, and rarely C and D). Influenza A is further classified into subtypes based on haemagglutinin (H) and neuraminidase (N) protein variants on the surface of the virus. Currently, the most common influenza strains in humans are A/H1N1 and A/H3N2.

Zoonotic infection occurs when influenza strains that primarily affect animals “spill over” to humans.

Major changes in the influenza virus usually result from new combinations of influenza viruses that affect birds, pigs and humans. New strains have the potential to cause pandemics as there is little pre-existing immunity.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, there have been four influenza pandemics, in 1918, 1957, 1968, and 2009. In between pandemics, seasonal influenza circulates throughout the world.

Although influenza is not as infectious as many other respiratory infections, the very short incubation period of around 1.4 days means outbreaks can spread quickly.

Vaccines are available to prevent influenza, but are only partially protective. Antiviral treatments are available, including oseltamivir, zanamivir, peramivir and baloxavir. Oseltamivir decreases the duration of illness by around 24 hours if started early, but whether it reduces the risk of severe influenza and its complications is controversial.

– Allen Cheng

Read more:
My year as Victoria’s deputy chief health officer: on the pandemic, press conferences and our COVID future

4. Paramyxoviridae

Nipah virus, Hendra virus

Paramyxoviridae are a large group of viruses that affect humans and animals. The most well known are measles and mumps, as well as parainfluenza virus (a common cause of croup in children).

Globally, measles is a dangerous disease for young children, particularly those who are malnourished. Vaccines are highly effective with the measles vaccine alone estimated to have saved 17 million lives between 2000 and 2014.

One group of paramyxoviruses is of particular importance for pandemic planning – henipaviruses. This includes Hendra virus, Nipah virus and the new Langya virus (as well as the fictional MEV-1 in the film Contagion). These are all zoonoses (diseases that spill over from animals to humans)

Hendra virus was first discovered in Queensland in 1994, when it caused the deaths of 14 horses and their horse trainer. Infected flying foxes have since spread the virus to horses in Queensland and northern New South Wales. There have been seven reported human cases of Hendra virus in Australia, including four deaths.

Nipah virus is more significant globally. Infection may be mild, but some people develop encephalitis (inflammation of the brain). Outbreaks frequently occur in Bangladesh, where the first outbreak was reported in 1998. Significantly, Nipah virus appears to be able to be transmitted from person-to-person though close contact.

– Allen Cheng

Read more:
What is this new Langya virus? Do we need to be worried?

5. Togaviridae (alphaviruses)

Chikungunya fever, Ross River fever, Eastern equine encephalitis, Western equine encephalitis, Venezuelan equine encephalitis

The most common disease symptoms caused by infection with alphaviruses like chikungunya and Ross River viruses are fever, rash and painful joints.

Like some flaviviruses, chikungunya virus is thought to be only spread by Aedes aegypti mosquitoes in Australia. This limits risks, for now, to central and far north Queensland.

Many different mosquitoes play a role in transmission of alphaviruses, including dozens of mosquito species suspected as playing a role in the spread of Ross River fever. Many of these mosquitoes are commonly found across Australia.

But what role may these local mosquitoes play should diseases such as eastern equine encephalitis or western equine encephalitis make their way to Australia? Given the capacity of our home-grown mosquitoes to spread other alphaviruses, it is reasonable to assume they would be effective at transmitting these as well. That’s why the CSIRO report notes future pandemic preparation should work alongside Australia’s established biosecurity measures.

– Cameron Webb & Andrew van den Hurk

Read more:
How can the bite of a backyard mozzie in Australia make you sick?

Allen Cheng receives funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Australian government for research, including in influenza. He is Chair of the Advisory Committee for Vaccines and a member of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation.

Andrew van den Hurk has received funding from local, state and federal agencies to study the ecology of mosquito-borne pathogens, and their surveillance and control. He is an employee of the Department of Health, Queensland Government.

Cameron Webb and the Department of Medical Entomology, NSW Health Pathology, have been engaged by a wide range of insect repellent and insecticide manufacturers to provide testing of products and provide expert advice on mosquito biology. Cameron has also received funding from local, state and federal agencies to undertake research into mosquito-borne disease surveillance and management.

Damian Purcell consults for Moderna on mRNA vaccine education and receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Victorian Government grants. He is Past Presidents’ advisor for the Australasian Virology Society, and Committee member of the RNA Network of Australia.

– ref. 5 virus families that could cause the next pandemic, according to the experts – https://theconversation.com/5-virus-families-that-could-cause-the-next-pandemic-according-to-the-experts-189622

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian A. MacKenzie, Associate Professor in Economics, The University of Queensland

At last, there’s action on climate change. The United States recently passed its largest climate bill ever. And Australia is set to usher a 43% emissions target into law this week, although the Greens will try to amend the bill so the climate impacts of new gas and coal projects are considered.

Good news, right? There’s one issue – these laws, packages and amendments conspicuously avoid the “T” word. Economists have long argued the best option to cut emissions is a tax or, failing that, a type of carbon market known as “cap-and-trade”. But nowhere do the Australian or US bills mention taxing carbon dioxide to discourage dumping it into the atmosphere.

Why? The answer is basically politics. The Gillard Labor government introduced a carbon tax that, although it worked, turned out to be political kryptonite. So Labor’s climate policies now rely not on a tax, but on incentives for clean energy, carbon farming and electric transport.

This is not ideal. For decades, economists have pointed out carbon taxes and pollution allowance markets are the simplest and best way to reduce emissions at the lowest possible cost. But it seems taxes are out and stimulus is in.

A long history of tax avoidance

This isn’t new, of course. For decades, politicians – particularly in Anglophone countries – have avoided carbon taxes or market-based ways of cutting planet-heating pollutants.

Every attempt to price carbon on a national level in the US has failed. The first was in 1990. Presidential candidate turned climate campaigner Al Gore called for a carbon tax in his influential 1992 book, Earth in the Balance. But it was politically unappealing.

Read more:
The US has finally passed a huge climate bill. Australia needs to keep up

Why? Concerns over “federal overreach”, increasing cost of power, and, of course, lobbying from fossil fuel industries.

Australia has the sad title of the first country in the world to introduce and remove a price on carbon – a sign of how fraught the idea has been. Labor’s Rudd-Gillard government lost the 2013 election with the “carbon tax” issue front-and-centre in the campaign.

Policy and politics has evolved

Since Australia repealed its carbon tax, we’ve seen significant change in climate policies towards what is politically possible.

In the US, federal inaction on climate change spawned stronger environmental regulation by some states. Coalitions of American states now operate some of the world’s best pollution markets, such as that covering 12 eastern states and California’s own market.

The EU avoided taxes in favour of a cannier approach. They created a pollution market but allowed each state to determine how many allowances domestic firms could obtain. This made the policy more politically appetising and the EU carbon market has since expanded substantially.

The world’s largest emitter, China, last year followed suit and launched the world’s largest carbon trading scheme.

But Australia didn’t follow the emissions trading model pursued by the EU and many US states. Instead, the Abbott Coalition government brought in an emissions reduction fund to subsidise pollution reduction.

Companies can use pollution reduction to gain carbon credits, which can be sold to government or on the private market. The policy has proven thoroughly underwhelming.

What trends are we seeing?

So tax and markets seem to be off the table when it comes to climate bills.

Last month, the US passed a sweeping A$530 billion bill aimed at boosting health care funding and tackling climate change.

It’s aimed at speeding up the shift to clean energy and electric transport, through rebates and tax credits for electric cars, efficient appliances and rooftop solar. Conspicuously absent was any mention of a carbon tax or pollution allowance market.

Australia’s climate bill requires us to reduce emissions by 43% by 2030 – but there’s very little information on the crucial question of how.

Labor’s bill envisages a type of market, regulating large polluters by allowing them to trade credits created by emissions reduction.

But both Australia and the US have shied away from the principle of “polluter pays”.

This is disappointing. Yes, subsiding pollution reduction can create incentives for behaviour change. But subsidies are often wasteful and inefficient. Taxes and markets are better options. We now know countries with a price on carbon have emissions growth rates around 2% lower than those without. Longer term, this is often enough to see overall emissions begin to fall.

While the direct costs of subsidies are not immediately seen by citizens and companies, these subsidies have to be paid for through increases in general taxation. Carbon taxes, by contrast, are more explicit. A polluter will clearly notice having to pay the tax and be motivated to avoid it.

We’ll still need taxes and market approaches, even with the subsidies

Instead of splashing out on subsidies, governments could still introduce a carbon tax to raise much-needed revenue while offering assistance to low-income households, cutting taxes elsewhere, or even reduce the deficit.

In Australia, there’s surprising support for a return of the carbon tax. But Labor may well be wary, given how their last carbon tax was easily defeated with a political scare campaign. One alternative could be to follow the EU and China and begin auctioning off pollution permits.

We could also borrow from America’s approach. Deep in the bill is a fee on methane emissions. This, some environmentalists believe, could be the crucial first step towards wider pricing of pollution.

Even though subsidies and rebates are politically popular, by themselves they cannot end greenhouse gas emissions. While carrots are popular, we will still need a stick – taxes or markets – to actually encourage polluters to cut emissions.

Read more:
Carbon pricing works: the largest-ever study puts it beyond doubt

Ian A. MacKenzie 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. Taxes out, subsidies in: Australia and the US are passing major climate bills – without taxing carbon – https://theconversation.com/taxes-out-subsidies-in-australia-and-the-us-are-passing-major-climate-bills-without-taxing-carbon-189555

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ian Lowe, Emeritus Professor, School of Science, Griffith University

An increase in the permanent migrant intake to 195,000 this year is one of the jobs summit outcomes announced by the federal government on Friday. The business community pushed for this change, saying shortages of skilled employees are holding back the economy.

The downsides of increasing migration, which will almost certainly worsen our environmental problems, weren’t mentioned. We can expect public debate about lifting migration to pre-pandemic levels. It’s essential for this debate to consider the whole picture: the economic, social and environmental issues.

Migration has environmental impacts because it increases our population, with proportional increases in resource use and waste products. Our population has grown by 50% since 1990, from 17 million to almost 26 million today. Our energy use has risen from 4,000 petajoules a year to 6,200, increasing our greenhouse gas emissions by around 50%.

The demands of the human population are causing, directly or indirectly, all of Australia’s serious environmental problems.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Summit triggers immediate action and elevates gender equality

Pressures on the environment are growing

Since 1996, there have seen six independent State of the Environment reports to the Australian government. I chaired the advisory council that produced the first.

This 1996 report found much of Australia’s environment was in good condition by international standards. But we also had serious problems: loss of biodiversity, the state of inland rivers, degradation of productive land, pressures on the coastal zone, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

The five reports since then have documented the worsening of those problems. The most recent report said our environment is in poor condition and deteriorating. It found “many species and ecosystems are increasingly threatened” and noted “abrupt changes in ecological systems” in recent years.

As the 1996 report said, no single government or commercial sector is to blame for our environmental problems. In a sense, we are all indirectly responsible. The issues are the cumulative consequences of the growth and distribution of our population, our lifestyle choices, the technologies we use and the demands we make on our natural resources.

The latest report observes:

“Humans drive many of the pressures on our environment. Our activities, settlements and use of resources all affect the environment and its assets in different ways.”

The report notes the particular pressures of population growth on the coastal zone, where most Australians live. Australian cities are growing faster than those in most other affluent countries, it says.

That growth has increased demand for resources such as water and energy as well as increasing impacts such as “urban heat, congestion, pollution and waste”. The demands of a growing population have led to land clearing, reduced green space, more pollution and the loss of biodiversity.

Read more:
State of the Environment report shows our growing cities are under pressure – but we’re seeing positive signs too

Today’s decisions shape tomorrow’s Australia

The decisions being made now have a substantial effect on what Australia will look like in the future. As a report I wrote with Jane O’Sullivan and Peter Cook in February this year said, with net migration below 60,000 a year the population would stabilise around 30-35 million by 2050. The newly announced 195,000 a year could lift it to about 40 million.

It is sometimes claimed migration simply shifts environmental impacts from one country to another and so does no extra damage to the planet. This would be true if migrants all came from countries with the same resource demands as us. But most economic migrants come to Australia precisely because our material standard of living is higher and they want to enjoy those benefits.

Pre-pandemic figures from 2016-17, for example, showed about 170,000 migrants coming from countries with much lower resource use. About 50,000 came from affluent countries in which resource use is typically about half that in Australia. Only about 5,000 were from places where material demand is similar to ours.

Read more:
Chinese migrants follow and add to Australian city dwellers’ giant ecological footprints

No doubt we could do many things to reduce the impacts of our growing population. We could, for instance, improve urban planning. We could also shift more rapidly to cleaner energy systems that embrace efficiency improvements recommended nearly 20 years ago to the Howard government. And we could adopt legally enforceable national environmental standards, as recommended by the 2020 Samuel review, which found our environmental laws are ineffective.

The fundamental need, though, is to upgrade our decision-making so environmental issues are always part of the calculus. Current thinking seems to presume the economy has over-riding importance and the environment just has to cope with the impacts.

Even the economic benefits are debated

Even the view that increasing migration produces economic benefits is not universal among economists. A 2016 Lowy Institute report, citing published research and a Productivity Commission report, claimed “a sustained high rate of net immigration […] appears to be necessary to stave off long-term population decline and is likely to result in higher GDP per capita and labour productivity”. On the other hand, economics professor John Quiggin points to “the net costs imposed on the community as a whole by increased migration”.

A 2014 OECD review referred to a study of impacts of migration to OECD countries. It concluded “the impact of the cumulative waves of migration that arrived over the past 50 years […] is on average close to zero”. It was positive in some cases, negative in others, “rarely exceeding 0.5 per cent of GDP”.

Read more:
Is education or immigration the answer to our skills shortage? We asked 50 economists

Even those who believe increasing migration has economic benefits, such as the Lowy Institute report authors, concede that “accompanying policies are necessary to ensure that these net benefits are distributed fairly and that the social and environmental effects of increased population are managed properly”.

Increasing public hostility to high levels of migration is a direct consequence of failure to manage the social impacts. Urban infrastructure has not kept pace with increasing demands. As a result, the three in four Australians who live in our major cities see their quality of life getting worse.

We can’t ignore the big picture

Unless we reduce our demands per person, our growing population inevitably increases pressures on our environment. We need to look beyond simplistic economic assumptions and consider the whole picture.

As the latest State of the Environment report concludes:

“Our health, living standards, cultural and spiritual fulfilment and connection to country are all interconnected and are negatively impacted by our deteriorating environment.”

Ian Lowe was president of the Australian Conservation Foundation from 2004 to 2014.

– ref. Migration boost is bad news for Australia’s environment – we mustn’t ignore that – https://theconversation.com/migration-boost-is-bad-news-for-australias-environment-we-mustnt-ignore-that-189948

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Holloway, Senior Research DECRA Fellow, Institute for Learning Sciences and Teacher Education, Australian Catholic University

It’s that time of year again when parents and students anxiously await their NAPLAN results.

NAPLAN is a nationwide test of literacy and numeracy that all students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 are expected to take. It doesn’t impact entrance to high school or university, but is a measure of how a child is performing at school.

Just like every year, some students will bring home results that are lower than what they hoped for. If this happens to your child, you can play an important role in helping them overcome some of the disappointment and limit any impact on their wellbeing.

What should you say – and what shouldn’t you say – when discussing NAPLAN results with your child?

Do talk about the context

One thing parents can do for their student is help them understand the broader context of NAPLAN.

For one thing, the purpose of NAPLAN is for the government and public to get a broad understanding of how schools are performing.

This provides important information about where to allocate more resources to support schools in need. While individual families also receive information about how their student performed, this was not the original purpose of the test.

Another key aspect is the impact of COVID cannot be overstated when it comes to interpreting this year’s NAPLAN results. Countries around the world are reporting that annual test scores are significantly down this year, and it shouldn’t be a surprise.

School disruptions might explain some of these drops, but we can’t forget the levels of fear, loss and trauma that many families have experienced due to the pandemic and floods. NAPLAN participation rates were historically low this year, which says a lot about the challenging circumstances students have faced.

Do talk about life beyond NAPLAN

Without fail, NAPLAN attracts national attention every year. To a student, it is hard to believe that NAPLAN could be anything but a very big deal.

Unfortunately, research has shown students’ self esteem can be negatively impacted by lower-than-expected test results.

Parents can help students understand NAPLAN is only one indication of their learning progress. They can encourage their child to focus on their strengths and other indicators of achievement. These may be achievements in subjects not tested by NAPLAN, or involvement in extra curricular activities.

Parents may also like to note that some experts say the test should be abandoned or changed, arguing it it is too narrowly focused and hampers creativity.

Read more:
‘It hurt my heart and my wallet’: the unnecessary test stressing teachers before they even make it to the classroom

Do talk to your child’s teacher

Most importantly, if you have any questions about your student’s NAPLAN results, discuss these questions with your child’s teacher.

Teachers have the most valuable information about how your student is progressing through school.

Regardless of what NAPLAN results say, teachers are the ones who spend every day watching your student grow. They are constantly assessing learning, and they will be able to explain how your student is doing and how to interpret NAPLAN scores more holistically.

Don’t compare your child’s results

Please resist the urge to compare your student’s NAPLAN results to their peers’ or even their own previous scores.

I would say this every year, but it’s even more important now. The last few years have been extremely disruptive, and families have been impacted in very different ways.

It is impossible to know exactly how the effects of the pandemic influenced each student’s NAPLAN performance. Because of this, comparisons across students, classrooms or years can be misleading.

Don’t focus on what NAPLAN ‘means’ for the future

It is critical that students and parents understand that NAPLAN is only one narrow measure of learning.

NAPLAN only provides a small snapshot of how they performed on one day. NAPLAN will never be able to capture everything a student has learned or the progress they have made.

It is also true that NAPLAN doesn’t tell us much about what a student might do in the future. Most importantly, students should be reminded that NAPLAN does not define who they are, or what they are capable of achieving.

And don’t panic!

Regardless of how your student performs on NAPLAN this year, do not panic or get overly excited.

Remaining calm and encouraging your student to see NAPLAN as but one measure of achievement is crucial for supporting students’ wellbeing and future prospects.

Overreactions can have multiple consequences. They can lead to unnecessary pressure to perform better next time, which will likely have the opposite effect.

They can also lead to the incorrect belief that NAPLAN scores are true predictors of what students will be capable of doing in the future. It is not worth jeopardising a student’s sense of worth simply because of one test score.

Read more:
Parents and screen time: are you a ‘contract maker’ or an ‘access denier’ with your child?

Jessica Holloway receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. What parents should and shouldn’t say when talking to their child about NAPLAN results – https://theconversation.com/what-parents-should-and-shouldnt-say-when-talking-to-their-child-about-naplan-results-189636

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Coates, Program Director, Economic Policy, Grattan Institute

The federal government’s decision to lift Australia’s permanent migrant intake from 160,000 to 195,000 this financial year, which it announced at the jobs summit, has been applauded by business leaders and premiers.

But by itself, lifting migration will do little to fill widespread skills shortages, partly because three in every four migrants granted permanent visas are already in Australia.

Even if the larger intake succeeds in bringing in more people from overseas, more migrants will mean a bigger economy, which will itself increase the demand for workers. And it will mean having to build more homes.

But it should boost the budget’s bottom line. Grattan Institute modelling suggests an ongoing increase in the annual permanent intake of 195,000 would boost federal and state budgets by up to A$33 billion over the next decade, depending on exactly which streams the extra visas are allocated to.

The decision to commit $36 million to help work through the backlog of 900,000 outstanding visa applications is welcome – although it is likely even more resources will be needed to get the program back on track.

Sensible easy calls

The government has also extended by two years the period international students studying in-demand degrees can remain in Australia after graduation: from three years to five years for masters graduates, and from four years to six years for PhD graduates.

But the bigger challenge is improving the poor employment outcomes of the international graduates who are already here.

Despite their qualifications, a quarter of recent graduates are either unemployed or not looking for work. A further 17% work in low-skilled occupations in retail, wholesale and hospitality. Most earn no more than working holiday makers.

The government also extended the relaxation of work rights for international students – traditionally capped at 40 hours a fortnight – until 30 June next year.

But having made these easy calls on areas where consensus emerged at the summit, the government faces two tough choices.

Challenge 1: lifting the income threshold

The immediate challenge will be settling the debate over raising the Temporary Skilled Migration Income Threshold (TSMIT), which puts a floor under the wage at which employers can sponsor workers via the temporary skills shortage visa.

The threshold hasn’t been increased since 2013, and at $53,900 a year, has fallen in relative terms to the point where it is lower than the wages earned by 80% of Australian full-time workers.

Unions want the threshold raised to $90,000.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry wants it lifted to just $60,000.

The Grattan Institute has suggested a threshold of $70,000 – roughly where it would have been if it had been indexed to wages over the past decade.

Our research suggests skilled migrants who earn $70,000 on arrival get few or no pay rises, whereas those who start out on more than $70,000 tend to get big pay rises – more than 5% a year on average – over the course of their stay in Australia.

Lifting the threshold to $90,000, as the unions propose, could cut out many of the younger skilled workers who form the bedrock of permanent skilled migration.

Temporary skills shortage visa-holders are, on average, much younger than the typical Australian worker, and start out earning less.

A $90,000 threshold would knock out about 60% of recent temporary skills shortage visas granted, compared to 35% for a $70,000 threshold.

Challenge 2: better pathways to permanent residency

The second big challenge is to provide better pathways to permanent residency for temporary migrants, including temporary skilled workers and international students, as the federal government has signalled it wants.

Australia offers only a fixed number of permanent visas each year. In contrast, Australia’s temporary migrant intake is largely uncapped, except for limits on working holiday visa grants for some countries.

Simply put, it’s not possible to run an uncapped temporary migration program and a capped permanent program, and offer temporary visa-holders a pathway to permanent residency. Something has to give.

Resolving these two challenges will loom large in the review of the Australia’s immigration system announced by Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil during the summit, which is due to report by the end of February 2023.

Read more:
An idea for the jobs summit: axing the ‘business investment’ visa would save Australia $119 billion over three decades

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. We would also like to thank the Scanlon Foundation for its generous support of this project.

Tyler Reysenbach 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. Lifting migration was easy – now Australia faces two tougher choices on migrant income and residency – https://theconversation.com/lifting-migration-was-easy-now-australia-faces-two-tougher-choices-on-migrant-income-and-residency-189952

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Greg Stratton, Lecturer – Criminology and Justice Studies, RMIT University

Listeners of the true crime podcast Teacher’s Pet were vindicated last Tuesday when 74-year-old Chris Dawson was found guilty of murdering his wife Lynette in Sydney nearly 40 years ago.

Dawson was convicted based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence in a judge-only trial.

The publicity brought about by the podcast is widely seen as the catalyst to Dawson’s conviction. While Dawson’s conviction may seem like a win for investigative journalism, it remains unclear whether true crime entertainment – from podcasts to Netflix specials – can regularly play a tangible role in achieving justice.

Prosecutions aren’t easy

While pop culture can shift public perceptions, often flipping the original heroes and villains of criminal cases on their head, true crime content can reflect naivety about how the public can assist investigations and influence the outcomes of criminal cases.

Criminal investigations are slow, complex processes focused on identifying suspects and building a brief of evidence, hopefully proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the courtroom. While most criminal cases in Australia resolve with a finding of guilt, this is largely because most defendants plead guilty.

Even when a matter makes it to trial, prosecutors are constrained by rules of evidence, the availability of witnesses and the (justifiably) high standard of proof for a finding of guilt – beyond reasonable doubt.

Read more:
‘A clear victory for dogged investigative journalism’: Chris Dawson found guilty of murdering wife Lynette in 1982

True crime entertainment has the luxury of ignoring the hearsay rule, the restrictions placed on mentioning criminal history and the heavy scrutiny of “experts” who assert they have specialised knowledge to assist the case. They also don’t need to meet the evidentiary and legal thresholds of a criminal trial.

Fans of the podcast Up and Vanished experienced this disconnect firsthand when the main suspect in the show’s first season, Ryan Duke, was found not guilty for the cold-case murder of Tara Grinstead. Podcast host Payne Lyndsey expressed shock and disappointment when Duke was found not guilty of five of six counts related to the death, describing the state’s case as “weak as shit” likely because it couldn’t follow the narrative form of his podcast.

But podcasters and television producers should have some humility regarding criminal prosecutions, and accept that a compelling narrative is not the same as a solid case.

Read more:
The Gabby Petito case has been exploited by the media. We need to stop treating human tragedy as entertainment

Highlighting injustice, but not much else

A subset of true crime entertainment is focused on shining a spotlight on possible wrongful convictions where an innocent person has been imprisoned for a crime they didn’t commit.

These narratives often revolve around a “whodunit” – where audiences are encouraged to guess the real culprit. They do so by framing wrongful convictions as an anomaly of criminal justice processes, rather than as an inherent risk of even ideal police investigations.

True crime shows can win over public sentiment, but the process of overturning a wrongful conviction is a slow and difficult one.

In the United States, wrongfully convicted people are imprisoned for 11 years on average before proving their innocence.

The hit Netflix show Making a Murderer is a prime example of this. Despite being one of the most popular true crime shows ever made, the two focal points of the series, Steven Avery and Brandon Dassey, remain in prison after multiple failed appeals.

Even high-profile true crime cases which result in their subjects walking free, frequently do so because of less-than-ideal outcomes.

The West Memphis Three were three teens convicted of murder who were the subject of an HBO documentary film series highlighting their innocence. Following public outrage, the three (now) men were eventually set free – but only by utilising an oddity of the US criminal justice system known as an Alford plea – allowing them to assert their innocence while admitting there was enough evidence to find them guilty.

While true crime stories are great at winning over public sympathies, the actual mechanics of the criminal justice system are far less forgiving.

Heating up cold cases

One of the key advantages of true crime entertainment is that it can bring public attention to cases that have gone cold, and assist in sparking new leads.

There are often a variety of reasons why a cold case is reactivated, including pressure from politicians and victims’ families, technological advances allowing for better analysis of evidence, the emergence of new information or witnesses, or a proactive effort by police to revisit unresolved cases.

True crime can often spark new leads and evidence as part of an investigation, increase public pressure on authorities or even peak the interest of police investigators themselves.

Professor Jeremy Gans from Melbourne University has argued that Teachers Pet provided no new and admissible information regarding the murder of Lynette Dawson, but did provide a narrative of “unwavering certainty that a single theory about an unsolved disappearance is the absolute truth”. Consequently, it placed strong public pressure on prosecutors to review the case.

Read more:
How crime fiction went global, embracing themes from decolonisation to climate change

True crime also allows for the spotlighting of cases previously ignored because the victims were from vulnerable or marginalised communities.

Recent examples include Bowraville, which highlights the unsolved murder of three Aboriginal teens in NSW in 1991, and Bondi Badlands, which looks into the murders and disappearances of gay men at Bondi Beach in the 1980s and ‘90s.

True crime can certainly play a role in reigniting investigations into cold cases as well as miscarriages of justice, but it’s important to emphasise that police and lawyers remain the gatekeepers to achieving justice.

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. True crime entertainment like The Teacher’s Pet can shine a light on cold cases – but does it help or hinder justice being served? – https://theconversation.com/true-crime-entertainment-like-the-teachers-pet-can-shine-a-light-on-cold-cases-but-does-it-help-or-hinder-justice-being-served-189787

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Wellings, Senior Lecturer in Politics and International Relations, Monash University

The United Kingdom now has its third ever female prime minister. Liz Truss was elected as leader by grassroots members of the Conservatives to lead the party – and hence the nation – on a platform that positioned her as the continuity candidate from Boris Johnson.

This result will be celebrated on all sides of British politics.

Members of the Conservative party – the approximately 180,000 people who elected the new leader – will be delighted that the continuity candidate got over the line. Similarly, strategists for the opposition parties – Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party – will also be delighted that the continuity candidate got over the line. In electing Truss as leader, Conservative members have increased their party’s chances of losing the next general election.

This is because Truss essentially offers more of the same. She steps into 10 Downing Street at a moment when the views of the Conservative party and the experience of the wider electorate are diverging. As Britons find themselves in the throes of a cost-of-living crisis, the leadership debates between Truss and her main opponent, Rishi Sunak, were focused on the extent of tax cuts, weakening the public purse when it is needed most. This was music to the ears of the older and wealthier Conservative members, but a case of “same world, different planet” for the wider electorate.

Read more:
Boris Johnson: four ways this controversial prime minister tested the British parliament to its limits

To add insult to injury, Truss disparaged the idea of support for struggling Britons as “handouts”. Furthermore, her views on British workers as “lazy” resurfaced during the leadership contest. This is unlikely to endear her to those one-time Labour voters in the 45 so-called “Red Wall” seats in northern England that switched to the Johnson-led Conservatives at the 2019 election.

Newly-minted Conservative MPs in such seats fear that, faced with this disdain, their new supporters may switch back to Labour.

Additionally, as someone who symbolises continuity with the Johnson government, Truss may struggle in the 20 so-called “Blue Wall” seats in southern England. Former Conservative voters switched to the Liberal Democrats in three recent by-elections in such seats, heaping pressure on Johnson to resign earlier this year.

Conservative MPs in this part of England fear that voters who were switched off by Johnson’s political tone and governing style, may not warm to Truss’s embrace of the same tactics: hostility to the EU, goading the French, and waging a “war on woke”.

North of the border, Truss’s embrace of all things British, from her famous support for British cheese to the self-conscious adoption of Thatcherite imagery, will consolidate support for Scottish independence. There are only six Conservative MPs in Scotland, but having Truss as leader won’t make the job of retaining seats at the next election any easier.

Given these strategic perils, why was she elected? A YouGov opinion poll found a plurality of Conservative members did not want to see Johnson ousted from Number 10, despite his record in government. A gulf has emerged between grassroots Conservatives and the wider electorate. If Truss emulates Johnson too closely – as the party seems to want – it is the party that will pay the price.

Read more:
Boris Johnson says his time as UK PM was ‘mission largely accomplished’. How does that actually stack up?

What does this mean for Australia?

Truss will find a series of pressing yet complex issues in her in-tray. The foremost of these will be the cost-of-living crisis. This will intensify as winter approaches and energy price caps are lifted, leaving many struggling to heat their homes and buy food. The industrial action witnessed during the summer, will intensify.

The next issue is the war in Ukraine. Part of the Russian global strategy is to hope that western states, not least the UK, tire in their support for Ukraine. This will not happen under Truss. She is a firm supporter of Ukraine and can be expected to retain the UK’s current posture of support.

Truss is also the continuity candidate as far as Anglo-Australian relations are concerned. Like Johnson, Truss is a big fan of Australia (Dan Teehan’s uncomfortable chair during free trade negotiations notwithstanding). As the British author of the free trade agreement (FTA) between Australia and the UK, this form of bilateral relationship will only strengthen. Being very favourably disposed to Australia means the commitment to AUKUS – the strategic alliance between Australia, the UK and the US – will remain.

Of course, Johnson had an ideological confrère in Scott Morrison as his Australian counterpart. Truss will not enjoy such an ideological affinity with Anthony Albanese or Foreign Minister Penny Wong.

Nevertheless, the ALP view of the Australia-UK FTA is broadly favourable, with perhaps some stronger provisions for workers’ rights built in. Less is known about ALP views towards AUKUS, or whether the Australian government will choose British over US submarine designs (or whatever there might be on offer in the interim).

Questions remain about whether, like her predecessor, Truss believes in herself more than in Britain. Given her ability to hold more than one political position with great conviction (she started out as a Liberal Democrat and voted to remain in the EU) it might be that we have a new leader more interested in their own CV than the common good.

Boris Johnson damaged trust in politics, but Truss may not be equipped to address that particular issue. Her advisers will be tempted to consider a quick election – giving her a spurious “mandate” that the Westminster system doesn’t require – and there are lessons in what happened to Theresa May when that temptation arose.

Yet for all his faults, Johnson bequeaths Truss an imposing 73-seat majority. But Truss must tread carefully: she’s the best hope of ousting the Conservatives that the opposition has had in many years.

Ben Wellings 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. Who is Liz Truss, the new UK prime minister? – https://theconversation.com/who-is-liz-truss-the-new-uk-prime-minister-189774

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Galvin, Professor of Strategic Management, Edith Cowan University

Unlike many airlines, Australia’s flag carrier Qantas has survived the pandemic. But its return to normal service – and profitability – is proving to be a bumpy ride. It could well get worse before it gets better.

As domestic and international travel picks up, the airline is struggling to keep up – having laid off thousands of staff whose experience, it turns out, was quite valuable for running such a complex business. Cancelled flights, lost luggage, long delays at airports and low staff morale are pummelling its carefully cultivated reputation.

Qantas engineers took industrial action last month. This week there’s a strike by baggage handlers employed by the contractor used since the airline retrenched almost 2,000 ground crew workers in 2020. (The Fair Work Commission has since ruled this outsourcing was unlawful.)

Read more:
Qantas fights on against court ruling it unlawfully sacked 2,000 workers

Former staff have told the ABC’s 4 Corners program they fear the cutbacks will undermine the airline’s safety record.

There is no quick or easy fix. These issues are tied to the airline’s profitability – or lack of it. Last financial year it reported an underlying loss before tax of A$1.89 billion. Since 2020, total losses have been A$7 billion, with the shutdown of travel costing about A$25 billion in revenue, according to chief executive Alan Joyce.

A challenging industry

Qantas is by no means alone when it comes to the challenges of rebuilding after COVID. Even in normal times, airlines are notoriously hard businesses to keep in the black.

The products they sell – seats – are highly perishable. Once a flight takes off, any empty seat becomes worthless. It is tempting to fill seats by discounting, but this can lead to competitors doing the same, and create a perception that leads customers to undervalue the product.

There’s a reason so many national carriers are fully or partly government-owned – including Air New Zealand, Emirates, Etihad, Garuda Indonesia, Malaysia Airlines and Singapore Airlines.

It’s debatable how many of these airlines would be viable as standalone commercial operations. An airline regulated by a government with a vested interest in its prosperity may be assisted in a variety of ways, from bailouts and tax subsidies to policies that help protect it from competition on domestic routes.

How to cut costs?

Adding to these difficulties in 2022 are fuel prices, inflated since Russia invaded Ukraine in February. Fuel costs typically account for about a quarter of airline costs.

Hedging contracts have protected Qantas from the full impact of these increases. Like other airlines, it has few options to cut fuel costs besides cutting routes or buying more fuel-efficient aircraft. (It is buying 12 new Airbus planes, but with the plan to offer long-haul flights without stopovers, which will increase fuel consumption.)

Read more:
Bucking the trend: Is there a future for ultra long-haul flights in a net zero carbon world?

So cutting staff costs has become the default option.

Qantas has never shied away from this under Joyce, who was appointed chief executive in 2008.

In 2011 he notoriously grounded the fleet and locked out staff during “hardball” collective bargaining with three unions (the Australian and International Pilots Association, Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association, and Transport Workers Union).

But this combative stance on wages and conditions, and outsourcing so many key activities, has thinned corporate knowledge. Qantas’ problems with lost luggage are clearly linked to sacking so many experienced staff and replacing them with contract workers who don’t necessarily understand how the airline’s complex systems work.

A difficult outlook

It’s easy to look for scapegoats – there are mounting calls for Joyce to go, for example – but there are no easy solutions to the problems Qantas faces.

In the short term it must to balance the cost-cutting required with the reality that further aggravating its workforce will lower customer service – and ultimately its reputation.

Australian domestic airlines by market share, January 2019 to April 2022

Domestically it has the advantage of its major competitor, Virgin Australia, being in an even worse position. Virgin only survived the pandemic by being sold to US private equity giant Bain Capital. This should save Qantas from a domestic discounting war for the foreseeable future.

But even with subdued domestic competition, the airline industry remains unattractive. For the flying kangaroo, the path back to profitability looks set to be one of many ups and downs.

Read more:
Why COVID-19 means the era of ever cheaper air travel could be over

Peter Galvin 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. Qantas, the trying kangaroo: why things won’t get better any time soon – https://theconversation.com/qantas-the-trying-kangaroo-why-things-wont-get-better-any-time-soon-189558

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, The University of Queensland

Amid the continuous noise about cryptocurrencies, it’s often hard to pick out what really matters. However this month, if all goes to plan, the energy-hungry digital sector will undergo its biggest shake-up in years.

Ethereum, the world’s second largest cryptocurrency, is tomorrow expected to start a technology changeover which, once complete, should cause its carbon emissions to plummet by 99%.

The rapid growth in cryptocurrencies in recent years has been staggering. Unfortunately, so too has been their contribution to climate change, due to the enormous amount of electricity used by computers that manage the buying and selling of crypto coins.

Take, for example, the world’s biggest cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. At a time when the world is desperately trying to reduce energy consumption, Bitcoin uses more energy each year than medium-sized nations such as Argentina. If the Ethereum switch succeeds, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will be under immense pressure to deal with this problem.

Why are cryptocurrencies so polluting?

Cryptocurrencies are digital currency systems in which people make direct online payments to each other.

Unlike traditional currencies, cryptocurrencies are not managed from a single location such as a central bank. Instead, they’re managed by a “blockchain”: a decentralised global network of high-powered computers. These computers are known as “miners”.

The Reserve Bank of Australia provides this simple explanation of how it all works (edited for brevity):

Suppose Alice wants to transfer one unit of cryptocurrency to Bob. Alice starts the transaction by sending an electronic message with her instructions to the network, where all users can see the message.

The transaction sits with a group of other recent transactions waiting to be compiled into a block (or group) of the most recent transactions. The information from the block is turned into a cryptographic code and miners compete to solve the code to add the new block of transactions to the blockchain.

Once a miner successfully solves the code, other users of the network check the solution and reach an agreement that it’s valid. The new block of transactions is added to the end of the blockchain, and Alice’s transaction is confirmed.

This process, used by most cryptocurrencies, is termed “proof-of-work mining”. The central design feature is the use of calculations which require a lot of computer time – and huge amounts of electricity – to perform.

Bitcoin alone consumes around 150 terawatt-hours of electricity each year. Producing that energy emits some 65 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually — about the same emissions as Greece.

Research suggests Bitcoin last year produced emissions responsible for around 19,000 future deaths.

The proof-of-work approach intentionally wastes energy. The data in a blockchain has no inherent meaning. Its sole purpose is to record difficult, but pointless, calculations which provide a basis for allocating new crypto coins.

Cryptocurrency advocates have given a variety of excuses for the monstrous energy consumption, but none stand up to scrutiny.

Some, for example, seek to justify cryptocurrency’s carbon footprint by saying some miners use renewable energy. That may be true, but in doing so they can displace other potential energy users – some of whom will have to use coal- or gas-fired power.

But now, the most successful of Bitcoin’s rivals, Ethereum, is changing tack. This month it promises to switch its computing technology to something far less polluting.

Read more:
Ethereum: the transformation that could see it overtake bitcoin

What the switch is about

Ethereum’s project involves ditching the “proof of work” model for a new one called “proof of stake”.

Under this model, crypto transactions are validated by users, who stake substantial quantities of blockchain tokens (in this case, Ethereum coins) as collateral. If the users act dishonestly, they lose their stake.

Importantly, it will mean the vast network of supercomputers currently used to check transactions will no longer be required, because users themselves are doing the checking – a relatively easy task. Doing away with the computer “miners” will lead to an estimated 99% drop in Ethereum’s electricity use.

Some smaller cryptocurrencies – such as the Ada coin traded on the Cardano platform – use “proof of stake” but it’s been confined to the margins to date.

For the past year, Ethereum has been running the new model on experimental blockchains. But this month, the model will be merged into the main platform.

Nowhere for cryptocurrency to hide

So what does all this mean? The Ethereum experiment could fail – if, say, some stakeholders find ways to manipulate the system. But if the switch does succeed, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies will be under pressure to abandon the proof-of-work model, or else shut down.

This pressure has already begun. Tesla founder Elon Musk’s last year announced his company would no longer accept Bitcoin payment for its electric cars, due to the currency’s carbon footprint.

The New York state legislature in June passed a bill to ban some Bitcoin operations that use carbon-based power. (However, the decision requires sign off from New York’s governor and may be vetoed).

And in March this year, the European parliament voted on a proposal to ban the proof-of-work model. The proposal was defeated. But as Europe heads into the cooler months, and grapples with an energy crisis triggered by sanctions on Russian gas supplies, energy-guzzling cryptocurrencies will remain in the firing line.

One thing is clear: as the need to slash global emissions becomes ever more pressing, cryptocurrencies will run out of excuses for their egregious energy use.

Read more:
Tesla’s Bitcoin about-face is a warning for cryptocurrencies that ignore climate change

John Quiggin 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 most important cryptocurrency event in years is about to begin – and the biggest windfall goes to the planet – https://theconversation.com/the-most-important-cryptocurrency-event-in-years-is-about-to-begin-and-the-biggest-windfall-goes-to-the-planet-189630

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Hoffmann, Professor of Economics, RMIT University

In the art world, there is a gaping gender imbalance when it comes to male and female artists.

In the National Gallery of Australia, only 25% of the Australian art collection is work by women.

This is far better than the international standard where roughly 90% of all artworks exhibited in major collections are by men. The most expensive painting by a female artist – Georgia O’Keeffe’s Jimson Weed/White Flower No. 1 – does not even rank among the 100 most expensive paintings ever sold.

Why is women’s art valued so much less than art by men?

Some economists have suggested the greater burden of child rearing and other domestic duties means women have had fewer opportunities to succeed in the art world.

Others have blamed the “quality” of women’s art. In 2013, German painter Georg Baselitz said “Women don’t paint very well. It’s a fact. The market doesn’t lie.”

We wanted to know: is work by women generally valued differently to work by men because of it is a lower artistic quality, or is it just discrimination?

Read more:
Why weren’t there any great women artists? In gratitude to Linda Nochlin

Which painting do you like better?

In our new research we showed average Americans pairs of paintings, painted between 1625 and 1979, side by side. Each of the pairs are similar in style, motif and period, but one work was by a male artist and the other by a female artist.

Participants were in two groups. One group saw the artists’ names and the other didn’t. We wanted to see whether more people among those who saw artist names preferred the male painting.

If seeing the names – and thereby inferring artist gender – causes more people to prefer male paintings, then there is gender discrimination.

Before we tell you the results, think about what you would have expected. And take a look at our actual painting pairs and see if you can guess which is the male one (hint: you can’t).

We were pleasantly surprised to find our participants did not give a hoot about artist gender. In both groups, 54% preferred the painting from a woman.

We repeated this experiment, this time rewarding participants if they could accurately guess the preferences of others – the people in the first experiment.

Again, 54% of the people in each group picked the female paintings.

Which painting do you think is worth more?

Next we wanted to find out if people picked male paintings for reasons other than personal taste. Art isn’t just bought and sold on aesthetic value: it is a speculative market, where art is treated as an investment.

We conducted two more experiments. In one, participants were rewarded if they picked the more expensive painting. In the other, they were rewarded to pick the one painted by the more famous artist.

Gender discrimination emerged in both these experiments. When asked to predict the value of and creator fame of paintings, people suddenly swung towards picking male artists. Preference for female paintings fell by 10% and 9% in these two new experiments.

Gender discrimination in art comes not from personal aesthetic preference – Baselitz’ argument that women “don’t paint very well” – but people thinking paintings are more valuable and famous when painted by male artists.

A question of fame

In our fifth experiment, we again rewarded participants who could correctly guess which painting would be preferred by others. This time everyone saw the names of the artists. But only one group was told which of the two artists was objectively more famous – the male artist in 90% of cases.

The group with that information was 14% more likely to pick male paintings. People used fame information to predict the painting others liked better.

If women artists were discriminated against just because of their gender we would have seen a higher premium put on the male artists even in questions of aesthetics.

Here, discrimination only occured when our participants were asked to assign a monetary value to the art works, or when they were given information about the level of fame of the painter.

This means our art appreciators discriminated not on gender, but on something closely associated with gender: fame.

And because male artists have, historically, been given more opportunities to become artists – and therefore become famous – artwork by men is perceived as having a higher value.

Policy is slowly starting to recognise and target institutional factors that perpetuate male dominance because of historical notions of fame, like the National Gallery of Australia’s Know my Name initiative.

Discrimination in the arts exists, but it often comes from people’s beliefs about what others care to discriminate about. The task ahead is to change perceptions of people and institutions who do not discriminate – but merely conform to others’ discrimination.

Read more:
Beauty and audacity: Know My Name presents a new, female story of Australian art

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. Male artists dominate galleries. Our research explored if it’s because ‘women don’t paint very well’ – or just discrimination – https://theconversation.com/male-artists-dominate-galleries-our-research-explored-if-its-because-women-dont-paint-very-well-or-just-discrimination-189221

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jonti Horner, Professor (Astrophysics), University of Southern Queensland

Did you ever want to see an alien world? A planet orbiting a distant star, light years from the Sun? Well, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has just returned its first-ever picture of just that – a planet orbiting a distant star.

The new images reveal JWST will be a fantastic tool for astronomers aiming to improve their knowledge of exoplanets (planets around other stars) – even better than we had hoped it would be!

But for those who’ve grown up on a diet of Star Trek, Star Wars, and myriad other works of science fiction, the images may be underwhelming. No wonderful swirling clouds, in glorious or muted colours. Instead, we just see a blob – a single point of light.

So why do these observations have astronomers buzzing with excitement? And what might we learn in the months and years to come?

Observing hidden worlds

Over the past three decades, we have lived through a great revolution – the dawn of the Exoplanet Era. Where we once knew of no planets orbiting distant stars, and wondered whether the Solar System was unique, we now know planets are everywhere.

At the time of writing, the number of known exoplanets stands at 5,084, and the count grows larger with every week.

But the overwhelming majority of those exoplanets are detected indirectly. They orbit so close to their host stars that, with current technology, we simply cannot see them directly. Instead, we observe their host stars doing something unexpected, and infer from that the presence of their unseen planetary companions.

Of all those alien worlds, only a handful have been seen directly. The poster child for such systems is HR 8799, whose four giant planets have been imaged so frequently that astronomers have produced a movie showing them moving in their orbits around their host star.

Enter HIP 65426b

To gather JWST’s first direct images of an exoplanet, astronomers turned the telescope towards the star HIP 65426, whose massive planetary companion HIP 65426b was discovered using direct imaging back in 2017.

HIP 65426b is unusual in several ways – all of which act to make it a particularly “easy” target for direct imaging. First, it is a long way from its host star, orbiting roughly 92 times farther from HIP 65426 than the distance between Earth and the Sun. That puts it around 14 billion kilometres from its star. From our point of view, this makes for a “reasonable” distance from the star in the sky, making it easier to observe.

Next, HIP 65426b is a behemoth of a world – thought to be several times the mass of the Solar System’s biggest planet, Jupiter. On top of that, it was also previously found to be remarkably hot, with temperature at its cloud tops measuring at least 1,200℃.

This combination of the planet’s size and temperature means it is intrinsically bright (for a planet).

Read more:
Will NASA rename the James Webb Space Telescope? A space expert explains the Lavender Scare controversy

How were the images taken, and what do they show us?

Under normal circumstances, the light from HIP 65426 would utterly overwhelm that from HIP 65426b, despite the distance between them.

To get around this problem, JWST carries several “coronagraphs”, instruments that let the telescope block the light from a bright star to look for fainter objects beside it. This is a bit like blocking the headlights of a car with your hand to see whether your friend has climbed out to say hello.

Using these coronagraphs, JWST took a series of images of HIP 65426b, each taken at a different wavelength of infrared light. In each image, the planet can be clearly seen – a single bright pixel offset from the location of its obscured stellar host.

The images are far from your standard science fiction fare. But they show that the planet was easily detected, standing out like a sore thumb against the dark background of space.

The researchers who led the observations (detailed on the preprint server arXiv) found that JWST is performing around ten times better than expected – a result that has astronomers around the globe excited to see what comes next.

Using their observations, they determined the mass of HIP 65426b (roughly seven times that of Jupiter). Beyond that, the data reveal the planet is hotter than previously thought (with cloud tops close to 1,400℃), and somewhat smaller than expected (with a diameter about 92% that of Jupiter).

These images paint a picture of an utterly alien world, different to anything in the Solar System.

Read more:
James Webb Space Telescope: An astronomer explains the stunning, newly released first images

A signpost to the future

The observations of HIP 65426b are just the first sign of what JWST can do in imaging planets around other stars.

The incredible precision of the imaging data suggests JWST will be able to obtain direct observations of planets smaller than previously expected. Rather than being limited to planets more massive than Jupiter, it should be able to see planets comparable to, or even smaller than, Saturn.

This is a really exciting. You see, a basic rule of astronomy is that there are lots more small things than big things. The fact JWST should be able to see smaller and fainter planets than expected will greatly increase the number of possible targets available for astronomers to study.

Beyond that, the precision with which JWST carried out these measurements suggests we will be able to learn far more about their atmospheres than expected. Repeated observations with the telescope could even reveal details of how those atmospheres vary with time.

In the coming years, then, expect to see many more images of alien worlds, taken by JWST. While those pictures might not look like those in science fiction, they will still revolutionise our understanding of planets around other stars.

Read more:
To search for alien life, astronomers will look for clues in the atmospheres of distant planets – and the James Webb Space Telescope just proved it’s possible to do so

Jonti Horner 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. The Webb telescope has released its very first exoplanet image – here’s what we can learn from it – https://theconversation.com/the-webb-telescope-has-released-its-very-first-exoplanet-image-heres-what-we-can-learn-from-it-189876

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Flavio Macau, Associate Dean – School of Business and Law, Edith Cowan University

It’s a tough time to build or renovate a house in Australia. Prices are up, well above inflation. Finding materials and getting them on time is a challenge. Builders are grappling with too much work and stress (with some folding as costs rise too fast). Customers are being confronted with eye-watering price quotes.

And as any would-be home builder or renovator knows, the price of timber or steel is crucial.

So what exactly is happening here, and what’s the outlook?

Leer más:
HomeBuilder might be the most-complex least-equitable construction jobs program ever devised

Timber: huge demand, not enough supply

According a 2021 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES) report:

average annual hardwood log availability is forecast to be 1 million cubic metres (9%) lower over 2020-24 than 2015-19 […] softwood sawlog availability is projected to be 10% lower in the period of 2020-24 than was projected in 2015.

The same report shows minimal new plantations were established in recent years.

In the 2019-20 bushfires, 130,000 hectares of plantation forest were burned. Recent floods didn’t help.

Native forest harvesting is also falling; it will be banned in Western Australia by 2024. Victoria will phase out the industry by 2030.

A timber shortage was expected as early as 2020 but the start of the COVID pandemic – when the housing market momentarily froze – brought some respite, with house construction and timber prices initially going down.

Then came HomeBuilder, which encouraged consumers to proceed with purchases or renovations to reignite the house construction market.

The number of dwelling units commenced shot up by more than 60%, from about 41,000 by September 2019 to 67,000 by June 2021.

The stock of dwellings under construction went from about 180,000 in 2020 to more than 240,000 today.

If you are building many more houses, you need more construction materials. A mild deficit projected for 2020 has now turned into a black hole.

With less timber available, industry sees a deficit of at least 250,000 wooden house frames in the next 15 years. Scarcity is the new normal.

The result is a growth in domestic prices as timber processors struggle to meet contract obligations.

Logs cannot be manufactured. They grow, and this takes about 20 years. The only way to go through current shortages is by importing or replacing timber.

Importing timber isn’t cheap. Australia has very low costs to grow and harvest, less than half of major global exporters. Adding to that, international shipping rates have surged in the past two years.

These act as barriers to imports, which fell considerably in the past decade.

Steel: supply chain woes and war on Ukraine

Steel is the typical replacement for timber. But builders and renovators will not find good news there either. Steel prices also skyrocketed by more than 42% in the year ending March 2022, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Troubled supply chains have reduced supply at a time of unexpectedly high demand, and investment has been scarce in recent years.

When a recovery was on the horizon, war hit shipments of key stock from Ukraine and Russia.

With few players left, home builders in Australia assert they’re at the mercy of a de facto monopoly by BlueScope Steel in the light gauge steel framing market.

Earlier this year, BlueScope customers had to contend with a 38% price increase on steel fabrication products.

A 2021 federal government decision to impose dumping duties of up to 20.9% on steel imports from Korea and Vietnam did not exactly help bring prices down.

In February 2022, BlueScope posted its largest half-year profit ever.

According to its chief executive, Mark Vassella, current trends are here to stay. The company intends to make the most of current market conditions and expand its capacity, with plans to reignite a blast furnace deactivated in 2011.

What happens next?

The price outlook is grim.

Master Builders Queensland chief executive Paul Bidwell reckons material price rises may not yet have peaked.

There is no indication timber prices will go down again, as they did in 2020. As for steel, 2013 was the last time there was a significant price reduction.

The Australia Bureau of Statistics (ABS/HIA) recorded in June this year an increase of about 40% in prices for reinforced steel, structural timber and steel beams.

Thanks to the housing construction boom, building projects now face delays, which further drives up construction costs.

Several builders have gone broke. Those under a fixed-price contract who factored low material prices into their quotes are now facing the hard truth of working for little or no profit, or even at a loss.

Will construction prices come down? One can only hope – but it’s unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Leer más:
What’s causing Australia’s egg shortage? A shift to free-range and short winter days

Flavio Macau is affiliated with the Australasian Supply Chain Institute (ASCI)

– ref. Planning a renovation or new build? Here’s the outlook for skyrocketing steel and timber prices – https://theconversation.com/planning-a-renovation-or-new-build-heres-the-outlook-for-skyrocketing-steel-and-timber-prices-189380

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Logan, Lecturer of Civil Systems Engineering, University of Canterbury

If you live in a city or town, you have a mental map of the places you travel to most. But how accessible are those places, and how long does it take you to get there? Most of all, could you do everything you need to do without a car?

These are the kinds of questions advocates for more liveable urban areas are asking now with greater urgency. Climate change, rising fuel costs and social connectedness are driving the move towards “15-minute cities” – although the actual number of minutes can vary depending on a city’s ambition.

Copenhagen, for instance, is aiming to be a five-minute city, while Melbourne is opting for ten. New Zealand cities are also getting on board, with Christchurch and Wellington wanting to be 15-minute cities, and Hamilton a 20-minute city.

The idea is not that you can get across an entire city in that time, rather that your own neighbourhood has everything you need within reach by foot, bike or public transport. For simplicity, we just call it the “x-minute neighbourhood”.

Our recently published research evaluates all of New Zealand’s urban areas and compares them with the largest 500 cities in the US for residents’ proximity to daily needs. So, how do they currently stack up and what are some of the key challenges?

How we measured accessibility

New Zealand’s emission reduction plan requires a 20% decrease in urban vehicle travel by 2035. This shift towards sustainable transport modes will also require changes to the form of our urban areas.

New transport strategies are beginning to reflect this. But how do cities evaluate urban change, measure the impact of proposed development, or effectively retrofit existing neighbourhoods?

Read more:
12 best ways to get cars out of cities – ranked by new research

By evaluating New Zealand’s 42 urban areas and the largest 500 US cities, our goal was to propose a consistent and transparent approach for reporting. We also wanted to help cities make the transition to sustainable urban design effectively and efficiently.

We developed a dashboard to show the proximity of neighbourhood blocks (the smallest geographical unit in the New Zealand census) to their nearest amenities. If you live in one of these urban areas you can check out your neighbourhood’s accessibility using our interactive guide.

The dashboard enables councils to understand accessibility (and lack of it) in their towns and the neighbourhoods within them. Our ongoing research aims to identify the locations with the best accessibility, which should help with incentives and guidance for new development.

Mixed messages

So how do New Zealand cities rate? Wellington is the most accessible, with 61% of residents living within 15 minutes’ walk of the amenities we studied. But this pales next to New York (88%) and San Francisco (73%).

Auckland has only 43% of residents within 15 minutes of core amenities. Hamilton (with the goal of becoming a 20-minute city) scored 39%. And Christchurch (with an unofficial target of 15 minutes) also came in at 39%.

Read more:
10 images show just how attractive Australian shopping strips can be without cars

Notably, it is access to the supermarket that is most detrimental to a city’s score. Accessible grocery stores are a key part of walkable neighbourhoods, and without them we’ll never achieve transport emission goals.

It’s disappointing, then, that this important factor was overlooked in the Commerce Commission’s review of the supermarket sector. This failure to factor in climate change to industry and competition policy was underscored by the prime ministerial visit to US bulk retailer Costco on its arrival in New Zealand.

This type of car-dependent development is the antithesis of walkable, sustainable neighbourhoods, and of the government’s emissions reduction plan.

The benefits of accessible neighbourhoods

The primary motivation for better urban design is to encourage active transport modes and reduce reliance on cars. But the benefits far exceed transport emissions alone.

Increased social cohesion is one co-benefit. In Paris, they call this form of urbanism “neighbourhoods of proximities” because they’re increasing proximity between people and places, but also between people themselves. This improves social connection and has mental health benefits.

Public health is another benefit. Studies have shown Barcelona’s approach (which also prioritises active transportation through urban design) has avoided around 700 premature deaths a year due to reductions in air pollution, noise and heat, and increases in physical activity.

There are also huge benefits for young, older and lower income families who become less reliant on cars. There are flow-on benefits in the form of economic vibrancy and urban safety, too.

Read more:
Greening the greyfields: how to renew our suburbs for more liveable, net-zero cities

Getting out of our cars

Finally, we also need to ask whether 20-minute and 15-minute neighbourhoods can achieve the benefits they seek. In reality, how likely are people to walk 20 minutes carrying groceries? Studies from overseas suggest much shorter distances between homes and amenities might be needed.

This will vary depending on the person, their age and fitness. But it will also depend on the amenities themselves. We might be happy to bike or walk further to school, for example, than we would be to walk home from the grocery store.

So while the concept of the 15-minute or 20-minute city might be useful to communicate a broad vision and bring people together, it shouldn’t be taken too literally.

The greater aim should be to improve accessibility as much as possible to reduce our dependence on cars and reclaim our neighbourhoods for people. This will benefit our health, sustainability and communities.

Tom Logan is technical director of planning firm Urban Intelligence Ltd. He receives funding from MBIE and BRANZ.

– ref. NZ’s most walkable towns and cities ranked: see how your neighbourhood stacks up – https://theconversation.com/nzs-most-walkable-towns-and-cities-ranked-see-how-your-neighbourhood-stacks-up-189383

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Griffin, Associate Professor, Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, The University of Queensland

Regulators in Australia and the United States last week approved Omicron-specific boosters, following approval in the United Kingdom in mid-August.

In Australia, a Moderna Omicron booster has been provisionally approved for use in adults aged 18 and over. Supplies are expected to arrive in the coming weeks, however the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) is yet to advise the government on how the vaccine will be used.

So what’s new about the Omicron booster? And what sorts of advances in vaccine technology might we see next?

Read more:
COVID vaccine: how the new ‘bivalent’ booster will target omicron

Why do we need new vaccines?

The current COVID vaccines will go down in history as one of the greatest achievements of medical science. Developed at record pace – without omitting any of the usual steps to ensure safety and efficacy – the vaccines significantly decreased the risk of severe disease and death.

But they’re less effective at reducing infection. Frequent boosters have been required to protect against new sub-variants. This is because the spike protein, which the vaccines target, has changed. And over time, our protection has reduced due to waning immunity.

What are the Omicron-specific vaccines?

Most manufacturers of approved COVID vaccines began making boosters targeting previous variants as far back as Alpha. But until Omicron, these variant-specific boosters offered no significant advantage over vaccines targeting the original, or Wuhan, strain.

The new Omicron boosters combine two different targets in the one vaccine, known as a bivalent vaccine. This provides broader cross-protection – against the currently circulating variants but possibly against future variants too.

The first of these boosters, manufactured by Moderna, targets the BA.1 Omicron sub-variant in addition to the original or Wuhan strain. It also provides some protection against BA.4 and BA.5. This is now approved in the UK, Australia and US.

The US has also approved the Pfizer bivalent booster, which targets the spike of BA.4/BA.5 as well as the original strain.

What vaccine technology might we see next?

Scientists are working to develop COVID vaccines that:

• offer longer lasting protection

• protect against new variants and sub-variants

• provide similar levels of protection from a single dose

• don’t require freezing or refrigeration, and that have an extended shelf life

• deliver a strong response from lower doses of active ingredient.

Read more:
Nose sprays, needle-free patches, durable immunity: towards the next generation of COVID vaccines

More than 120 potential COVID vaccines are in clinical trials. Here are some of the improvements they’re working on.

More robust protection against new variants

Most vaccines approved so far target the entire spike protein. But many vaccines under development specifically target the part of the spike protein that binds to the corresponding receptor on our cells. This is less likely to change than other parts of the spike protein, delivering more robust protection against new variants.

Candidate vaccines using this approach include Icosavax and one from the Serum Institute of India.

Easier storage

DNA-based vaccines are similar to mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) but are more temperature-stable, making them easier to transport and store. One such vaccine, by manufacturer Zydus, has already received an emergency use authorisation in India and is injected into the skin. Another, by Inovio, is undergoing phase three trials.

Greater immune responses from lower doses

With current COVID vaccines, the body is given instructions to make the spike protein, or the spike protein itself is delivered. The vaccines cannot replicate or reproduce themselves. Vaccines that can replicate have the potential to generate stronger immune responses or strong enough responses from lower doses.

Variant-proof vaccines

Finally, many vaccines under development have the ambitious target of protecting against all coronviruses or vaccines that are essentially variant-proof. While this has not so far been achieved for any similar family of viruses, there are many promising candidates.

Many rely on combining antigens from many different parts of the virus or even multiple coronaviruses. Others combine multiple receptor-binding domains (potentially allowing the vaccine to give a broader immune response against a range of variants) with other innovative technologies.

Different routes of administration

Current vaccines rely on administration via a needle and syringe. This is an issue for people with needle phobias, and presents challenges for the disposal of sharps. So many vaccines being developed are given via alternate routes.

One way to deliver vaccines is through the nose, known as intranasal vaccination. Rather than injecting, you breathe it in.

Giving the vaccine via the same route the virus gains entry has the potential to generate a response that’s better able to stop the virus entering in the first place.

One of the main limitations of nasal vaccines is getting a strong enough immune response to be effective. However there are many promising candidates, including one I’m working on.

Vaccines given via the skin are also a promising area. In addition to the DNA vaccines injected into the skin, others are being developed using vaccine coated onto patches, essentially made of microscopic needles. This is easier to administer.

It may also have some advantages in terms of immune response and its ability to be stored at room temperature. One such vaccine that looks promising has been developed by a group originally from the University of Queensland.

Finally, oral vaccines you drink are also under development. While potentially the most convenient method of administration, it’s also one that poses great challenges in terms of getting a strong enough response for the required effect.

While up to five vaccines in development are exploring this avenue of administration, including one I’m involved in, they are in relatively early phases of clinical trials.

Read more:
A COVID-19 vaccine may come without a needle, the latest vaccine to protect without jabbing

Paul Griffin is affiliated with The University of Queensland, Nucleus network and Mater research where he has been the principal investigator on 8 COVID-19 vaccine studies and also serves on the advisory boards of AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer (covid therapy) and GSK and has received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Seqirus, Novartis and Gilead

– ref. Better COVID vaccines are on the way. What do they do? And what technology might we see in future? – https://theconversation.com/better-covid-vaccines-are-on-the-way-what-do-they-do-and-what-technology-might-we-see-in-future-189531

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leonora Risse, Senior Lecturer in Economics, RMIT University

The last time an Australian government hosted a national jobs summit, only one woman was present. It was 1983, and that woman was Susan Ryan, a minister in the Hawke government and the trailblazing architect of the Sex Discrimination Act.

Fast forward 39 years to the 2022 Jobs and Skills Summit, and half of all participants and presenters were women.

After the opening keynote address from economist Danielle Wood, the first panel session was dedicated to equal opportunities and pay for women. The scheduling was intentional, signalling the seriousness with which the government views the issue, and setting the stage for a gender focus to be interwoven into all policy deliberations.

It had the desired effect: the need to dismantle barriers to women’s participation, better value the economic contribution of the care sector, and invest in safer and more equitable workplaces was threaded throughout all subsequent sessions of the summit.

Read more:
View from The Hill: Summit triggers immediate action and elevates gender equality

The trigger for change?

The government had already made it clear gender equality was on its agenda, prioritising areas such as childcare affordability and addressing pay inequity in its election commitments.

At the summit, it was clear Australia’s extreme labour shortages had heightened many businesses’ motivation to see more women participating in the economy. Economic crises have a way of shifting equity issues from the sidelines to the mainstream.

There was widespread agreement that the barriers facing women in the workforce – indeed, the barriers facing all marginalised groups including older workers, people living with a disability and migrants – are not only unfair but also a massive handbrake on our economy.

Policy outcomes will need more work

While there was consensus that something needs to be done to break down the barriers to women’s workforce participation, including improving childcare access and affordability, the reality is that implementing these policy reforms will need more analysis, consultation and time.

On childcare, calls to bring forward childcare subsidies must firstly recognise the childcare sector is already under strain. Many providers are struggling with worker shortages and waiting lists that can’t be met, especially in regional areas. Reducing the out-of-pocket costs of childcare for families will activate higher demand on a sector whose supply is already stretched to capacity.

This brings a risk that providers will end up lifting fees to cope with capacity constraints, or won’t be able to deliver the quality of service they aspire to.

From a practical perspective, the government has good economic reason to hold off on its childcare subsidy reductions until these immediate pressures can be addressed. This takes us back to the need to invest more in the care sector from the start, including lifting wages of care workers to reflect their true worth to the economy.

There is also scope to recalibrate childcare subsidies to better target the working women whose workforce participation is being hamstrung the most by current settings.

It’s women working part-time, and want to increase to four or five days per week, who are most financially penalised for doing so.

Read more:
If governments were really concerned about tax and the cost of living they would cut the cost of childcare

Setting the subsidy to neutralise Effective Marginal Tax Rates (EMTRs) across all days of work – so that women’s workforce decisions are based on their productive capabilities and aspirations, not childcare costs – would be an innovative way to transform childcare from a welfare measure to an economic enabler. These will be considerations for the review of the childcare sector that the government is tasking the Productivity Commission to undertake.

On paid parental leave, the summit heard calls to expand current provisions to 26 weeks of paid leave, supported by mechanisms to encourage a more equal sharing of care between parents. Evidence shows it’s the sharing mechanism that really matters for making progress on gender equality and boosting women’s workforce involvement.

Preserving a use-it-or-lose-it allocation of paid parental leave for fathers is essential for encouraging men to be more involved in unpaid care and freeing up women to participate more fully in paid work. Rather than leaving it up to households to decide, this policy works because it cuts through the barrier of social stigma faced by men and legitimises men’s roles as carers.

As the government develops its paid parental leave policy, expanding the non-transferable allocation for fathers should be a focus.

On the gender pay gap, the government is pursuing a range of measures that have the potential to make inroads. This includes instilling gender equity as an objective of the Fair Work Act, advocating for better pay in female-concentrated professions such as aged care, and initiatives to tackle bias in the workplace such as mandatory gender pay gap reporting.

In my contribution at the summit’s opening panel, I highlighted the importance of applying a gender lens across all policy decision-making, which is known as gender responsive budgeting. It involves evaluating all policy proposals – including the ones that seem gender-neutral – to consider the implications for gender equality outcomes.

The government has committed to gender responsive budgeting and we will see the impacts unfold in forthcoming budgets statements.

Read more:
Applying a gender lens to the budget is not about pitting women against men

Remember, we’re talking about people

Although we’re making progress in acknowledging gender inequality as an economic problem, the summit discussions talked a lot in terms of “under-utilising women”, as though women were a piece of machinery or equipment.

In my panel discussion, I argued that gender gaps in our economy should be interpreted as a sign we are not fully recognising women’s strengths and capabilities. This also means we are not fully valuing their contributions to the economy and wider society.

Millions of Australian women are already being exhaustively “utilised” in the economy. However, this is in sectors that are low paid and low status. Or it’s in the form of unpaid care for their children and other family members. I would urge business leaders to think less in terms of “utilisation” and more in terms of “valuing”.

Women proved at the summit that they already bring immense capability. It’s time to properly recognise and value it.

Leonora Risse is the National Chair of the Women in Economics Network, a member of the Central Council of the Economic of Society of Australia, and a Board Member of Gender Equity Victoria. She has received funding from the Trawalla Foundation to support research initiatives on gender equality.

– ref. How the jobs summit shifted gender equality from the sidelines to the mainstream – https://theconversation.com/how-the-jobs-summit-shifted-gender-equality-from-the-sidelines-to-the-mainstream-189869

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Phillips, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), Australian National University

You wouldn’t know it from the pages of our daily newspapers, but the rate of growth in rents has been pretty modest.

Not everywhere, not for everyone, but for most Australians who rent.

According to the most recent count used by the Bureau of Statistics to compile the consumer price index, rents increased by only 1.6% in the year to June.

By comparison, wages climbed 2.6%.

Higher increases in other prices pushed the overall consumer price index up
6.1%.

Rent decreases during COVID mean that over the past five years the total increase has been just 1.5%.

Average rents are barely any higher than they were at the start of COVID.

The Bureau gets its data direct from the computers of real estate agents, state housing authorities and the Department of Defence (for Darwin).

It covers rent actually paid, for a “matched sample” of dwellings, meaning it refers to the same dwellings each quarter so as to record genuine price changes.

Actual versus advertised rents

In contrast, the media (and some interest groups) prefer to focus on the data for “advertised” or asking rents. These have been growing more strongly than the overall mass of rents paid.

Nationwide, advertised rents climbed 8.2% in the year to June, and by almost 18% over the five years to June on CoreLogic’s data.

But advertised rents are only a tiny fraction of the rents actually paid. Not all properties get advertised. Advertised rents don’t always match up with the agreed rent. Most renters remain on existing contracts.

Although advertised rents might be expected to relate to overall rents over time, they are not necessarily representative of the entire market.

Our main concern ought to be what has happened to low-income renters.

Low increases for low-income renters

Australia’s lowest-income renters receive rent assistance, which is pretty frugal. Single renters get no more than $73 a week, and very large families up to $97.

But the typical rent paid by Australians on rent assistance hasn’t increased much. Over the year to June, the median rent for rent assistance recipients climbed by 1% – roughly $5 per week. Over the past five years it has increased 9% – somewhat less than the increase in the consumer price index of 10.7%.

Over the longer term, low-income rents have increased more sharply. Households in the bottom 40% of income distribution used to spend around 22% of their after-tax income on rent, and now spend about 30%, down from a peak of 32%.

If there is a crisis in rents, the figures suggest it is not widespread.

Rents in locations including Perth and Darwin are climbing much more strongly than others as they come off long periods of negative rent growth.

Read more:
Renters spend 10 times as much on housing as petrol. Where’s their relief?

The growth in asking rents is most pronounced away from the cities, in particular in holiday and tree-change destinations such as Richmond-Tweed (including Byron Bay), Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast and Wide Bay.

Some were experiencing strong growth in asking rents before COVID, which accelerated through COVID.

Other regions, including parts of Sydney and Melbourne, have experienced subdued or negative growth.

Across all renting households we are yet to see any serious growth. To date, the “rent crisis” has been felt mainly in a few specific locations and among people looking for new rental properties.

Ben Phillips 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. Rent crisis? Average rents are increasing less than you might think – https://theconversation.com/rent-crisis-average-rents-are-increasing-less-than-you-might-think-189154

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nancy Baxter, Professor and Head of Melbourne School of Population & Global Health, The University of Melbourne

From Friday September 9, the isolation requirements for people with COVID and no symptoms will be cut from seven days to five days. Masks will no longer be required on domestic flights.

While Australian Medical Association President Steve Robson called for the release of the science behind the National Cabinet decision, the change shows we are now rapidly pushing towards a “business-as-usual” pandemic. This political strategy requires the elimination of protections or restrictions, so that life and business can go “back to normal”.

But life is nowhere near normal. COVID is the third most common killer of Australians, with 11,746 deaths so far this year. And there is mounting evidence survivors of COVID face the risk of long-term health effects on the lungs, heart, brain and immune system.

In reality, there is no going back to normal now we are living with COVID.

Read more:
Long COVID: How researchers are zeroing in on the self-targeted immune attacks that may lurk behind it

Balancing risk

So what is driving these changes and what will the impact be?

First and foremost, there is no scientific basis for the change. We know that people vary in terms of how long they remain infectious with COVID after testing positive.

Setting a reasonable duration of isolation depends on balancing the risk to the community of ongoing transmission and the benefit of enabling individuals with COVID to go back to work, school and normal activities as quickly as possible. Seven days was already a compromise. And now New South Wales premier Dominic Perrottet has called for isolation to be scrapped altogether. Has the evidence changed with respect to this balance?

There are a number of recent studies in vaccinated people in the Omicron era evaluating how long people shed virus and are potentially infectious after testing positive for COVID. This fresh research shows a significant number of people (between one-third and one-half) remain infectious after a five-day isolation period. Another study shows two thirds are infectious after this time.

So, of the 11,734 people reported to be COVID positive on September 1, at least 3,900 would still be infectious on day five. If released from isolation, they could infect others.

With onward transmission, this could result in many additional COVID cases that would not have occurred if an isolation period of seven days had been retained.

While the reduction of the duration of isolation applies only to people who do not have symptoms, it is well accepted transmission without symptoms occurs. Unfortunately, our politicians have equated the absence of symptoms with the inability to transmit the virus to justify the changes. Decision-makers clearly need to be better informed.

Read more:
Should states cut COVID isolation from 7 to 5 days? Here’s what they’ll need to consider

But what about businesses?

Mandatory isolation places stress on people and businesses. But with numbers of COVID cases falling from the peaks of the BA.4/5 wave throughout Australia, fewer people are now testing positive for COVID than at any time this year. The pressure on individuals and businesses due to mandatory isolation is at a low point for 2022.

So why make the change now? Perhaps the hope is that while we are experiencing reduced transmission due to the large number of people recently infected with COVID, easing our protections will not lead to an immediate increase in cases.

In this confidence trick, politicians can make these changes with no apparent impact. They will continue to do so until all mitigations against transmission are gone. This is all part of a strategy which, in the words of the NSW premier, has “less reliance on public health orders and more reliance on respecting each other”. As if the two concepts are mutually exclusive instead of mutually reinforcing.

Unfortunately, reinfection is common, and we will face another epidemic wave in the future, likely before the end of the year. Then our systematic dismantling of all existing protections will make the next wave come on sooner and affect more people.

Mitigate transmission instead

Allowing a substantial proportion of people to go back to work while still infectious is not a solution to solving the workforce disruptions COVID is still causing. This is because there will be an increase of infections in workplaces and schools due to the shortened isolation. When our next wave comes, this will result in even more people being furloughed because they are sick with COVID or caring for others, defeating the ultimate purpose of the change.

And, as we have learned with the BA.5 wave – the highest number of people hospitalised with COVID in Australia since the beginning of the pandemic – reintroducing mandates once they have been removed does not happen even when medically advised. Once a protection is relaxed there is no going back – it’s a one-way road.

The best way to protect business interests and keep the economy productive is to mitigate transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID) as best we can using a vaccine-plus strategy.

In other countries that have shortened the isolation and then abandoned it altogether, such as in the United Kingdom, transmission has only been worsened and the economic impacts compounded.

Removing mask mandates on planes will mean a greater risk of having your travel disrupted by COVID and also of airport disruptions because of flight crew off sick from increased exposure.

Read more:
Want to cut your chance of catching COVID on a plane? Wear a mask and avoid business class

By reducing isolation and thereby increasing workplace transmission, we make the workplace less safe. The rights of people to a safe workplace must be considered alongside business continuity.

Allowing increased transmission will impact the economy by resulting in higher numbers of people affected by long COVID. In the UK, the model we appear to be emulating, up to one in four employers are reporting their productivity is affected by long COVID.

The move to a business-as-usual pandemic leaves us unnecessarily vulnerable and will ultimately disrupt business even more.

The emergence of COVID variants that are more and more infectious and increasingly vaccine-resistant, along with the simultaneous removal of mitigations such as isolation and masks, dooms us to recurrent and disruptive waves of disease.

Our best chance of business continuity is not the one-way road to a disruptive business-as-usual pandemic but a layered strategy. This would include improved booster rates, safer indoor air, masks in public indoor settings and maintaining the current isolation period for those with COVID.

Read more:
How does Omicron compare with Delta? Here’s what we know about infectiousness, symptoms, severity and vaccine protection

C Raina MacIntyre receives funding from NHMRC, MRFF, Sanofi

Nancy Baxter 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. Cutting COVID isolation and mask mandates will mean more damage to business and health in the long run – https://theconversation.com/cutting-covid-isolation-and-mask-mandates-will-mean-more-damage-to-business-and-health-in-the-long-run-189862

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily Roycroft, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Australian National University

A single, pregnant rodent floating on driftwood across the treacherous waters between Asia and New Guinea 8.5 million years ago may be behind the eventual colonisation of native rodents in Australia, our new research suggests.

Today, Australia has more than 60 species of native rodents found nowhere else in the world. When you count their close relatives across New Guinea and island neighbours, there are over 150 species. These include the rakali, an otter-like rodent with webbed feet, and desert hopping mice that get around like tiny kangaroos.

Until now, we’ve had an incomplete picture of how there came to be so many species. Our new research unites genomic sequencing and museum collections to reconstruct the evolutionary tale of native rodents, including many extinct and elusive species – and they have a fascinating origin story.

Native rodents have also suffered the highest rate of recent extinction of any mammal group in Australia, with 11 mainland species declared extinct since European colonisation in 1788. Many surviving native rodents remain at serious risk of extinction, with urgent conservation action needed to secure their future.

New methods, old specimens

We extracted and sequenced DNA from museum specimens collected up to 180 years ago to unlock the secrets of the most elusive species.

In one case, we sequenced DNA from a specimen of Guadalcanal rat from the Solomon Islands collected over 130 years ago. The Guadalcanal rat was last seen alive when these specimens were collected in the 1880s, and hasn’t been recorded since.

It’s listed as critically endangered, and is very possibly already extinct.

Like the Guadalcanal rat, every single specimen we studied has its own fascinating history. Together, they tell an 8-million-year long evolutionary story.

The genetic relatedness of distant rodent relatives tells us the ancestor of Australia’s native rodents originated in southeast Asia. There’s never been a land connection between Asia and New Guinea, and so we know this must happened via over-water colonisation – possibly on a piece of driftwood.

Our research dates this event to around 8.5 million years ago. Both New Guinea and Australia looked very different back then.

In contrast to the large and high-elevation island of modern New Guinea, 8.5 million years ago it was likely made up of a series of smaller, disconnected islands.

Our results show the earliest arriving rodent ancestors, probably tropical forest specialists, initially spread across this earlier New Guinea. But they then stayed put for 3.5 million years.

Read more:
This adorable mouse was considered extinct for over 100 years — until we found it hiding in plain sight

A shared evolutionary story

Around 5 million years ago, New Guinea experienced a big geological change. Tectonic activity triggered the uplift of an impressive mountain range through the centre of New Guinea, and led to the formation of expansive lowlands.

This expansion opened new environments for rodents to adapt to, and increased connectivity between New Guinea, Australia, and neighbouring islands.

From there, things really took off.

Rodent ancestors first arrived from New Guinea into Australia around 5 million years ago, probably via a land bridge exposed during a period of low sea level.

In Australia, they have adapted to many new environments including the harsh arid desert. In the last few million years, rodents have been especially mobile – repeatedly moving between New Guinea, Australia and neighbouring island archipelagos, generating many new species in the process.

In our region alone rodents have transitioned between different geographic areas or islands at least 24 independent times in the past 5 million years.

Quite often, this has happened via over-water colonisation. Just like their ancestor, who crossed the waters from southeast Asia 8.5 million years ago, native rodents have continued to leverage their impressive rafting skills.

And yet, despite this remarkable flexibility across evolutionary time, native rodents have not been able to tolerate the dramatic changes to their environment that have occurred in the past 200 years.

Read more:
The epic, 550-million-year story of Uluṟu, and the spectacular forces that led to its formation

Protecting native rodents

Since 1788, we’ve lost 11 native rodent species to extinction. These include the white-footed rabbit-rat and the lesser stick-nest rat, once common on the Australian landscape.

Native rodents are particularly susceptible to predation by feral cats and foxes, land clearing, competition with pest rodents, and introduced disease. These ongoing threats place surviving species at serious risk of extinction.

One of Australia’s most critically endangered mammals, the central rock-rat, is on the brink of extinction after extensive habitat loss and predation by cats and foxes. Captive breeding programs are underway to boost population numbers.

We know even less about the conservation status of many species in New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Maluku Islands.

By combining genetic data from both modern and historical specimens, our new research takes stock of the diversity of native rodents, and will help to define and prioritise species for conservation efforts.

By understanding how our native rodents evolved, we can make more informed decisions about how best to protect them into the future.

Read more:
‘Death by irony’: The mystery of the mouse that died of smoke inhalation, but went nowhere near a fire

Emily Roycroft receives funding from the Australian Government Research Training Program, the Dame Margaret Blackwood Soroptimist Scholarship, the Alfred Nicholas Fellowship (University of Melbourne), and the Holsworth Wildlife Research Endowment. This project received funding from Bioplatforms Australia through the Australian Government National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy, via the Oz Mammals Genomics Initiative.

– ref. ‘Impressive rafting skills’: the 8-million-year old origin story of how rodents colonised Australia – https://theconversation.com/impressive-rafting-skills-the-8-million-year-old-origin-story-of-how-rodents-colonised-australia-189793

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

The jobs and skills summit, which concluded on Friday, has been a highly-managed exercise by the Albanese government in maximising policy and political productivity.

The government went into the meeting knowing, broadly, the key initiatives it intended to announce out of it. Most importantly, this included plans for changes to the industrial relations system to try to get wages moving, and for a higher migrant intake to ease the acute labour shortages.

At the end of a day and a half, the government announced 36 measures on which action will be taken this year and around the same number for further work.

One significant announcement, allowing pensioners to earn more, had been recently advocated by the most notable absentee from the summit, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton.

Pensioners will get a temporary upfront “$4000 bank credit” so they can do extra work before they lose some of their pension. At present someone on the aged pension can earn $7800 a year without affecting their pension.

But, despite the drive to get more women working, the government hasn’t given in to pressure to accelerate the start of its child care scheme, arguing to do so would be too expensive and raise operational issues.

To fulfil the prime minister’s commitment to governing by “consensus”, the summit was designed to blunt – though it obviously wasn’t going to eliminate – divisions in the traditionally contested areas of industrial relations and migration.

And that it did – partly through bringing stakeholders together so they could air their views in a forum that constrained aggression, and partly by the government making it clear it wasn’t seeking “unanimity”.

The most significant negotiations, obviously before the event, were between the government and the union movement.

The government delivered on the ACTU demand for the wage-fixing system to open up multi-employer bargaining (at present extremely restricted). The unions, in return, went along with an increase in the cap on permanent migrants from 160,000 to 195,000.

The employers are pleased with the prospect of more migrants, but industrial relations is an uncertain path for most of them.

Read more:
Grattan on Friday: Should Anthony Albanese keep his word on the Stage 3 tax cuts?

The government plans to move quickly on IR legislation – to be introduced this year. Its precise content, however, on which consultations start next week, is unclear.

Employers welcome the increased flexibility that is to be put into the Better Off Overall Test for enterprise agreements. The BOOT is there to stop workers going backwards under agreements but has become a tight corset on enterprise bargaining.

Under Scott Morrison, the Albanese opposition opposed planned changed to the BOOT – but that was then.

Multi-employer bargaining is what worries business: it’s as yet unknown how far that will extend, and what provisions for, or limits on, industrial action it will contain.

The series of announcements – including more funding for free TAFE places next year – and the “consensus” reached won’t of themselves fix the critical problems in Australia’s labour market.

Achieving that, even partially, will depend on how decisions are followed through, firstly by putting flesh on their bones and then with effective implementation.

The government prepared extensively for the summit, with more than 100 roundtables, and gave a lot of thought to representation and the occasion’s atmospherics.

It knew the danger of a “talk fest”, and was determined to minimise the risk. It also strove to tap strongly into the themes of inclusion and diversity. (Most speakers, however brief their contribution, started with an acknowledgement of traditional owners.)

One area for immediate action is “improving access to jobs and training pathways for women, First Nations people, regional Australians and culturally and linguistically diverse people”.

To a considerable extent, the summit was all about women, reflected in both the participants and the problems addressed.

Read more:
Word from The Hill: Albanese announces more than $1 billion in federal-state TAFE funding

Increasing and facilitating Australian women’s participation in the workforce, rewarding them better and advancing their career opportunities were at the heart of much discussion. The plight of low paid, overworked care workers – predominately female – was front of mind.

(At a political level, the emphasis on women brought to mind the Morrison’s government’s failures in women’s areas.)

Many of the major players at the summit were women, including leaders from the union movement (whose membership has become increasingly feminised with the rise of the “care” economy) and business groups, as well as senior female ministers.

One of the biggest “winners” from the meeting was ACTU secretary Sally McManus, whose lobbying for multi-employer bargaining had fallen on open government ears.

Read more:
Treasurer Chalmers on boosting migration and a ‘resilience’ budget

At the summit’s close Albanese highlighted its 50-50 gender split. In 1983, 96 of 97 participants were male (the woman was minister Susan Ryan).

Minister for Women Katy Gallagher said: “Women nailed it at this summit”.

“It was no mistake that the panel on gender equality and pay for women was the first thing that we did at this summit. It then fed into every other session.”

For all the hype, as with Bob Hawke’s 1983 summit and Kevin Rudd’s 2008 one, the time to audit the level of success (or otherwise) of this summit will be in several years, or even in four decades.

Michelle Grattan 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. View from The Hill: Summit triggers immediate action and elevates gender equality – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-summit-triggers-immediate-action-and-elevates-gender-equality-189883

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sarah Gleeson-White, Associate Professor in American Literature, University of Sydney

Review: A Raisin in the Sun, directed by Wesley Enoch for the Sydney Theatre Company.

It is hard to believe the Sydney Theatre Company’s production of Lorraine Hansberry’s award-winning A Raisin in the Sun (1959) is its Australian mainstage premiere – nearly 65 years after it appeared on Broadway with the magnificent Sidney Poitier in one of the lead roles.

The first play on Broadway written by an African American woman, A Raisin in the Sun was nominated for four Tony Awards, including for best play, and went on to win the New York Drama Critics’ Circle Award for Best Play of the Year.

Arguably one of the most compelling narratives of 20th century Black American life, Hansberry’s play remains a stalwart in the American literary canon.

Across a compressed several weeks, A Raisin in the Sun traces the hopes and dashed dreams of three generations of the African American Younger family, headed by matriarch, Lena (Gayle Samuels).

Written five years after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which put an end to legal school segregation, and four years after the Montgomery bus boycott, this just might be, as Black poet Amiri Baraka declared it, the “quintessential civil rights drama”.

Read more:
A must-read list: The enduring contributions of African American women writers

A sense of entrapment

Hansberry’s scathing narrative of postwar American race relations stands up well to the test of time, and this production, directed by Wesley Enoch, is superb.

The rapport among the actors, including those in more minor roles, is palpable. This is a true ensemble piece.

Samuels and Zahra Newman (as Ruth Younger) both give particularly compelling performances, and Nancy Denis is hilarious as their nosy neighbour Mrs Johnson.

Together, the cast really succeeds in drawing out Hansberry’s humour, and thus the play’s often jarring shifts between comedy, satire and tragedy.

The play unfolds in the single setting of the family’s shabby, rat-infested apartment on Chicago’s Southside. Mel Page’s smart set design means we can see into its two small bedrooms at all times, giving a real sense of the family’s entrapment, and heightening the escalating conflicts.

As the play opens, the family anxiously awaits the delivery of the recently deceased Mr Younger’s life-insurance cheque, a prospect that provokes each of the family members to disclose their hopes and wishes, embodied in the raggedy pot plant Lena carefully tends throughout.

Lena yearns to provide her family with a home. Her son Walter Lee (Bert Labonté) yearns to join the ranks of the Black middle class. Her daughter, Beneatha (Angela Mahlatjie) yearns to become a medical doctor to “make [people] whole again”.

Yet the aspirations Black Americans like Walter Lee and Beneatha nurtured are impossible in this era of segregation.

Lena does succeed in achieving her dream: she purchases a house for her family, but it is in the white neighbourhood of (fictional) Clybourne Park.

This twist generates an encounter between the family and the only white character in the play, Karl Lindner (Jacob Warner), spokesman for the Clybourne Park community, which wants to buy the house from the Youngers to keep the neighbourhood “respectable”.

As Beneatha observes, when Lena asks whether Lindner threatened the family:

they don’t do like that anymore. He talked Brotherhood. He said everybody ought learn how to sit down and hate each other with good Christian fellowship.

Read more:
‘Our ultimate choice is desegregation or disintegration’ – recovering the lost words of a jailed civil rights strategist

A heavy load

Hansberry took the title of her play from Langston Hughes’ 1951 poem, Harlem. Pondering “a dream deferred,” Hughes writes:

Does it dry up
like a raisin in the sun?
Or fester like a sore

Reviewers and critics of A Raisin in the Sun frequently rush to claim the universality of this narrative of postwar Black American life. In such an approach, we risk losing what is specific to the festering sore of Jim Crow America. We also miss the play’s significance in light of our own moment of global racial foment, of Black Lives Matter, and much else.

In a 1959 interview, Hansberry told radio host Studs Terkel:

In order to create the universal, you must pay very great attention to the specific.

This production of A Raisin in the Sun is an enormous achievement – thanks not only to its superb cast, direction and staging, but too, the Sydney Theatre Company’s commitment to attending to the specific, to telling stories we still need to hear.

A Raisin in the Sun is at Wharf 1 Theatre until October 15.

Read more:
Langston Hughes – domestic pariah, international superstar

Sarah Gleeson-White 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 A Raisin in the Sun is an enormous achievement with superb cast, direction and staging – https://theconversation.com/sydney-theatre-companys-a-raisin-in-the-sun-is-an-enormous-achievement-with-superb-cast-direction-and-staging-187430

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Curtis Ho, Lecturer in Chemistry, University of Tasmania

Many around the world will watch eagerly this Saturday as NASA launches Artemis I, the agency’s first Moon exploration mission since the 1970s.

The spectacle involves the most powerful rocket in the world: the Space Launch System (SLS). Standing at nearly 100 metres tall and weighing more than 2,600 tonnes, the SLS produces a massive 8.8 million pounds of thrust – (more than 31 times the thrust of a Boeing 747 jet).

But it’s not just amazing engineering that’s behind rocket science and space exploration. Hidden within, there’s clever chemistry that powers these fantastic feats and sustains our fragile life in space.

Read more:
NASA is launching the 1st stage of the Artemis mission – here’s why humans are going back to the Moon

The fuel and the spark

To launch a rocket into space, we need a chemical reaction known as combustion. This is where fuels are combined with oxygen, producing energy as a result. In turn, that energy provides the push (or thrust) needed to propel mammoth machines like the SLS into Earth’s upper atmosphere and beyond.

Much like cars on the road and jets in the sky, rockets have engines where combustion takes place. SLS has two engine systems: four core stage RS-25 engines (upgraded space shuttle engines) and two solid rocket boosters. And chemistry is what provides a unique fuel mixture for each engine.

The core stage engines use a mixture of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, whereas the solid rocket boosters, as the name suggests, contain a solid propellant – a hard, rubber-like material called polybutadiene acrylonitrile. In addition to being fuel itself, this material contains fine particles of aluminium metal as fuel, with ammonium perchlorate as the oxygen source.

While fuel for the solid rocket boosters is easily stored at room temperature, the core stage engine fuels need to be stored at -253℃ for liquid hydrogen and -183℃ for liquid oxygen. That’s why you see sheets of ice shearing off rockets upon liftoff – the fuel vessels are so cold, they freeze moisture from the surrounding air.

But there’s another bit of interesting chemistry that happens when we need to light the fuel. Depending on the fuel source, rockets can be ignited electrically through a glorified spark plug… or chemically.

If you’ve ever watched a space launch and heard talk about “TEA-TEB ignition”, that’s referring to triethylaluminium and triethylborane. These two chemicals are pyrophoric – meaning they can catch fire spontaneously when exposed to air.

Sustaining life amongst the stars

It’s not just rockets that are fuelled by chemistry. Life support systems in space rely on chemical processes keeping our astronauts alive and breathing – something we on Earth often take for granted.

We all know the importance of oxygen, but we also exhale carbon dioxide as a toxic waste product when we breathe. So, what happens to carbon dioxide in the sealed environment of a space capsule like the ones in the Apollo Moon missions or on the International Space Station (ISS)?

Remember Tom Hanks trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in the movie Apollo 13? Those were carbon dioxide scrubbers that NASA used for removing this toxic gas from the interior of space capsules.

These scrubbers are expendable filters packed with lithium hydroxide (similar to a chemical you can find in drain-cleaning fluid) that capture carbon dioxide gas through simple acid-base chemistry. While these scrubbers are highly efficient in removing carbon dioxide and allowing astronauts to breathe easy, the filters have a finite capacity. Once saturated, they are no longer effective.

So, for extended space missions, using lithium hydroxide filters is not feasible. Scientists later developed a system that uses a reusable carbon dioxide scrubber made with minerals called zeolites. With zeolite, the captured carbon dioxide can be released into space, and the filters are then free to capture more gas.

But in 2010, scientists found an even better way to manage carbon dioxide, by turning this waste product into another essential component to life: water.

From waste to resource

The Environmental Control and Life Support System on the ISS replaces carbon dioxide scrubbers with the Carbon Dioxide Reduction System, also known as the Sabatier system. It’s named after the chemical reaction central to its function, which in turn is named after its discoverer, 1912 Chemistry Nobel Prize winner Paul Sabatier.

This system combines carbon dioxide with hydrogen gas to form water and methane. The methane gas is vented into space, and through a process called hydrolysis, the water is split into breathable oxygen and hydrogen gas. The latter is then recycled to transform more carbon dioxide into water.

This process is not just useful for space exploration. Closer to home, chemists are researching similar systems to potentially address greenhouse gas emissions – while it’s no panacea, the Sabatier reaction could help us recycle some carbon dioxide here on Earth.

Meanwhile, NASA’s Artemis Moon mission aims to land the first woman and person of colour on the Moon and establish a long-term human presence in a lunar base. The Sabatier reaction and other little-celebrated chemical processes will be key to humankind’s continued space endeavours.

Read more:
The Artemis I mission marks the start of a new space race to mine the Moon

Curtis Ho receives funding from the University of Tasmania.

– ref. It’s not just rocket science – hidden chemistry powers Moon launches and sustains life in space – https://theconversation.com/its-not-just-rocket-science-hidden-chemistry-powers-moon-launches-and-sustains-life-in-space-189773

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert Horvath, Senior lecturer, La Trobe University

Little remains of the legacy of Mikhail Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader and one of the greatest reformers in Russian history.

In the name of “glasnost” (openness) and “perestroika” (restructuring), Gorbachev dismantled totalitarianism, abolished censorship, freed hundreds of political prisoners, and held competitive elections that inaugurated a decade of democratisation.

By jettisoning the USSR’s ideologically driven foreign policy, he also ended the Cold War and brought humanity back from the brink of nuclear annihilation.

During his presidency, Vladimir Putin has systematically destroyed these historic achievements. On their ruins, his regime is mobilising militants behind a new totalitarian project.

Once again, education and culture are being policed by the state. Once again, hundreds of prisoners of conscience are languishing in prisons and labour camps. And once again, Russia is locked in a potentially apocalyptic confrontation with the West.

Gorbachev’s dialogue with a dissident

Nothing better illustrates the differences between Gorbachev and Putin than how they treated their adversaries.

In December 1986, Gorbachev phoned Andrei Sakharov, the most vilified dissident in the USSR. Sakharov had been languishing for seven years in internal exile in the closed city of Gorky for his condemnation of the invasion of Afghanistan. In a radical rupture with the etiquette of his predecessors, Gorbachev politely invited Sakharov to return to Moscow to “resume your patriotic work”.

This act of civility was only the beginning of what one liberal intellectual called “the sharp and profound Gorbachev-Sakharov dialogue, a dialogue which became one of the engines of our progress”.

Read more:
How Andrei Sakharov went from Soviet hero to dissident — and forced the world to pay attention to human rights

When Gorbachev introduced multi-candidate elections to a new Soviet legislature, the Congress of People’s Deputies, Sakharov became one of 2,250 new parliamentarians.

His voice might have been lost in the tumult of this unwieldy assembly. However, Gorbachev repeatedly intervened to allow Sakharov to take the podium and deliver speeches that set the agenda of Russia’s democratic reforms.

After Sakharov died of a heart attack in December 1989, Gorbachev lamented this “great loss” of “a person with his own ideas and convictions, which he expressed openly and directly”.

Contrast this openness to dialogue with Putin’s strange inability to utter even the name of his principal adversary, Aleksei Navalny, who was subject to a decade of vilification, trumped up criminal prosecutions, and violent attacks by Kremlin proxies before state security agents poisoned him with the nerve agent novichok.

Gorbachev’s restraint

There’s no doubt Gorbachev’s greatest achievement was the relatively peaceful dismantlement of a highly militarised totalitarian regime with the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons.

As his power ebbed during the terminal crisis of the USSR, Gorbachev was unable to prevent excesses by military hardliners in the Baltic states. However, at the decisive moment, he resisted the temptation to wage war to preserve the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe or suppress the nationalist movements that were tearing the Soviet federation apart at its seams.

His reticence earned him the vilification of the neo-Stalinists and radical nationalists who dominated Russian opposition politics in the 1990s.

But it almost certainly saved millions of people from the ethnic cleansing and genocidal massacres that devastated the former Yugoslavia, eastern Europe’s other Leninist federation.

Gorbachev’s restraint also unshackled Russia’s civil society after seven decades of totalitarian regimentation. The early years of perestroika witnessed a proliferation of “informal groups”, small clubs of citizens engaged in the kind of associational life that’s the lifeblood of democratic politics.

The most important of these informals was the Memorial Society, which emerged as a group of activists petitioning for the construction of a monument to the victims of Stalinism. As Memorial grew into a grassroots human rights movement, it was denied legal status by obstructionist bureaucrats. Gorbachev, at the prompting of Sakharov’s widow, ordered its registration.

For the next three decades, Memorial shone a spotlight on atrocities in the flashpoints of the former Soviet space and on repression within Russia. Unsurprisingly, it became a principal target of Putin’s anti-NGO laws and the Kremlin’s small army of anti-Western proxies. Last December, when Memorial was banned, Gorbachev spoke out in its defence.

During his six years in power, Gorbachev evolved from a Leninist true believer into a kind of social democrat. In the end, his political credo revolved around the notion of “universal values”, which repudiated Marxism-Leninism’s division of the world into capitalism and socialism.

In the name of universal values, Gorbachev became the only Soviet leader to embrace the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Putin’s ‘traditional values’

For Putin’s propagandists, universal values are an object of derision, a pitiful delusion that blinded naive reformers like Gorbachev to an unfolding national catastrophe.

In its place, they offer “traditional values”, which justify attacks on international human rights norms, domestic repression, and genocidal war in Ukraine. At the same time, these propagandists slander Gorbachev as a criminal who should be tried for treason.

Despite the torrent of hatred directed at him, Gorbachev remained true to universal values. In 1993, while Putin was already mired in the corruption schemes that would make him one of the world’s richest kleptocrats, Gorbachev donated part of the money from his Nobel Prize to the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, a bastion of courageous reportage and liberal values in post-Soviet Russia.

Read more:
Putin’s fascists: the Russian state’s long history of cultivating homegrown neo-Nazis

When neo-nazis murdered one of Novaya Gazeta’s journalists alongside Russia’s most prominent human rights lawyer in 2009, Gorbachev accompanied the newspaper’s editor to a meeting in the Kremlin with then President Dmitrii Medvedev to demand action. Like other independent media, Novaya Gazeta became a victim of the domestic crackdown that followed the invasion of Ukraine.

Putin may have levelled Russia’s democratic institutions and pulverised its civic landscape, but he has been unable to extirpate one thing: the memory of the democratic experiment that Gorbachev set in motion.

For decades since the unveiling of glasnost and perestroika, millions of Russians have acted as free citizens, protesting, debating and associating, despite the dangers of an increasingly authoritarian environment. Those experiences cannot be unlived. They are already part of Russia’s democratic tradition. They are Gorbachev’s most enduring legacy.

Robert Horvath receives funding from Australian Research Council.

– ref. Why Gorbachev’s legacy still threatens Putin – https://theconversation.com/why-gorbachevs-legacy-still-threatens-putin-189778

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato

With only six days left for submissions to the select committee examining the Aotearoa New Zealand Public Media Bill, it is becoming clear this crucial piece of legislation has some significant shortcomings. These will need attention before it passes into law.

The eventual act of parliament will officially merge Radio New Zealand (RNZ) and Television New Zealand (TVNZ) into a new non-profit, autonomous Crown entity. Supporters, including Broadcasting Minister Willie Jackson, argue the new organisation will help strengthen public media. Others have expressed concerns about the new entity’s likely independence, given its reliance on government funding.

TVNZ chief executive Simon Power echoed those concerns earlier this week. He strongly criticised the bill’s current provisions for statutory and editorial independence:

I am not worried about that kind of influence from this government or the next government. I just think if the legislation is to endure it has to be robust enough to withstand different types of governments over time.

Power is right to warn against complacency about media freedom. While New Zealand still ranks highly in the World Press Freedom Index (11th out of 180 countries), there have been times in the past when governments have manipulated or directly censored local news media to suit their own political agendas.

In the current age of “fake news” and disinformation, we need to be especially vigilant. While there are good aspects to the proposed law, it fails to adequately deal with several pressing contemporary issues.

Trust in government and media

As last year’s Sustaining Aotearoa as a Cohesive Society report highlighted, trust in government and media, and the social cohesion it creates, is a fragile thing. What can take decades to build can fragment if it isn’t nurtured.

According to some global measures, this trust is declining. New Zealand still ranks higher than the OECD average, but distrust is growing here. The Auckland University of Technology’s Journalism, Media and Democracy (JMAD) research centre reports that people’s trust in the news they consume dropped by 10% between 2020 and 2022.

Read more:
Crisis, disintegration and hope: only urgent intervention can save New Zealand’s media

At the same time, the speed and reach of propaganda, misinformation and disinformation have increased dramatically, as witnessed during the COVID pandemic. New Zealand was not immune, as the Disinformation Project has shown. Unreliable and untrustworthy information spread almost as quickly as the virus itself, with an unprecedented spike during the protest at parliament earlier this year.

Finally, journalism continues to be a dangerous profession. Over 1,200 media professionals worldwide were killed for doing their jobs between 2006 and 2020. Online violence against women journalists in particular is on the rise. New Zealand journalists have also found themselves the target of increased levels of animosity.

What the new law needs

Rebuilding trust in the public media starts with firmly enshrining their independence in law. The proposed charter promises the new entity will demonstrate editorial independence, impartiality and balance. This is a good start, but it is only one of ten principles.

This key principle (and ways to measure it) should stand alone in the new law to create a bulwark against any rising fear that governments, either directly or by manipulating budgets and appointments, have undue influence.

The commitment to independence should also be reinforced by ensuring some seats on the proposed entity’s board are reserved for representatives of parliamentary opposition parties. Independent annual review of the entity’s independence and integrity should also be required.

Read more:
In an age of digital disinformation, dropping level 1 media studies in NZ high schools is a big mistake

Second, there needs to be a clearer commitment to integrity of information, beyond the existing standards of the news being reliable, accurate, comprehensive, balanced and impartial. Recognising the threat of misinformation and disinformation, and developing ways to counter it, should be a core part of the new entity’s remit. As the bill stands, it is only part of four considerations related to one of several “objectives”.

And thirdly, the law must recognise the independence of journalists and the need to protect them. It’s something of an anomaly that a bill to protect journalists’ sources was put before parliament (although subsequently withdrawn), while journalists themselves don’t enjoy similar protections.

The new public media entity could lead the way in lobbying on behalf of all journalists to ensure those protections, and the tools journalists require to be an effective fourth estate, are consistent with best international practice.

If the law in its final form reflects these fundamental principles, it will go a long way to allaying legitimate concerns about the future independence and integrity of public media in Aotearoa New Zealand.

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

– ref. The merger of TVNZ and RNZ needs to build trust in public media – 3 things the law change must get right – https://theconversation.com/the-merger-of-tvnz-and-rnz-needs-to-build-trust-in-public-media-3-things-the-law-change-must-get-right-189769

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine Nolan, Professor of Law and Justice and Director of the Australian Human Rights Institute, UNSW Sydney

The Chinese regime’s treatment of Uyghurs and other predominantly Muslim groups in the province of Xinjiang may constitute crimes against humanity, says a long-awaited report from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

It describes as “credible” allegations of torture, including rape and sexual violence, discrimination, mass detention, forced labour and widespread surveillance.

Multiple reports over the past five years have documented human rights abuses in the far-western province. These include the arbitrary detention of at least 800,000 people, and possibly millions.

Read more:
Leaked documents on Uighur detention camps in China – an expert explains the key revelations

Former detainees have testifed about being forced to work in textile factories, producing goods possibly supplied to foreign companies.

In January 2021 the then US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, said he believed the Chinese government was committing genocide in a “systematic attempt to destroy Uyghurs”.

But this latest report, published just minutes before midnight on High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s last day in office, comes with the imprimatur of the United Nations.

It is no longer possible for anyone – including the many companies that continue to source products from Xinjiang – to claim plausible deniability.

Read more:
Explainer: who are the Uyghurs and why is the Chinese government detaining them?

Companies implicated in slave labour

Xinjiang is China’s largest region. Along with mining resources such as coal, gas, lithium, zinc and lead, it produces about 45% of the world’s polysilicon, a key component in photovoltaic solar panels.

It also produces the vast majority of cotton (84% is a commonly cited number) for China’s textiles and garment manufacturing industry.

A September 2018 report from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, published estimates of the numbers detained in Xinjiang – between tens of thousands and a million.

The following month the Chinese government finally acknowledged the existence of what it called “vocational training centres”.

But it justified these as necessary to counter “terrorism” and “extremism”.

The latest UN report leaves no doubt large-scale arbitrary detention has occurred. Attempts to pass off camps as vocational or training centres are simply not credible.

As well the possibility of goods sourced directly from Xinjing being made with slave labour, this new UN report also notes the “labour transfer schemes” that force people from Xinjiang to work elsewhere in China.

Read more:
Four Corners’ forced labour exposé shows why you might be wearing slave-made clothes

These transfers mean goods produced in factories throughout China may be tainted with modern slavery.

A 2020 report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute identified 83 Chinese and foreign companies that allegedly benefit from the use of Uyghur workers outside Xinjiang.

The list featured Adidas, Amazon, Apple, BMW, Calvin Klein, Dell, Google, H&M, Hisense, Hitachi, Huawei, Lacoste, Mercedes-Benz, Microsoft, Mitsubishi, Nike, Nintendo, Sony, Victoria’s Secret, Volkswagen and Zara.

So where to next?

The UN report calls on the Chinese government to release those who have been arbitrarily detained, and to investigate the allegations of human rights violations. This is like asking a fox to guard the hen house.

What is needed is international action and pressure to force change.

The UN Human Rights Council, composed of representatives from 47 member states, should be spurred by this report to start a comprehensive investigation, in line with the obligations of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

This should also be a catalyst for individual nations to do more to stamp out modern slavery from supply chains, ensuring goods produced with forced labour – in China or elsewhere – cannot be imported.

This is also provides a clear signal for anyone doing business with China (not just Xinjiang) on the need to conduct adequate due diligence to ensure they are not benefiting indirectly from human rights abuses.

This includes technology companies that sell surveillance and security products to China.

Until there is broader access and independent verification of working conditions in Xinjiang, business should now assume that goods connected with this region are tainted with modern slavery.

Justine Nolan 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. UN report on Xinjiang abuses leaves no room for plausible deniability – https://theconversation.com/un-report-on-xinjiang-abuses-leaves-no-room-for-plausible-deniability-189795

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Maguire, Lecturer in English and Creative Writing, James Cook University

Review: Savage River, directed by Jocelyn Moorhouse.

Newly released from prison for a murder she committed in her teens, Miki Anderson (Katherine Langford) has returned to her home town Savage River. She is determined to leave the past behind her, but when another murder occurs just days after Miki returns, the town’s mistrust deepens.

Determined to find out the truth and clear her name, Miki decides to uncover the real killer, unearthing long-hidden secrets along the way.

It might be tempting to assume you know how this story goes, but this new six-part drama from the ABC is not your typical murder mystery.

Savage River explores complex social territory as the town’s class and race tensions emerge as key to the narrative.

Miki is a riveting portrayal of complex, conflicted femininity. Langford is brilliant, bringing a moving combination of toughness and vulnerability to the role, serving up scathing glares and a back-off attitude that belies both Miki’s experience of prison and the way this character remains partially stuck in her teenage identity.

Shiny pink nail polish and sun-drenched memories of bike rides clash against the drab fluorescent dejection of a local pub, and blood pooling on an abattoir floor.

The Australian Gothic

The score (composition by Bryony Marks) creates a haunting, atmospheric quality, and the series works in classic Gothic tropes: a ghostly landscape, an isolated rural setting marked by decay, themes of entrapment and claustrophobia, and an unresolved past intruding on the present.

It represents a contemporary take on the Australian Gothic.

Australian Gothic has been associated with a colonial gaze that sees horror in the “uncivilised” Australian bush or outback, evocatively rendered in Wake in Fright (1971) and Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975).

In the colonial imagination, the Australian landscape has been figured as a source of terror hiding any number of unknown threats to colonisers. In Australian Gothic works, they grapple with alienation, melancholy and isolation, mirroring fears inspired by the colonial experience.

This white, colonial gaze is interrogated rather than replicated in Savage River. While the regional Victorian bush provides an atmospheric setting, the sense of threat and violence centres instead on the town’s abattoir.

Facing secret financial difficulties, long past its zenith as the economic saviour of the town, the meat works is a site of white patriarchy. It was founded by the ageing mayor’s father, and is owned by the mayor’s son Kevin (Daniel Hensall), keeping the place afloat by exploiting refugees with precarious visa conditions.

When Miki gets a job at the abattoir we see a brutal reality: Savage River is a town built on blood and slaughter, a truth that references the colonial violence at the foundation of modern Australia.

Read more:
Australian Gothic: from Hanging Rock to Nick Cave and Kylie, this genre explores our dark side

Who is acknowledged as missing?

Australian Gothic is not the only genre Savage River plays with. The plot is driven by a murder mystery when, just days after Miki returns home, a white man goes missing and is then found dead.

Parallel to this man’s disappearance, a refugee woman named Laila (Haya Abbas) has been missing for days. As Laila’s sister Jamila (Maia Abbas) tries in vain to get the men around her to take Laila’s disappearance seriously, the show draws attention to the town’s uneven attitudes to the two missing people.

In one scene the town’s resident copper and typical “mediocre white man” – Bill Kirby (Robert Grubb), is setting up for the town’s annual celebration.

As Bill sets traffic cones on the grass he is on the phone, reporting the white man missing with a tone of concern in his voice. Jamila approaches him and appeals to him to help her find Laila, who she says is gone, like the man who is missing. Bill is wilfully confused, asking, “Gone where?”.

When Jamila implores him to please look for Laila, Bill gestures around at the preparations with exasperation, and fobs her off saying, “Well I can’t do anything today,” as if his hands are tied.

The town festivities take precedence over Laila’s disappearance.

Attributed to journalist Gwen Ifill, the term “missing white woman syndrome” is used to describe this deeply unequal media coverage and public attention, along racial lines.

Murder mysteries often replicate this syndrome, in blonde screen icons like Laura Palmer in Twin Peaks (1990), as well as more recent adaptations Gone Girl (2014) and The Girl on the Train (2016).

Savage River refuses racist, misogynist and classist tropes. Here, the sense of menace emanates from the town’s patriarchal, capitalist leaders who have made their fortune by slaughtering animals. The apathy and racism of police is problematised, and white, male power is explored as a corrupting influence.

The show has a whole lot of heart, too, with some truly endearing characters. With a ripping plot, the story will sweep you away.

Savage River is on ABC TV and ABC iView from September 4.

Read more:
Friday essay: beyond ‘girl gone mad melodrama’ — reframing female anger in psychological thrillers

Emma Maguire 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. More than a murder mystery, Savage River is a gripping new take on the Australian Gothic – https://theconversation.com/more-than-a-murder-mystery-savage-river-is-a-gripping-new-take-on-the-australian-gothic-188739

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chandra Salgado Kent, Associate Professor, School of Science, Edith Cowan University

This article is part of the “Who would win?” series, where wildlife experts dream up hypothetical battles between predators (all in the name of science).

One is the largest animal known to have ever existed. The other is a revered predator at the top of its food chain. But would a blue whale and a great white shark ever find themselves at odds with each other in the wild?

While such observations of sharks attacking whales are few, we know it does occur.
The scars many whales bear throughout their lives resulting from shark attacks are more than sufficient evidence sharks will have a go if an opportunity arises.

Their fight is about survival – a potentially much longed-for next meal for a shark, and the whale’s desperate defence to ensure the next generation’s survival. So, which of these impressive marine giants would win?

A grand banquet

At up to 30 metres long and weighing over 100 tonnes, a blue whale easily outsizes a white shark, which can measure perhaps over 6m and weigh less than a tonne.

But the blue whale didn’t get so big from killing and eating other large animals such as sharks. Rather, they evolved an efficient way of consuming very large amounts of tiny prey: krill.

They lunge through dense patches of thousands, if not millions, of krill, with large, gaping jaws that can open up to around 80 degrees.

The lunge builds enormous water pressure against their mouth, inflating the pleat-like grooved blubber around their mouth cavity to balloon like an accordion’s bellows. With this remarkable device, blue whales can engulf thousands of litres of water in one go.

Instead of teeth, blue whales (along with humpbacks, and many other whale species) have bristle-like baleen, which strain the small organisms from the water when their mouth cavity is compressed. This is how blue whales maximise their energy intake while minimising effort.

Sharks, on the other hand, are highly specialised apex predators that hunt and capture large animals, such as large fish, seals and sea lions, and sometimes even dolphins.

They are well designed for this, with streamlined bodies designed for ambush-and-chase style hunting. They also have flexible and extensible jaws and sharp teeth designed to grab and rip flesh.

If a shark could successfully capture a large whale, the winnings would be one of a grand banquet. After all, what better meal than the massive source of high energy of the meat and thick, fatty blubber a whale brings!

Indeed, media reports often capture images of sharks lurking around large whale carcasses.

So, have these carcasses resulted from shark predation? Or have these whales died from an otherwise unknown ailment, or human impacts such as fishing gear entanglement?

A formidable defender

Large sharks are not only hunters, but also scavengers. Growing evidence suggests whale carcasses are an important part of the diets of large sharks. In fact, the fat in whale blubber can significantly increase a shark’s metabolism.

With whale meat and blubber an important food for sharks, why might they not also hunt whales while they’re alive? It turns out whales can indeed become a large and highspeed target.

Blue whales’ highly streamlined bodies, however, have evolved to travel as fast as 40 kilometres per hour, for as much as an hour or more. Their speed and endurance make them difficult prey to catch for sharks.

Sharks employ more of a sit and wait strategy to conserve energy, and pursue prey over short, fast bursts of speed of up to at least 11 metres per second.

But the difficulties for a shark in capturing a blue whale don’t end with their limited endurance at high speed. Unless you’re a large shark, say, over several meters long, you simply may not have sufficient power in your jaws to effectively tear off the meat, even if you could keep up with a blue whale.

Some other baleen whales, such as southern right whales that can reach over 16m-long, are less streamlined than blue whales due to their chunkier, but more flexible, bodies. For them, a fight rather than flight defence strategy against predators may be taken.

To defend against killer whales, for example, such whales have been reported to group together and defend themselves with powerful tail, pectoral fin or head blows at their attackers.

Right whales have also been observed taking these strong stances to protect their vulnerable calves. A well-calculated and well-timed tail slap or body slam may be life threatening to a predator.

But when do the advantages of the predator defence mechanisms that whales have evolved start to wane? The answer is: when the odds are stacked against them.

When a whale is vulnerable – perhaps it’s no older than a few weeks or months, or perhaps it’s unwell or otherwise compromised – it doesn’t have the same speed and defences of a healthy adult whale.

So which species would win?

As true for all things, it is situational. A whale threatened by a white shark could cause damage to its attacker. A blue whale also has the added advantage of high-speed endurance to flee if it prefers.

But if the whale is already vulnerable – such as a worn-out and debilitated whale entangled in fishing nets – then persistent and well-calculated attacks that cause the whale to bleed out can result in the shark winning and whale losing.

There was an interesting case off Massachusetts Bay in the United States in July 2015, when this almost certain destiny was reversed. The brave Marine Animal Entanglement Response team managed to free a severely entangled humpback whale that had sustained injuries from a 5m white shark.

The fact the entanglement made the whale vulnerable leaves food for thought on our own role in putting many whales at greater, unnatural risk of death – including many in endangered populations already struggling under human pressures.

I take this story as testament to the compassionate nature of humanity. But it’s also a sobering reminder of the urgent need for us to transition our current harmful practices to ones that are sustainable.

Chandra Salgado Kent receives funding fromt the National Environmental Science Program and the Australian Research Council for whale research.

– ref. Who would win in a fight between a great white shark and a blue whale? – https://theconversation.com/who-would-win-in-a-fight-between-a-great-white-shark-and-a-blue-whale-164864

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jessica Suzanne Dudley, Postdoctoral Fellow in Evolutionary Biology, Macquarie University

In seahorses and pipefish, it is the male that gets pregnant and gives birth. Seahorse fathers incubate their developing embryos in a pouch located on their tail.

The pouch is the equivalent of the uterus of female mammals. It contains a placenta, supporting the growth and development of baby seahorses.

Read more:
The secret sex life and pregnancy of a seahorse dad

Seahorse dads provide nutrients and oxygen to their babies during pregnancy, using some of the same genetic instructions as mammalian pregnancy.

However, when it comes to giving birth, our research shows male seahorses seem to rely on elaborate behaviours and their unique body structure to facilitate labour.

How animals give birth

Labour is a complex biological process that in female pregnant animals is controlled by hormones including oxytocin. In mammals and reptiles, oxytocin induces contractions in the smooth muscles of the uterus.

There are three main types of muscle: smooth muscle, skeletal muscle and cardiac muscle.

Smooth muscle is found in the walls of most internal organs and blood vessels. This muscle type is not under conscious control. For example, your intestines are lined with smooth muscle, which rhythmically contracts to move food through your gut without you having to consciously control it.

Skeletal muscle is found throughout your body and attaches to bones via tendons, allowing body movement. This type of muscle is under conscious control. For example, your bicep muscles when contracted allow you to consciously bend your arm.

Cardiac muscle is specific to the heart and is also under involuntary control.

In female mammals the uterine wall contains abundant smooth muscle. Oxytocin stimulates this smooth muscle to contract, helping bring about labour.

These uterine contractions are spontaneous and involuntary. We can measure these uterine contractions in response to oxytocin, and the results are consistent in both mammals and reptiles.

How do male seahorses give birth?

Our team of researchers from the University of Sydney and the University of Newcastle set out to determine how labour works in male seahorses.

Our genetic data suggested seahorse labour might involve a similar process to labour in female mammals. A study in 1970 also showed that when non-pregnant male seahorses were exposed to the fish version of oxytocin (called isotocin), they expressed labour-like behaviours.

Therefore, we predicted seahorse males would use oxytocin-family hormones to control the process of giving birth via contracting smooth muscles inside the brood pouch.

What we found

First, we exposed pieces of seahorse pouch to isotocin. While isotocin caused our control tissues (intestine) to contract, surprisingly this hormone produced no contractions in the brood pouch.

The result led us to wonder about the anatomy of the pouch. When we examined the pouch under a microscope, we found it contains only scattered small bundles of smooth muscle, far less than the uterus of female mammals. This explained why the pouch did not contract in our experiments.

Using 3D imaging techniques combined with microscopy, we then compared the body structure of male and female pot-bellied seahorses.

In males, we found three bones positioned near the pouch opening, associated with large skeletal muscles. These types of bones and muscles control the anal fin in other fish species. In seahorses, the anal fin is miniscule and has little or no function in swimming.

So, the large muscles associated with the tiny seahorse fin are surprising. The anal fin muscles and bones are much larger in male seahorses than in female seahorses, and their orientation suggests they could control the opening of the pouch.

Seahorse courtship behaviour provides a clue

Seahorse courtship is an elaborate process. Males open and fill their pouch with water by bending forward and contracting their bodies to force water into the pouch, before “dancing” with the female.

Similarly, during labour, male seahorses bend their body towards the tail, pressing and then relaxing. This “pressing” behaviour is accompanied by brief gaping of the pouch opening, with a series of whole-body jerks. This movement combined with pouch opening allows seawater to flush through the pouch.

Jerking and pressing continues, the pouch opening gets gradually bigger, and groups of seahorse babies are ejected with each movement. Many hundreds of babies are ejected in a short time.

Our findings suggest the opening of the pouch for courtship and birth is facilitated by contractions of the large skeletal muscles located near the pouch opening. We propose that these muscles control the opening of the seahorse pouch, allowing seahorse fathers to consciously control the expulsion of their young at the end of pregnancy.

Future biomechanical and electrophysiological studies are needed to examine the force required to contract these muscles and test whether they do control the opening of the pouch.

Different ways to solve a problem

Our unexpected results suggest male seahorses use different mechanisms to give birth compared to female pregnant animals.

We speculate that oxytocin-family hormones, instead of primarily producing smooth muscle contractions, trigger the cascade of seahorse behaviours that lead to birth.

Despite the similarities that male seahorses share with female mammals and reptiles during pregnancy, it seems seahorse fathers have a unique way of giving birth to their young.

Read more:
Pregnant male seahorses support up to 1,000 growing babies by forming a placenta

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. Seahorse fathers give birth in a unique way, new research shows – https://theconversation.com/seahorse-fathers-give-birth-in-a-unique-way-new-research-shows-188644

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Steen, Adjunct professor of Maternal and Family Health, University of South Australia

Soon after a baby is born, it’s getting more common these days for the father or non-birthing parent to be encouraged to put the newborn directly on their chest. This skin-to-skin contact is often termed “kangaroo care”, as it mimics the way kangaroos provide warmth and security to babies.

Mothers have been encouraged to give kangaroo care for decades now and many do so instinctively after giving birth; it has been shown to help mum and baby connect and with breastfeeding.

So what does the evidence say about kangaroo care for other parents?

A growing body of research

A growing body of research shows kangaroo care brings benefits for both baby and parent.

One study that measured cortisol (a stress hormone) levels and blood pressure in new fathers found:

Fathers who held their baby in skin-to-skin contact for the first time showed a significant reduction in physiological stress responses.

Another study in Taiwan involving fathers and neonates (newborn babies) found benefits to bonding and attachment:

These study results confirm the positive effects of skin-to-skin contact interventions on the infant care behaviour of fathers in terms of exploring, talking, touching, and caring and on the enhancing of the father-neonate attachment.

A paper I co-authored with the University of South Australia’s Qiuxia Dong found:

Studies reported several positive kangaroo care benefits for fathers such as reduced stress, promotion of paternal role and enhanced father–infant bond.

Qiuxia Dong also led a study (on which I was a co-author) exploring the experiences of fathers who had a baby in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit at Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Adelaide.

This study found kangaroo care helps fathers connect and bond with their baby in an intensive care environment. This had a positive impact on fathers’ confidence and self-esteem. As one father told us:

I think after all the stress, when I have skin-to-skin I can actually calm down a little bit. I sit down and relax, I can cuddle my child and it’s just a little bit of a happy place for me as well as him to calm down, not to do any work all the time, not to be stressed out. There’s other things on my mind all the time but it’s time to relax and turn off a little bit.

Another told us:

She nuzzled around a bit, kind of got my smell I guess and then literally fell asleep. It was great. It was very comforting for both I guess for her and myself.

As one father put it:

Of course, they can hear your heartbeat and all that kind of stuff, of course warmth […] it’s being close with your baby, I think that would be the best way of building a relationship early.

However, this study also reported that some dads found giving kangaroo care challenging as it can be time-consuming. It is not always easy to juggle with commitments such as caring for other children and work.

Involving both parents

One study noted dads can sometimes feel like a bystander on the periphery when a newborn arrives.

Encouraging and educating all non-birthing parents, including fathers, to give kangaroo care is a valuable way to get them involved. And if a caesarean birth makes it difficult for the mother to give kangaroo care while still in theatre, the father or non-birthing parent is the next best person to do it while the mother or birthing parent is not able.

More research needed

There is a need for broader research on these issues, especially around the experiences of fathers from culturally diverse backgrounds and other non-birthing parents.

But the research literature on kangaroo care shows there is good reason for dads and non-birthing parents to do some kangaroo care when a baby is born. As we concluded in our study, in the challenging neonatal intensive care unit environment, kangaroo care can serve:

as a silent language of love.

Mary Steen 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 is newborn baby skin-to-skin contact with dads and non-birthing parents important? Here’s what the science says – https://theconversation.com/why-is-newborn-baby-skin-to-skin-contact-with-dads-and-non-birthing-parents-important-heres-what-the-science-says-188927

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bjorn Sturmberg, Research Leader, Battery Storage & Grid Integration Program, Australian National University

This week, the Australian Energy Market Operator warned gaps in electricity supply are likely within three years.

The reason? Coal plants are quitting the market earlier than expected, as well as becoming less reliable. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine drove coal, gas, petrol and diesel prices to painful highs. Domestic energy bills are soaring too, due in large part to ballooning gas prices. At one stage, outages and fuel shortages at coal and gas plants, coupled with low solar and wind output, very nearly cut power to a third of all east coast customers.

But the good news is there’s a clean energy gold rush under way, now we have a legislated emissions target and strong engagement between state and federal energy ministers. Investors are moving with increased confidence, accelerating their investments in clean energy generation and storage.

Even so, there’s a big task ahead to reach the goal of 82% renewables by 2030. We’ll need rapid deployment – not only to meet grid demand, but also new demand from the move to “electrify everything” in our homes and on our roads.

So what changes can you expect to see?

Solar panels and wind farms will pop up in many more places

The first thing you’re likely to notice is the rapid construction of new clean energy projects.

Over the past year, many of our coal power stations have become less reliable due to old age, heat stress and lack of fuel. There’s going to be a rush to the exit for coal. What’s the point of operators spending money propping up power stations at the end of their service life?

As a result, five coal plants are now expected to shut by the end of the decade – significantly more than anticipated.

What will replace them? Solar and wind farms, as these are the cheapest forms of new generation, supported by energy storage in batteries and pumped hydro.

The market operator conservatively expects 7.3 gigawatts of new generation to be built by the end of 2026-27, with half this again (3.4GW) “anticipated” to be built, meaning AEMO has a good degree of confidence these renewables will be built.

Even so, this is only a tiny fraction of the estimated 45GW of renewable opportunities in Australia readily available to investors and clean energy developers. We’ll need to build all 45GW – and then at least 5GW more – to hit our renewable target of 82%.

Unlike thermal power stations, solar and wind farms are made of simple building blocks that are quicker to scale in manufacturing and deployment.

In particular, you can expect to see solar and wind farms popping up in renewable energy zones like New England and the central west of New South Wales. These zones are designed to share the costs of new grid construction amongst a concentration of clean energy generation in areas with good sun and wind resources.

Batteries to store and transmission lines to move electricity

Further major infrastructure investments will be made into energy storage and transmission lines.

The increasing value to the grid of storage is driving major investments like the plans for A$1 billion of new grid-scale batteries recently announced by US investment giant Blackrock, as well as AGL’s A$763 million plan to build batteries next to the decommissioned Liddell coal power plant.

Much of this investment is occurring in coal country, like Victoria’s Gippsland and the Hunter Valley in NSW. Here, companies are vying to place grid-scale batteries at old coal stations. Why? To take advantage of the existing strong connections to the grid.

While our existing transmission infrastructure will host many new renewable power stations and batteries, new transmission lines will need to be built. Especially between states, like EnergyConnect between NSW and South Australia, as well as new grid extensions to connect renewable energy zones to major cities.

Read more:
4 reasons our gas and electricity prices are suddenly sky-high

A focus on flexible use of power

In addition to the infrastructure placed in the grid, there will be a new focus on unlocking the value of flexibility in energy demand to better match the variability of when solar and wind plants generate electricity.

Storage is one source of flexibility. Timing our own electricity use is another.

Flexible energy use is far less resource intensive than new infrastructure and offers the greatest benefit to system reliability. But it relies on human behaviour and our willingness to change established habits.

Expect to see strong price incentives for you to use electricity when it’s abundant. The sunniest hours are already the cheapest time to use power in most of Australia – and this will only get cheaper.

Not only that, but you will likely see grid incentives at times of peak demand. Picture notifications offering you a financial incentive to turn off energy-hungry appliances such as electric vehicle chargers, home batteries and heaters use at particular times – and for these functions to be offered through automation.

This focus on the demand-side of electricity use is already well understood by energy-hungry industries. Last year, for the first time, this demand response was enabled for home users as well.

What can you to do prepare?

The long-overdue energy transformation will affect everyone, in how we use energy at home as well as the infrastructure in our communities.

This transition depends on us all for support and direction. Projects will need social licence – support by local communities – political backing, and, in some cases, personal investment in technology and services.

Investments of time will be particularly important if we want to save billions of dollars and millions of tonnes of critical materials through making demand-side flexibility a reality.

So be ready to see change, and to take part in it. While change can be daunting, the energy transition is really about embracing flexible new paths to the same goal, as my children’s book on the energy transition shows. And the benefits are huge: abundant, cheap power, generated locally and in flourishing regions.

Read more:
‘We want to be part of that movement’: residents embrace renewable energy but worry how their towns will change

Bjorn Sturmberg has received funding from the State and Federal governments, including from the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, for work related to solar, batteries, microgrids, and electric vehicles. He is the author of the illustrated children’s book, Amy’s Balancing Act.

– ref. Good news – there’s a clean energy gold rush under way. We’ll need it to tackle energy price turbulence and coal’s exodus – https://theconversation.com/good-news-theres-a-clean-energy-gold-rush-under-way-well-need-it-to-tackle-energy-price-turbulence-and-coals-exodus-188804