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

Defence Minister Peeni Henare may not have won Cabinet approval to provide lethal weaponry to Ukraine, but the decision to apply 35% tariffs to all Russian imports is a clear sign the government knew its response to Russia’s war of aggression had to accelerate.

Global stability and security are underpinned by the United Nations Charter and the rule of international law in the form of the International Court of Justice. Russia has put both in the bin.

By conducting a war in probable violation of the most basic rules of international humanitarian law – including deliberate use of thermobaric bombs, landmines and possibly white phosphorus, reckless attacks around the Chernobyl nuclear plant, targeting of hospitals and civilian shelters – Russia’s actions appear neither isolated nor ad-hoc.

The latest evidence of apparent execution, torture and rape of non-combatants only confirms this. Given New Zealand’s reliance, like all small states, on a rule-based international order, the government must be prepared for further action in accordance with those principles.

Stepping up the response

Beyond potentially further escalating the tariffs on Russian imports, there are three additional, tangible things that can be done immediately.

First, the government should expel a number of Russian diplomats and support staff from Wellington. The ambassador should remain for now, but their office should be reduced in size.

This will allow New Zealand to retain direct communication with Russia, and probably mean our ambassador in Moscow can stay to protect New Zealand citizens and interests. But Russia will feel the weight of this country’s displeasure, with the option of expelling the ambassador if necessary.

Second, as the defence minister clearly wishes, lethal military assistance should now be offered. Assuming the war continues within Ukraine’s territorial boundaries, moving from helping Ukrainians protect themselves to helping them actually fight is justified.

Read more:
Ukraine crisis: how do small states like New Zealand respond in an increasingly lawless world?

Third, New Zealand can actively promote the use of existing (or new) international legal mechanisms for holding to account those who have committed war crimes.

In fact, the country has a long track record in this field, including New Zealanders being appointed to the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal after WWII, the Khmer Rouge Tribunal, the inquiry into the Gaza flotilla, and at the International Court of Justice.

Independent investigation

Although it’s unlikely Putin and his inner circle will ever be jailed for their crimes (assuming they never leave Russia again without diplomatic passports), and Russia won’t cooperate with any investigation, it’s important genuine justice be pursued.

For that to happen, the recording, analysis and judgement of alleged crimes must be done correctly – not only to add to the historical record underpinning the rules of war, but to ensure the atrocities are not forgotten. Future generations need to know what happened and how it stained Russia’s reputation.

Read more:
Putin is staking his political future on victory in Ukraine – and has little incentive to make peace

It also needs to be clear that New Zealand’s commitment to justice (and that of other like-minded states) can’t be traded away in any future peace deal between Ukraine and Russia.

It won’t be easy, and it may well invite threats from Russia, which has been busy removing its signature from the International Criminal Court (ICC) and revoking additional rules to the Geneva Conventions aimed at enhancing the protection of victims of international armed conflicts.

Nonetheless, New Zealand must support calls for an independent investigation into possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine, and for the ICC to hear the case. At a practical level, the government can offer forensic, financial and legal aid for that investigation.

No repeat of Iraq

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, New Zealand could also offer to help create a special international criminal tribunal to supplement the work of the International Criminal Court.

Already called for by former UK prime ministers Gordon Brown and John Major, such a body would try Putin and his regime for the overarching crime of waging an illegal war.

Read more:
Russia’s denial of responsibility for atrocities in Bucha recalls 50 years of lies over the Katyn massacre

Focusing on the act of invasion itself, rather than practices on the ground, would be novel – effectively putting a superpower on trial for its decision to unjustifiably invade another country.

It was a mistake this did not happen when the US and Britain illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, and it should not be repeated now. Only by building a better world governed by more effective international law can any lasting global peace be assured.

Pressing for such a tribunal and prosecution may be just a first step, but New Zealand should take it. A future where no nation can wage aggressive war with impunity might seem far off, but there is a way to get there.

Alexander Gillespie 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. Beyond tougher trade sanctions: 3 more ways NZ can add to global pressure on Russia – https://theconversation.com/beyond-tougher-trade-sanctions-3-more-ways-nz-can-add-to-global-pressure-on-russia-180783

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Hall, Senior Lecturer in Social Sciences and Public Policy, Auckland University of Technology

Past reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had an otherworldly feel. The onset of climate change, let alone the low-emissions transition, seemed abstract and far away.

The current assessment cycle sounds and feels in media res, in the midst of things. The IPCC’s earlier report on climate impacts, released in February, confirmed impacts of climate change are already upon us. This week’s follow-up on climate mitigation confirms the transition to net zero is underway, however inadequately.

Read more:
IPCC says the tools to stop catastrophic climate change are in our hands. Here’s how to use them

The complaint that “we have done nothing on climate change” is untenable. The report estimates existing policy instruments have avoided global emissions of at least 1.8 gigatonnes per year. Consequently, the worst-case scenarios are ever less likely. This is a timely reminder of our collective agency, a reminder that we can act deliberately as a global community to reduce gross emissions.

And further progress is on the horizon. The report highlights how recent political and technological developments, especially the plunging costs of renewable energy and stronger public support for climate action, have “opened up new and large-scale opportunities for deep decarbonisation”.

However, these achievements are still insufficient. While global emissions are rising at a slower rate, they are nevertheless rising. Current policy commitments only barely put us on track for an eventual plateauing of emissions by 2050. They imply global warming of 2.4℃ to 3.5℃ by 2100, a disastrous outcome.

Crucially, a plateau in emissions still means ongoing warming. If the atmosphere were a bathtub, this would be akin to not turning the tap any further, but still leaving the faucet running, so that the bath fills at a steady rate instead of an increasing rate.

Once emissions stabilise, the global temperature – like the water in the bathtub – still rises. Roughly speaking, the world only stops heating further once we reach net-zero. Returning to the bathtub analogy, that means we either turn off the tap completely or we turn down the tap to a trickle (the hard-to-abate emissions) while siphoning off an equivalent flow (removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere).

Read more:
On top of drastic emissions cuts, IPCC finds large-scale CO₂ removal from air will be “essential” to meeting targets

And if we want to return to lower temperatures, we need to go further still: we need to remove more carbon from the atmosphere than we emit. The higher the temperature we park the planet at, the more likely this will be needed to reduce positive feedbacks that might destabilise the climate further.

What this means for Aotearoa New Zealand

Applying the generalities of the IPCC report to a particular country, such as Aotearoa New Zealand, is not straightforward. As the IPCC itself recognises, development pathways toward net-zero will differ from country to country, depending on “national circumstances and capacities”.

However, the material realities of net zero set constraints on how the transition can be achieved. The decarbonisation of energy is non-negotiable. In the words of the report:

Warming cannot be limited to 2°C or 1.5°C without rapid and deep reductions in energy system carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions.

Furthermore, the report argues the early decommissioning of some fossil fuel infrastructure (such as coal-power infrastructure) is needed to fulfil the Paris Agreement ambitions.

Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can, indeed must, play a role in global mitigation strategies. As the report says:

The deployment of [carbon dioxide removal] to counterbalance hard-to-abate residual emissions is unavoidable if net-zero CO₂ or greenhouse gas emissions are to be achieved.

But the report is clear that carbon dioxide removal “cannot serve as a substitute for deep emissions reductions”. With the world on track to blow the carbon budget for 1.5℃ before the end of this decade, we must use offsetting judiciously, so it doesn’t obstruct near-term emissions reductions.

In this global context, there is likely to be growing scrutiny of the scale of New Zealand’s reliance on offsetting, both international and domestic, to meet its Paris Agreement commitments.

Fortunately, the report shines a light on how Aotearoa New Zealand could, if it chose to, reduce emissions faster. Much of this we’ve heard before, but the new report compellingly presents the opportunities to improve urban and building design, decarbonise construction and industry, end deforestation, enable sustainable agriculture and “transformative changes” in the transport and energy sectors. Happily, options in the latter two sectors are economic and sizeable.

The report also casts new light on demand-side solutions: that is, avoiding high-emissions services, shifting to low-emissions alternatives and improving the efficiency of existing services. It identifies car-free mobility as the largest single source of demand-led mitigation.

To achieve this, the report also notes, with high confidence, that “mobilising a range of policies is preferable to single policy instruments”. This should reinforce the New Zealand government’s recent shift toward more integrated policy making that treats the Emissions Trading Scheme as part of a policy mix rather than its primary policy response.

The major barrier, of course, is politics. The report notes memorably that:

The interaction between politics, economics and power relationships is central to explaining why broad commitments do not always translate to urgent action.

But this explanation simply shows – spurred on by signs of progress – where to keep pushing.

David Hall is affiliated with the Ministerial Forestry Advisory Group and was a Contributing Author to IPCC AR6 WGII.

– ref. IPCC report: how New Zealand could reduce emissions faster and rely less on offsets to reach net zero – https://theconversation.com/ipcc-report-how-new-zealand-could-reduce-emissions-faster-and-rely-less-on-offsets-to-reach-net-zero-180658

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By William Reay, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia, University of Newcastle

Mental health disorders including depression, schizophrenia, and anorexia show links to biological markers detected in routine blood tests, according to our new study of genetic, biochemical and psychiatric data from almost a million people.

The research will increase our understanding of what causes mental illness and may help to identify new treatments.

Healthy body, healthy mind

People often consider mental health as separate from the health of the rest of the body. This is far from true: there is clear evidence many biochemical substances involved in diseases such as diabetes and autoimmune conditions directly impact the function of our brain.

Many studies have tried to address this by focusing on substances called biomarkers that can be readily measured in blood.

A biomarker is simply something in the body that is a sign of a particular disease or process. These often relate to the kind of things reported in a blood test ordered by your doctor, such as cholesterol, blood sugar, liver enzymes, vitamins, or markers of inflammation.

Biomarkers found in routine blood tests are useful as they are often affected by diet and lifestyle, or by treatment with a drug.

The complex role of genetics in mental health

It’s often difficult to study the role of these blood biomarkers in mental health conditions. Many studies in this area are often not large enough to make strong conclusions.

One solution is to look at genetic influences on both mental illness and substances measured in blood. Genetics is useful as we now have data from millions of individuals who have volunteered in research studies.

Both mental illnesses and blood biomarkers are what geneticists call “complex traits”. In complex traits, many genes are involved and environmental factors also contribute.

Read more:
Genetics helps estimate the risk of disease – but how much does it really tell us?

The widespread availability of genetic data has allowed us to investigate how huge numbers of tiny changes in the DNA sequence (or “variants”) are related to the risk of mental illness. These same variants can then also be linked to the measured levels of a biomarker in blood.

For example, a variant in a particular gene may increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and also be linked to a decrease in the levels of a vitamin circulating in the blood. Most of these variants are individually associated with very small changes in something like risk of a mental illness, but they may add together to produce larger effects.

How are blood biomarkers related to mental illness?

Our recent study sought to use genetics to investigate the relationship between nine mental health disorders and 50 factors measured in routine blood tests, such as cholesterol, vitamins, enzymes, and indicators of inflammation. We used data from very large studies conducted by other people, with data from almost a million volunteers included in total.

Our study first confirmed the existence of what is called genetic correlation between blood biomarkers and mental illness, which was more widespread than has previously been shown. Genetic correlation means the effect of DNA sequence changes on the risk of a mental illness and the levels of a given biomarker were more similar to each other than what would occur by chance alone.

To take one example, there was a positive genetic correlation in our study between white blood cell count and depression. This could indicate some process in our body influences both depression and white blood cells.

If we could identify what this shared process is, it could lead to a better understanding of what causes depression and this could be targeted for treatment.

Correlation verses causality

Our study showed there was correlation between the genetics of mental illness and factors in the blood, but this does not tell us whether blood biomarkers are involved in what causes mental illness.

To distinguish correlation from causation in medicine, the gold standard approach is to conduct clinical trials where patients randomly receive a treatment or a placebo. However, these trials are expensive and difficult to conduct.

We did the next best thing: using DNA variants linked to changes in blood biomarkers to act as a natural clinical trial. This process takes advantage of the fact we randomly inherit DNA variants from our parents, in much the same way that participants in a clinical trial randomly receive a treatment or a placebo.

It’s a complex method and the results need careful interpretation.

We found evidence some substances measured in blood may actually be involved in the cause of some mental illnesses. Proteins related to the immune system, for example, may be involved in depression, schizophrenia, and anorexia.

Further work is now needed to identify how these blood measures are precisely involved in these disorders, and to find out if they can be targeted for treatment.

Read more:
Blame it on biology: how explanations of mental illness influence treatment

William Reay receives salary funding from grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the Medical Research Future Fund.

– ref. We found a genetic link between routine blood test results and mental health disorders – https://theconversation.com/we-found-a-genetic-link-between-routine-blood-test-results-and-mental-health-disorders-180677

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Barnes, Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences, Australian Catholic University

“Our recovery leads the world,” treasurer Josh Frydenberg told Australia on budget night last week. “We have overcome the biggest economic shock since the Great Depression.”

The government has repeatedly emphasised forecasts of the lowest unemployment rate since the end of the post-World War II economic boom, a time when “full employment” was the norm.

But a bigger story lies beneath the headlines. Our new report, titled Scarring Effects of the Pandemic Economy, shows Australia’s recovery has not been the rising tide that lifts all boats.

While JobKeeper and related policies cushioned the worst impacts of the crisis, the federal government has failed to address rising financial pressure or exclusion of the poorest and most marginalised in our community.

Read more:
Despite record job vacancies, Australians shouldn’t expect big pay rises anytime soon – and here’s why

An uneven economic recovery

Based on two years of research, the report looks at the ongoing impact of the pandemic on social service providers in Victoria. That included organisations offering emergency relief such as food and clothing, temporary accommodation, or help for victims of family and domestic violence.

The report, launched this week, shows jobs and labour force participation are far from fully recovered in Victoria.

Melbourne had fewer jobs at the end of the Delta wave in late 2021 than before the pandemic. This problem was much worse for women already overburdened due to school and childcare centre closures and who were also more likely to be exposed to sectors with the highest job losses during lockdown, such as hospitality or retail trade.

A further sign of the recovery’s unevenness is the number of people registered with jobactive providers, which are supposed to provide services to the unemployed. This number was almost double pre-pandemic levels even before the Delta wave began in mid-2021. By early 2022, numbers remained over 50% higher than pre-pandemic levels.

Unable to leave, unable to work, unable to get welfare support

The social protection afforded by emergency government spending measures in 2020 were denied to hundreds of thousands of people on temporary visas.

This is far from a marginal issue. By the eve of the pandemic, every 18th worker in Victoria had arrived from overseas within the last five years; nearly half of these came from central or south Asian countries. As one social service provider told us:

We had many international students from India and Bangladesh with no income, no family structures and no social safety net. Their resilience was limited.

This provider’s experience was typical of the sector. Unemployment for workers from this region peaked at 24% – four times higher than peak unemployment for workers born in Australia.

Joblessness, border closures and government exclusion from JobKeeper and JobSeeker caused untold suffering, forcing many migrants to seek emergency relief for the first time in their lives. Many found themselves in an impossible situation – effectively unable to leave, unable to work, and unable to access welfare support.

In 2020, emergency relief providers reported up to a 13-fold increase in the proportion of their clients who had no income. This proportion is lower today but still yet to fall to pre-pandemic levels.

The cohort of clients with no income correlates strongly with migrants on temporary visas.

People still struggle long after the worst of the crisis

Despite a brief fall during the peak of the first wave of the pandemic, thanks to JobKeeper and JobSeeker, the pandemic drove people to emergency relief providers in record numbers.

In Melbourne, demand for food increased by up to 2.5 times in 2020.

As volunteers withdrew due to lockdowns, the pressure on active volunteers increased. In 2021, hours per active volunteer increased by up to five times and did not decline by the end of the year, even after the Delta wave lockdown ended. One worker assisting victims of family violence told us:

The burden has been huge. [Victims] were locked down with the person that’s abusing [them]. [In bound] calls have just continued to increase.

These are just some of the “scarring effects” of the pandemic which the rhetoric of high growth and low unemployment do not address.

The report shows the impact of lost jobs and income are not one-off events but have effects which persist long after the worst of the crisis has ended.

In response to these lasting effects, the report reiterates widespread calls across the sector for new investment in public housing and a significant rise in the JobSeeker payment. This would help address working poverty.

The report also calls for renewed government attention to the challenges faced by social service providers trying to assist the poor and vulnerable. These organisations and the people they’re trying to help continue to struggle despite talk of economic recovery.

Read more:
Things look worse for casual workers than at any time during the pandemic

The report on which this story is based was researched in partnership with Catholic Social Services Victoria, the peak body for over 40 organisations which collectively assist over 200,000 Victorians every year, and St Mary’s House of Welcome, a non-profit centre in central Melbourne which provides basic essential services to people experiencing homelessness, poverty and social marginalisation. The research was activated through the Stakeholder Engaged Scholarship Unit at ACU. This story is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. Pandemic pain remains as Australia’s economic recovery leaves the poor behind – https://theconversation.com/pandemic-pain-remains-as-australias-economic-recovery-leaves-the-poor-behind-180238

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kaaren Mathias, Senior Lecturer in public health, University of Canterbury

The New Zealand government is set to launch a massive overhaul of the health sector later this year. But to create a truly equitable system, local communities should be involved in developing the health services that affect them.

Today is World Health day. Themed “our planet, our health”, it re-imagines a world where people have control over their own and the planet’s health.

Globally, the climate crisis is causing premature deaths, malnutrition and poor mental health. Like COVID-19 and other global health threats, the effects of climate change are uneven and exacerbated by socioeconomic and political stressors.

We have begun to recognise that to improve health outcomes and address the social determinants of health, we must act hand-in-hand with local communities.

A focus on local needs

Each community and health system has its own geography, history, culture and assets, and when these are engaged with, health services are more acceptable, relevant and sustainable. They are also more equitable and increase collective wellbeing.

Sustainable systems enable local solutions that meet the different needs of each place. This might look like drive-in COVID-19 vaccine clinics for West Auckland or better roading and public transport for rural Northland.

Conventional health care priorities are typically underpinned by bio-medical evidence that prioritises measurable clinical interventions such as randomised controlled trials. While this can work well for trialling new drugs, quantitative studies can over-simplify the complex and unique settings of local communities.

Narratives and qualitative data are essential evidence to include in health service design. But change is often resisted by stakeholders invested in the status quo.

Four reasons to focus local

There are four compelling reasons to co-design health services with communities – firstly, because it leads to better health service quality and outcomes.

Read more:
New Zealand’s health restructure is doomed to fall short unless its funding model is tackled first

Among Canadian First Nations communities in Manitoba, the transfer of knowledge, capacity and funds to local control led to the development of new health programmes to meet local needs. Over time, these communities have seen lower rates of hospitalisation for preventable conditions than communities with limited involvement in setting health priorities.

In New Zealand, youth health services delivered by Youth One Stop Shops are co-governed by young people. They have increased access to care for youth with the most complex needs, and are viewed as more acceptable and relevant than mainstream care.

Secondly, co-designed health responses are more locally appropriate.

Many have praised the speed and scale of responses by local Māori health and social providers to the COVID-19 lockdown in March 2020. The provider Te Pūtahitanga, for example, surveyed over 18,000 people to identify key needs, and followed it with practical responses, such as supplying food packs and resources such as data access within South Island Māori communities.

Thirdly, when communities co-design health services, they build on local assets and strengths, moving from a focus on what is missing to what is already strong in community.

Identifying assets is central for Māori and indigenous communities. In the urban recovery process following the Christchurch earthquakes, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the resident iwi and kaitiaki (guardian) of the region, undertook leadership which collectivised and coordinated Māori providers to support the wider community, including Asian and refugee community members.

Read more:
Why equal health access and outcomes should be a priority for Ardern’s new government

Finally, when people engage in co-design of services, their wellbeing improves too.

Making it easy to be part of the process

How we engage communities in health is important.

Aotearoa’s past experiences with community participation and representation – elected members on district health boards, for example – have failed to reduce persistent health inequities that see Māori with less access to care and receiving poorer quality of care (such as treatment for lung and colon cancers).

The fundamental issue is one of power. To address inequities in health systems we must go beyond representation to involve communities in the design of health services.

So, how do we make it easy for communities to join in health service and system design?

When we include and represent diverse social groups in governance, service design and delivery it’s more likely that all groups will be cared for, which means health outcomes are more equitable.

Co-design has to be built on meaningful relationships that are developed over months and years. The community mental health needs and assets assessment we completed in a rural community in 2021 showed the importance of relationships of trust between community members and health providers to gain a genuine understanding of community priorities. This cannot happen in a hurry.

Funding for community health providers should also be equitable and underpinned by trust. Contracting relationships that are flexible and relationship-driven supports local solutions to local problems. Funding should enable community health providers to engage with their community and to recruit, retain and up-skill local staff who understand local assets and needs.

Real change will take time

Meaningful community co-design of health services requires time, relationship building, trust and responsive systems.

The upcoming health reforms propose the implementation of locality networks and Iwi Maori Partnership Boards, the latter working with Health NZ to set local priorities.

Locality networks present an opportunity to enhance community engagement and autonomy, foster links between sectors, and build on local strengths in health care delivery.

Where this is effective we will see lower levels of unmet need for health care, and fewer people admitted to hospital with potentially preventable conditions .

As we celebrate “our planet, our health” for World Health Day, we’re also celebrating all the ways health services are stronger because of community co-design.

Sarah Lovell receives funding from Lotteries Health.

Kaaren Mathias 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. NZ’s health service is failing some communities: building a better national system requires local partnerships – https://theconversation.com/nzs-health-service-is-failing-some-communities-building-a-better-national-system-requires-local-partnerships-180774

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Grogan, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, The Daffodil Centre, University of Sydney

A major review on the health effects of e-cigarettes reflects what public health advocates have feared – escalating use of e-cigarettes in school-aged children, early warning signs of increased smoking rates in young Australians, and direct health harms of vaping in all ages.

The review, which was released today, was commissioned by the federal health department and conducted by researchers at the Australian National University.

Overall, it found the health risks from e-cigarettes significantly outweighed any potential benefits.

The review should silence lobbyists, who have long used data selectively to promote the sale of e-cigarettes. This is despite the fact previous reports, none as comprehensive and rigorous as this latest review, have delivered similar findings.

What does the review tell us?

The review looked at the evidence behind the health impacts of e-cigarettes or “vapes” – a diverse group of devices that aerosolise a liquid for inhalation. These are touted as a safer alternative to cigarettes and an aid to quit smoking.

The review found conclusive clinical evidence e-cigarettes cause acute (short-term) lung injury, poisoning, burns, seizures, and their use leads to addiction. They also cause less serious harms, such as throat irritation and nausea.

Read more:
Vaping-related lung disease now has a name – and a likely cause. 5 things you need to know about EVALI

Evidence e-cigarettes produce airborne particles in indoor environments (potentially harming non-users) was also conclusive.

Among evidence ranked as strong, the review confirms what has worried tobacco control experts since patterns of e-cigarette use first emerged.

People who have never smoked or are non-smokers are three times as likely to smoke if they use e-cigarettes, compared with people who have never used e-cigarettes.

This is a dream for tobacco companies and their retail allies.

Weighing up the harms and the benefits

The review found limited evidence e-cigarettes assist individuals to stop smoking. But this is no stronger than evidence showing e-cigarette use might also cause former smokers to relapse and revert to tobacco.

There is no conclusive or strong evidence in the review for any beneficial outcome from e-cigarettes.

E-cigarettes might help some individuals stop smoking. So they should only be available via a prescription from authorised medical professionals trained in helping people to quit. Any access beyond this risks serious harm for no benefit.

Read more:
It’s safest to avoid e-cigarettes altogether – unless vaping is helping you quit smoking

Young people are vaping

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data show the age group most likely to use e-cigarettes in their lifetime are 18 to 24-year-olds. This has risen from 19.2% in 2016 to 26.1% in 2019.

Of e-cigarette users who identify as smokers, the second largest user group is 14 to 17-year-olds. Dual use is starting young, from the limited Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data we have.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data precedes increasingly visible use of e-cigarettes in Australian schools, reported in the media.

The review also shows young males are the leading e-cigarette user group by age and sex. Australian males aged 18-24 are also the only age group which, on the latest Australian Institute of Health and Welfare data, are smoking at greater rates than they were three years earlier.

We need to limit access

Whatever benefits might be delivered by e-cigarettes, such as helping people to quit smoking, would, according to the review, be modest compared with the harms they are likely to cause.

Unfortunately, public policy on the regulation of e-cigarettes is at risk of influence from powerful commercial interests. In the interests of public health, these forces must be resisted.

Read more:
Vaping is glamourised on social media, putting youth in harm’s way

What should governments do?

Federal, state and territory governments have enacted policies aimed at providing e-cigarette access to individuals who might benefit from them to quit smoking, while protecting everyone else.

But the evidence on how widely e-cigarettes are used shows these policies need to be more tightly enforced.

It’s still easy to buy e-cigarettes online, they are available without prescription from petrol stations, tobacconists, specialty “vape” stores and are on-sold by entrepreneurs – all of them acting unlawfully. Heavy fines will end their cash incentive.

The review shows the risks to public health posed by e-cigarettes will only grow unless governments enforce their laws.

This is to protect young Australians from becoming the first generation since trend data was collected to smoke and use nicotine at higher rates than their predecessors.

Read more:
Twelve myths about e-cigarettes that failed to impress the TGA

Paul Grogan is employed by Cancer Council NSW (not-for-profit) and is a Senior Strategic Adviser, Daffodil Centre, a joint venture between Cancer Council NSW and the University of Sydney. Cancer Council NSW has extensively analysed the evidence on e-cigarettes and has taken a public position consistent with the comments in this article.

Paul Grogan is a co-author on separate/unrelated journal articles on tobacco control and cancer care with Professor Emily Banks.

Guy Marks is President and (interim) Executive Director of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. This organisation implements a tobacco control program, mainly in low-middle income countries, with funding received from Bloomberg Philanthropies, via Vital Strategies.

– ref. A damning review of e-cigarettes shows vaping leads to smoking, the opposite of what supporters claim – https://theconversation.com/a-damning-review-of-e-cigarettes-shows-vaping-leads-to-smoking-the-opposite-of-what-supporters-claim-180675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Garth Stahl, Associate Professor, The University of Queensland

Higher education research shows families pursue university because it provides opportunities for upward social mobility. With a university education come more options for career choices and, it is assumed, increased social status.

There have been many efforts to widen participation in higher education in Australia. Due to these, 50% of the student population is estimated to be the first in their family to go to university.

But first-in-family students still struggle with balancing the demand of academic life with part-time employment, and have a high degree of attrition.

Read more:
The Bay of Plenty oil spill: loading the dice against disaster

We conducted research with 48 first-in-family students over the course of three years as they made the transition from secondary school to university. The research was published in our book Gendering the First-in-Family Experience.

The students came from ethnically diverse backgrounds and were recruited from across state, independent and faith-based schools. We focused on how their aspirations changed in relation to their experiences at university.

We found young men and women had different relationships with their parents which, in turn, contributed to how they navigated life after school.

How families support students

Parents of first-in-family students in our study were supportive of their children’s education, but they did not necessarily have sufficient knowledge of higher education to be able to give advice about navigating the system.

Instead, families focused on supporting students emotionally.

Aisha spoke of how her parents supported her during her stressful final year of school:

[…] because they couldn’t help me so much with the work […] they’d cook me dinner when I’d be working or studying. Or […] just small things like cups of tea at night or just a lolly or a chocolate or something just to keep me going because I’d always stay up until crazy hours studying.

More opportunities than their parents had

Mothers were often the primary resource in terms of the emotional support for the participants. This was especially true for the young women in the study, where part of their aspirations for university were to experience the opportunities and futures their mothers were denied.

Tabitha, who was studying for a Bachelor in Health and Medical Science, told us:

Mum wanted to go to uni and possibly become a teacher, but she didn’t have the money or the opportunity to do that. Whereas, I have that opportunity […] but it’s not without the consequences of my mum not being able to do what she was able to do until later in life.

Many of the young men also saw their lives as filled with more opportunities than their parents.

Dominic, whose father worked as a mechanic and mother eventually trained at TAFE as an accountant, told us how his decision to pursue university was significantly informed by his parents’ biographies.

Yeah, my dad finished year 12 and then went to work. So, I’m doing pretty well. But I’m the first into university in my family. Hoping it’s better than their life. I don’t want to say that their life is bad or anything […] they’ve done pretty well.

How family dynamics changed

As they transitioned to university from school, both our female and male participants renegotiated family responsibilities with parents and siblings. These significantly contributed to their experience as students.

Logan, who was studying a Bachelor in Health Science, told us:

I have to focus on uni more than family time and stuff like that […] my mum working from 9 to 5. Sometimes I’m in the city until 5:30 and I get home and then I’m already ready for bed so […] I probably don’t see her as much as probably I would like […]

The young men in the study wanted to be seen as independent in their decision making. This was less apparent for girls who valued the support of their families.

Adam, who was studying a Bachelor in Science, told us:

I don’t have a job at the moment so my parents are supporting me but I will pay for university by myself.

Archie, who was studying for a Bachelors in IT, said:

I haven’t really relied on anyone.

Leo, who intended to study for a Bachelor of Education and later withdrew, said:

[…] I don’t really have direct support […] my family are always there if I need them of course but I don’t really go to them. I don’t want to burden them; I just sort of carry it on my own shoulders if I can whether that’s successfully or not. I don’t know. I feel like I don’t want to burden people with my problems.

They struggled to integrate

Many of the first-in-family students we spoke with often struggled to socially integrate with other university students who were often from more privileged backgrounds. They found the experience isolating and they doubted themselves.

Manny, who was studying engineering, said:

It depends on the dude, there are some dudes [in engineering] that are pretty high on snob meter […] then you’ve got some of the normal people but they’re kind of rare because some of the uni boys they’re like if you’re not getting HDs you’re below them.

Of the 48 participants, nine students withdrew from university, seven chose not to attend and two deferred.

We would argue universities need to be sensitive to the gender identity of students because it has implications for how they may offer effective forms of support. Within our cohort of first-in-family students, gender was often a contributing factor in terms of how these students experienced university.

Gendering the First-in-Family Experience: Transitions, Liminality, Performativity is out now through Routledge.

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. ‘Mum wanted to go to uni, but she didn’t have the opportunity’: what students who are first in their family to go to university say – https://theconversation.com/mum-wanted-to-go-to-uni-but-she-didnt-have-the-opportunity-what-students-who-are-first-in-their-family-to-go-to-university-say-177553

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Regina Scheyvens, Professor of Development Studies, Massey University

With the reopening of New Zealand’s borders from next week, the future of tourism comes into sharp relief. Flattened by the pandemic and having survived on domestic consumption for two years, the industry has a choice: try to revive the old ways, or develop a new model.

If tourism minister Stuart Nash has his way, there is no going back. “Tourism won’t return to the way it was,” he told Otago University’s Tourism Policy School recently, “it will be better.”

But how? The question is coming down to the various definitions of “value” – both the monetary and less tangible kinds.

When Nash addressed a tourism summit in late 2020, “high value” clearly meant “high spending”. New Zealand would “unashamedly” target the wealthy – the type of tourist who “flies business class or premium economy, hires a helicopter, does a tour around Franz Josef and then eats at a high-end restaurant.”

The minister also asked: “Do you think that we want to become a destination for those freedom campers and backpackers who don’t spend much and leave the high net worth individuals to other countries?”

There was immediate concern that such a policy would overlook the broader value of “lower-end” tourism: backpackers and other budget tourists might not spend as much per day, but they tend to travel for longer periods, bring dollars to remoter locations, and often work in understaffed industries like horticulture and hospitality.

At the same time, high-spending tourists hiring helicopters tend to place a high per-capita burden on the environment and contribute more to climate change. Clearly, what constitutes “high value” is up for debate.

From high value to high values

Now, however, the minister is defining the high-value tourist differently. They give back more than they take, appreciate those working in the tourism sector, are keen to learn about the people and places they are visiting, are environmentally aware and offset their carbon emissions.

This shift in thinking prompted one participant at the tourism policy school to suggest that instead of “high value” tourism, New Zealand needs to be talking about “high values” tourism.

Read more:
5 reasons why banishing backpackers and targeting wealthy tourists would be a mistake for NZ

The sentiment chimed with the policy school’s theme of “structural change for regenerative tourism”, and a general feeling that this will involve looking inward to certain core values that matter to the country.

Attendees – including industry leaders, academics, government officials and tourism business owners – supported the idea that “regenerative” in this context matches the important Māori values of kaitiakitanga, kotahitanga and manaakitanga, which should inform the future direction of tourism in Aotearoa.

Mana and manaakitanga

The implications of this approach were well articulated by Nadine ToeToe, director of Kohutapu Lodge, an award-winning tourism business in the central North Island. She proposed a new tourism model that advances manaakitanga (kindness and hospitality) to guests, while also enhancing the mana of their hosts, local communities and the surrounding environment.

With her business based in the area around Murupara, which is beset by historical injustices and downturns in the forestry industry, ToeToe described the potential of tourism to move beyond simple service industry conventions.

Read more:
What would sustainable tourism really mean for New Zealand? Let’s ask the river

Rather, more authentic, culturally embedded experiences could be offered, based on building respectful relationships with the people and places visited. This would mean manaakitanga was reciprocal, benefiting both guests and local communities.

By being designed to enhance people, community and place, tourism would necessarily break from the old volume-driven model that was putting many natural environments under significant pressure prior to the pandemic.

Time for a reset

Of course, it is one thing to suggest that tourism respect the wairua (spirit) of the land, and quite another to put the legislative and regulatory frameworks around a pathway to sustainability.

To a degree this is beginning to happen already. For example, following concerns about a promised crackdown on freedom camping, the minister stepped back from banning vans that weren’t self-contained. However, proposed policy changes will go to select committee this year, with new rules to be rolled out gradually from next summer.

Read more:
NZ tourism can use the disruption of COVID-19 to drive sustainable change — and be more competitive

These should align with the minister’s view that “… at the heart of the new law will be greater respect for the environment and communities through a ‘right vehicle, right place’ approach” (with fines of up to NZ$1,000 for offenders).

The challenge now is to broaden that vision beyond individual businesses, or pockets of concern such as freedom camping, to encompass the entire industry. Because there can be no better time than now for a values-based reset of New Zealand tourism.

Regina Scheyvens receives funding from Royal Society Te Apārangi under a James Cook fellowship

Apisalome Movono 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. As borders reopen, can New Zealand reset from high volume to ‘high values’ tourism? – https://theconversation.com/as-borders-reopen-can-new-zealand-reset-from-high-volume-to-high-values-tourism-180298

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Romane H. Cristescu, Posdoc in Ecology, University of the Sunshine Coast

Animals do all sorts of disgusting things. While these gross behaviours might turn our stomachs, they’re often crucial to an animal’s survival.

I and my colleague Nic Gill have done the dirty work, and collected a bunch of unexpected facts about how these behaviours help animals live their best lives:
making a home, finding mates and food, and surviving predators.

Our new book – titled Poo, Spew and other Gross Things Animals Do – is aimed at kids, but much of it will be news to adults, too.

So what does it take to survive and thrive in the wild? It’s not always about being the biggest and fiercest. Many animals have evolved much more entertaining – if not impolite – strategies for evolutionary success.

Grossness in love (and self-defence)

For wild animals, finding a mate is no laughing matter. But the lengths to which some animals will go to obtain one can be.

Female lobsters wee on their potential mates’ face for an invitation into their lairs. Even stranger, a lobster’s bladder sits below their brain – so the wee squirts from their face.

Hippopotamuses, meanwhile, have become YouTube sensations for their rather unpleasant “dung showering” behaviour. Hippos spin their stumpy tails to propel a mixture of wee and poo up to ten metres – using the technique to mark their territory.

Hippos have also been observed flinging poo directly into their love interests’ face during courtship.

Living in the wild can be tough. Unless you’re a top predator, something, somewhere nearby, probably wants to eat you.

Some animals are fast enough to run away from predators – or, like echidnas, protect themselves with armour.

Others have developed more revolting survival strategies. Sperm whales for example, are known to defecate into the water “for a startling length of time” . This creates a “poo-nado” – a cloud of excrement that conceals them from perceived attackers (or unlucky snorkelers!).

And some spiders have taken advantage of the fact that birds, unlike some other animals, don’t like to eat their own excrement.

As its name suggests, the bird-dropping spider has evolved to protect itself from bird predators by looking like bird poo.

The spider bears a black, brown and white colour pattern and a squat shape. It sits still on leaves and other exposed locations during the day, tricking predators into assuming its a blob of poo.

But if there was a competition for most repulsive yet effective self-defence mechanisms, it would go to Eurasian roller chicks.

When frightened, these baby birds spew a foul-smelling orange liquid all over their aggressor, and themselves. This not only deters the predator, it warns the birds’ parents of danger around. Vomit as as emergency beacon – who knew?

Read more:
Physics of poo: Why it takes you and an elephant the same amount of time

Poo detectives

Scats (poo) and reject-pellets (spew) contain a surprising wealth of information for researchers looking at hard-to-study species.

The presence of poo or spew can help researchers determine where in the landscape a species lives – especially when, like in the case of wombats’ cube-shaped poo, it’s helpfully engineered to not roll away.

Poo and spew can also reveal important information about an animal’s diet, through identification of the bones or genetic material present. Taking this to the next step, info from poo and spew has even been used to describe whole ecosystems.

For example, scientists have used owl spew to monitor the threatened mammals present where the bird lives. And information on an animal’s disease status and gut microbiome can all be extracted from poo and spew.

These methods also have the benefit of being non-invasive – meaning researchers can check an animal’s health without physically handling it.

Conservation dogs are becoming an increasingly popular method of detecting these data-rich, smelly goldmines.

Read more:
Drones, detection dogs, poo spotting: what’s the best way to conduct Australia’s Great Koala Count?

3 more poo particulars

Still unconvinced by the power of poo? Consider these facts:

1. Creating white sandy beaches: Parrot fish have some of the strongest teeth in the animal kingdom, which they use to graze on coral. Their digestive system turns it into fine white sand, meaning parrot fish poo helps create beautiful beach destinations

2. Threatening the outdoor dining scene: In the 1950s, scientists realised native beetles were uninterested in eating poo from introduced cows. This left the country covered in cow poo – a perfect breeding ground for disease-carrying flies.

At one stage, flies were so numerous that outside dining was forbidden to protect public health. Eventually, poo-eating dung beetles were flown in from overseas to solve the problem.

3. Cooling the planet: Researchers have shown bird poo can help fight climate change. They discovered that in the Arctic, ammonia produced from tons of seabird poo helps form clouds that can partially block sunlight.

So now you know a little about how grossness makes the animal world go round. Feel free to share these tidbits with your friends – though perhaps not while they’re eating.

Poo, Spew and other Gross Things Animals Do by Nic Gill and Romane Cristescu, illustrated by Rachel Tribout, is published by CSIRO Publishing.

Romane H. Cristescu is one of the author of the book published by CSIRO.

– ref. The spider that looks like bird poo – and other amazing (and gross) tricks animals deploy to survive – https://theconversation.com/the-spider-that-looks-like-bird-poo-and-other-amazing-and-gross-tricks-animals-deploy-to-survive-179507

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

If the world acts now, we can avoid the worst outcomes of climate change without any significant effect on standards of living. That’s a key message from the new report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The key phrase here is “acts now”. Jim Skea, co-chair of the IPCC working group behind the report, said it’s “now or never” to keep global warming to 1.5℃. Action means cutting emissions from fossil fuel use rapidly and hard. Global emissions must peak within three years to have any chance of keeping warming below 1.5℃.

Unfortunately, Australia is not behaving as if the largest issue facing us is urgent – in fact, we’re doubling down on fossil fuels.

In recent years, Australia overtook Qatar to become the world’s largest exporter of liquefied natural gas (LNG). We’re still the second-largest exporter of thermal coal, and the largest for metallurgical coal.

Time’s up, Australia. We have to talk about weaning ourselves off fossil fuels and exporting our wealth of clean alternatives.

Why can’t Australia keep selling fossil fuels during the transition?

You might think: “Sure, Australia needs to transition. But it will take decades for the world to rid itself of fossil fuels. Why can’t we keep selling gas and coal in the meantime?”

Because we’re out of time. As the report states, “if existing fossil fuel infrastructure … continue to be operated as historically, they would entail CO₂ emissions exceeding the carbon budget for 1.5°℃”.

Read more:
Revolutionary changes in transportation, from electric vehicles to ride sharing, could slow global warming – if they’re done right, IPCC says

And US climatologist Michael Mann recently pointed out, if you were going to pick the worst continent to live on as the climate changes, it would be Australia. We are “a poster child for what the rest of the world will be dealing with,” he said.

Urgent action is needed to avoid the devastation and vast expense of unchecked climate change, recently estimated at close to 40% of global GDP by 2100.

We need to accelerate the shift, with much faster greening of electricity supply, electrification of transport, improvement of industrial processes and management of land use and food production. Luckily, the technologies needed to achieve this goal have already been developed and are mostly already competitive with carbon-emitting alternatives.

The economic costs of the transition would be marginal. The required investment in clean energy would be around 2.5% of GDP. That’s far less than the costs of allowing global heating to continue, with costs further offset by clean energy’s zero fuel costs and lower operating costs.

What are Australia’s prospects for weaning off the fossil fuel teat?

Are we seeing signs of the urgency of the situation? If you look at the election platforms of Australia’s major political parties, we are still falling far short.

After nine years in office, the Liberal government has reluctantly set a goal of net zero emissions by 2050, but has offered little more than wishful thinking as a policy response.

Last week’s budget projected funding cuts of as much as 35% for Australia’s clean energy finance and renewable energy initiatives.

By far the biggest shortcoming is the failure to plan for the transition. Despite calls for coal and gas workers to be given an honest assessment of their position, both Liberal and Labor sustain the illusion that coal and gas have a long-term future.

Labor has put forward worthwhile initiatives such as the Rewiring the Nation program aimed at supporting private investment to modernise the grid and make it ready for high levels of renewable energy.

But the opposition’s main concern has been to avoid any policy that leaves it open to attack from the Coalition and the Murdoch press. You can see this in Labor leader Anthony Albanese’s repeated declaration that “the climate wars are over”.

Read more:
IPCC says the tools to stop catastrophic climate change are in our hands. Here’s how to use them

That means, in 2022, we are facing an election campaign in which neither major party has put up serious ideas to cut emissions. There’s no mention of a price on carbon or an emissions trading scheme, no real action on land clearing, and no expansion of the government’s safeguard mechanism, meant to provide incentives for large industries to cut emissions relative to a baseline.

Lagging on transport

The plunging cost of renewable energy is one of the bright spots in the fight against climate change. Cost alone is driving out coal and gas from the power sector.

The pace of transition is much slower in areas such as transport, which the IPCC report notes had excellent prospects of cutting emissions.

“Electric vehicles powered by low-emissions electricity offer the largest decarbonisation potential for land-based transport,” the report says.

In Australia, our failures on transport are palpable. To reach net zero by 2050, we have to move to an all-electric vehicle fleet. Given cars last 20 years on average, almost all new vehicles must be electric by 2030.

By contrast to almost all developed countries, Australia doesn’t have a fuel efficiency target, or plans to end new sales of petrol vehicles. The government has no proposal to address this, while Labor offers a minor tax concession on electric vehicles and a fuel efficiency information website.

Bizarrely, these baby steps sit in stark contrast to the bipartisan rush to shield petrol users from rising prices in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine.

We’ve stalled long enough

We’ve run out of time to deal with the problem of global heating. We cannot afford another three years of inaction.

What would it look like if Australia’s next government realises the urgency? It would begin by ending all new investment in fossil fuel production and electricity generation, as well as fossil-fuel reliant industrial plants such as blast furnaces for steel mills. It would accelerate investment in carbon-free replacements, and create pathways for fossil fuel workers to work in the green economy.

And our leaders would talk openly and clearly about the huge threat climate change poses to all of us here, and the benefits we stand to gain by quitting fossil fuels. We would go from laggards to leaders. Imagine that.

John Quiggin is a former Member of the Climate Change Authority

– ref. Time’s up: why Australia has to quit stalling and wean itself off fossil fuels – https://theconversation.com/times-up-why-australia-has-to-quit-stalling-and-wean-itself-off-fossil-fuels-180666

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Wenger, PhD Student, University of Sydney

Large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods is now “unavoidable” if the world is to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, according to this week’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The report, released on Monday, finds that in addition to rapid and deep reductions in greenhouse emissions, CO₂ removal is “an essential element of scenarios that limit warming to 1.5℃ or likely below 2℃ by 2100”.

CDR refers to a suite of activities that lower the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere. This is done by removing CO₂ molecules and storing the carbon in plants, trees, soil, geological reservoirs, ocean reservoirs or products derived from CO₂.

As the IPCC notes, each mechanism is complex, and has advantages and pitfalls. Much work is needed to ensure CDR projects are rolled out responsibly.

How does CDR work?

CDR is distinct from “carbon capture”, which involves catching CO₂ at the source, such as a coal-fired power plant or steel mill, before it reaches the atmosphere.

There are several ways to remove CO₂ from the air. They include:

• terrestrial solutions, such as planting trees and adopting regenerative soil practices, such as low or no-till agriculture and cover cropping, which limit soil disturbances that can oxidise soil carbon and release CO₂.

• geochemical approaches that store CO₂ as a solid mineral carbonate in rocks. In a process known as “enhanced mineral weathering”, rocks such as limestone and olivine can be finely ground to increase their surface area and enhance a naturally occurring process whereby minerals rich in calcium and magnesium react with CO₂ to form a stable mineral carbonate.

• chemical solutions such as direct air capture that use engineered filters to remove CO₂ molecules from air. The captured CO₂ can then be injected deep underground into saline aquifers and basaltic rock formations for durable sequestration.

• ocean-based solutions, such as enhanced alkalinity. This involves directly adding alkaline materials to the environment, or electrochemically processing seawater. But these methods need to be further researched before being deployed.

Where is it being used right now?

To date, US-based company Charm Industrial has delivered 5,000 tonnes of CDR, which is the the largest volume thus far. This is equivalent to the emissions produced by about 1,000 cars in a year.

There are also several plans for larger-scale direct air capture facilities. In September, 2021, Climeworks opened a facility in Iceland with a 4,000 tonne per annum capacity for CO₂ removal. And in the US, the Biden Administration has allocated US$3.5 billion to build four separate direct air capture hubs, each with the capacity to remove at least one million tonnes of CO₂ per year.

However, a previous IPCC report estimated that to limit global warming to 1.5℃, between 100 billion and one trillion tonnes of CO₂ must be removed from the atmosphere this century. So while these projects represent a massive scale-up, they are still a drop in the ocean compared with what is required.

In Australia, Southern Green Gas and Corporate Carbon are developing one of the country’s first direct air capture projects. This is being done in conjunction with University of Sydney researchers, ourselves included.

In this system, fans push atmospheric air over finely tuned filters made from molecular adsorbents, which can remove CO₂ molecules from the air. The captured CO₂ can then be injected deep underground, where it can remain for thousands of years.

Opportunities

It is important to stress CDR is not a replacement for emissions reductions. However, it can supplement these efforts. The IPCC has outlined three ways this might be done.

In the short term, CDR could help reduce net CO₂ emissions. This is crucial if we are to limit warming below critical temperature thresholds.

In the medium term, it could help balance out emissions from sectors such as agriculture, aviation, shipping and industrial manufacturing, where straightforward zero-emission alternatives don’t yet exist.

In the long term, CDR could potentially remove large amounts of historical emissions, stabilising atmospheric CO₂ and eventually bringing it back down to pre-industrial levels.

Read more:
The Earth needs multiple methods for removing CO2 from the air to avert worst of climate change

The IPCC’s latest report has estimated the technological readiness levels, costs, scale-up potential, risk and impacts, co-benefits and trade-offs for 12 different forms of CDR. This provides an updated perspective on several forms of CDR that were lesser explored in previous reports.

It estimates each tonne of CO₂ retrieved through direct air capture will cost US$84–386, and that there is the feasible potential to remove between 5 billion and 40 billion tonnes annually.

Concerns and challenges

Each CDR method is complex and unique, and no solution is perfect. As deployment grows, a number of concerns must be addressed.

First, the IPCC notes scaling up CDR must not detract from efforts to dramatically reduce emissions. They write that “CDR cannot serve as a substitute for deep emissions reductions but can fulfil multiple complementary roles”.

If not done properly, CDR projects could potentially compete with agriculture for land or introduce non-native plants and trees. As the IPCC notes, care must be taken to ensure the technology does not negatively affect biodiversity, land-use or food security.

The IPCC also notes some CDR methods are energy-intensive, or could consume renewable energy needed to decarbonise other activities.

It expressed concern CDR might also exacerbate water scarcity and make Earth reflect less sunlight, such as in cases of large-scale reforestation.

Read more:
Solar panels in Sahara could boost renewable energy but damage the global climate – here’s why

Given the portfolio of required solutions, each form of CDR might work best in different locations. So being thoughtful about placement can ensure crops and trees are planted where they won’t dramatically alter the Earth’s reflectivity, or use too much water.

Direct air capture systems can be placed in remote locations that have easy access to off-grid renewable energy, and where they won’t compete with agriculture or forests.

Finally, deploying long-duration CDR solutions can be quite expensive – far more so than short-duration solutions such as planting trees and altering soil. This has hampered CDR’s commercial viability thus far.

But costs are likely to decline, as they have for many other technologies including solar, wind and lithium-ion batteries. The trajectory at which CDR costs decline will vary between the technologies.

Future efforts

Looking forward, the IPCC recommends accelerated research, development and demonstration, and targeted incentives to increase the scale of CDR projects. It also emphasises the need for improved measurement, reporting and verification methods for carbon storage.

More work is needed to ensure CDR projects are deployed responsibly. CDR deployment must involve communities, policymakers, scientists and entrepreneurs to ensure it’s done in an environmentally, ethically and socially responsible way.

Sam Wenger receives funding from the University of Sydney for his research on Direct Air Capture.

Deanna D’Alessandro receives funding from Southern Green Gas Ltd. as part of a government-funded ARENA grant on Renewable Methane Generation with pipeline utility APA group and the University of Newcastle.

– ref. On top of drastic emissions cuts, IPCC finds large-scale CO₂ removal from air will be “essential” to meeting targets – https://theconversation.com/on-top-of-drastic-emissions-cuts-ipcc-finds-large-scale-co-removal-from-air-will-be-essential-to-meeting-targets-180663

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

It is coming up to 18 months since Australia’s Reserve Bank last cut its cash rate.

And what it did then was merely a further cut, from an unprecedented low of 0.25% to a fresh unprecedented low of 0.10%

Since it last changed the direction of rates (started cutting instead of hiking) it has been 10 years and five months.

Which is why it has been telling anyone who asked (and repeatedly using the phrase in its official communications) that it is “prepared to be patient” before changing again. It wants to be sure conditions necessitate such a move.

On Tuesday, in the statement released after the board’s April meeting, the words “prepared to be patient” were missing.

The board has literally lost its patience.

Instead of saying it was prepared to be patient “as it monitors how the various factors affecting inflation in Australia evolve”, it said

Over coming months, important additional evidence will be available to the board on both inflation and the evolution of labour costs.

The clear message (and the words in Reserve Bank statements are chosen very carefully) is that if the bank doesn’t like what it sees on inflation and wage costs over the coming few months, it’ll jack up rates, for the first time in a decade.

Prices, and wages

So what is it waiting for?

The first is the March quarter inflation results which will be published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in three weeks on April 27 during the middle of the election campaign.

Economists expect headline inflation to be quite high, up from the latest 3.5%

So called underlying inflation, which filters out unusual price moves, and is what the Reserve Bank actually targets, might not climb as high.

But even if it does, there’s every chance it won’t overly alarm the bank.

This is because the first three months of March were filled with temporary, one-off external shocks to the economy such as the increase in petrol prices and price the impact on supply chains of lockdowns in major Chinese cities.

Conceivably these one-off effects could dissipate after a few months. We were already seeing petrol prices fall before last week’s cut in petrol excise.

Many related price increases might fade away shortly after they arrive, making an increase in rates to restrain prices unnecessary.

For inflation to be sustainably within its 2-3% target band the Reserve Bank says it wants to see an increase in wages growth as well.

Read more:
Why Australia’s Reserve Bank won’t hike interest rates just yet

Wages are one of the main business costs meaning it is unlikely we will see long-lasting higher price inflation until we have higher wage inflation.

This is why even though the board will have digested the inflation report by its next meeting on May 3 (just ahead of the election) it may well wait until June when it can see the latest wage figures as well.

How high, how soon

If the bank does start raising rates in June, where will it stop?

Market pricing currently predicts the cash rate will jump from 0.10% to 2% by the end of the year, and to more than 3% by next year. They imply an average of one rate hike at every Reserve Bank board meeting for the next 18 months.

This is probably an upper bound for what we can expect. Market economists (the people who advise traders) as opposed to market traders expect the bank to hike no more than a handful of times in the second half of this year.

While jobs growth is strong, with underemployment at its lowest in a decade and unemployment close to its lowest in five decades, the bank will be cautious about slowing the recovery before it delivers widespread higher wage growth.

Read more:
Despite record job vacancies, Australians shouldn’t expect big pay rises anytime soon – and here’s why

This raises the question of why interest rates are tipped to remain so low when unemployment is approaching its lowest level in half a century.

It is partly because high household debt means any increase in rates will have a much larger impact on household budgets and spending than it would have.

Interest rates won’t stay close to zero forever. But it will be a long time before they are back to the high levels of 4%+ last seen when the bank began cutting in 2010.

Isaac Gross 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 RBA has lost some patience on rates, but it isn’t rushing to push them up: here’s why – https://theconversation.com/the-rba-has-lost-some-patience-on-rates-but-it-isnt-rushing-to-push-them-up-heres-why-180681

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Natasha Yates, Assistant Professor, General Practice, Bond University

People are often surprised by how fatigued they are during a COVID infection.

Fatigue is more than being worn out or sleepy. It’s an excessive tiredness that persists despite resting or good sleep. It’s likely a result of our body’s strong immune response to the virus.

But in some people the fatigue drags on even when the infection is gone. This can be debilitating and frustrating. Simply resting more makes no difference.

Here’s what we know about post-COVID fatigue, and what can help.

Fatigue or tiredness? What’s the difference?

The term fatigue can mean different things to different people.
Some people mean their muscles are easily weakened. Walking to the mailbox feels like they have run a marathon. Others describe a generalised exhaustion, whether they are moving or not. People can experience physical, mental or emotional fatigue, or any combination of these.

The difference between tiredness and fatigue is this: tiredness can get better with enough rest, while fatigue persists even if someone is sleeping and resting more than ever.

Read more:
Still coughing after COVID? Here’s why it happens and what to do about it

How big a problem is this?

Because there is no agreed definition of post-COVID fatigue, it is impossible to give exact numbers of how many people experience it.

Estimates vary considerably worldwide. One review of 21 studies found 13-33% of people were fatigued 16-20 weeks after their symptoms started. This is a worryingly widespread problem.

When should I see my GP?

There are many potential causes of fatigue. Even before the pandemic, fatigue was one of the most common reasons to see a GP.

Most serious causes can be ruled out when your GP asks about your symptoms and examines you. Sometimes your GP will investigate further, perhaps by ordering blood tests.

Symptoms that should raise particular concern include fevers, unexplained weight loss, unusual bleeding or bruising, pain (anywhere) that wakes you from sleep, or drenching night sweats.

If your fatigue is getting worse rather than better, or you cannot care for yourself properly, you really should seek medical care.

Is it like long COVID?

Early in the pandemic, we realised some patients had a cluster of debilitating symptoms that dragged on for months, which we now call long COVID.

Some 85% of long COVID patients experience fatigue, making it one of the most common long COVID symptoms.

However, people with long COVID have a range of other symptoms, such as “brain fog”, headaches and muscle aches. Patients with long COVID therefore experience more than fatigue, and sometimes don’t have fatigue at all.

Read more:
Social media, activism, trucker caps: the fascinating story behind long COVID

Is this like chronic fatigue syndrome?

We knew about chronic fatigue syndrome, otherwise known as myalgic encephalomyelitis, well before COVID.

This often develops after a viral infection (for instance after infection with Epstein-Barr virus). So, understandably, there has been concern around the coronavirus potentially triggering chronic fatigue syndrome.

Read more:
Explainer: what is chronic fatigue syndrome?

There are striking similarities between chronic fatigue syndrome and long COVID. Both involve debilitating fatigue, brain fog and/or muscle aches.

But at this stage, researchers are still untangling any link between post-COVID fatigue, long COVID and chronic fatigue syndrome.

For now, we know many people will have post-COVID fatigue but thankfully do not go on to develop long COVID or chronic fatigue syndrome.

What helps me manage my fatigue?

Expect you or a loved one may develop post-COVID fatigue, regardless of how unwell you or they were during the actual infection.

Vaccines help reduce the risk of post-COVID fatigue by lowering the chance of catching COVID in the first place. Vaccinated people who do catch COVID are less likely to report fatigue and are less likely to develop long COVID.

However, vaccination is not 100% protective and there are plenty of fully vaccinated people who go on to develop longer term fatigue.

The evidence for what helps you recover from post-COVID fatigue is in its infancy. However, a few things do help:

1. pace yourself: adjust the return to normal activities to your energy levels. Choose your priorities and focus on what you can do rather than what you can’t

2. return to exercise gradually: a gradual return to exercise may help your recovery, but you may need some support about how to manage or avoid fatigue afterwards. Some therapists – occupational therapists, physiotherapists and exercise physiologists – specialise in this. So ask your GP for a recommendation

3. prioritise sleep: rather than feeling guilty about sleeping so much, remind yourself that while you sleep, your body conserves energy and heals. Disrupted sleep patterns are an unfortunate COVID symptom. Having a strict bedtime, while also resting when you feel tired during the day, is important

4. eat a range of nutritious foods: loss of smell, taste and appetite from COVID can make this tricky. However, try to view food as a way of fuelling your body with both energy and the micronutrients it needs to heal. Be careful not to spend a fortune on unproven “remedies” that often look good in small studies, but more robust research finds make little difference

5. monitor your fatigue: keep a diary to monitor your fatigue, and look for a gradual improvement. You will have good days and bad days, but overall there should be a slow trajectory towards recovery. If you are going backwards, get input from a health professional, such as your GP.

Natasha Yates is affiliated with the RACGP

– ref. Fatigue after COVID is way more than just feeling tired. 5 tips on what to do about it – https://theconversation.com/fatigue-after-covid-is-way-more-than-just-feeling-tired-5-tips-on-what-to-do-about-it-179478

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Faith Gordon, Associate Professor in Law, Australian National University

Young people are growing up in the shadow of a climate crisis and global conflict, amid sky-high housing costs and a precarious economy. For decades, government spending and policies have also been skewed in favour of older people. Yet in Australia, young people don’t get to vote until they are 18.

While the idea of lowering the voting age has come up before, there is now renewed interest in allowing 16-year-olds to vote at the state and territory levels.

We need the voting age put on the national agenda in Australia as well. This 2022 federal election should be the last election to exclude 16 and 17-year-olds.

Fresh moves to lower the voting age

The ACT has been considering reducing the voting age from 18 to 16 for territory elections and allow residents to enrol to vote as early as 14. This Greens-initiated bill has significant community support from groups such as the Youth Coalition of the ACT and ACT Council of Social Service.

Read more:
Should Australia lower the voting age to 16? We asked five experts

There has not yet been a vote, but a Liberal-chaired parliamentary inquiry last month recommended the bill not be passed.

Last month, the NSW Greens similarly announced another bill, which would lower the voting age to 16 in that state by permitting, but not requiring 16-year-olds to vote.

What about other countries?

This is not the first time lowering the voting age has come up in Australia.

In 1973, during the Whitlam government, federal parliament lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18. In 2015, then Labor leader Bill Shorten pledged to lower the voting age to 17 or 16. In 2018, the Greens also proposed voluntary voting rights for those aged 16 and 17, which resulted in a senate inquiry but no change.

This is not a hypothetical concept. Many countries have lowered the voting age, including Argentina, Brazil and Ecuador who also have compulsory voting.

In the 1990s, 16-year-olds were given the vote in Switzerland as well as in some German states. In 2007, Austria adopted a voting age of 16 for most purposes. Brazil lowered the voting age from 18 to 16 in 1988 and Malta in 2018.

Scotland’s voting age is 16 for local and national parliament elections. The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey reduced the voting age to 16 for local elections in 2015. Cuba, Greece, Indonesia, Israel, North Korea, Nicaragua, and South Sudan, have a voting age of 17.

And if you think 16 is young, there is even debate among political scientists on the merits of lowering to voting age to as low as six.

Encouraging young people to vote

Research shows there are many benefits in lowering the voting age.

Giving young people the vote will encourage them to register and turn up to vote on election day. In the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, 16 and 17-year-olds voted at rates as high or higher than their 18 to 20-year-old peers.

This suggests lowering the voting age is part of the solution to the growing distrust in western governments, falling voter turnout and declining membership of political organisations.

Political buy-in

Being able to vote also means having direct democratic influence.

Politicians and others will be more inclined to visit the settings that matter for young people, including schools and higher education venues, and listen to their opinions, if young people are on the electoral roll. In turn, the experience of being recognised and having your views and interests taken into account can build confidence and trust in formal politics.

The fear that giving 16-year-olds the vote will affect election outcomes might explain major parties’ resistance to doing this. Certainly in Britain, the 2019 general election saw an unexpected influx of new young voters, leading some to talk about “youthquake”.

Ageism at play

Much of the opposition to reducing the voting age depends on ageism and the idea young people lack sufficient moral judgement, cognitive ability or life experience to vote responsibly.

But there is plenty of research showing 16 year-olds have sufficient ethical and cognitive capacities to form political judgements.

We also know that by 16 you can do paid work, pay tax, enlist in the military, drive a car, consent to confidential health care and be charged with criminal offences.

The least we can do

Democracies have always been strengthened when more people are allowed to vote, from men without property to women, to Indigenous people and then those under 21.

Read more:
Book extract: From secret ballot to democracy sausage

It would be exactly the same if younger people were allowed to enrol and vote.

At the same time, lower the voting age acknowledges the national and global crises that young people are experiencing and will inherit.

Supporting the vote for young people who, by definition, have the greatest at stake in the political process, is the least that older generations can do to redress this imbalance.

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. At 16, Australians can drive, work and apply for the army – so why can’t they vote? – https://theconversation.com/at-16-australians-can-drive-work-and-apply-for-the-army-so-why-cant-they-vote-177370

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niro Kandasamy, Lecturer, University of Sydney

Review: Stay Woke, by Aran Thangaratnam, directed by Bridget Balodis.

The lingering smell of incense and the hurried crunching of murukku and thattu vadai greets the audience as we settle into their seats to watch Stay Woke, a new dark comedy about love, loss and pain.

Two estranged Tamil brothers, Niv (Dushan Philips) and Sai (Kaivu Suvarna) are spending the weekend away in Mount Buller with their partners.

At first, Niv tries to smooth out old sibling tensions.

His attempts soon fizzle as he learns more about Sai and his partner Kate (Rose Adams).

Niv’s partner Mae (Brooke Lee) is a non-binary anti-racism consultant for the corporate sector.

Despite being misgendered by Kate on several occasions, Mae is a lot more accepting of Kate than Niv, who confronts Kate and her historical privilege during dinner, games and late-night conversations.

Niv lambastes Kate for failing to know about the Sri Lankan government’s massacre of Tamils throughout the war, including more than 100,000 deaths during the final stagesin 2009.

Niv and Sai are repeatedly plunged into awkward and tense exchanges: their relationship to each other is mediated through their love interests.

The plot thickens as they are forced to negotiate important personal relationships with the desire to “stay woke”.

High tensions

The term “woke” originated from Black Americans and simply means to be alert to injustices in society, especially racism.

In a commencement address at Oberlin college in 1965, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr delivered a speech stating:

the great challenge facing every member of this graduating class is to remain awake, alert and creative through this great revolution.

In Stay Woke, intimate atmospheric spaces (design by Matilda Woodroofe) gives a soothing contrast to the high tensions. The wooden furniture and kitchen nook depict a cosy and ordinary ski lodge. The smooth wooden floorboards of the house act like a mountain slope: they enable raw exchanges, giving the impression the audience is viewing fleeting moments out of public sight.

Niv explodes into fury more than once at Kate, including when she shares photographs of her in “brownface” during an Aladdin themed party.

That Kate’s father is a police officer does not help the situation.

Read more:
Explainer: why blackface (and brownface) offend

In the play’s dramatic ending, Niv turns his attention to the audience. Speaking directly to us, he calls on us to bear witness to the discrimination black and brown people face at the hands of police.

Niv confronts the audience at the hypocrisy of it all. His sense of injustice is palpable.

An intelligent dark comedy

Niv, Mae, Sai and Kate represent an ever-changing society in the struggle to achieve equality and justice. The dark comedy brilliantly lures the audience into the personal and political significance of staying woke, before turning the tables back on us.

Incremental positive changes are possible. In the end Niv and Kate agree to begin unravelling the power dynamics that keeps them polarised; Niv and Sai agree to stay connected.

Thangaratnam’s brilliance is in capturing the fragility of these relationships located within broader systems of oppression.

Stay Woke is witty and clever storytelling. Staying woke is a life-long exercise in resistance to brutal regimes of power and violence.

Thangaratnam is part of a growing number of diaspora Tamils telling new stories about the struggles and joys of life in new lands.

In the postwar period, these stories hold spaces to process, reflect and heal from difficult pasts.

As an Eelam Tamil who has grown up in Australia I valued the play beyond the passionate acting performances and high production quality. It reminded me of the importance of telling stories of injustice by those most affected by it.

Niv and Sai’s homeland is currently facing its worst economic crisis since independence, but Stay Woke leads us to be cautiously optimistic about creating respectful dialogue, systemic change and trusting relationships.

Stay Woke is at Darlinghurst Theatre Company until April 17.

Niro Kandasamy 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. Stay Woke reminded me of the importance of telling stories of injustice by those most affected by it – https://theconversation.com/stay-woke-reminded-me-of-the-importance-of-telling-stories-of-injustice-by-those-most-affected-by-it-180577

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Bennett, Professor of Ecology, La Trobe University

Rural landscapes are changing in southern Australia. Thanks to landholders, community volunteers and Landcare groups, farms are increasingly home to corridors of trees and shrubs along creeks, and paddocks bordered by trees.

Our research, published today, shows these efforts to revegetate farmland has made an important difference for woodland birds.

We surveyed and compared bird communities in farm landscapes with differing amounts of tree cover. We found when the amount of revegetation in open farmland increased, the number of woodland bird species did, too. For example, an increase in revegetation from 1% to 10% of the landscape doubled the number of woodland bird species.

This is important, because populations of woodland birds have been steeply declining in southern Australia, with species such as the southern whiteface, brown treecreeper and white-browed babbler now of conservation concern. The collective efforts of landholders can help reverse these declines by attracting species back into otherwise-cleared farmland.

Restoring habitat for woodland birds

Look closely among native vegetation on farmland and you’ll find an array of birdlife, such as flame robins and superb fairy-wrens foraging for insects on the ground, and striated pardalotes and yellow thornbills feeding in canopy foliage.

Yet extensive habitat destruction, replaced by vast areas of intensive farmland, have caused the number of once-abundant woodland birds to decline greatly. Indeed, in many rural districts, such as in western and northern Victoria, more than 90% of native wooded vegetation has been cleared.

Read more:
More than 200 Australian birds are now threatened with extinction – and climate change is the biggest danger

To help address this issue, the Morrison government last year announced an additional A$32.1 million for biodiversity stewardship on agricultural land.

A key activity under the stewardship scheme is revegetation. Our research clarifies how revegetation can help in the recovery of woodland birds.

How does revegetation benefit birds?

Most research on the value of revegetation looks at individual “patches”. Our approach differed, as we sampled entire landscapes. Each landscape was 8 square kilometres in size, spanning one to three farms in south-western Victoria.

We identified three groups of landscapes, each having 1-18% tree cover. In one group, the tree cover was from revegetation. A second group comprised remnant native vegetation (natural vegetation that remains after the land was cleared). And a third had a mix of both revegetation and remnants.

We investigated important questions such as:

1. does the number of woodland species increase if more of the landscape is revegetated?

2. does revegetation attract new species back into the landscape, or simply provide more habitat for common species already present?

3. is the bird community in revegetated landscapes similar to that in remnant landscapes?

Read more:
Birdbath, food or water? How to attract your favourite birds to your garden

In answer to the first two questions, we found the number of bird species in a landscape did increase with increasing wooded cover.

For example, in landscapes with only 1% revegetation cover, most birds were open-country species such as galah, red-rumped parrot and willie wagtail, with only 11 woodland species on average. On the other hand, landscapes with 15% revegetation cover had 25 woodland species, on average, as part of the bird community.

In response to the third question, we found that revegetated landscapes and those with remnant native vegetation don’t offer the same benefits. For a given amount of wooded vegetation, revegetated landscapes had fewer species in total and supported different types of woodland species.

For example, revegetation favours birds that forage in shrubby areas, such as the New Holland honeyeater and brown thornbill.

In contrast, those that depend on older trees were less likely to be found in revegetated landscapes. This includes the white-throated treecreeper and varied sitella which forage on tree trunks and large branches, and the spotted pardalote and white-naped honeyeater that feed within canopy foliage.

Where will revegetation be most effective?

Our research shows revegetation has greatest value when it’s interspersed among remnant vegetation.

These mixed landscapes have similar numbers and types of woodland birds to the remnant landscapes, and provide complementary resources for feeding, nesting and refuge.

We also found individual patches of revegetation have the greatest value for birds when they include a diverse range of trees and shrubs, are close to or connected with native vegetation, and are older (meaning the plants have had longer to grow).

Another valuable feature for birds is scattered trees. These veteran trees act as stepping stones that help birds move, and provide foraging and nesting habitat for species such as the brown treecreeper, laughing kookaburra and eastern rosella.

Read more:
A lone tree makes it easier for birds and bees to navigate farmland, like a stepping stone between habitats

Working together

These results are encouraging, but there’s a long way to go to restore farmland environments. At least 11 of the 60 woodland species recorded in the study weren’t detected in revegetated landscapes, such as sacred kingfisher and black-chinned honeyeater. Others, such as jacky winter and eastern yellow robin were rare.

Increasing wooded vegetation to cover at least 10-30% of farmland is an important long-term goal to ensure sufficient habitat to sustain healthy populations of many species.

Read more:
We asked landholders how they feel about biodiversity offsets — and the NSW government has a lot to learn

Of course, it’s not just for woodland birds – revegetating farms has a number of benefits. Planting along creeks helps stabilise stream banks and improve aquatic environments, trees store more carbon as they grow and age, and tree lines (shelterbelts) and shade benefit livestock and farm production.

In this United Nations Decade of Ecosystem Restoration, the actions we take now will benefit the lives of future generations.

Andrew Bennett received funding towards this research project from the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority, and the Department of Environment, Land, Water & Planning (Victoria).

Jim Radford receives funding from the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, and the Victorian Department of Environment Land Water and Planning. He is also the Chair of Birdlife Australia’s Research and Conservation Committee.

Angie Haslem, Greg Holland, and Rohan Clarke 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. New research shows planting trees and shrubs brings woodland birds back to farms, from superb fairy wrens to spotted pardalotes – https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-planting-trees-and-shrubs-brings-woodland-birds-back-to-farms-from-superb-fairy-wrens-to-spotted-pardalotes-180494

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Leon Salter, Postdoctoral Fellow, Massey University

Largely overlooked in the recent easing of COVID restrictions has been the unequal impact on marginalised groups such as gig workers.

While for much of the past two years there was a sense of collective risk mitigation by the “team of five million”, the government has since shifted that burden more towards individuals and personal responsibility.

But this avoids the fact that not all individuals have to negotiate the same amount of risk. And research shows gig work is one of the riskiest types of employment during a pandemic.

Furthermore, gig workers lack a public voice with which to communicate these risks to the general public and decision makers. But as our recent report – Experiences with COVID-19 Among Gig Workers – shows, these workers have been at a high risk of both contracting and transmitting the COVID-19 virus.

No way to speak out

We interviewed 25 rideshare and delivery drivers about their experiences during the pandemic. We found the structural features of their employment not only exposed them to increased risk from the virus, but also offered minimal protection should they be too ill to work.

While conventional businesses have established infrastructures for voicing dissatisfaction with COVID policy – through organisations such as Hospitality NZ, for example – gig workers lack equivalent communication channels.

Read more:
Gig workers aren’t self-employed – they’re modern-day feudal serfs

This inequality also extends to gig workers’ access to culturally appropriate preventive health information. Not unlike the inequities faced by Māori and migrant communities, this leaves gig workers (many of whom are also migrants who don’t speak English as their first language) more vulnerable to the negative health effects of COVID-19.

Such risk is compounded by the structural features of gig work. Our report is grounded in the voices of workers themselves and argues that seven structural features influence their experiences: the work is piecemeal, precarious, individualised, gamified, dehumanised, automated and hyper-competitive.

Algorithm as manager

By its nature, the work is driven by immediate supply and demand – drivers are paid for each micro-transaction, rather than a wage, meaning time spent waiting for jobs goes unpaid:

Sometimes it’s really quiet. It’s not even worth … turning your car on for. Yeah, it’s basically just waiting until … you know there’s going to be demand.

This in turn means no job security. If demand decreases, so does income – exactly what happened to rideshare drivers in the pandemic, with some reporting their incomes had halved or worse.

Rideshare workers’ only communication with their “employer” (their status as contractors is being disputed globally) is through a phone app, meaning interactions take the form of a game, with both parties trying to extract the most money.

Read more:
From COVID anxiety to harassment, more needs to be done on safety in taxis and rideshare services

There is a built-in power asymmetry, however. For example, Uber withholds information about a passenger’s destination and the length of the proposed trip, which could help a driver gauge whether to accept a job.

With no human manager and effectively managed by an algorithm, many interviewees commented on the dehumanised nature of their interactions with Uber and their isolation from other drivers. Classified as independent contractors, they function as individual micro-businesses with no colleagues and no voice or influence in their organisation:

If you’re part of it, then you’re part of it. You know this is how things are going to be. So there’s no point questioning it because there is no human component to it, so there’s no one to question.

On the COVID front line

Because of their status as independent contractors, however, risk mitigation such as masks, sanitiser or plastic screens has been their own responsibility.

While Uber offered a $20 rebate for sanitiser in 2020, drivers reported a difficult application process, with many giving up. Drivers also felt they lacked preventive health education.

On top of increased precariousness and health risks, drivers also faced the consequences of COVID’s polarising effects. They reported picking up anti-mask, unvaccinated passengers, under pressure to accept the rides due to financial anxiety and the threat of poor ratings.

Especially at the beginning of the first COVID happening, a lot of customers didn’t really want to wear a mask … and I was wearing a mask obviously. But there’s some of them tried to reach for my mask and trying to make me take it off and being abusive and all this kind of thing.

If drivers become infected with COVID-19, they often lack the financial resources to cover their household expenses. Their need to keep working then puts the wider community at risk, too.

Risk but few rewards

There have been trade union efforts to organise rideshare and delivery drivers, including an ongoing Employment Court claim seeking employment rights. As contractors, however, drivers are legally barred from full union membership – again denying drivers the means to communicate their grievances.

All of these structural features mean rideshare and delivery workers have been isolated, voiceless and highly vulnerable during the pandemic. Without protections such as sick pay or annual leave, gig workers also cannot choose to work from home.

Read more:
Uncertainty, money worries and stress – gig workers need support and effective ways to cope

But, as some have argued, they are providing what can be regarded as an essential service, putting themselves at risk while delivering food and other goods to customers in isolation.

One of the many lessons of the pandemic is the urgent need for workers in the gig economy to have their voices heard. We all need to be more aware of the precarious and risky working conditions of the person who delivers our takeaways or takes us to a party. And we need to support worker-led collectivisation efforts.

Leon Salter receives funding from an MBIE Science Whitinga Fellowship.

Mohan Jyoti Dutta receives funding from the Ministry of Justice and the Lottery Grants Board.

– ref. Voiceless and vulnerable, NZ’s gig workers faced more risk with fewer protections during the pandemic – https://theconversation.com/voiceless-and-vulnerable-nzs-gig-workers-faced-more-risk-with-fewer-protections-during-the-pandemic-178747

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Laycock, Professor of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland

Over one-fifth of all plastic produced worldwide is tossed into uncontrolled dumpsites, burned in open pits or leaked into the environment. In Australia, 1.1 million tonnes of plastic is placed in the market, yet just 16% (179,000 tonnes) is recovered.

To deal with this mounting issue, the Morrison government last week announced A$60 million to fund plastic recycling technologies. The goal is to boost plastic packaging recycling from 16% to 70% by 2025.

It comes after 176 countries, including Australia, last month endorsed a United Nation’s resolution to establish a legally binding treaty by 2024 to end plastic pollution.

This is a good start – more effective recycling and recovery of plastics will go a long way to solve the problem.

But some plastics, particularly agricultural plastics and heavily contaminated packaging, will remain difficult to recycle despite these new efforts. These plastics will end up being burnt or in landfill, or worse, leaking into the environment.

“Biodegradable” plastic is often touted as an environmentally friendly alternative. But depending on the type of plastic, this label can be very misleading and can lead environmentally conscious consumers astray.

What are biodegradable plastics?

Biodegradable plastics are those that can completely break down in the environment, and are a source of carbon for microbes (such as bacteria).

These microbes degrade plastics into much smaller fragments before consuming them, which makes new biomass (cell growth), and releases water, carbon dioxide and, when oxygen is limited, methane.

However, this blanket description encompasses a wide range of products that biodegrade at very different rates and in different environments.

Read more:
We composted ‘biodegradable’ balloons. Here’s what we found after 16 weeks

For example, some – such as the bacterially produced “polyhydroxyalkanoates”, used in, for instance, single-use cutlery – will fully biodegrade in natural environments such as seawater, soil and landfill within a few months to years.

Others, like polylactic acid used in coffee cup lids, require more engineered environments to break down, such as an industrial composting environment which has higher temperatures and is rich in microbes.

So while consumers may expect that “compostable” plastics will degrade quickly in their backyard compost bins, this may not be the case.

To add to this confusion, biodegradable plastics actually don’t have to be “bio-based”. This means they don’t have to be derived from renewable carbon sources such as plants.

Some, such as polycaprolactone used in controlled release drug delivery, are synthesised from petroleum-derived materials.

What’s more, bio-based plastics may not always be biodegradable. One example is polyethylene – the largest family of polymers produced globally, widely used in flexible film packaging such as plastic bags. It can be produced from ethanol that comes from cane sugar.

In all material respects, a plastic like this is identical to petroleum-derived polyethylene, including its inability to break down.

Confusion and greenwashing

In 2018, we conducted a survey of 2,518 Australians, representative of the Australian population, with all demographics collected closely matching census data.

We found while there’s a lot of enthusiasm for biodegradable alternatives, there’s also a great deal of confusion over what constitutes a biodegradable plastic.

Consumers have also become increasingly concerned over the practice of “greenwashing” – marketing a product as biodegradable when, in reality, its rate of degradation and the environment in which it will decompose don’t match what the label implies.

So-called “oxo-degradable plastics” are an excellent example of why the issue is so complex and confusing. These plastics are commonly used in films, such as agricultural mulches, packaging and wrapping materials.

Chemically speaking, oxo-degradable plastics are often made from polyethylene or polypropylene, mixed with molecules that initiate degradation such as “metal stearates”.

These initiators cause these plastics to oxidise and break down under the influence of ultraviolet light, and/or heat and oxygen, eventually fragmenting into smaller pieces.

Read more:
Have you stopped wearing reusable fabric masks? Here’s how to cut down waste without compromising your health

There is, however, some controversy surrounding their fate. Research indicates they can remain as microplastics for long periods, particularly if they’re buried or otherwise protected from the sun.

Indeed, evidence suggests oxo-degradable plastics aren’t suited for long-term reuse, recycling or even composting. For these reasons, oxo-degradable plastics have now been banned by the European Commission, through the European Single-Use Plastics Directive.

We need better standards and labels

The new government funding for plastic recycling technologies targets waste that’s notoriously difficult to deal with, such as bread bags and chip packets.

However, this still leaves a substantial stream of waste that’s even more challenging to address. This includes agricultural waste dispersed in the environment such as mulch films, which can be difficult to collect for recycling.

Biodegradable and bio-based plastics have great potential to replace such problematic plastics. But, as they continue to gain market share, the confusion and complexity around biodegradable plastics must be addressed.

For starters, a better understanding of how they impact the environment is needed. It’s also crucial to align consumer expectations with those of manufacturers and producers, and to ensure these plastics are appropriately disposed of and managed at the end of their life.

Read more:
If the UN wants to slash plastic waste, it must tackle soaring plastic production – and why we use so much of it

This is what we’re investigating as part of a new training centre for bioplastics and biocomposites. Our goal over the next five years is to improve knowledge for developing better standards and regulations for certifying, labelling and marketing “green” plastic products.

And with that comes greater opportunity for better education so both plastic producers and people who throw them away really understand these materials. We should be familiar with their strengths, weaknesses and how to dispose of them so we can minimise the damage they inflict on the environment.

Bronwyn Laycock currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council (through a Discovery Project), Gold Coast City Council, The Qld Govt, DFAT and the Innovation Connections scheme (Licella Pty Ltd). She has previously received other funding on plastics sustainaiblity from the ARC through Discovery, Linkage and LIEF projects as well as through CRC, CRC-Project, AQIP and Innovation Connections funding and through direct funding, with partners in the biomaterials and biocomposites space, as well as in plastics production, conversion and agricultural applications areas.

Paul Lant has received ARC funding to conduct research on biodegradable plastics. He has also been involved with several industry funded projects on biodegradable plastics. His current funding partners are ARC, City of Gold Coast, Queensland Government and DFAT.

Steven Pratt has received ARC funding to conduct research on biodegradable plastics. He has also been involved with several industry funded projects on biodegradable plastics. His current funding partners are ARC, City of Gold Coast, Queensland Government and DFAT.

– ref. Do you toss biodegradable plastic in the compost bin? Here’s why it might not break down – https://theconversation.com/do-you-toss-biodegradable-plastic-in-the-compost-bin-heres-why-it-might-not-break-down-178542

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anne Tiernan, Adjunct Professor of Politics. Griffith Business School, Griffith University

Awaiting the official start of the 2022 campaign, published polls show Labor is comfortably ahead of the government. Pundits agree this year’s election is Albanese’s to lose, but predictions range along a spectrum from a Labor landslide to a narrow win, to a finely balanced hung parliament.

The more nuanced reality is that the 2022 poll will turn on a small number of key seats. These will be micro-targeted and parsed in a backroom battle of the campaign strategists and subjected even more indecent pork-barrelling.

Nowhere more will this be so than in Queensland – the emblem of Bill Shorten’s failed tilt at the prime ministership. The 4.3% swing to the Coalition sparked a social media campaign demanding the state’s expulsion from the federation.

Despite being the birthplace of the labour movement in the 1890s and electing state Labor governments for 28 of the past 33 years, Queenslanders have stubbornly resisted supporting federal Labor.

Read more:
Queensland to all those #Quexiteers: don’t judge, try to understand us

Several of its traditionally safe seats became marginal in 2019, and previously marginal LNP seats (notably Capricornia) moved up the pendulum to gain bigger margins (from 0.08% in 2016 to 12.4% in 2019). The ALP holds just six of 30 federal seats, and none north of Brisbane. Four of its seats in the populous south-east are on margins ranging from 0.6% (Lilley), 1.2 (Blair), 1.9% (Moreton) and 2.9% (Griffith).

This year’s electoral contest will be more distributed than 2019. The government, wracked by factional warfare and under pressure about Scott Morrison’s leadership, is challenged to defend seats in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia – where the state Liberals retained only two seats in the Legislative Assembly – and South Australia – where the one-term Liberal Marshall government was defeated in March.

Nevertheless, performance in Queensland remains crucial to whichever party hopes to form the next federal government. The state’s importance is reflected in the Liberal Party’s decision to again base its campaign headquarters in Brisbane as well as the hectic schedule of visits that both leaders have made since border restrictions eased.

For much of this year, Queensland has bucked the national trend away from the Coalition. A Roy Morgan poll at the end of 2021 gave Labor a convincing lead over the government (54.5 to 45.5 two-party preferred on December 5). The gap narrowed during February, to 50-50 on February 23. By March 20, Roy Morgan found support for the Coalition had surged to 54.5 to Labor’s 45.5 two-party preferred – an outlier compared to Essential (41-52) in the same period), but consistent with Newspoll at 54-46 on March 12.

Roy Morgan showed this gap has narrowed to 51-49 in favour of the Coalition by March 29. This represents a swing of 7.4% to the ALP in Queensland from its low-water mark of May 2019, but significantly and in contrast to the national polls, Labor still trails the Coalition.

Once again Queensland is different. Why?

Why Queensland is often the outlier state in polls

One possible explanation is that Queensland’s economy is growing. Despite the hit to tourism and small business from border restrictions, retail spending grew strongly in the December quarter. Interstate migration attracted almost 31,000 new residents in the year to June 2021 – particularly the Gold and Sunshine Coasts, driving house prices increases of 36.3% and 35.4% respectively. Demand for the state’s commodity exports has surged, further increased by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Unemployment has fallen to 4.3%.

Conscious they fared relatively well through COVID-19, with fewer and far shorter lockdowns than their southern counterparts, and many fewer deaths, Queenslanders may be content with the devil they know.

The electoral buffer built by the Coalition in 2019, along with a federal budget that delivered immediate, if temporary, relief and included a slew of large infrastructure promises for the region, may help the government retain key seats in central and far northern Queensland. But locals will weigh those promises against clean energy, manufacturing, aged and childcare commitments offered by Labor.

A second factor may be that Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk proves far less of an electoral asset for Anthony Albanese than she was six months ago. A simmering “integrity crisis”has tarnished the three-time election winner.

Palaszczuk’s government is seen to be drifting despite social policy reforms, securing the 2032 Olympics and its generally competent management of the “rain bomb” that triggered floods that devastated large parts of the south-east, including the Brisbane CBD, in late February.

That said, Queenslanders resented the prime minister’s frequent attacks on their premier over border closures. Morrison and Palaszczuk are not on good terms. They clashed recently over greater disaster assistance offered to support flood-ravaged northern NSW. Labor’s Senate team, which has been actively campaigning in Queensland’s regions for the past three years, can be expected to revive claims that Morrison is the “prime minister for NSW”.

The minor parties may play a major role

The impending campaign in Queensland promises more than a few surprises. There is potential for seats to change hands, and uncertainty surrounds the impact that Clive Palmer’s advertising and One Nation will have on preference flows.

Labor needs to retain its six seats and is targeting the Coalition seats of Longman (3.3%), Flynn (8.7%), where incumbent Nationals MP Ken O’Dowd is retiring, and Leichhardt, held by Warren Entsch on 4.2%. It claims its prospects are improving in the inner-city seat of Brisbane (4.9%).

Both parties are being challenged by the Greens, who are targeting two seats – Griffith, held by Labor’s Terri Butler and Ryan, a traditional Liberal stronghold. Ryan overlaps the state seat of Maiwar, which has been held by the Greens since 2017, suggesting its values have become more socially progressive and environmentally conscious. It is one to watch on election night.

The JWS Research True Issues report found that cost of living pressures and hospitals, health and ageing are the salient issues for Australian voters heading into the 2022 election. The economy and finances, the environment and climate change, and employment and wages round out the top five.

This was reflected in the budget and the opposition’s budget reply. Albanese has spent a lot of time in Queensland. He claims Labor has learned the lessons of 2019. But the polls suggest that here at least, he is starting from behind.

Read more:
Coalition and Greens gain in post-budget Newspoll as an Ipsos poll gives Labor a large lead

These recent polls preceded the second flood event in a month, which claimed lives in the Darling Downs, as well as devastating Lismore and Byron Shire. They captured the bitter factional recriminations that rocked Labor after Senator Kimberley Kitching’s untimely death, but not Concetta Fierrevante-Wells’ budget night assault on Morrison’s character, or the controversy around his 2007 preselection in Cook.

It’s unclear how much of this will reach or influence the Queenslanders whose votes will determine the election outcome. In 2022, Queensland won’t be centre stage, but no one will ignore how the campaign unfolds in a state that has been the Coalition’s happy hunting ground more often than not.

Anne Tiernan has previously received research funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG), of which she is a Fellow. She is a member of the Research Committee of the Centre for Policy Development (CPD).

– ref. The polls look grim for the Coalition. Will Queensland buck the trend again? – https://theconversation.com/the-polls-look-grim-for-the-coalition-will-queensland-buck-the-trend-again-180249

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jade Cartwright, Associate Professor, University of Tasmania

Meals are rituals built around pleasures and choices. While what is served at mealtimes in aged care homes has received recent attention and Labor has pledged to improve the food offered, new research highlights that how meals are offered is just as important.

More than 50% of aged care residents live with dementia, and outside of mealtimes, spend the majority of their days alone. Mealtimes are the time of the day when people come together, providing opportunities for social connection, celebration, and honouring individual preferences and culture.

And yet, staffing shortages and insufficient time to help residents eat and drink means mealtimes are frequently highly structured and depersonalised, with the focus being on food intake rather than the dining experience.

Further, current aged care funding does not incentivise quality in food, or mealtime autonomy.

Innovation in mealtime care is needed to turn this around and give aged care residents back their basic rights. One proven approach draws on Montessori principles traditionally used within the early childhood field.

Read more:
Labor’s plans for aged care are targeted but fall short of what’s needed

Careful planning allows more freedom

The revolutionary thinking of Italian physician and educator Maria Montessori has been increasingly applied to dementia care – introduced to the field by psychologist Cameron Camp in the 1990s. The Montessori approach respects the abilities and preferences of the person – young or old – engaging people at their own pace and rhythm.

Montessori methods focus on a carefully prepared environment and work with the retained strengths of a person with dementia to enable engagement and involvement in everyday life. This helps people with dementia reclaim skills, such as the ability to eat independently.

The approach can change people’s expectations of what a person with dementia is capable of and promote a sense of community.

Our study looked at how applying Montessori strategies changed mealtimes for staff and residents in a residential aged care setting. We periodically filmed mealtimes, starting before any changes were made and ending with new practices in place.

Routines, materials, and external aids were established to support memory loss and independence. For example, signage invited residents to help themselves to snacks, and a buffet encouraged residents to serve their own meals.

Extending the duration of the breakfast service enabled residents to eat at their own pace, while the preparation of additional food ensured residents had the opportunity for second or third helpings.

Staff across all levels of the organisation were trained and mentored in the Montessori approach. For example, the Montessori mantra “Everything you do for me; you take away from me” was introduced to staff – transforming the way they thought about empowering residents and their own caring roles.

Care staff were encouraged to involve residents in mealtime routines and create meaningful roles, such as setting the table, filling water jugs or writing up the daily menu.

Read more:
Today’s aged care falls well short of how we’d like to be treated – but there is another way

What we saw

Our observational research evaluated mealtime routines before and after the Montessori model of care was introduced and the findings were promising for everyone involved – residents, families, and staff. We can see this by examining the experience of a resident we’ll call “Marjory”.

Before Montessori, Marjory’s meal was chosen by a staff member and there were no second options should she not like the selection. Marjory’s main meal and dessert were placed together on the bare table, with no explanation as to what they were. She did not choose who she sat with, or which drink was served with her meal. Marjory ate her meal in silence.

We noted this as a familiar pattern, highlighted in previous research, that featured very little social interaction between care staff and residents.

Since Montessori strategies were introduced, Marjory selects what and how much she would like from the labelled buffet. She eats at a table that is beautifully set with a tablecloth, cutlery, and condiments. Marjory can help herself to a second helping if she likes and she socialises during her meal. Afterwards, she helps staff by taking her dishes to the sink.

We watched on as opportunities for choice significantly increased, as did social interaction between staff and residents. Mealtime care had become more respectful and centred around people.

Transforming care

Examples of positive innovation in aged care need to be shared if we are to change public perceptions of dementia and show how more humanistic models of care are possible.

The Montessori approach is an innovative way to transform care – helping aged care staff rethink their role in enabling people with dementia. With mealtimes occurring several times each day, improved mealtime experiences can provide a pathway to person-centred care.

Cultural change isn’t easy and creative strategies and commitment are needed. Care staff require quality training and ongoing support.

The aged care sector must place greater emphasis on quality outcomes for residents, rewarding providers who enable residents to live well – engaged, involved, and connected.

Read more:
How to choose a legal decision-maker as you get older – 3 things to consider

This research was funded by Catholic Homes Inc.

Elizabeth Oliver worked for Catholic Homes as the Leader of Care Innovation during the research period. The research was funded by Catholic Homes Inc.

Anne Whitworth 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. Serving up choice and dignity in aged care – how meals are enjoyed is about more than what’s on the plate – https://theconversation.com/serving-up-choice-and-dignity-in-aged-care-how-meals-are-enjoyed-is-about-more-than-whats-on-the-plate-179669

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Laycock, Professor of Chemical Engineering, The University of Queensland

Over one-fifth of all plastic produced worldwide is tossed into uncontrolled dumpsites, burned in open pits or leaked into the environment. In Australia, 1.1 million tonnes of plastic is placed in the market, yet just 16% (179,000 tonnes) is recovered.

To deal with this mounting issue, the Morrison government last week announced A$60 million to fund plastic recycling technologies. The goal is to boost plastic packaging recycling from 16% to 70% by 2025.

It comes after 176 countries, including Australia, last month endorsed a United Nation’s resolution to establish a legally binding treaty by 2024 to end plastic pollution.

This is a good start – more effective recycling and recovery of plastics will go a long way to solve the problem.

But some plastics, particularly agricultural plastics and heavily contaminated packaging, will remain difficult to recycle despite these new efforts. These plastics will end up being burnt or in landfill, or worse, leaking into the environment.

“Biodegradable” plastic is often touted as an environmentally friendly alternative. But depending on the type of plastic, this label can be very misleading and can lead environmentally conscious consumers astray.

What are biodegradable plastics?

Biodegradable plastics are those that can completely break down in the environment, and are a source of carbon for microbes (such as bacteria).

These microbes degrade plastics into much smaller fragments before consuming them, which makes new biomass (cell growth), and releases water, carbon dioxide and, when oxygen is limited, methane.

However, this blanket description encompasses a wide range of products that biodegrade at very different rates and in different environments.

Read more:
We composted ‘biodegradable’ balloons. Here’s what we found after 16 weeks

For example, some – such as the bacterially produced “polyhydroxyalkanoates”, used in, for instance, single-use cutlery – will fully biodegrade in natural environments such as seawater, soil and landfill within a few months to years.

Others, like polylactic acid used in coffee cup lids, require more engineered environments to break down, such as an industrial composting environment which has higher temperatures and is rich in microbes.

So while consumers may expect that “compostable” plastics will degrade quickly in their backyard compost bins, this may not be the case.

To add to this confusion, biodegradable plastics actually don’t have to be “bio-based”. This means they don’t have to be derived from renewable carbon sources such as plants.

Some, such as polycaprolactone used in controlled release drug delivery, are synthesised from petroleum-derived materials.

What’s more, bio-based plastics may not always be biodegradable. One example is polyethylene – the largest family of polymers produced globally, widely used in flexible film packaging such as plastic bags. It can be produced from ethanol that comes from cane sugar.

In all material respects, a plastic like this is identical to petroleum-derived polyethylene, including its inability to break down.

Confusion and greenwashing

In 2018, we conducted a survey of 2,518 Australians, representative of the Australian population, with all demographics collected closely matching census data.

We found while there’s a lot of enthusiasm for biodegradable alternatives, there’s also a great deal of confusion over what constitutes a biodegradable plastic.

Consumers have also become increasingly concerned over the practice of “greenwashing” – marketing a product as biodegradable when, in reality, its rate of degradation and the environment in which it will decompose don’t match what the label implies.

So-called “oxo-degradable plastics” are an excellent example of why the issue is so complex and confusing. These plastics are commonly used in films, such as agricultural mulches, packaging and wrapping materials.

Chemically speaking, oxo-degradable plastics are often made from polyethylene or polypropylene, mixed with molecules that initiate degradation such as “metal stearates”.

These initiators cause these plastics to oxidise and break down under the influence of ultraviolet light, and/or heat and oxygen, eventually fragmenting into smaller pieces.

Read more:
Have you stopped wearing reusable fabric masks? Here’s how to cut down waste without compromising your health

There is, however, some controversy surrounding their fate. Research indicates they can remain as microplastics for long periods, particularly if they’re buried or otherwise protected from the sun.

Indeed, evidence suggests oxo-degradable plastics aren’t suited for long-term reuse, recycling or even composting. For these reasons, oxo-degradable plastics have now been banned by the European Commission, through the European Single-Use Plastics Directive.

We need better standards and labels

The new government funding for plastic recycling technologies targets waste that’s notoriously difficult to deal with, such as bread bags and chip packets.

However, this still leaves a substantial stream of waste that’s even more challenging to address. This includes agricultural waste dispersed in the environment such as mulch films, which can be difficult to collect for recycling.

Biodegradable and bio-based plastics have great potential to replace such problematic plastics. But, as they continue to gain market share, the confusion and complexity around biodegradable plastics must be addressed.

For starters, a better understanding of how they impact the environment is needed. It’s also crucial to align consumer expectations with those of manufacturers and producers, and to ensure these plastics are appropriately disposed of and managed at the end of their life.

Read more:
If the UN wants to slash plastic waste, it must tackle soaring plastic production – and why we use so much of it

This is what we’re investigating as part of a new training centre for bioplastics and biocomposites. Our goal over the next five years is to improve knowledge for developing better standards and regulations for certifying, labelling and marketing “green” plastic products.

And with that comes greater opportunity for better education so both plastic producers and people who throw them away really understand these materials. We should be familiar with their strengths, weaknesses and how to dispose of them so we can minimise the damage they inflict on the environment.

Bronwyn Laycock currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council (through a Discovery Project), Gold Coast City Council, The Qld Govt, DFAT and the Innovation Connections scheme (Licella Pty Ltd). She has previously received other funding on plastics sustainaiblity from the ARC through Discovery, Linkage and LIEF projects as well as through CRC, CRC-Project, AQIP and Innovation Connections funding and through direct funding, with partners in the biomaterials and biocomposites space, as well as in plastics production, conversion and agricultural applications areas.

Paul Lant has received ARC funding to conduct research on biodegradable plastics. He has also been involved with several industry funded projects on biodegradable plastics. His current funding partners are ARC, City of Gold Coast, Queensland Government and DFAT.

Steven Pratt has received ARC funding to conduct research on biodegradable plastics. He has also been involved with several industry funded projects on biodegradable plastics. His current funding partners are ARC, City of Gold Coast, Queensland Government and DFAT.

– ref. Do you toss biodegradable plastics in the compost bin? Here’s why it might not break down – https://theconversation.com/do-you-toss-biodegradable-plastics-in-the-compost-bin-heres-why-it-might-not-break-down-178542

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

As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.

In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn talk about Tuesday’s court ruling in the NSW Liberals’ factional fighting. It has given Scott Morrison a get-out-of-jail card. But it still leaves a divided party that is poorly placed to fight a campaign in a state where the government needs to win seats. They also canvass the continuing damage to the prime minister by the focus on the issue of his character.

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. Word from The Hill: Court saves Morrison’s NSW preselections but what sort of campaign will Liberals run? – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-court-saves-morrisons-nsw-preselections-but-what-sort-of-campaign-will-liberals-run-180694

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

As well as her interviews with politicians and experts, Politics with Michelle Grattan includes “Word from The Hill”, where she discusses the news with members of The Conversation politics team.

In this podcast Michelle and politics + society editor Amanda Dunn talk about Tuesday’s court ruling in the NSW Liberals’ factional fighting. It has given Scott Morrison a get-out-of-jail card. But it still leaves a divided party that is poorly placed to fight a campaign in a state where the government needs to win seats. They also canvass the continuing damage to the prime minister by the focus on the issue of his character.

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. Word from The Hill: Court saves Morison’s NSW preselections but what sort of campaign will Liberals run? – https://theconversation.com/word-from-the-hill-court-saves-morisons-nsw-preselections-but-what-sort-of-campaign-will-liberals-run-180694

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

With the announcement of a polling date imminent, Michelle Grattan speaks with the ABC’s election analyst Antony Green about the national electoral map, with its variations between the states.

The latest round of opinion polls are strong for Labor, but there’s still a long way to got before polling day.

Green says:“I think if the opinion polls are correct, then the swing will be large enough for Labor to win. The question is, will the polls tighten? The polls are showing bigger leads for Labor than last time. But of course we saw in 2019 that the polls seemed to narrow, but they also were just inaccurate.”

Green also canvasses the Senate prospects for the Greens and for Pauline Hanson. Then there’s Nick Xenophon, for years a major crossbench player, who is seeking to make a comeback to the Senate.

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

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Election expert Antony Green on the election map – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-election-expert-antony-green-on-the-election-map-180676

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Collette Snowden, Senior Lecturer, School of Communication, International Studies and Languages, University of South Australia

Social media has become a primary source of information for news-hungry audiences around the world trying to make sense of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

At the same time, it’s being used by the governments of Russia and Ukraine to set the agenda for wider media reporting.

Official Russian government accounts have been found to be amplifying pro-Russia disinformation on Twitter. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian government has taken to the platform to appeal to its two million followers for support.

Information warfare is no longer an additional arm of strategy, but a parallel component of military campaigns. The rise of social media has made it easier than ever before to see how states use mass communication as a weapon.

Read more:
Fake viral footage is spreading alongside the real horror in Ukraine. Here are 5 ways to spot it

Putting social media in the mix

Mass communication began as political communication intended to establish and control empires.

Whether it was Darius the Great imposing his image on buildings and coins to help control the Persian Empire; Henry VIII’s inspired use of portraiture, or the well-documented use of radio and film in World War II – media technologies have long been used to spread political ideas.

Social media has added another element to the mix, and brought immediacy to strategic political communication.

In asymmetric conflicts (such as the one we’re seeing now in Ukraine), a successful social media account can be a useful weapon against an adversary with many guns and tanks.

The local uprisings in the 2010 Arab Spring, especially in Egypt and Tunisia, were among the first campaigns where social media played a pivotal role.

Advocates of democracy used Twitter, Facebook and YouTube to maintain networks of communication and openly criticised their governments for the world to see.

It didn’t take long for governments to realise the power of social media. And they responded both by restricting access to social media as well as using it themselves.

Social media alone may not be capable of instigating widespread change, but it can undoubtedly play a role.

Information warfare

Tension between Russia and Ukraine has a long history, and was highly charged on social media well before the latest invasion.

Pro-Russian accounts have circulated disinformation about Russia’s role in the Donetsk region since before 2014, fuelling confusion and destabilisation, and assisting Russia’s takeover. This was in fact a critical element of Russia’s “hybrid warfare” approach.

Russia’s strategic actions, and counter actions by Ukraine, have been studied widely by researchers. Unsurprisingly, the research has overwhelmingly found each side to be framing the conflict in very different, and divergent ways.

Research has also found social media can sustain, and even aggravate, the hostility between Ukrainians and Russians online.

For example, after Malaysian Airline flight MH17 was shot down by Russia over Ukraine, an analysis of 950,000 Twitter posts found a plethora of competing claims online, creating a struggle for truth which continues today.

As early as 2014, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Philip Breedlove, described the Russian communication strategy in Ukraine as “the most amazing information warfare blitzkrieg we have ever seen in the history of information warfare”.

These efforts have escalated since Russia’s recent expansion of its invasion into Ukrainian territory. And with so much noise, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for users to make sense of the deluge of contradictory, emotive and (often) difficult-to-verify information.

It’s even more difficult when the tone of posts changes quickly.

The Ukraine government’s Twitter account is a study in contrasts of both content and tone. Set up in more peaceful times, the profile cheerily states: “Yes, this is the official Twitter account of Ukraine. Nice pics: #BeautifulUkraine Our music: #UkieBeats”.

But the account now posts a range of content, images and video related to the war as part of its strategic communication campaign.

This has included serious news updates, patriotic allusions to historic events and people, anti-Russian material and – prior to the recent reports of mass deaths – quite a lot of humour.

Read more:
Ukraine’s Twitter account is a national version of real-time trauma processing

Why use humour?

Humour has a long history of being used as an element of communication and public diplomacy – even during wars.

For instance, humour was used effectively by the Serbian Otpor resistance movement in its campaign to overthrow dictator Slobodan Milošević at the turn of this century.

Humour is particularly effective on social platforms because it produces virality.

And in the case of Ukraine’s defence, it displays defiance. After all, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy (a former comedian) was famously thrust into the political spotlight thanks to a satirical television production. In it he played the role of a teacher whose secretly-filmed rant about corruption goes viral, leading the character to become President.

Zelenskyy’s Twitter account is now the most immediate and reliable way for many Ukrainians to get crucial information on the invasion and negotiations between Zelenskyy and other leaders.

The thousands of “shares” the posts receive are helping Ukraine’s communication campaign.

Zelenskyy’s recent address to the Grammy Awards reinforces that he understands the necessity of remaining visible to the world at this critical point. His speech has produced much support on social media (as well as cries of “propaganda” from Russia’s supporters).

Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s Twitter account has been dormant since March 16.

Collette Snowden 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. Guns, tanks and Twitter: how Russia and Ukraine are using social media as the war drags on – https://theconversation.com/guns-tanks-and-twitter-how-russia-and-ukraine-are-using-social-media-as-the-war-drags-on-180131

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lauren Ball, Associate Professor and Principal Research Fellow, Menzies Health Institute, Griffith University

As academics and dietitians, we have a head start in making nutritious choices for our kids, but we also sometimes struggle with lunchboxes.

Even without a pandemic affecting our food supply chains, supporting a healthy diet for your whole family can be difficult.

Common issues include finding time to prepare food, making nutritious food appeal to kids, budgeting with the climbing price of fresh food after natural disasters, feeding picky eaters, buying sustainably, and reducing food waste.

On top of all that, there are considerations for food allergies and packing a lunchbox safely for food hygiene.

Read more:
Swap shapes for rice crackers, chips for popcorn… parents can improve their kids’ diet with these healthier lunchbox options

One way to improve kids nutrition at schools and reduce parental stress is to move to a system of providing children with school lunches.

Of course, this would come with a cost to taxpayers and, if adopted, would take time to implement.

So what can parents can do in the meantime?

Schools should encourage, not shame

Children’s eating habits are more malleable than adults and for more than a decade of their life, they spend a large proportion of their time at school.

These formative years of education should include skills for children to make healthy choices throughout their lives.

Programs to promote nutritious school lunchboxes are particularly important because can reach diverse groups of children across socioeconomic backgrounds.

Each state and territory has a school lunchbox guide about the types of food to include and avoid (Western Australia,
Northern Territory,
Queensland,
New South Wales,
Australian Capital Territory
Victoria,
South Australia and
Tasmania).

But following these guides can also be a challenge for parents. Some schools may “audit” lunchboxes and return home food that doesn’t comply with the guidelines, causing feelings of shame for some families.

Schools should consider providing food for children

Many countries around the world have school lunch programs that provide food to kids, meaning families don’t need to pack a lunchbox each day.

Brazil has the longest running program, starting back in 1954, and India has one of the largest, feeding lunch to 140 million children in a year.

Depending on the country, these programs cost the government between US$54 and US$693 per child per year.

It’s something Australian policymakers should consider to equitably improve kids’ nutrition across the board and tackle childhood obesity. Among OECD countries, Australia ranks ninth for obesity prevalence, with a rate of 34% among children aged five to 19.

Japan stands out as the gold standard of programs. The school menus are planned by nutritionists, focusing on a balance of fresh, seasonal food including greens and seafood. Children are taught to respect the value of their food, how to prepare it safely, and understand where it comes from.

Japan’s universal school lunch programme has helped close the socioeconomic gap in fruit and vegetable intake in Japanese children.

With the lowest incidence of childhood malnourishment and obesity in OECD countries, Japan presents an ideal case for implementing school-based food programs.

The NSW and Victorian governments do currently have breakfast “clubs” or programs for children, and both have plans for expansion to feed more children.

However a universal school-provided lunch model is needed to improve the health and well-being rankings of our children. Research shows insufficient government support is a barrier to such a model.

So what can parents do now?

Here are our top tips for reducing parents’ lunchbox anxiety and increasing the healthiness of kids’ lunches:

Plan for the week ahead: Use the weekend to plan and shop for lunchboxes and make what you can ahead of time. Wash and cut up fruit and veggie sticks, bake with your kids, or make sandwiches with fresh bread and freeze individually, ready for kids to pull one out each day.

Involve your kids: Encourage your kids to make their own lunch from as young an age as possible. This will help their food knowledge and independence. Help them to choose items from each food group and category (for example, a fruit, a vegetable, sandwich or wholegrain crackers, cheese or yogurt). An added benefit is they will be more likely to want to eat the food they pack.

Read more:
Forget quinoa and kale, these basic foods for your kids’ lunch box will give them the nutrition they need

Reduce pre-packaged foods: Packaged, highly processed foods such as muesli bars and chips are often high in salt and saturated fat, and low in fibre and nutrients. Replace these with fresh fruit or vegetables, homemade dips, seeds, popcorn, wholegrain rice crackers or boiled eggs.

Balance cost with convenience: It’s cheaper to buy in bulk and prepare items for your kid’s lunches, but if cost is not an issue, save time by buying items pre-prepared. For example, you can buy block cheese and slice yourself, but pre-sliced cheese will save time. Having suitable containers available to store items will make your life easier and will also benefit the environment through minimising single-use plastics.

Give your kids lunchbox accountability: Being responsible for what comes out of a lunchbox is just as important as what goes into it. When your kids come home from school, make it their responsibility to dispose of spoiled food and clean their containers. Also, if the food is still good, put it out on the table as afternoon tea, or as a pre-dinner snack.

Read more:
How to keep school lunches safe in the heat

Lauren Ball receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, RACGP Foundation, VicHealth and Queensland Health. She is a Director of Dietitians Australia.

Lana Mitchell is a member of Dietitians Australia.

– ref. Sick of packing school lunches already? Here’s how to make it easier – https://theconversation.com/sick-of-packing-school-lunches-already-heres-how-to-make-it-easier-179675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Martin, Visiting Fellow, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University

One of the strangest, certainly one of the hardest to justify, measures in last week’s budget was called “supporting retirees”.

A better title would have been “supercharging the wealth of those retirees who already have more than enough to live on”.

It flies in the face of the findings of the government’s own retirement income review and legislation it introduced partly in response earlier this year.

It happens not to support the living standards of retirees at all. It will enable some to spend less on themselves than they would have, while enabling those with serious wealth to accelerate the accumulation of even more, tax-free.

What the measure does is extend a temporary COVID relaxation of the rules requiring retirees to actually withdraw a minimum amount from their super each year, introduced in March 2020 when financial markets were in free-fall.

All retirees are required to withdraw a minimum amount from super each year in order to ensure it isn’t simply used as a vehicle to accumulate tax-free savings that aren’t used.

Retirees have to withdraw a minimum per year

For retirees aged 65-74 the regulated minimum is 5% per year, for those aged 75-79 it is 6% per year and so on, up to retirees aged 95 and over, who are required to withdraw at least 14% per year.

Nothing stops retirees withdrawing more than the regulated minimum, but the review found that in practice the typical withdrawal rate is just above the minimum, because people use it as an “anchor” or guide to what to do.

It identifies the most common misconception about super being that

“the minimum drawdown rate is what the government recommends”

It says another is: “I should only draw down the income earned on my assets, not the capital”. Both set up retirees for a much lower standard of living than they could get.

The review finds that if a middle earner drew down an optimum amount rather than the minimum required, his or her super income would be 20% higher.

Instead, most retirees “die with the bulk of their wealth intact”. One fund told the review its members who died left 90% of the balance they had at retirement.

Most die with most intact

It’s at odds with the purpose of super, defined by the government as to provide “income in retirement”. In February the government legislated to help make sure this is what funds did. From July they will be required to present to their members with an income strategy, for which bequests “should not be an aim”.

Things changed when the Australian share market collapsed 30% between mid-February and mid-March 2020 as coronavirus took hold.

As a “temporary” measure, Treasurer Josh Frydenberg halved the drawdown requirements, in order to enable retirees to better build up their balances after the storm passed. A similar measure was introduced during the global financial crisis.

The storm passed quickly. Markets began climbing back the day the treasurer made the announcement, and then kept climbing. SuperRatings says in the past year the median balanced super fund has grown 13.4%.

Yet oddly, the government extended the measure in May last year when the market was soaring to new heights, in order to “make life easier for our retirees” and then extended it again on budget night in order to “recognise the valuable contribution self-funded retirees make to the Australian economy”.

It is as if the government has junked the idea that super should actually be used to provide income to the people who accumulate it.

As it happens there is nothing in the drawdown requirements that forces retirees to spend on themselves (and nor could there be). All they do is force retirees to withdraw a minimum amount from the generally tax-free environment that is retiree super, and have it treated like other people’s investments and savings.

Earnings in retiree super untaxed

If retirees aren’t forced to withdraw a minimum, in the words of the retirement income report to the treasurer, large amounts will be held in super “mainly as a tax minimisation strategy, separate to any retirement income goals”.

The only justification offered in budget papers (a weak one) refers to “ongoing volatility” and the need to “allow retirees to avoid selling assets”.

But markets are generally volatile, and it is usually super funds that sell assets, not retirees. It’s as if the measure is directed at self-managed super funds, some of which are rich beyond most of our wildest dreams, certainly far too rich to need to pay out anything but a tiny percentage of their holdings to their members.

Read more:
No longer temporary, the super changes will most help tax dodgers

A freedom of information request by the Australian Financial Review has revealed that 27 such funds hold more than A$100 million each. Its best guess is they are owned by Australia’s wealthiest families.

Of course, most retirees have much lower balances, and are reluctant to withdraw funds for another reason. Perhaps surprisingly, studies examined by the review find that main reason isn’t passing on their inheritance to their children.

Overwhelmingly, retirees are concerned about “outliving their savings”.

Frightened of outliving savings

The prospect of inferior aged care or a late health emergency compels most retirees to save far more than they are likely to need, just in case.

Many are unaware of how little end-of-life aged and health care can cost (“especially given the complexity of aged care means-testing arrangements”) and many more want to buy their way out of standard care because of the awful things they have heard, some of it in the aged care royal commission.

Read more:
Labor’s budget reply goes big on aged care, similar on much else

It makes Labor’s budget reply promise of more money for aged care and a nurse on each site 24/7 doubly attractive. It might stop us hanging on to absurd amounts of our super out of fear.

It might allow us to relax and enjoy what could be the best decades of our lives.

Peter Martin 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 budget super giveaway that allows the already wealthy to amass even more tax-free – https://theconversation.com/the-budget-super-giveaway-that-allows-the-already-wealthy-to-amass-even-more-tax-free-180582

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Phillippa Carnemolla, Associate professor, University of Technology Sydney

As the federal election approaches, civic engagement is back on people’s minds. But not everyone’s needs are well served in the political sphere – and one of the areas most ripe for improvement is actually at the local government level.

To find out more about their experiences of civic and social participation, we spent 12 months speaking with people intellectual disabilities about how they experience their local communities and the services local government provides.

Our study found there is huge opportunity to incorporate the ideas and opinions of people with intellectual disabilities about their local communities. This would help support greater civic inclusion for all.

Among other things, participants called for for access to better transport options, better maintained public toilets and more pedestrian crossings.

Many told us our focus group was the first time in their lives anyone had asked their opinion about these aspects of their local community.

What we did

Our project team included core members and researchers with intellectual disabilities. We conducted focus groups in six local government areas (a total of 45 people) in a mix of metropolitan and regional areas across New South Wales and Victoria.

To capture the types of improvements to local services and places that people with intellectual disability want to see, we asked participants: what would you change if you were the boss of your local government?

Our findings, published in the journal Sustainability, reveal people with intellectual disabilities are more than capable and willing to contribute to shaping local communities for the better – but are rarely asked about their opinions or experiences.

Our research suggests participation could be improved via several key changes.

1. Ensure accessible information and communication

One person with intellectual disability told us:

if you want us to participate, we need to know what things are happening and when […] and not just the disability events.

This was a common refrain. Many people with intellectual disability want their local government to provide more accessible information, in a range of formats, about what’s happening in the community and most importantly, how to participate.

One person told us:

If I was the boss of my council […] I would text people to let them know that they can call council.

2. Create inclusive employment opportunities

One of the most powerful messages in every focus group we conducted is a call for more employment opportunities. Participants spoke at length about hopes for a job, perhaps even one in local government. One person told us:

We could work at the front desk and be welcoming.

Another said:

I wish I could work but there are not many opportunities.

As one participant put it:

If I was the boss of my local council I would employ people with disability.

3, Ensure people feel safe and respected

Unfortunately, we heard many stories of people not feeling safe in their local community.

Participants also told us of many regular exchanges in public where they did not feel welcome or respected. Quotes from the focus groups included:

I wish people were more friendly to people with intellectual disability.

If I was the boss at [my council] I would make sure I listened to people. People don’t listen to me when I have a problem.

Sometimes, when I go to the shops, people just look at me […] I think the council could train people to help people with disability […] and be like ‘OK, are you sure you’re alright with this? We can help you out, if you need more help, just call us back.’ […] Not just shove us off like we are rubbish.

4. Create well-designed built environments

The design and maintenance of accessible public spaces, parks and recreational areas were a regular topic in our discussions.

Participants talked about how we could be improving the experiences of everyone in the community, telling us:

We need more accessible drop-offs right at the library [and pool] […] we have to walk too far and get tired as a group. It caused a problem before because we were always late to the class.

The council should fix our [pedestrian] crossing, they go too fast, someone nearly got hit last week.

How councils can improve

Local governments and state government departments outline their inclusion plans and outcomes in a Disability Inclusion Action Plan. These plans – based around identified need through local consultations including people with disability, their carers and family – are designed to translate into direct actions by councils to provide more inclusive communities for all.

When we spoke to local government representatives about the findings of our research we found great variation in whether local governments have staff or resources to support inclusion of people with disability. But there is a genuine willingness and desire on their part to do things differently.

Conceptualising what inclusion is, and what it isn’t, is a good start. According to Jack Kelly, a member of our research team, and a person with a disability:

Holding an event once a year for International Day of People with A Disability doesn’t make your council inclusive.

One way to improve the confidence of local governments to engage more often and regularly with diverse local communities, including people with intellectual disabilities, is to provide some practical guidance on inclusive practice. There are myriad resources online to guide such a process.

Looking beyond local government, every civic engagement opportunity, including urban planning processes and voting, is worthy of a review. We must explore ways to make information, communication and processes more inclusive.

Providing information in a range of formats and clearly explaining processes improves opportunities for civic inclusion for everyone, including people with low literacy, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people with intellectual disabilities and all other communities in between.

But organisations should not rely solely on external resources.

As highlighted by people with intellectual disabilities themselves, inclusive employment represents one of the most important steps forward towards greater social and civic inclusion.

This would not only demonstrate that the contributions of people with disability are valued in their community, but would mean that knowledge and social capital about inclusion can be built from within.

As Justine O’Neill, CEO of Council for Intellectual Disability told us:

Employing people with intellectual disability in roles that support the purpose of the organisation changes attitudes, builds organisational capacity and confidence to be an inclusive employer and results in better informed work.

Phillippa Carnemolla received funding to undertake this research project from the National Disability Insurance Scheme Australia (NDIA) as part of their Information Linkages and Capacity Building Grant Program. Phillippa is also a member of the City of Sydney Inclusion (Disability) Advisory Panel and a Director of the Centre for Universal Design Australia. This story is part of The Conversation’s Breaking the Cycle series, which is about escaping cycles of disadvantage. It is supported by a philanthropic grant from the Paul Ramsay Foundation.

– ref. ‘Don’t shove us off like we’re rubbish’: what people with intellectual disability told us about their local community – https://theconversation.com/dont-shove-us-off-like-were-rubbish-what-people-with-intellectual-disability-told-us-about-their-local-community-179479