Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeremy Edmund Clark, Associate Professor, Department of Economics and Finance, Business School, University of Canterbury

The race by pharmaceutical companies to find effective vaccines for COVID-19 has shone a global spotlight on the trade-offs regulators face in approving new drugs.

Under the system used by drug regulators in the US, Europe and elsewhere, drug companies need only show from clinical trials that new drugs have short-term safety and efficacy in order to gain approval.

So, what happens if something goes wrong longer term?

Specifically, does the market itself punish drug companies when regulators issue warnings about a product’s safety, or withdraw it entirely? Our latest research set out to answer that question.

Warnings after the fact

Companies don’t need to demonstrate a drug’s long-term safety and efficacy. The limited length of clinical trials is allowed in order to keep the cost of developing drugs from being so high that new drugs don’t get developed.

There are also ethical problems with long trials – would you like to spend three years randomly assigned to take a drug you quickly realise is ineffective, or worse?

But our system brings the risk that new drugs can turn out to cause long-term problems undetected at the time of approval – opioid pain killers being a prime example.

Instead, after a drug gets approved, doctors or patients can report “adverse drug events” which regulators can investigate. The regulators may issue a new warning to go on a drug’s label or, in extreme cases, the drug may be withdrawn from the market, as happened with the painkiller Vioxx in 2004.

Regulation versus market signals

New safety warnings can vary in seriousness, with examples in our sample ranging from risk of permanent skin discolouration from certain dermal patches, up to increased risk of potentially fatal heart or liver damage, or suicidal ideation.

In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) therefore further distinguishes between new regular warnings and more serious “boxed” warnings that are urgent enough to be framed and placed at the top of a drug’s information label.

Read more:
The price of a drug should be based on its therapeutic benefits – not just what the market will bear

Do regulators get the balance right between encouraging new drug creation and safeguarding public health from unforeseen problems with newly approved drugs?

The burden would not fall on regulators alone if markets tended to “punish” companies whose drugs turn out to cause longer-term problems. This would create additional market incentives for companies to avoid such outcomes.

So do markets help keep us safe when we take approved drugs?

Testing the market

We first tested how total sales volumes of individual drugs across four broad categories in the US and the UK hospital and retail sectors are affected when each country’s respective regulator issues new safety warnings.

Some of these drugs were sold by only one or two companies, while others were sold by many, but we focused on whether warnings significantly affected total sales of individual drugs.

We included individual drugs across the four drug categories of diabetes, analgesic pain relievers (including opioids), nervous system analeptics for calming (including antipsychotics), and nervous system psychoanaleptic stimulants (including antidepressants).

Read more:
How pharma can build trust in COVID-19 vaccines: Transparency on trials and side-effects

Beyond asking whether warnings affected total sales volumes of individual drugs, we next tested whether they affected the share price of the individual publicly listed companies selling the drug, in the days surrounding the announcement of the safety warning.

Share prices matter because they should capture whether shareholders in the affected company believe the warning will lower its future profits.

Little impact on sales

We followed new warnings, sales and share prices for the US and UK over 12 years, from 2006 to 2017. Across a variety of statistical methods, we found surprisingly little evidence that new safety warnings affect the sales volume of the relevant drugs within our four categories.

The exceptions were in the US (with the UK regulator’s warnings never having a measurable effect on sales in that country). Specifically, if we excluded diabetic drugs, FDA warnings significantly lowered subsequent US sales of the other three drug categories if pooled together, but didn’t significantly lower sales if each broad category of drug was considered separately.

Read more:
COVID vaccine trials were a triumph – now we need a similar system for antibiotics

Similarly, having “at least one new boxed warning” during our sample period significantly lowered US hospital sales volume for all four categories of drug combined, but not significantly for each category separately, and not for US retail sales.

At the extreme, we found having at least ten new FDA warnings, or at least three new FDA boxed warnings, significantly lowered total sales volumes in all categories in both US retail and hospitals.

Share prices unaffected

We found even less evidence that warnings affected drug company share prices. The effects of warnings were small, sensitive to our choice of time span around the warning, and statistically insignificant. The single significant exception used a 25-day time span following warnings issued by the UK regulator.

We conclude that if society judges the problems identified by post-approval warnings to be rare or mild, then perhaps there is no reason to think sales volume or company share price should take a hammering.

The current system might then be doing a good job of balancing the cost of new drug development with safeguarding public health against the risk of unforeseen negative side effects.

But if society does judge the problems being identified in new warnings to be too common or serious, then the balance of our evidence is that markets do not punish companies that sell such drugs.

If the market does not fulfil this function, then, it must fall to regulators alone to insist that pre-approval drug trials be run for longer periods for more patients.

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

– ref. Market immunity? How public safety warnings have little impact on drug sales volumes or company share prices – https://theconversation.com/market-immunity-how-public-safety-warnings-have-little-impact-on-drug-sales-volumes-or-company-share-prices-169459

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Barry, Professor of Philosophy at the ANU, Australian National University

Massive protests unfolded in Glasgow outside the United Nations climate summit last week, with some activists denouncing a proposal to expand the use of a controversial climate action measure to meet net-zero targets: carbon offsetting.

Offsetting refers to reducing emissions or removing carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere in one place to balance emissions made in another. So far, more than 130 countries have committed to the net zero by 2050 goal, but none is proposing to be completely emissions free by that date – all are relying on forms of offsetting.

The use of offsets in meeting climate obligations has been rejected by climate activists as a “scam”. Swedish climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, joining the protesters, claimed relying on buying offsets to cut emissions would give polluters “a free pass to keep polluting”.

Others, however, argue offsetting has a legitimate role to play in our transition to a low-carbon future. A recent report by Australia’s Grattan Institute, for example, claimed that done with integrity, carbon offsets will be crucial to reaching net zero in sectors such as agriculture and aviation, for which full elimination of emissions is infeasible.

So who’s in the right? We think the answer depends on the kind of offsetting that is being employed. Some forms of offsetting can be a legitimate way of helping to reach net zero, while others are morally dubious.

Climate change as a moral issue

The debate over offsetting is part of a key agenda item for COP26 – establishing the rules for global carbon trading, known as Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The trading scheme will allow countries to purchase emissions reductions from overseas to count towards their own climate action.

To examine carbon offsetting in a moral context, we should first remember what makes our contributions to CO₂ emissions morally problematic.

The emissions from human activity increase the risks of climate change-related harms such as dangerous weather events – storms, fires, floods, heatwaves, and droughts – and the prevalence of serious diseases and malnutrition.

The more we humans emit, the more we contribute to global warming, and the greater the risks of harm to the most vulnerable people. Climate change is a moral issue because of the question this invites on behalf of those people:

Why are you adding to global warming, when it risks harming us severely?

Not having a good answer to that question is what makes our contribution to climate change seriously wrong.

The two ways to offset emissions

The moral case in favour of offsetting is it gives us an answer to that question. If we can match our emissions with a corresponding amount of offsetting, then can’t we say we’re making no net addition to global warming, and therefore imposing no risk of harm on anyone?

Well, that depends on what kind of offsetting we’re doing. Offsetting comes in two forms, which are morally quite different.

The first kind of offsetting involves removing CO₂ from the atmosphere. Planting trees or other vegetation is one way of doing this, provided the CO₂ that’s removed does not then re-enter the atmosphere later, for example as a result of deforestation.

Another way would be through the development of negative emissions technologies, which envisage ways to extract CO₂ from the atmosphere and store it permanently.

The second form is offsetting by paying for emissions reduction. This involves ensuring someone else puts less CO₂ into the atmosphere than they otherwise would have. For example, one company might pay another company to reduce its emissions, with the first claiming this reduction as an offset against its own emissions.

Australia’s Clean Energy Regulator issues Australian Carbon Credit Units for “eligible offsets projects”. These include for projects of offsetting by emissions reduction.

The regulator certifies that a company, for example, installing more efficient technology “deliver abatement that is additional to what would occur in the absence of the project”. Another company whose activities send CO₂ into the atmosphere, such as a coal-fired power station, can then buy these credits to offset its emissions.

So what’s the problem?

There is a crucial difference between these two forms of offsetting. When you offset in the first way – taking as much CO₂ out of the atmosphere as you put in – you can indeed say you’re not adding to global warming.

That’s not to say even this form of offsetting is problem-free. It’s crucial such offsets are properly validated and are part of a transition plan to cleaner energy generation compatible with everyone reaching net zero together. Tree-planting cannot be a complete solution, because we could simply run out of places to plant them.

But when you offset in the second way, you cannot say you’re not adding to global warming at all. What you’re doing is paying someone else not to add to global warming, while adding to it yourself.

The difference between the two forms of offsetting is like the difference between a mining company releasing mercury into the groundwater while simultaneously cleaning the water to restore the mercury concentration to safe levels, and a mining company paying another not to release mercury into the groundwater and then doing so itself.

Read more:
We can’t stabilise the climate without carbon offsets – so how do we make them work?

The first can be a legitimate way of negating the risk you impose. The second is a way of imposing risk in someone else’s stead.

Let’s use a few simple analogies to illustrate this further. In morality and law, we cannot justify injuring someone by claiming we had previously paid someone who was about to injure that same person not to do so.

The same is true when it comes to the imposition of risk. If I take a high speed joyride through a heavily populated area, I cannot claim I pose no risk on people nearby simply because I had earlier paid my neighbour not to take a joyride along the same route.

Had I not induced my neighbour not to take the joyride, he would’ve had to answer for the risk he imposed. When I do so in his place, I am the one who must answer for that risk.

Read more:
Take heart at what’s unfolded at COP26 in Glasgow – the world can still hold global heating to 1.5℃

In our desperate attempt to stop the world warming beyond the internationally agreed limit of 1.5℃, we need to encourage whatever reduces the climate impacts of human activity. If selling carbon credits is an effective way to achieve this, we should do it, creating incentives for emissions reductions as well as emissions removals.

What we cannot do is claim that inducing others to reduce emissions gives us a moral license to emit in their place.

Christian Barry receives funding from the Australian Research Council

Garrett Cullity receives funding from the Australian Research Council.

– ref. Big-business greenwash or a climate saviour? Carbon offsets raise tricky moral questions – https://theconversation.com/big-business-greenwash-or-a-climate-saviour-carbon-offsets-raise-tricky-moral-questions-171295

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Hurlimann, Associate Professor in Urban Planning, The University of Melbourne

Cities are responsible for 71-76% of energy-related CO₂ emissions. Today, the United Nations climate summit in Glasgow will convene to discuss this urgent global problem.

Carbon emissions in cities are generated through activities including the construction and operation of buildings, manufacture of building materials such as steel and concrete, and through the movement of people, goods and services.

The sector has been described as the “sleeping giant” of carbon emissions. This includes Australia, where a pre-COVID forecast estimated the population will reach 30 million by 2029 – requiring many more buildings to be constructed this decade and beyond.

Over the next 30 years, lifecycle emissions associated with new homes in Australia are expected to exceed the federal government’s economy-wide net-zero emissions targets. Where we locate new buildings and how they’re built is crucial to reducing emissions and managing our exposure to the impacts of climate change.

Australia’s cities are predominantly coastal, but development is underway in areas we know will face sea level rise. Homes and suburbs are not being built to withstand heatwaves and other climate change threats.

We must take significant and rapid action now to ensure cities play their part in limiting dangerous global warming, so they can cope with the climate challenges ahead.

Read more:
The Great Australian Dream? New homes in planned estates may not be built to withstand heatwaves

What’s happening at COP26?

At COP26 today, national, regional, local governments and the private sector will come together to work towards a zero-emission built environment.

A coalition known as #BuildingToCOP26 aims to halve the built environment’s emissions by 2030. Ahead of COP26, it outlined three goals for the sector. They cover targets to decarbonise buildings, committing to the United Nations’ Race to Zero campaign and adopting shared goals for emissions reductions.

Research consistently shows the clear need to act. Yet our study this year found city planning in Victoria does not sufficiently address climate change.

While Australian states have set goals for emission reductions, these are not yet activated through land use planning and development regulations. We found climate change impacts like sea level rise and urban heat were not sufficiently addressed.

Blind spots like these mean the implications of climate change on our built environment – and on property values – are being mispriced and underestimated.

Without significant, rapid change, society will be further exposed to climate risks.

All of us will bear the cost – through higher council rates to pay for infrastructure damage, rising home and contents insurance costs, and in some cases, being refused any insurance at all. This could devalue your property and put your mortgage at risk.

New Zealand recently made it mandatory for big banks, insurers and firms to disclose their climate risk. This leaves Australia increasingly isolated as a climate laggard and exposed to stranded climate assets (when buildings and properties are worthless due to their climate exposure or lack of insurability).

During extreme weather events, fuelled by climate change, there will be impacts to essential services such as water supply, power, and telecommunications.

These will affect all areas of life – schooling, livelihoods, commercial activities, and retirement plans and funding of them – and the damage is likely to be disproportionately felt by society’s most vulnerable.

Through our super funds, many Australians are investing in properties and businesses that may be exposed to a raft of climate risks, jeopardising our future financial security.

Measures to reduce emissions from the built environment should include a focus on design of buildings and suburbs and active transport options for walking and cycling.

More energy-efficient buildings can reduce emissions and help us adapt to higher temperatures.

Read more:
The Great Australian Dream? New homes in planned estates may not be built to withstand heatwaves

Barriers to climate action in the sector

Without urgent change, Australia’s 2050 goal of reaching net-zero emissions is at risk. Looking at the new homes required to house Australia’s population to 2050, for example, lifecycle emissions generated in construction and operation obliterates the net-zero target. And that doesn’t even account for emissions from the rest of the building sector.

We must rapidly change how we make and implement decisions around urban planning, property, construction and design. We developed a Built Environment Process Map to help with this task.

It describes the fundamental activities involved in producing the built environment. This can help ensure climate change goals are effectively implemented over a city’s life stages and integrated across sectors and actors.

Our research on the Australian property and construction sectors identified barriers to climate change action. They include:

• a lack of clear, trustworthy information for key stakeholders about climate change

• a perception among stakeholders that investing in climate change action when it’s not mandatory will threaten their economic competitiveness

• a lack of a stable regulatory environment, which hampers investor certainty.

Frontrunners in the Australian property and construction sector are not waiting.

Some property and construction firms and local governments are taking progressively more sophisticated approaches to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

But a lack of government regulation is hampering broad-scale action on climate risks, adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Governments must act now

Existing emissions reduction efforts in the industry now need to be supported and mainstreamed through regulatory change. We also urgently need change in the electricity sector to set us on the path of net-zero emissions.

We can’t afford decisions today that lock in further greenhouse gas emissions.

What happens this week in the COP26 is crucial if we are to work towards a zero-emissions built environment, and achieve the critical goal of limiting warming to 1.5℃ this century.

Read more:
Buildings produce 25% of Australia’s emissions. What will it take to make them ‘green’ – and who’ll pay?

Anna Hurlimann receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Discovery Grant DP200101378); from a University of Melbourne Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning Research Development Grant; and a Brookfield Multiplex Construction Innovation Grant.

Georgia Warren-Myers receives funding from Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the Australian Property Institute, the Investor Group on Climate Change, Australian Business Roundtable – Resilience Valuation Initiative, Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council, Green Building Council – Homes Advisory Panel, Residential Efficiency Scorecard Program Advisory Group.

Judy Bush receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Discovery Grant DP200101378), and the University of Melbourne: Faculty of Architecture Building and Planning Research Development Grant.

– ref. COP26: cities create over 70% of energy-related emissions. Here’s what must change – https://theconversation.com/cop26-cities-create-over-70-of-energy-related-emissions-heres-what-must-change-171307

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Maria Corkin, PhD candidate, University of Auckland

The possibility that screen time during early childhood could cause poorer attention later in a child’s life is a major concern for both parents and researchers.

Earlier studies have suggested links between preschoolers’ screen time and difficulties with attention.

But there is by no means consensus among the research community that such a relationship exists, and there have been conflicting results.

Two studies based on data from the Growing Up in New Zealand (GUiNZ) longitudinal cohort study may shed some new light on the issue, in the context of interactive media on offer for young children today.

The first study examined whether exceeding two hours of screen time per day for children aged two and almost four predicted symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity at four and a half years.

We used the Goodman’s Strengths and Difficulties questionnaire to measure symptoms and found no association between higher levels of screen time and more symptoms.

A second study investigated the correlation between screen time and symptoms of inattention or hyperactivity for children at the age of four and a half.

Here, screen time and symptoms were measured at the same point in time, in contrast to the longitudinal approach of the first study. We found a significant association between more symptoms and higher levels of screen time.

These two findings suggest there is no causal link between screen time and symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity. But instead, parents of children displaying more of these symptoms may allow more screen time.

Read more:
A new study sounds like good news about screen time and kids’ health. So does it mean we can all stop worrying?

Potential explanations for longer screen time

Several factors may be at play, and one is the child’s preference. Most children enjoy screen time. For children with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), for instance, peer interactions are often difficult, and screen time may provide a more enjoyable and less stressful alternative.

Children with attention problems could find it hard to concentrate for long periods on pastimes such as reading a book. Screen time, with its bright colours and action, may capture their attention and keep them interested.

Children with symptoms of inattention or hyperactivity are typically very active and impulsive and parents may find screen time can help settle and occupy their child for a while. It can also be something that parents and children enjoy doing together.

Much of the past research into the potential effects of screen time on children’s attention has found associations between higher levels of screen time and poorer attention or other symptoms of ADHD.

Our findings don’t imply these past findings have been incorrect, as most of this research has focused on television. The media landscape preschool children engage with today has changed considerably.

Read more:
Stop worrying about screen ‘time’. It’s your child’s screen experience that matters

Newer screen technologies have been introduced and, arguably, a higher quality of screen time is now possible. For instance, one researcher argues that the features of modern touchscreen devices allow children to interact with them in ways similar to traditional toys, providing children with some of the benefits of traditional play when engaging with digital devices.

Our findings highlight the importance of considering the changing nature of children’s screen time in future research into the potential effects on childrens’ development.

Takeaway ideas

It is important to remember our results do not rule out the possibility that very high levels of screen time or certain types of screen time could have immediate effects on children’s attentional functions. Nor do our results suggest consistently high levels of screen time are harmless.

On the basis of my research, I advise parents to use their judgement about how much screen time is appropriate for their child, and how much may be excessive.

The children in our sample were preschool children (aged 2-4.5). Ministry of Health guidelines recommend less than an hour of screen time per day for this age group. We think this is about right for children this young.

However, in COVID times, when parents are being parents, teachers and employees all at once, it’s understandable that they may sometimes allow their children more screen time.

Our results may be reassuring to parents because they suggest that if preschool children end up having more than two hours of screen time per day while under COVID restrictions, this will not lead to long-term attention problems or ADHD.

I worked at Growing Up in New Zealand.

– ref. Studies suggest no causal link between young children’s screen time and later symptoms of inattention and hyperactivity – https://theconversation.com/studies-suggest-no-causal-link-between-young-childrens-screen-time-and-later-symptoms-of-inattention-and-hyperactivity-169943

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Grant, Lecturer in Soil Science, Southern Cross University

Alongside advances in space exploration, we’ve recently seen much time and money invested into technologies that could allow effective space resource utilisation. And at the forefront of these efforts has been a laser-sharp focus on finding the best way to produce oxygen on the Moon.

In October, the Australian Space Agency and NASA signed a deal to send an Australian-made rover to the Moon under the Artemis program, with a goal to collect lunar rocks that could ultimately provide breathable oxygen on the Moon.

Although the Moon does have an atmosphere, it’s very thin and composed mostly of hydrogen, neon and argon. It’s not the sort of gaseous mixture that could sustain oxygen-dependent mammals such as humans.

That said, there is actually plenty of oxygen on the Moon. It just isn’t in a gaseous form. Instead it’s trapped inside regolith — the layer of rock and fine dust that covers the Moon’s surface. If we could extract oxygen from regolith, would it be enough to support human life on the Moon?

The breadth of oxygen

Oxygen can be found in many of the minerals in the ground around us. And the Moon is mostly made of the same rocks you’ll find on Earth (although with a slightly greater amount of material that came from meteors).

Minerals such as silica, aluminium, and iron and magnesium oxides dominate the Moon’s landscape. All of these minerals contain oxygen, but not in a form our lungs can access.

On the Moon these minerals exist in a few different forms including hard rock, dust, gravel and stones covering the surface. This material was resulted from the impacts of meteorites crashing into the lunar surface over countless millennia.

Some people call the Moon’s surface layer lunar “soil”, but as a soil scientist I’m hesitant to use this term. Soil as we know it is pretty magical stuff that only occurs on Earth. It has been created by a vast array of organisms working on the soil’s parent material — regolith, derived from hard rock — over millions of years.

The result is a matrix of minerals which were not present in the original rocks. Earth’s soil is imbued with remarkable physical, chemical and biological characteristics. Meanwhile, the materials on the Moon’s surface is basically regolith in its original, untouched form.

One substance goes in, two come out

The Moon’s regolith is made up of approximately 45% oxygen. But that oxygen is tightly bound into the minerals mentioned above. In order to break apart those strong bonds, we need to put in energy.

You might be familiar with this if you know about electrolysis. On Earth this process is commonly used in manufacturing, such as to produce aluminium. An electrical current is passed through a liquid form of aluminium oxide (commonly called alumina) via electrodes, to separate the aluminium from the oxygen.

In this case, the oxygen is produced as a byproduct. On the Moon, the oxygen would be the main product and the aluminium (or other metal) extracted would be a potentially useful byproduct.

It’s a pretty straightforward process, but there is a catch: it’s very energy hungry. To be sustainable, it would need to be supported by solar energy or other energy sources available on the Moon.

Extracting oxygen from regolith would also require substantial industrial equipment. We’d need to first convert solid metal oxide into liquid form, either by applying heat, or heat combined with solvents or electrolytes. We have the technology to do this on Earth, but moving this apparatus to the Moon – and generating enough energy to run it – will be a mighty challenge.

Earlier this year, Belgium-based startup Space Applications Services announced it was building three experimental reactors to improve the process of making oxygen via electrolysis. They expect to send the technology to the Moon by 2025 as part of the European Space Agency’s in-situ resource utilisation (ISRU) mission.

How much oxygen could the Moon provide?

That said, when we do manage to pull it off, how much oxygen might the Moon actually deliver? Well, quite a lot as it turns out.

If we ignore oxygen tied up in the Moon’s deeper hard rock material — and just consider regolith which is easily accessible on the surface — we can come up with some estimates.

Each cubic metre of lunar regolith contains 1.4 tonnes of minerals on average, including about 630 kilograms of oxygen. NASA says humans need to breathe about 800 grams of oxygen a day to survive. So 630kg oxygen would keep a person alive for about two years (or just over).

Now let’s assume the average depth of regolith on the Moon is about ten metres, and that we can extract all of the oxygen from this. That means the top ten metres of the Moon’s surface would provide enough oxygen to support all eight billion people on Earth for somewhere around 100,000 years.

This would also depend on how effectively we managed to extract and use the oxygen. Regardless, this figure is pretty amazing!

Having said that, we do have it pretty good here on Earth. And we should do everything we can to protect the blue planet — and its soil in particular — which continues to support all terrestrial life without us even trying.

John Grant is affiliated with the human race and as such he has a vested interest in maintaining their ongoing existence. He, therefore, tends to advocate for planet earth, the natural home of the human race. He also has strong feelings for soil which plays a critical role in earth’s ecosystems and which has nurtured the emotional, physical, and spiritual health of human beings since their first beginnings.

– ref. The Moon’s top layer alone has enough oxygen to sustain 8 billion people for 100,000 years – https://theconversation.com/the-moons-top-layer-alone-has-enough-oxygen-to-sustain-8-billion-people-for-100-000-years-170013

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Sciberras, Associate Professor, Deakin University

The COP26 climate change conference in Glasgow is drawing to a close. And despite high hopes, many young people may be feeling disappointed with the progress at these landmark talks.

They may be feeling anxious about their future, considering they’ll be bearing the brunt of the impact of decisions made over the past two weeks.

Our soon-to-be published research in the journal Child and Adolescent Mental Health shows most young people in Australia are concerned about climate change.

But that’s not necessarily a problem. For some, a growing concern can motivate them to take action.

There’s a word for this concern – eco-anxiety

Eco-anxiety relates to worry and despair about climate change. Connected terms include “ecological grief”, which reflects grief related to ecological loss. People can also experience emotions such as fear, guilt and anger about climate change.

We know adults experience these types of climate-related emotions.

Read more:
Feel alone in your eco-anxiety? Don’t – it’s remarkably common to feel dread about environmental decline

However, understanding young people’s views about climate change is important as they are more likely to be alive to experience its worst potential effects.

Young people have also had a prominent role in climate activism, including the School Strike 4 Climate movement involving millions of young people around the world.

Given the level of young people’s worry or concern about climate change we identified in our study, we may see their views becoming more influential as they reach voting age.

Listening to these climate change concerns is vital. However, only 13% of young people in Australia feel government leaders are listening to them.

We asked young people about climate change

In our study, we tracked concern and worrying about climate change in more than 2,200 Australian young people over a period of eight years. At the start of the study, participants were aged 10-11, so by the end, they were 18-19 years old.

At 18-19 years of age, most young people (75%) had at least some concern or worry about climate change. But we also identified different patterns of climate worry over time.

About half had increasing or had maintained moderate levels of worry over time. A total of 13% maintained high levels of worry over the eight years we tracked them.

But 17% had persistently low levels of worry. Some young people became less worried over time.

Read more:
Greta Thunberg emerged from five decades of environmental youth activism in Sweden

Compared to those who were moderately worried, adolescents with high levels of persistent climate worry had higher depression symptoms at age 18-19. However, those who increased their climate-related worry over time did not.

This suggests developing an awareness and concern for the environment was not associated with general mental health difficulties.

Those with persistently high and increasing levels of climate worry had greater engagement with politics and news at 18-19 years.

There are some positives

Some level of worry and anxiety is normal. Anxiety can play an important role in protecting ourselves from danger and threat.

Some worry may also motivate people to engage in constructive responses to climate change.

Although we did not specifically examine activism in our study, previous studies show climate worry is associated with greater feelings of personal responsibility to make changes to reduce the impacts of climate change.

However, anxiety can become a problem when it preoccupies us, leads us to avoid the thing that makes us anxious, gets in the way of daily life or stops us from doing the things we want to do.

Our study shows that for most young people, climate worry is not associated with general mental health difficulties.

However we don’t yet know the relationship between climate-related worry and mental health difficulties in younger children, as our study only looked at mental health outcomes at age 18-19.

Read more:
The rise of ‘eco-anxiety’: climate change affects our mental health, too

What if your concerns are overwhelming?

Open communication about climate-related worry is essential. Parents play an important role and can talk with their children about these issues and listen to and validate their concerns.

Worrying about the environment is rational and grounded in reality, as we are increasingly seeing the impacts of climate change around us.

It’s OK for young people to feel worried. And we shouldn’t assume these worries are unproductive or necessarily associated with broader mental health difficulties.

Acknowledging and validating feelings is key, and supporting young people to engage in activities to take action, if they want to, may help.

Reassuringly, most young people in our study were not presenting with levels of worry that would warrant further assessment or treatment.

Read more:
Treating a child’s mental illness sometimes means getting the whole family involved

Where to go for support

If young people (and their parents) want additional support, seeing a GP is a good first step. Young people can also visit specialist youth mental health services such as headspace.

A psychologist or other mental health professional can help young people develop ways of coping with and managing their worries.

If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Emma Sciberras receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Medical Research Future Fund, veski, and the Waterloo Foundation.

Julian Fernando 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. Yes, young people are concerned about climate change. But it can drive them to take action – https://theconversation.com/yes-young-people-are-concerned-about-climate-change-but-it-can-drive-them-to-take-action-171300

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

Greta Thunberg has already pronounced the COP26 climate conference a failure. In important respects, the Swedish activist is correct.

The commitments made at the conference are insufficient to hold global heating to 1.5℃ this century. Leading producers and users of coal, including Australia, rejected a proposed agreement to end the use of coal in electricity generation by 2030. The Australian government went further and refused to commit to reducing methane emissions – a position endorsed by the Labor opposition.

And the rapid economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic has produced an equally rapid recovery in demand for all forms of energy, resulting in spikes in the prices of coal, oil and gas.

On the other hand, considered over a longer term, the outcomes of the Glasgow conference look rather better.

At the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009, participants agreed to aim at holding global heating below 2℃ this century, but did not deliver policy commitments to achieve this goal. The scenarios considered most plausible at the time yielded estimated heating of around 3℃.

The worst-case scenario, commonly described as “business as usual”, implied a catastrophic increase of up to 6℃ in global temperatures by 2100. As a result of all this, the Copenhagen talks were considered a spectacular failure.

But heading into the final days of the Glasgow summit, the goal of limiting heating below 2℃ looks attainable, and 1.5℃ is still possible. Despite the inevitable disappointments in the decade or so since Copenhagen, there is still room for hope.

1.5℃ to stay alive

Ahead of COP26, commitments by each nation had the world on track for 2.7℃ warming this century.

The ten days of the talks so far, however, have yielded new binding commitments. According to one analysis, the commitments put the world on a trajectory to 2.4℃ warming. This assessment is based on current submitted climate pledges by each country, known as nationally determined contributions or NDCs, together with legally binding net-zero commitments.

When we account for additional pledges announced – but not yet formalised – by the G20 countries, the projected temperature rise this century lowers to to 2.1℃, according to analysis by Climate Action Tracker released in September.

So that’s the good news. And of course, those optimistic trajectories assume all pledges are fully implemented.

It has become clear, however, that even 2℃ of global heating would be environmentally disastrous.

Read more:
The fate of our planet depends on the next few days of complex diplomacy in Glasgow. Here’s what needs to go right

Even under the current 1.1℃ of warming since the beginning of large-scale greenhouse gas emissions, Earth has experienced severe impacts such as devastating bushfires, coral bleaching and extreme heatwaves resulting in thousands of human deaths. Such events will only become more frequent and intense as Earth warms further.

This underscores the vital importance of urgently pursuing the 1.5℃ goal. It is, quite literally, a matter of life and death for both vulnerable human populations and for natural ecosystems.

The idea of a target of 1.5℃, supported by many developing countries, was rejected out of hand by major countries at the Copenhagen conference.

The Paris conference in 2015 marked an important, but still partial move towards the 1.5℃ goal. There, nations agreed on a goal to hold global average temperature rise to well below 2℃ above pre-industrial levels, while pursuing efforts to limit the increase to 1.5℃.

We’re yet to see the final communique from Glasgow, and every word in it will doubtless be subject to lengthy negotiation. But it’s almost certain to include a strengthening of the language of the Paris Agreement, hopefully with a formal commitment that warming will be held to 1.5℃.

Reason for hope

As with previous conferences, policy commitments at Glasgow will be insufficient to reach the 1.5℃ target. Most notably, the commitment to reduce methane emissions is, at this stage, merely an aspiration with no concrete policies attached.

And as analysis released on Tuesday found, real-world action is falling far short despite all the net-zero promises. If that “snail’s pace” continues, a temperature rise of 2.4℃, or even 2.7℃, remains a distinct possibility.

But the technologies and policies needed to hold warming to 1.5℃ are now available to us. And they can be implemented without condemning developing countries to poverty or requiring a reduction in living standards for wealthier countries.

The fact we have these options reflects both remarkable technological progress and the success of policies around the world, including emissions trading schemes and renewable energy mandates.

Thanks largely to government support, advances in solar and wind technology kicked off in the early 2000s. This ultimately pushed the cost of carbon-free electricity below that of new coal-fired and gas-fired plants.

The biggest impact was felt in the European Union, where carbon prices and emissions trading drove a rapid transition. The EU has a clear path to the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.

The most important requirement is to accelerate the transition to carbon-free electricity. This involves rapidly expanding solar and wind energy and replacing petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles with electric alternatives.

These changes would incur a one-off cost in scrapping existing power plants and vehicles before the end of their operational life, but would reduce energy and transport costs in the long run.

Other important steps are already beginning. They include reducing methane emissions, and adopting carbon-free production methods for steel, cement and other industrial products. Hydrogen produced from water by electrolysis will be crucial here.

There is no guarantee these outcomes will be achieved. The leading national emitters – China, India and the United States – have all been inconsistent in their pursuit of stabilising Earth’s climate.

China is currently wavering as economic difficulties mount. In the US, Donald Trump has not ruled out a presidential bid in 2024 which, if successful, would almost certainly reverse progress there.

Global action on climate change is still not nearly enough, but we’re undeniably moving in the right direction. By the time of the next major COP, presumably in 2026, Earth could finally be on a path to a stable climate.

Read more:
Scott Morrison is hiding behind future technologies, when we should just deploy what already exists

John Quiggin is a former member of the Climate Change Authority

– ref. Take heart at what’s unfolded at COP26 in Glasgow – the world can still hold global heating to 1.5℃ – https://theconversation.com/take-heart-at-whats-unfolded-at-cop26-in-glasgow-the-world-can-still-hold-global-heating-to-1-5-171488

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Norton, Professor in the Practice of Higher Education Policy, Australian National University

Every year in Australia school leavers suffer ATAR anxiety, worrying about whether they will get into their preferred course and university. New research by the Commonwealth Department of Education, using Australian Taxation Office earnings data, examines in detail how much difference what a person studies, and where, makes to their future income.

It finds students’ course choices matter more than their choice of university. Qualifications in some fields of study lead to much higher incomes nine years after graduation. Which university a student attends has little influence on short-term graduate earnings, but differences emerge over time.

Read more:
Let’s not focus on graduate incomes when assessing the worth of education

Why might graduates of some universities earn more?

We would expect some university effect on earnings. Universities vary in their teaching quality, at least as measured by student satisfaction. In theory, those whose graduates learn more could expect labour market rewards.

Whether justified by objective learning gains or not, some universities are better known and more prestigious than others. This could influence employers when choosing between job applicants.

And some universities, especially those with many full-time and on-campus undergraduates, offer greater networking opportunities. The people met at university could open up employment and business opportunities.

Why might graduates of some courses earn more?

Previous research shows graduate earnings vary greatly according to a degree’s field of education.

Some degrees are entry points to specific occupations. The pay for those jobs is a major influence on graduate earnings. Other degrees provide more general skills that are valued to a greater or lesser extent in the labour market.

These differences reflect market conditions, occupational regulation and political decisions more than how good either the university or the graduate might be. University and graduate factors can influence who gets hired and promoted, but job markets set the salary range.

Read more:
Want to improve your chances of getting a full-time job? A double degree can do that

What do the department’s results show?

The Department of Education’s graduate income report and accompanying spreadsheets show earnings at various time points after graduation. I will mainly discuss the medium-term results, as at 2017-18 for people who graduated in the late 2000s.

As the chart shows, bachelor degree earnings differ significantly by the field of study nine years after graduation. At the high end, half of medical graduates reported annual incomes of A$149,500 or more (the median). A quarter earned $206,900 or more (the 75th percentile). The equivalent figures for performing arts were $53,000 and $80,300.

The overall results (including fields not shown here) were a median of $77,100 and a 75th percentile of $102,600.

The department’s statistical analysis shows substantial course differences persist after taking into account university attended and personal characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic background and ATAR. For example, compared to business and management graduates, law and engineering graduates earn an extra $11,000 a year.

Much of the apparent variation in earnings between universities reflects differences in enrolment patterns. For example, universities with more graduates in high-paying fields such as medicine, law and engineering end up with higher median earnings than universities that focus on teaching or nursing.

Read more:
Think our unis are all much the same? Look more closely and you will find diversity

The department’s analysis does show, however, that a decade after leaving university Group of Eight (Go8) graduates earn about $4,300 a year more than others from a comparison group of universities. Australian Technology Network (ATN) university graduates also earn more than non-Go8 graduates. These findings take into account course taken and personal characteristics such as gender, socioeconomic background and ATAR.

Does this change our understanding of graduate outcomes?

These findings confirm general patterns observed in previous research. They do so in ways that give us more confidence in earlier results.

Several studies have found either no or a small Go8 salary advantage for new graduates, after taking into account other factors known to influence graduate pay. The short-term results (one to two years after graduation) using ATO data also report no such advantage.

These findings count against strong prestige effects. If there were such effects, we would expect these to be greatest early in graduates’ careers, before they have had a chance to demonstrate their quality to employers.

Before now, longer-term earnings by university have been very difficult to analyse. Few data sources record both income and university attended more than three years after graduation.

The main exception has been the HILDA survey. Its data were used in a study I co-authored at the Grattan Institute in 2014 and a later one by Curtin University researchers.

Both these studies found small university and larger course effects on income. The Grattan paper also found Go8 and ATN graduates doing slightly better. The Curtin paper found an earnings disadvantage for regional university graduates, with other university grouping differences not statistically significant.

Read more:
How does your choice of university affect your future?

At the time of the Grattan paper there was some surprise that the university differences were not larger. Given the modest number of graduates in the HILDA sample, including people who finished university at many different times, its findings needed to be checked using other data sources.

The Department of Education’s analysis includes most graduates who finished in the same year. It both provides a much larger sample and lets us compare people at similar points in their career who faced common economic conditions. The strong parallels between the HILDA and ATO-based findings give us confidence the conclusions are right.

Read more:
Surveys are not the best way to measure the performance of Australian universities

Caveats and suggestions

While a significant step forward, the ATO data source has some weaknesses. It relies on students borrowing under the HELP loan scheme to create the link between tax file numbers and enrolment records. The analysis excludes international students and domestic students who paid their fees up-front.

For future work using the ATO data I suggest looking at the effects of local labour markets. After taking into account courses taken and student characteristics, most of the universities showing earnings premiums are in NSW or the ACT.

Have universities there found a special strategy for improving graduate outcomes? Or are there simply more well-paid jobs in Sydney and Canberra? With the Grattan and Curtin papers both finding a NSW premium, the second explanation looks most plausible.

Will student choices change?

The ATO data show significant differences in earnings by course taken, but this is already well-known and probably won’t change students’ course choices. Student interests primarily shape these choices.

Within a prospective student’s range of interests, labour market prospects affect choices, but job availability is the main driver of shifts in applications. Nursing, which recorded a big increase in applications for 2021, may not lead to high salaries but is a reliable source of flexible employment.

On university choice, the main message is that earnings should only be a small factor in students’ decision-making. University attended explains only a small proportion of all the variation in graduate income.

A degree from a Go8 university is not going to open many doors that would otherwise be closed. A wide range of personal, occupational, firm, industry and broader economic factors influence long-term earnings.

Andrew Norton has worked on projects funded by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment that include analysis of post-school outcomes.

– ref. Students’ choice of university has no effect on new graduate pay, and a small impact later on. What they study matters more – https://theconversation.com/students-choice-of-university-has-no-effect-on-new-graduate-pay-and-a-small-impact-later-on-what-they-study-matters-more-171491

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society and NATSEM, University of Canberra

As it hits new highs, there is no shortage of bold predictions about Bitcoin reaching US$100,000 or more.

Often these are based on not much more than extrapolations by people with vested interests: the price has gone up a lot so it will keep going up. If it gets above its previous high, it must keep going up.

There is also “charting” or “technical analysis” – looking at graphs and seeing patterns in them. There may be fancy terms such as “resistance levels” and “Tenkan-Sen”. There is talk about “fundamentals”.

Let’s examine this last idea. Does Bitcoin have a fundamental value?

Calculating fundamental values

A fundamental value in traditional financial-speak means a value based on what return (or cash flow) is generated by an asset. Think of an apple tree. To an investor its fundamental value is in the apples it produces.

In the case of company shares, the fundamental value is the dividend paid from profits. A standard measure used by investors is the price-to-earnings ratio. In property, the fundamental value reflects the rent the investor earns (or the owner-occupier saves). For a bond, the value depends on the interest it pays.

Gold has a fundamental value also, based on its use for jewellery or dental fillings or in electronics. But this value is not why most people buy gold.

Fundamentals for cryptocurrencies

National currencies are different. Their value is in being a trusted and accepted unit of exchange.

In the past coins made with gold and silver had a fundamental value because they could be melted down for their precious metals. That’s no longer the case with fiat currencies, whose value depends solely on people trusting that others accept them at face value.

Most cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin, Ethereum and Dogecoin are essentially private fiat currencies. They have no corresponding assets or returns. This makes it hard to determine a fundamental value.

In September analysts with Britain’s Standard Chartered Bank argued Bitcoin could peak at about US$100,000 by the end of 2021. “As a medium of exchange, Bitcoin may become the dominant peer-to-peer payment method for the global unbanked in a future cashless world,” said the head of the bank’s crypto research team, Geoffrey Kendrick (a former Australian Treasury official).

Read more:
What is an ETF? And why is it driving Bitcoin back to record high prices?

Theoretically this could be possible. Globally an estimated 1.7 billion people lack access to banking services. But Bitcoin has been spruiked as the future of payments since its invention in 2008. It has made little progress.

There are at least two significant barriers. First is the computational grunt needed to process payments. Technology may overcome this. The second obstacle is harder: the volatility of its price.

Digital currencies that can maintain a stable value are more likely to become payment instruments. These include the existing stablecoins, Meta’s mooted Diem and central bank digital currencies, already operational in some Caribbean economies.

So far the only significant company to have accepted payments in Bitcoin is Tesla, which announced this policy in March only to reverse it in May.

The only country to adopt Bitcoin as an approved currency is El Salvador (which also uses the US dollar). But it is far from clear what benefits there are. The laws forcing businesses to accept the cryptocurrency have also led to protests.

Read more:
Can Bitcoin become a real currency? Here’s what’s wrong with El Salvador’s crypto plan

Bitcoin as digital gold

If Bitcoin has no real value as a widespread means of payment, what about as a store of value, like digital gold? It does have this advantage over most of the “altcoins”. Its supply, like gold, is (arguably) limited.

One tool used by crypto enthusiasts to compare Bitcoin’s scarcity with gold is called the “stock-to-flow” model. This approach claims gold holds its value because the existing stock of gold is 60 times more than the amount of new gold mined each year. The stock of Bitcoin is more than 50 times than the new coins “mined” annually.

But this does not explain why Bitcoin’s price halved earlier this year. Nor does it have any theoretical basis in economics: prices don’t depend just on supply.

Read more:
In gold we trust: why bullion is still a safe haven in times of crisis

Some Bitcoin promoters predict higher prices on the assumption funds managers will eventually invest an abritrary proportion, say 5%, of their funds in Bitcoin.

But such predictions implicitly assume Bitcoin, as the largest and best-known cryptocurrency, will continue to maintain its dominant position in the crypto market. This is not guaranteed. And there is no limit to the number of cryptocurrency alternatives.

Remember Bankcard? This credit card company once had 90% of the Australian market in the early 1980s. It was defunct by 2006. What about MySpace? Before 2008 it was a bigger social networking site than Facebook.

Here we go again

In September The Economist argued Bitcoin “is now a distraction” to the future of decentralised finance, with rival blockchain cryptocurrency Ethereum “reaching critical mass”.

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

There are parallels between the Bitcoin bubble and the dotcom bubble of 2000, driven by overly optimistic assumptions about new technologies – and human greed.

Just as a few stars such as Amazon emerged from the wreckage of the dot.com bubble, so it is possible some applications of the block-chain technology underlying Bitcoin have enduring utility. But I doubt Bitcoin will be one of them.

John Hawkins formerly worked in two central banks and for the Bank for International Settlements.

– ref. What is Bitcoin’s fundamental value? That’s a good question – https://theconversation.com/what-is-bitcoins-fundamental-value-thats-a-good-question-171387

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Debra Dudek, Associate professor, Edith Cowan University

Netflix’s comedy Sex Education, now in its third season, is set among a group of students and teachers at a British high school. In depicting sex education, it teaches viewers about sex and sexuality – often doing a better job than school-based sex ed classes.

In the first episode of season three, Dr Jean Milburn (Gillian Anderson) is interviewed on the radio about her new book, Uneducated Nation: A Sex Education Manifesto for Our Youth.

When the host asks her to tell him about the book, she replies she was “shocked at the ineptitude” of school sex ed classes. So she created

this easy-to-read manual to help empower our teenagers, and their parents, as they become sexually active young adults.

He responds, “Sounds a bit racy”. Jean retorts,

Well, if, by racy, you mean highly researched and completely essential to the health and well-being of our children, then, yes, I suppose it is.

Jean’s response could easily be applied to the television series itself – racy but essential. It could also be seen as a comment about how school-based sexual education programs could improve their communication of relevant information to curious teenagers.

We are part of an international research team working with scholars from Greece, Ireland and Norway to interview adolescents and their parents about their perceptions of harm in accessing sexual content.

As researchers with expertise in the fields of sexology, communication and media studies, we value the knowledge young people share about their own needs and desires.

Our research with teens – and into stories that represent their experiences – illustrates they are sexual beings who want and deserve sex-positive information. Too often, this positive side of sex is left out of the classroom.

Read more:
‘I always get horny … am I not normal?’: teenage girls often feel shame about pleasure. Sex education needs to address this

Sexually provocative, but educational

Sex Education is one example of how stories in popular culture can portray teen sexuality positively.

For instance, the opening scene of this first episode of season three is upbeat, playful and sexy.

It cuts between at least 13 different moments of sexual pleasure: heterosexual sex, gay sex between young men, gay role-playing sex between young women, masturbating while watching porn, online sex, virtual reality sex – and the pleasure of reading a book while eating cheese puffs.

This sequence is sexually provocative, but it also educational. It shows a range of desires across ages (yes, teachers and parents have sex, too), races, sexualities and body sizes.

There are none of the messages about abstinence and fear often associated with representations of teen sex, and no coy curtain-wafting standing in for sex.

Read more:
Relationships and sex education is now mandatory in English schools – Australia should do the same

The premise of the show is the teenagers at Moordale High do not receive adequate sex education classes, so Jean’s son Otis (Asa Butterfield) and his classmate Maeve (Emma Mackey) set up a sex therapy service for their peers.

These young people seek information about how to overcome sexual difficulties and become better lovers. They find (usually) correct – and always frank – information from Otis and Maeve, who offer resources and advice.

Teenagers and porn

As we argue in a recent essay, this TV show complicates the idea that pornography is only harmful to teens.

Watching porn can be “a bit of fun”, to quote one character, but also a source of misinformation about sex. Sex Education debunks this misinformation, such as when one character mistakenly believes a large penis is required for sexual satisfaction, and another thinks her labia should be tucked in.

Teenagers as consumers and producers of pornographic and erotic narratives can use these stories, and the stories in Sex Education, to develop an understanding of sex and sexuality and supplement the information provided in school curriculum.

This seeming contradiction about pornography aligns with a report written by the Australian Institute of Family Studies about the effects of porn on young people.

This report highlights the lack of information about how young people access sexual content (unintentionally or intentionally); about the content of pornography they view; and about teenagers’ ability to distinguish between the fantasy pornography represents and the reality of their sexual experiences.

Read more:
Sexuality education can counter what kids learn from porn, but some teachers fear backlash when tackling ‘risky’ topics

The report also found very few accounts from teens themselves about their experiences accessing sexual content online and any perceived harm from it. It points to a need for further research, which includes the voices of adolescents.

Teaching pleasure

Dr Jacqui Hendriks, who coordinates Curtin University’s sexology courses, believes sex ed should include discussions of pleasure rather than focusing primarily on reproduction.

At present, the quality of sex education varies widely across the nation, but in Western Australia, a group of researchers have identified the “need for a greater focus on positive sexuality and relevant contemporary issues” in the classroom.

Sex Education challenges a commonly-held perception teenagers should be protected from the harms of sex and sexual material. The stories told by teens and about teens can be crucial tools to open conversations between children and adults about sex.

The conversation started by shows like Sex Education highlights the need for more comprehensive sexual education not only in schools but in communities and in the family home itself.

Debra Dudek receives funding from the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP190102435). The views expressed herein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Australian Government or the Australian Research Council.

Giselle Natassia Woodley and this project receive funding from Australian Research Council

– ref. Netflix’s Sex Education is doing sex education better than most schools – https://theconversation.com/netflixs-sex-education-is-doing-sex-education-better-than-most-schools-170776

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra Hansen, Deputy Editor and Chief of Staff, The Conversation

To celebrate the launch of The Conversation’s tenth anniversary collection No you’re not entitled to your opinion, and 49 other essays that got the world talking, Chief Political Correspondent Michelle Grattan and Business and Economy Editor Peter Martin joined Dr Caroline Fisher from The University of Canberra to discuss the year that’s been, and take an expert punt at what lies ahead for 2022.

You can watch the book launch below, and pick up a copy here.

– ref. Michelle Grattan and Peter Martin launch The Conversation’s 10th anniversary book in Canberra – https://theconversation.com/michelle-grattan-and-peter-martin-launch-the-conversations-10th-anniversary-book-in-canberra-171598

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Patrick Hesp, Professor, Flinders University

Sun, surf, sand, sea – and public sex with strangers. These five S’s are a key part of tourism in the Canary Islands, a Spanish archipelago west of Morocco. Unfortunately, what’s fun for humans can be bad for wildlife.

Our new research, released yesterday, found public sex – known as “cruising” – in the Canary Islands is leading to significant degradation of the Dunes of Maspalomas, one of Europe’s last naturally functioning transgressive dune fields (in other words, they move around).

These semi-vegetated and mobile dunes are one of the most popular sightseeing spots on Gran Canaria island, and are legally protected as a nature reserve. Unfortunately, they are being loved to death.

We studied almost 300 sex spots across the vegetated section of these dunes, and found damage to 10 plant species, including three endemic to dune areas.

When plants suffer, so do the animals and reptiles, with rare lizards and endemic plant species notably impacted.

We’re not calling for an end to public sex – but we do want people to be aware of the damage it can do.

Sex in the Canary Islands

Before COVID, the Canary Islands was attracting up to 14 million tourists a year. Around 15% of tourists are men drawn to the gay-friendly beach resorts, with the area also popular for lesbians and heterosexual swingers. Those interested in casual sex are likely to venture into the coastal dunes, seeking privacy and partners.

The impact of these visitors is, unfortunately, large and growing. We found around 5,800 square metres of the dunes has been totally altered by people seeking sex. These impacts have made it impossible for the area to be used as an environmental education centre for students.

Dumped cigarette butts and condoms have become a major problem, as has removal of vegetation to make “nests”, sites for sex, and destruction due to trampling and track creation.

While there are sand-only dunes known as the little Sahara nearby, we found these are far less popular for sex spots compared to the vegetated dunes, which are home to more wildlife. And interestingly, the building of resorts nearby has changed the way the dunes move, and allowed more vegetation to grow in these areas. This, in turn, may have made cruising more popular.

Read more:
How the histories of Mardi Gras and gay tourism in Australia are intertwined

So what’s the damage?

Sex on the beach as an isolated activity is unlikely to damage the environment. The issue starts when a dune area becomes popular for cruising (casual sex) and attracts hundreds of people a day. It’s similar to the impact of 4WD driving, which may have a relatively low impact on dune ecosystems if vehicle numbers are low, but leads to major erosion and habitat destruction when vehicle numbers are high.

We found public sex was particularly damaging to the local nebkhas, the term for discrete dune hummocks covered in plants. That’s because people have trampled many paths through the vegetation, as well as cutting branches off trees and shrubs to make a semi-private space.

The rare plants are the first ones to disappear. Soon, you lose connectivity for animals. A lizard has to run from one vegetated patch to another, making them more exposed to predators. The whole ecosystem starts to fragment into isolated islands, which can eventually destabilise the ecosystem as a whole.

Animals suffer in more direct ways, too. Jellyfish-eating Gran Canary giant lizards (Gallotia stehlini) have died after eating condoms left behind by pleasure seekers.

This matters because these dunes are rare. Transgressive dunefields are wide, semi-vegetated dune systems with a variety of dunes found nowhere else in coastal systems. They’re worth protecting due to their beauty, value for research, educational value and endemic plants and animals. Europe has almost none left, due to massive development along its coasts since the 1970s.

Are the dunes trashed beyond repair?

No, not yet. Our research has helped nudge the government and local resort owners to take action.

Over the last two years, the government has run major cleanup operations through its MASDUNAS project, removing a great deal of waste and dead vegetation. Encouragingly, some resort owners are discussing the impact of cruising with their guests.

Environmental protection will be high on the radar for authorities as the Canary Islands recovers from the ongoing volcanic eruption on La Palma island.

Read more:
Contested spaces: conflict behind the sand dunes takes a new turn

Is this happening in Australia?

While dune systems are popular cruising locations around the world, it is not known if Australian dunes have been similarly affected, given few studies have been conducted.

But if you are looking to go cruising on dunes in one of the popular spots near major cities, it’s good to be aware of your impact on plants, animals and birds. Some Australian shorebirds use dunes as nesting sites, for instance.

Tread lightly – and preferably in a less environmentally fragile location.

Patrick Hesp receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Flinders University

– ref. Sex on the beach might be fun for people – but it’s bad for dunes and wildlife – https://theconversation.com/sex-on-the-beach-might-be-fun-for-people-but-its-bad-for-dunes-and-wildlife-171591

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Thalia Anthony, Professor of Law, University of Technology Sydney

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names and images of deceased people.

A High Court ruling today has thwarted the capacity of Northern Territory Constable Zachary Rolfe to argue he was acting in “good faith” as a police officer when he fired the shots that fatally killed 19-year-old Warlpiri man Kumunjayi Walker in Yuendumu, Northern Territory.

Rolfe has been charged with murder in Walker’s death in his family home in November 2019. He is also facing the alternative charges of manslaughter and engaging in a violent act that caused Walker’s death.

The start of the trial was delayed against a backdrop of legal arguments and decisions on the availability of defences. Especially contentious has been the availability of police immunity defences.

The full bench of the Northern Territory Supreme Court had earlier handed down a judgment affirming Rolfe could argue the special police defences before a jury, including the “good faith” defence.

The NT court held that Rolfe was fulfilling a police function authorised by the Police Administration Act 1978 (Northern Territory) because he was executing a warrant for Walker’s arrest, including potentially when he fired all three shots. Therefore, the court said, Rolfe could argue the police immunity defences.

The High Court then issued a stay on the trial to allow prosecutors to appeal the NT Supreme Court decision. The High Court delayed the trial, now set down to start in February 2022, to hear the application.

What is the “good faith” defence?

The defence’s argument that Rolfe is immune from criminal liability had relied on three legal propositions: he was acting in good faith as a police officer, acting in the reasonable performance of his duties, and acting in self-defence.

The “good faith” defence is set out in the NT’s Police Administration Act. It says police are not civilly or criminally liable when an action is undertaken

in good faith in the exercise of a power or performance of a function under this act.

The NT police recently relied on this defence in an anti-discrimination case brought by an Aboriginal person who claimed he was racially targeted when the police pulled him over for an alcohol and drug test.

The man, who was not speeding or driving dangerously, said the police stop and testing was discriminatory and not random. He argued the police were “always” harassing him and his family.

Although the Civil and Administrative Tribunal doubted the drug test was random, it nonetheless regarded the police conduct to be in good faith. This afforded the officer and police force immunity from potential liability.

What did the prosecution argue in the High Court challenge?

In Rolfe’s case, the prosecution sought to challenge the “good faith” defence before the High Court. The prosecutors likely perceived this defence to be the easiest for Rolfe’s lawyers to prove before a jury, due to its criteria.

As it relies on a subjective mental state, Rolfe could have argued he subjectively believed the shootings occurred in “good faith” while he exercised his power as a police officer.

For this defence, the jury is not required to consider whether a reasonable person in Rolfe’s circumstances would have shot Walker multiple times and at close range. It merely has to decide if Rolfe perceived himself to be acting in “good faith” in carrying out his duties.

Read more:
Kumanjayi Walker murder trial will be a first in NT for an Indigenous death in custody. Why has it taken so long?

Of course, the jury would have needed to consider whether Rolfe was acting in “good faith” based on all of the evidence, which was not a fait accompli. Nonetheless, it was a stronger basis for potential immunity than the other defences.

The High Court unanimously found the “good faith” defence was not available unless it could be established Rolfe was exercising a power under the Police Administration Act, including arrest. This is crucial because it is contested whether the fatal second and third shots were reasonable and necessary for the arrest.

The High Court, therefore, overturned the NT Supreme Court decision. However, the High Court did not rule out the availability of the “good faith” defence in other cases involving allegations of police misconduct.

What defences are still available to Rolfe?

Rolfe still has two other police immunity defences available to him.

The first is under the Criminal Code Act 1938 (NT), which says law enforcement officers can claim immunity from criminal liability in situations where they are reasonably performing their duties.

The second is that Rolfe acted in self-defence, which is set out under the same NT criminal code. This defence requires proof that a person believed their conduct was necessary to defend themselves, and their conduct was a reasonable response to the circumstances as they perceived them.

In contrast to the “good faith” defence, these other two defences require proof the shootings were objectively reasonable in response to the circumstances.

Other police claims of immunity

In a police shooting of 18-year-old Aboriginal man, Mr Jongmin, in the NT in 2002, the officer claimed it was a “serious error of judgement”.

The indictment for a dangerous act was quashed because it was brought outside of the Police Administration Act, which requires charges against police officers be brought within two months. It failed on procedural grounds.

Read more:
Police body cameras may provide the best evidence – but need much better regulation

More recently, a Northern Territory local court considered the availability of police immunity in another case involving a senior constable who assaulted three Aboriginal people in 2020.

Similar to Rolfe, the officer argued he was acting reasonably to perform his duties. This was the first time the defence was tested in the territory.

The court found, however, the officer had not proven the defence due to inconsistencies in the evidence. He was found guilty on all counts: two charges of aggravated unlawful assault and one charge of unlawful assault.

Rolfe’s Supreme Court trial will determine whether the other defences can be successfully argued in a case involving a police shooting. It will also hinge on how the jury perceives the evidence and credibility of the witnesses and defendant.

Ultimately, however the court decides, the trial will have significant implications for ongoing relationships and perceptions of justice between police and Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and across Australia.

Thalia Anthony receives funding from the Australian Research Council

– ref. Explainer: what is the ‘good faith’ defence thwarted by the High Court in Zachary Rolfe’s murder trial? – https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-the-good-faith-defence-thwarted-by-the-high-court-in-zachary-rolfes-murder-trial-166165

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Prudence Gibson, Author and Research Fellow, UNSW

The Eucalyptus tree smells like minty life. Its branches bend and wrap like human arms, its scribbly or papery bark cries out to be touched and it emits a blue, oily haze. It would be hard to find an Australian who hasn’t sat beneath its shady canopy, tugged at its leaves to squeak out a tune, or used its oil to minimise a congested cold.

Eucalyptusdom, a multi-sensory exhibition of museum collection objects and new artworks at Sydney’s Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, is a testament to the utilitarian and cultural life of the tree.

Plant science tells us that trees emit chemicals and gases to communicate with one another, that they spread their roots across astonishing distances and share nutrients via mycelium that spread information to other trees, often from a mother tree to smaller saplings. This adds to cultural and philosophical knowledge that connects with the animism and independent agency of the tree.

Read more:
You don’t have to be barking to think trees are like us

While this exhibition celebrates human relations with the Eucalyptus, rather than the tree’s own nonhuman life, it does other things such as walking the tightrope towards decolonising the museum’s collection.

This is important work. It refers to (re)telling stories of Aboriginal culture and often means admitting the truth about how museum objects were collected, classified, named and curatorially interpreted, sometimes in culturally insensitive ways.

The exhibition also includes three important Australian cultural figures: the poetic writer Ashley Hay who has written a book called Gum, the great artist Jonathan Jones, and revered Australian architect Richard Lepastrier AO.

Lepastrier co-designed the exhibition and Hay has contributed literary writings to replace exhibition labels, which have long been criticised for their didactic, androcentric and eurocentric tone.

And then there is Jones, who has created yet another installation to stop viewers in their tracks. It’s in a side room of the exhibition, which has the unfortunate effect of seeming like an afterthought, but reverberates with his subtle and finessed (re)presentation of Australian Indigenous history.

On the walls hang eight ink drawings: thick with representations of ceremonial smoke and explained as sentinels. In the centre of the room is a pile of traditional tools, more like a pyre, made from mandang (wood), alongside piles of gum leaves. Jones, a Wiradjuri and Kamilaroi artist, collaborated with Wiradjuri man, Dr Uncle Stan Grant, to create this work, which includes a sound component.

The pyre is bleached and pale and connects to guardian ancestor Dharramalin, who is central to men’s business. The soundscape presents as the ancestor voice, a roar of thunder and animalistic, aggressive power.

Read more:
Renewable jet fuel could be growing on Australia’s iconic gum trees

Other commissioned Indigenous artworks and soundscapes in this exhibition, include textiles and wearable garments (one made of bark), alongside objects such as jars of eucalyptus sap, tapestry and video portraits.

There are also glass plate photographs of settlers felling eucalyptus trees; more than 100 eucalyptus wood specimens from the 1800s collected by the museum and various botanists; painted porcelain plates depicting eucalypts and letters and receipts regarding economic botany from London’s Kew Gardens.

These historically fascinating objects draw a story of settler culture but also lay bare the absence of Indigenous stories therein.

Read more:
Mountain ash has a regal presence: the tallest flowering plant in the world

Decolonising plants

This exhibition presents current and ongoing discussions in “botanical aesthetics”, where plant or tree stories from the settler past sit in (dis)harmony with Indigenous truths and cultural knowledge.

This extends to a wider debate about decolonising plants: understanding the institutional practices that informed and still exist in herbaria, such as following Linnaean naming systems (Latin and common names) without acknowledging Indigenous names.

It reminds audiences of the absence of information regarding the Indigenous botanical collectors who guided the colonial botanists to their rare and bountiful specimens. It refers to the imperial colonial history of malevolent and strident plant collecting that wrought damage to lands and peoples across the world.

Eucalyptusdom is a theatre of colonial collecting but also an introduction to exciting Indigenous artworks. It works as an instruction on how to decolonise plants, in this case the Eucalyptus tree.

While it doesn’t completely escape the subtle dangers of re-colonising the objects and artworks – there is not much dialogue or critique between them – nevertheless, it is a heady and immersive vegetal experience.

Economic botany and colonial botanical curiosity are marked in the exhibition by a cabinet of glass jars containing barks and kinos (a gum-like oozing substance from the tree). These were collected under the direction of Joseph Maiden, director of Sydney’s Royal Botanical Gardens in the late 19th century.

Read more:
Photos from the field: capturing the grandeur and heartbreak of Tasmania’s giant trees

Such specimens are the perfect reminder of the problems of decolonising collections because they are exquisite objects of aesthetic desire. I don’t know anyone who would want them destroyed or locked away. They feed a human (mostly western) desire to gather, to sort, to order and to name.

The joy of ordering objects is a way of ordering thoughts, for some of us. However, collecting has a violent colonial history and it still feels uncomfortable to view them alongside new Indigenous artworks that work to redress that violence.

This discomfort is perhaps the exhibition’s greatest strength. It reminds those of us who are tree-lovers and/or plant-mad that we have responsibilities to respect the Eucalyptus and to acknowledge that Indigenous people always knew this tree.

Eucalyptusdom is at The Powerhouse until May 2022.

Prudence Gibson 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. Oil, wood, bark, exploitation: a new exhibition explores human relations with the Eucalyptus – https://theconversation.com/oil-wood-bark-exploitation-a-new-exhibition-explores-human-relations-with-the-eucalyptus-160268

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wesley Morgan, Research Fellow, Griffith Asia Institute and Climate Council researcher, Griffith University

A new, grim projection, released overnight by Climate Action Tracker, has dashed the cautious optimism following last week’s commitments at the UN climate talks in Glasgow. It found the the world is still headed for 2.1℃ of warming this century, even if all pledges are met.

Similar new analysis from Climate Analytics suggests if global warming is to be limited to 1.5℃, an enormous ambition gap remains for this decade.

Last week, national leaders shared their plans to cut carbon pollution and to transition to a net-zero emissions economy. Some countries made much more ambitious commitments than others. The UK for example, as summit hosts, pledged to cut emissions by 68% this decade, while Australia – a clear laggard among developed countries – refused to strengthen the target it set in 2015 to cut emissions by 26-28% by 2030.

Taken together, national announcements clarify that the world has made some progress since the 2015 Paris climate summit, but not nearly enough to avoid climate catastrophe. So what needs to happen in the final days of frantic negotiations at COP26 to close the ambition gap?

Global ambition in this decisive decade

While most world leaders have headed home, negotiators remain locked in late night talks aimed at securing a “Glasgow Package”, including a final political outcome that will keep the goals of the Paris Agreement in reach. Their discussions are now focused on achieving a political outcome that will accelerate climate action this decade.

The 2015 Paris Agreement requires countries to set new and more ambitious targets to reduce emissions every five years, and national pledges aren’t due again until 2025. But if the world is to keep the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5℃ in reach, countries will need to increase ambition before then.

More than 100 countries are calling for strengthened ratchet mechanisms to be established in Glasgow, which could require countries like Australia to set a new 2030 target as soon as next year. These proposals have support from major powers, including the United States, but achieving consensus for an ambitious Glasgow package will be a tough ask.

The good news is countries have committed to greater climate action than they did in 2015. This provides hope that the Paris Agreement – which requires stronger commitments over time – is working.

Last week, projections from the International Energy Agency suggested that, if they are fully funded and implemented, Glasgow commitments give the world a 50% chance to limit warming to 1.8℃ this century.

But the bad news? This is a big “if”. As it is, Earth is still on track for catastrophic warming. Emissions are projected to rebound strongly in 2021 (after an unprecedented drop in 2020 because of the global pandemic).

Indeed, alongside the sobering findings overnight that we’re still on track for at least 2.1℃ global warming, the UN Environment Programme updated its Emissions Gap Report. Taking last week’s pledges into account, it found we’re on track to reduce global emissions by just 8% by 2030, falling well short of the 55% reduction needed to keep global warming to below 1.5℃.

Limiting warming to 1.5℃ this century is key to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, and is a matter of survival for some Pacific island nations.

In Glasgow, groupings of countries at the frontline of climate change – including 55 members of the Climate Vulnerable Forum, 48 Least Developed Countries, and 39 members of the Alliance of Small Island States – have put forward proposals that would require accelerated emissions cuts this decade.

These proposals have won support from key developed nations, including the United States, as part of the High Ambition Coalition – a grouping of countries that unites developed and developing nations which have traditionally not acted in concert.

This coalition was crucial to securing the 2015 Paris Agreement. Last week, it stressed the need to halve global emissions by 2030, and called on parties to deliver more ambitious national commitments well before COP27 “in line with a 1.5℃ trajectory”.

This provides renewed hope Glasgow will deliver a political outcome that will require countries to ratchet up short-term climate action.

Finding a ‘landing zone’ for a Glasgow deal

The COP26 presidency has tasked the nations of Grenada and Denmark with finding a landing zone for a Glasgow decision that would “keep 1.5℃ alive”. In October, Denmark released a summary of consultations they held with country negotiators to that point.

It provided options including:

• a requirement for countries that have not yet submitted enhanced targets to do so in 2022

• an annual review of pre-2030 ambition

• a leaders-level event to consider 2030 ambition.

All these options made it to an early draft of the Glasgow final decision text released at the weekend, and a new draft is expected on Wednesday morning (Glasgow time).

However, significant differences between countries remain, and negotiators will now try to hammer out a final political outcome. Saudi Arabia, for example, has already tried to head off an ambitious commitment to new action before 2030.

The Australian government might have been cheering Saudi Arabia from the sidelines. Australia is the only advanced economy that didn’t bring a strengthened 2030 target to Glasgow. An ambitious political statement in the COP26 decision text could require the federal government to set new 2030 targets – and devise policy to meet them – as soon as next year.

Reaching consensus

The UN climate talks are built on consensus among 190-odd countries. Achieving meaningful outcomes is a diplomatic balancing act built on trust among negotiating parties.

Central to building trust is a commitment by wealthy nations to provide climate finance, to help developing countries deal with the impacts of climate change and to transition to low-emissions development.

More than a decade ago, wealthy nations promised the developing world they would provide US$100 billion per year by 2020. So far they have failed to deliver on this promise.

However, US climate envoy John Kerry says rich nations will meet the goal by 2022 (and exceed it over the 2020-2025 period).

Wary of broken promises, developing countries are looking for renewed commitments on climate finance, especially for the period after 2025. Countries most clearly in the firing line of climate impacts are also pressing for finance to compensate for unavoidable loss and damage.

Progress in the UN climate talks, both at COP26 and beyond, may involve a “grand bargain” encompassing new promises on climate finance from wealthy countries, and new commitments to reduce emissions from both developed and developing countries.

It is no overstatement to say the fate of our planet depends on the next few days of complex multilateral diplomacy in Glasgow.

This story is part of The Conversation’s coverage on COP26, the Glasgow climate conference, by experts from around the world.

Amid a rising tide of climate news and stories, The Conversation is here to clear the air and make sure you get information you can trust. More.

Wesley Morgan is a Researcher with the Climate Council

– ref. The fate of our planet depends on the next few days of complex diplomacy in Glasgow. Here’s what needs to go right – https://theconversation.com/the-fate-of-our-planet-depends-on-the-next-few-days-of-complex-diplomacy-in-glasgow-heres-what-needs-to-go-right-171501

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Eddie Synot, Lecturer, Griffith Law School, Griffith University

Last month, First Nations leaders Pabai Pabai and Paul Kabai filed a landmark class action against the Australian government to protect communities in the Torres Strait from climate change.

In the Torres Strait, First Nations communities are facing an existential threat as the planet warms. Rising seas are already inundating infrastructure and cultural sites, and some islands may be uninhabitable by the end of the century causing devastating harm to Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Ailan Kastom culture.

Mr. Pabai and Mr. Kabai have seen the impacts first hand. They have filed their class action to protect over 65,000 years of connection to land. Mr. Kabai has described the class action as answering their responsibility to community and culture.

We have a cultural responsibility to protect our communities, our culture and spirituality from climate change – for our ancestors and future generations.

Mr. Pabai and Mr. Kabai are part of a proud history of Torres Strait Islander Peoples fighting for their rights through the courts. They draw on the legacy of Eddie Mabo and his co-plaintiffs James Rice and David Passi, who took on the government and established that terra nullius was a lie, paving the way for Native Title recognition as we know it today.

Mr. Kabai and Mr. Pabai are also part of the foundational tradition of First Nation stewardship of land and water. As Traditional Owners, their knowledge and protection of Country is vital to tackling climate change.

Indigenous Peoples have always known this. Our communities have adapted and thrived together by caring for country for countless generations. The scientific community has only recently caught up.

In 2019, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognised Indigenous Peoples, our knowledge and rights to land and water are key to tackling climate change.

Pabai and Paul’s case

In their class action, Mr. Pabai and Mr. Kabai will argue the Australian government has a duty to protect the people, islands, and culture of the Torres Strait. The duty arises from the common law of negligence, the Torres Strait Treaty (between Australia and Papua New Guinea, providing protection for the way of life of traditional peoples of the Torres Strait Protected Zone), and the Native Title rights of Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

The legal rights Torres Strait Islander Peoples hold as Traditional Owners of their lands and waters are central to Mr. Kabai and Mr. Pabai’s case. As is their deep spiritual and personal connection to the islands.

Mr. Kabai has further detailed that if the government’s climate failure continues they will lose everything.

Becoming climate refugees means losing everything: our homes, our culture, our stories and our identity […] If you take us away from this island then we’re nothing. It’s like the Stolen Generation, you take people away from their tribal land, they become nobodies.

The Australian government’s responsibility to Torres Strait Islander Peoples comes from the particular vulnerability of their communities to climate harms like sea level rise. Similar arguments have been made and won by the Sami people in Norway to protect their rights as part of climate change mitigation. Although in different legal and political contexts, both Indigenous rights and climate action are entrenched, structural priorities.

Mr. Pabai and Mr. Kabai will argue the government’s failure to reduce emissions will extinguish the Native Title rights of Torres Strait Islander Peoples as their traditional lands are lost beneath rising seas.

In court, they will urge the government to take pre-emptive steps to stop climate change impacts from destroying their islands – and with them, over 65,000 years of custom and culture protected by Native Title.

The government’s responsibility to act is also said to come from legal protections provided by the Torres Strait Treaty. Australia entered into the Treaty with Papua New Guinea in 1978, after grassroots political pressure from Torres Strait Islander leaders like Getano Lui Snr.

The Treaty created a protected zone to acknowledge and protect the traditional way of life of Torres Strait Islander Peoples and requires the Australian government to prevent damage to the marine environment of the Torres Strait.

These protections exist to preserve the deep spiritual connection First Nations communities have to their islands and waters.

The importance of this connection to Country has been recognised by the High Court. In 2019, the court found the Northern Territory government was responsible for spiritual hurt caused to Ngaliwurru and Nungali native title holders by the building of roads and infrastructure on their traditional lands.

It is this combination of legal rights – unique to Torres Strait Islander Peoples – that Pabai and Paul will rely on to ask the court to create a new duty of care.

Read more:
What climate change activists can learn from First Nations campaigns against the fossil fuel industry

Recent developments

Earlier this year, the Federal Court found a novel duty of care not to cause climate harm to young people. The Court found that the minister for the environment had a responsibility to take reasonable care to avoid harm to children caused by greenhouse gas emissions when exercising her power to approve new coal mining.

Mr. Pabai and Mr. Kabai’s case is the first of its kind because it argues a far broader case: that the Australian government has a duty to protect the Torres Strait from climate harm.

While this may sound ambitious, these kinds of cases have worked before. Most notably, in the Netherlands, where the Urgenda Foundation and 886 people took the Dutch government to court for climate inaction – and won.

The Urgenda Foundation has partnered with Mr. Pabai and Mr. Kabai on their case, and the circumstances are similar. Both communities live on land perilously exposed to rising sea levels and face severe harm from climate change.

Read more:
If governments fail to act, can the courts save our planet?

A legacy of nation shaping

First Nations communities have a history of bringing legal cases vital to the development of Australian law. Often against the odds.

Mabo’s legal victory placed the Torres Strait at the centre of a transformation in the way the Australian nation places itself in a long history of Indigenous ownership and connection. Mr. Kabai and Mr. Pabai are inspired by that legacy.

As world leaders meet in Glasgow for the COP26 climate summit, billed as a “last chance” for real climate action, Mr. Pabai and Mr. Kabai are asking the Australian government to step up and stop causing harm.

Their class action could prevent extreme climate harm for all Torres Strait Islander Peoples, and all Australians.

It is a vitally important case. It is also an action taken by traditional owners that highlights our continued commitment to country over countless generations, a commitment that is a proven practice of providing for all of existence.

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

– ref. Why the Australian government must listen to Torres Strait leaders on climate change – https://theconversation.com/why-the-australian-government-must-listen-to-torres-strait-leaders-on-climate-change-171384

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Woelert, Senior Lecturer, Melbourne Graduate School of Education, The University of Melbourne

Proliferating metrics and rankings in recent decades have, for better or worse, reshaped the priorities of universities around the world. Despite this “metric tide”, Australian universities provide little reliable, publicly available data on their class sizes. To this day, there is no mechanism for reporting how many students are allocated to the various types of classes at universities in Australia.

The result is a clear lack of systematic evidence on how universities organise their teaching in terms of class sizes. We also don’t know for sure how this may have changed over the years.

Read more:
What to look for when choosing a university as the digital competition grows

3 reasons we need to know about class sizes

From a policy perspective, having reliable, publicly available data on Australian universities’ class sizes matters for a number of reasons.

First, class size metrics would provide prospective students with more meaningful information about a key aspect of their future learning experience.

University rankings such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities are mostly geared towards research performance. They provide little guidance on how universities value and approach their teaching.

Student-staff ratios are part of some rankings at least, but this information is similarly limited. These ratios do not provide accurate information on the actual sizes of the various classes students attend. They also generally do not distinguish between different fields of study.

All this means student-staff ratios are a limited source of information.

Second, class sizes could have impacts on students’ learning outcomes and levels of satisfaction.

Some studies suggest student outcomes get worse as classes at universities get larger. Other studies paint a more complex picture. These suggest the the effect of increasing class size on students’ achievement differs substantially between academic disciplines. It also depends on the student demographics.

Read more:
Think our unis are all much the same? Look more closely and you will find diversity

The picture of the relationship between class sizes and student satisfaction remains similarly inconclusive.

It is ultimately undeniable, however, that smaller classes provide students with better access to and more interaction with their lecturer or tutor. This is particularly important for tutorial classes, which are meant to enable high levels of interaction. It is reasonable to assume smaller tutorial classes make it easier to provide students with more detailed and targeted feedback.

Third, publishing reliable information on class sizes would eventually lead to better understanding of trends and their potential impacts on students’ learning experiences.

Ample anecdotal evidence suggests Australian universities’ class sizes have increased dramatically over recent decades. For example, tutorial class sizes of more than 35 students are not uncommon these days. Only a decade ago an upper limit of 20 students appears to have been the norm.

Unsurprisingly, these numbers are a long way from what tutorial classes looked like before mass higher education. A 2017 study has shown UK universities in the 1960s, for example, had tutorial classes of only about four students on average. The picture at Australian universities would probably not have been too different given the similarities of these two higher education systems.

Read more:
The mass university is good for equity, but must it also be bad for learning?

How could class sizes be reported?

To make university class-size data usable for prospective students and other stakeholders, consistent reporting standards would need to be agreed. Any published class-size metrics should clearly distinguish different modes of delivery, such as online or face-to-face, and different levels of education, such as undergraduate or postgraduate.

Metrics should also reflect the variety of sessions students typically attend. These include lectures, seminars, tutorials or lab classes. Information on class sizes is much more meaningful for group-based and highly interactive teaching activities such as tutorials than for less interactive activities such as lectures.

Logistically, collating class-size metrics should not be too onerous for universities. The information already exists in their learning management or business intelligence systems. The public reporting of data on class sizes could use existing mechanisms such as the annual Quality Indicators for Leaning and Teaching (QILT).

Overall, from a higher education policy perspective, publishing relevant class-size metrics would greatly enhance the transparency of Australian universities’ teaching offerings. It would provide students with meaningful information about what to expect at the university of their choice.

Peter Woelert 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. Why Australian uni students have a right to know class sizes before they sign up – https://theconversation.com/why-australian-uni-students-have-a-right-to-know-class-sizes-before-they-sign-up-170378

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Joel Rindelaub, Research Fellow, School of Chemical Sciences, University of Auckland

With many children around the country required to wear masks in classrooms, including those as young as eight in Victoria, parents are wondering how they can support their kids’ mask use.

Schools are a breeding ground for respiratory viruses. When a large number of people are gathered together for extended periods of time within indoor areas, it’s a perfect recipe for aerosol transmission.

Along with proper ventilation, physical distancing and good hygiene, face masks can help reduce the spread of COVID.

So what masks are best for kids? And how can children increase the likelihood their mask will protect them from COVID?

Read more:
From vaccination to ventilation: 5 ways to keep kids safe from COVID when schools reopen

Masks cut COVID transmission

The dominant route for COVID transmission is through the inhalation of infectious aerosols. When someone with COVID coughs, sneezes, talks or even breathes, they are exhaling scores of tiny virus-laden particles into the air that others around them can breathe in.

Evidence from the United States shows wearing masks in classrooms may reduce the chance of children contracting COVID from their classmates. Regions with school mask mandates have roughly half the rates of COVID infection among children than those without.

While randomised clinical studies focusing on mask use in schools are not available, data from larger community mask use trials support their ability to reduce the number of symptomatic COVID cases in the community.

The World Health Organization recommends mask use in students 12 years or older, and in students from six to 11 years old under appropriate supervision.

Masks don’t impact the air exchange in children or their ability to breathe, so they’re safe to use. However, masking students with specific needs should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Mask use in children aged five and younger is not recommended, in part because facial expressions are important for social and emotional learning.

What masks are best for kids?

When selecting a mask, pay close attention to the fit; a mask will lose much of its effectiveness if it’s not worn appropriately. There shouldn’t be any gaps around the nose or along the sides of the face.

While many masks are capable of preventing the release of large droplets in those who are infected, a tighter fit will improve the filtration of the smaller aerosol particles.

Read more:
Can’t get your kid to wear a mask? Here are 5 things you can try

Of the available mask varieties, N95 or P2 types have the best filtration efficiency, capturing more than 95% of particles. Though they need to be tested to ensure a proper fit to be most effective, and they may prove uncomfortable when worn for long periods.

Surgical masks (the disposable kind you can buy at supermarkets and pharmacies) are the next best at filtration, with efficiencies from 50–75%.

Surgical mask efficiency can be improved if a tighter fit is created around the face, such as by wearing the surgical mask underneath a cloth mask, or through the “knot & tuck” method.

While useful for older students, N95s and most surgical masks may not be as effective in protecting young children, as many of these masks were designed for adults.

Cloth varieties, on the other hand, usually fit children much better. Being able to use fun prints and colours can help kids feel more comfortable with mask-wearing.

However, single-layer cloth masks are typically not recommended due to their low filtration efficiency. Well-fitting triple-layered masks are much better, and they are as effective as surgical varieties.

Tips for young mask-wearers

The recommendations for children’s mask use mirror those for adults, so:

• try to avoid touching the outside of the mask. This means using the ear loops to put on and remove the mask. If the mask is doing its job effectively, there could be virus particles on the outside of the mask. Always wash or sanitise hands after touching the mask

• use a separate bag for storage. It’s important that a mask does not contaminate or be contaminated by other items

• ensure the mask covers both the mouth and nose

• wash cloth masks after every use. It may help to have several cloth masks so a fresh one can be used daily

• throw out surgical and N95 masks after each use

• don’t use a mask with valves. These won’t prevent an infected person spreading the virus.

Read more:
7 tips for making masks work in the classroom

Focus on masks indoors

While the advice might feel relatively complicated, research shows that even children in the first two years of school are very compliant with mask guidelines, using them appropriately for 77% of the school day, on average.

For best results, instructions on mask use and safety are needed alongside the rollout of masks in schools.

The use of masks is less important during outside recess and breaks, because outdoor areas are generally well-ventilated.

In indoor areas where masks can’t be used, such as during lunch, physical distancing is encouraged.

Joel Rindelaub 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. How to help your child get the most protection out of their face mask – https://theconversation.com/how-to-help-your-child-get-the-most-protection-out-of-their-face-mask-170546

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Megan Carrigy, Associate Director, Academic Programs, New York University

Review: The Drover’s Wife: the Legend of Molly Johnson, written and directed by Leah Purcell, Sydney Film Festival

Leah Purcell’s The Drover’s Wife: the Legend of Molly Johnson is an inspired and compelling re-imagining of Henry Lawson’s The Drover’s Wife, a short story originally published in The Bulletin in 1892.

Purcell’s debut feature film as writer and director, filmed in late 2019, has emerged out of a lifelong connection with this story. Citing three generations of drovers in her own family, Purcell explained in a recent interview how, as a five-year-old girl, she would implore her mother to read Lawson’s story to her. For Purcell, it was, “the first time I used my imagination and saw myself in a story”.

As her mother recited, Purcell would imagine a “little film in my head”. In it, she was the little boy in the story and her mother the drover’s wife.

Purcell has been repeatedly drawn to The Drover’s Wife as a way of placing her Indigenous family’s story before a broad Australian audience. The film expands on the acclaimed stage play she wrote and starred in, which premiered at Belvoir Street Theatre in 2016 and won the Victorian prize for literature, two NSW premier’s literary awards and four Helpmann awards. She also adapted the play into a novel, released in 2019.

In all three versions of the story, set in 1893 in the Snowy Mountains in NSW, Purcell gives voice to Indigenous experiences of the frontier that were maligned and marginalised in Lawson’s version.

Read more:
How historically accurate is the film High Ground? The violence it depicts is uncomfortably close to the truth

As in the play, the film is carried by its Indigenous co-stars. Purcell plays the drover’s wife, Molly Johnson, unearthing an Indigenous heritage for the character. Johnson is burdened by a dark secret and Purcell imbues the role with a determined strength, her posture and gaze expressing fortitude, grit and constant vigilance, whether she is carrying her broom or her rifle.

Rob Collins plays Yadaka, a character inspired by Purcell’s great-grandfather, Tippo Charlie Chambers, a caring and gentle man who spent time as a travelling circus performer in the 1890s while yearning for his Country.

Yadaka is central to Purcell’s reworking of the original story, fleshed out from the brief mention of a “stray blackfellow” who chops some wood for the drover’s wife in Lawson’s version.

In the film, the fugitive Yadaka arrives at the heavily pregnant Molly’s isolated property and ultimately saves her life when her labour goes wrong, helping her to bury her stillborn child. But Yadaka is a wanted man, blamed for the murder of a white family in town. This sets off an unfortunate chain of events.

Yadaka also unlocks Molly’s understanding of her Indigenous family, paving the way for her children to escape from becoming wards of the state. The strong bond the drover’s wife has with her children in Lawson’s original story is deepened in Purcell’s film. Molly is driven to protect her children from the authorities and to overcome violence and hardship.

Molly’s eldest son Danny – played by Malachi Dower-Roberts, who Purcell joyfully describes as a “red-haired freckled Blackfella from Glebe” – functions as a figure of hope in the film.

He forms a bond with Yadaka, taking responsibility for guiding his siblings to safety. The absence of the drover himself, Jo Johnson, meanwhile, is attributed to his being a violent drunk and an abuser, rather than the heroic, pioneering figure imagined by Lawson.

The film was shot in and around Adaminaby. Cinematographer Mark Wareham captures the beauty and harshness of the rolling hills and valleys of this vast, alpine landscape, from dusty clearings to lush greenery and stark, white snow.

Foreboding, enveloping mists are rendered by the time-lapse photography of Murray Fredericks. The beauty and menace of this landscape frame the film’s harrowing violence. The final closeup shots are especially chilling.

Violent realities

Purcell’s is not, of course, the first re-imagining of Lawson’s story. In 2017, Frank Moorhouse brought together a collection of its numerous literary reworkings in The Drover’s Wife: A Celebration of a Great Love Affair, including the writer and director’s notes from Purcell’s original play.

But Purcell’s cinematic version of the story exemplifies what Felicity Collins and Therese Davis describe in their book Australian Cinema After Mabo as a process of “cinematic backtracking”. Familiar figures and archetypes are revived and reworked, opening up new meanings and interpretations.

In recent years, we have witnessed a surge of interest in the archetypes, themes and aesthetics of the Western in Australian cinema with films like The Proposition (John Hillcoat, 2005), Sweet Country (Warwick Thornton, 2017), The Nightingale (Jennifer Kent, 2018) and High Ground (Stephen Johnson, 2020). All suggest a growing reckoning with the violent realities of our frontier history.

Read more:
The Nightingale – much ado about nothing

Purcell’s film is part of this turn.

By bringing her personal history and identity as a Black woman to bear on the Australian Western, Purcell has enriched this burgeoning film cycle.

The way that Purcell’s Molly Johnson endures in this film is both inspiring and heartbreaking. This is a subversive survival story that brings an unflinching new perspective to Australian cinema’s ongoing engagement with the frontier.

The Drover’s Wife will be in cinemas May 2022.

Megan Carrigy 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 Drover’s Wife: the Legend of Molly Johnson brings a Black woman’s perspective to Australian frontier films – https://theconversation.com/the-drovers-wife-the-legend-of-molly-johnson-brings-a-black-womans-perspective-to-australian-frontier-films-170782

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Ryan, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University

The presumed death of 57-year-old Paul Millachip in an apparently fatal shark bite incident near Perth on November 6 is a traumatising reminder that while shark bites are rare, they can have tragic consequences.

Despite the understandably huge media attention these incidents generate, there has been little scientific insight into how and why they happen.

Sharks in general, and white sharks in particular, have long been described as “mindless killers” and “man-eaters”.

But our recent research confirms that some bites on humans may be the result of mistaken identity, whereby the sharks mistake humans for their natural prey based on visual similarities.

Sharks have an impressive array of senses, but vision is thought to be particularly important for prey detection in white sharks. For example, they can attack seal-shaped decoys at the surface of the water even though these decoys lack other sensory cues such as scent.

The visual world of a white shark varies substantially from that of our own. White sharks are likely colourblind and rely on brightness, essentially experiencing their world in shades of grey. Their eyesight is also much less acute than ours – in fact, it’s probably more akin to the blurry images a human would see underwater without a mask or goggles.

The mistaken identity theory

Bites on surfers have often been explained by the fact that, seen from underneath, a paddling surfer looks a lot like a seal. But this presumed similarity has only previously been assessed based on human vision, using underwater photographs to compare their silhouettes.

Recent developments in our understanding of sharks’ vision have now made it possible to examine the mistaken identity theory from the shark’s perspective, using a virtual system that generates “shark’s-eye” images.

In our study, published last month, we and our colleagues in Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom compared video footage of seals and of humans swimming and paddling surfboards, to predict what a young white shark sees when looking up from below.

We specifically studied juvenile white sharks – between of 2m and 2.5m in length – because data from New South Wales suggests they are more common in the surf zone and are disproportionately involved in bites on humans. This might be because juvenile sharks are more likely to make mistakes as they switch to hunting larger prey such as seals.

Our results showed it was impossible for the virtual visual system to distinguish swimming or paddling humans from seals. This suggests both activities pose a risk, and that the greater occurrence of bites on surfers might be linked to the times and locations of when and where people surf.

Our analysis suggests the “mistaken identity” theory is indeed plausible, from a visual perspective at least. But sharks can also detect prey using other sensory systems, such as smell, sound, touch and detection of electrical fields.

Read more:
Why do shark bites seem to be more deadly in Australia than elsewhere?

While it seems unlikely every bite on a human by a white shark is a case of mistaken identity, it is certainly a possibility in cases where the human is on the surface and the shark approaches from below.

However, the mistaken identity theory cannot explain all shark bites and other factors, such as curiosity, hunger or aggression are likely to also explains some shark bites.

Can this knowledge help protect us?

As summer arrives and COVID restrictions lift, more Australians will head to the beach over the coming months, increasing the chances they might come into close proximity with a shark. Often, people may not even realise a shark is close by. But the past weekend gave us a reminder that shark encounters can also tragically result in serious injury or death.

Understanding why shark bites happen is a good first step towards helping reduce the risk. Our research has inspired the design of non-invasive, vision-based shark mitigation devices that are currently being tested, and which change the shape of the silhouette.

Read more:
Fatal shark attacks are at a record high. ‘Deterrent’ devices can help, but some may be nothing but snake oil

We still have a lot to learn about how sharks experience their world, and therefore what measures will most effectively reduce the risks of a shark bite. There is a plethora of devices being developed or commercially available, but only a few of them have been scientifically tested, and even fewer – such as the devices made by Ocean Guardian that create an electrical field to ward off sharks – have been found to genuinely reduce the risk of being bitten.

Laura Ryan receives funding from State and Federal government agencies and non-governmental organisations.

Charlie Huveneers receives funding from State and Federal government agencies, private donors, and non-governmental organisations.

– ref. White sharks can easily mistake swimmers or surfers for seals. Our research aims to reduce the risk – https://theconversation.com/white-sharks-can-easily-mistake-swimmers-or-surfers-for-seals-our-research-aims-to-reduce-the-risk-171440

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tony Walker, Vice-chancellor’s fellow, La Trobe University

History is weighing heavily on a hotel in the western suburbs of Beijing this week, as the 300 members of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party chart a course for China’s next five-year political cycle.

Not least of the tasks before the ruling Communist elite will be to endorse the consolidation of Xi Jinping’s position as China’s most powerful leader, certainly since Deng Xiaoping and possibly since Mao Zedong himself.

Those deliberations will be rubber-stamped at the 20th National Party Congress to be held next year.

Over the next few days, world attention will turn towards Xi’s anointing, and resolutions of this sixth plenary session of the 19th Central Committee. China scholars, intelligence analysts and diplomatic representatives will scrutinise every last word that emanates from Beijing’s propaganda machine.

History is being etched in these deliberations, which will ripple beyond China’s borders. It is hard to exaggerate the significance of these few days in Beijing, in which issues like China’s mission to achieve Taiwan’s reunification with the mainland will be canvassed.

Read more:
China’s global diplomatic approach is shifting, and Australia would do well to pay attention to it

In this centenary year of the founding of the party in Shanghai in 1921, the sixth plenum will rank with three other critical moments in Communist Party history.

These three moments include two sixth plenums. In the first in 1945, Mao vanquished his party opponents to become sole leader. In the second in 1981, Deng removed the ideological debris of the destructive Mao era.

The other event of particular importance in Communist Party history is the third plenum of the 11th Central Committee in 1978. In that year, a recently rehabilitated Deng re-emerged to take control of his party and his country and ultimately shift the world away from a hitherto American-dominated axis.

Both the 1945 and 1981 plenums were enshrined in historical documents that served a political purpose.

In Mao’s case, the aim was to remove and sideline his political opponents. In Deng’s, he used the 1981 sixth plenum to bury the excesses of Maoism in an historical document. It resolved that Mao had made serious mistakes, but recognised his achievements.

So historical documentation has long been a weapon of choice for Chinese Communist Party leaders seeking to impose their will on a party and a country.

In 2021, a contemporary historical reckoning will dwell not so much on the past but on the future in the world’s most populous country, second-largest economy and rival to US power and influence.

In 1945, Mao’s “coup” against his party opponents largely went unnoticed in a world consumed by the last days of the second world war. In 1981, Deng’s artful burying of Maoism, while not jettisoning Mao’s revolutionary contribution, garnered world attention. But this manoeuvre was not seen as a harbinger of what has proved an extraordinary leap forward in China’s economic development.

In 1981, not even the most committed Sinophiles were predicting that within a generation China would upset a global status quo and transform itself from a development backwater to one that challenged the West on many different fronts.

Sixth plenums of central committees are aimed at building consensus and clearing the decks of outstanding differences before party congresses. Xi may appear all-powerful to the outside world, but internal party disputation, manoeuvring and infighting is part and parcel of the world’s largest political organisation, with some 95 million members.

Much comment has attached to the fact Xi has not travelled outside China since 2020. It’s seen as a possible indication that he is not entirely confident of his grip on power.

However, it is more likely that, apart from the constraints on travel in a pandemic, China’s leader will have used his time to prepare for this sixth plenum, in what will have been an exhaustive process of consultation and consensus-building.

Having buried a requirement that would have prevented him serving a third five-year term as China’s new emperor, Xi is no doubt leaving little to chance in his continuing efforts to consolidate his rule and root out potential naysayers.

His anti-corruption campaign early in his tenure, and more recently his moves against Chinese billionaires like Alibaba’s Jack Ma as part of efforts to close the gap between rich and poor, are part of this process.

Read more:
Understanding Chinese President Xi’s anti-corruption campaign

Xi’s “common prosperity” drive is central to his efforts to distinguish his era from the past. This includes Deng’s unleashing of Chinese entrepreneurial instincts with such sayings as “to get rich is glorious” and “it doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice”.

In this latest period, Xi is facing a different set of challenges from his inspirational predecessor. In Deng’s case, his mission was to foster the creative energies of a country that had been subjected to a rolling series of disasters, culminating in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of 1966-76.

In Xi’s case, his challenges are perhaps no less than Deng’s in transforming China from an export-led low-wage economy to one driven by its vast consumer market.

These challenges have been exposed in recent months by the near-collapse of Evergrande, China’s biggest property developer, the precariousness of others in the same space, and power generation shortages and blackouts.

On top of all of this, China’s economy has been slowing in a manner that will be concerning Beijing central planners; although the point is well made that the country’s economic growth should be regarded as a multiple of a much larger economy these days than in the past when double-digit growth rates were the norm.

Read more:
Will the Evergrande crisis doom China’s grandiose, big-spending football dreams?

Central Committee delegates are unlikely to dwell this week on the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of 1978. But its shadow will extend over deliberations in the sense that China would not have moved as far and as fast as it has without that event’s endorsement of a process of “reform and opening”.

It was at the third plenum that Deng and his supporters weaponised the phrase “seek truth from facts” to face down Maoist holdouts who were standing in the way of a process of economic liberalisation and opening to the outside world.

Four decades later, Xi will seek to build on that process by championing his “common prosperity” theme, which itself owes much to Deng’s aim of building a “moderately prosperous” China.

The phrase “common prosperity”, given weight by Xi in the October 16 edition of the party theoretical Qiushi Journal, will colour the resolutions of the sixth plenum.

In that contribution, Xi provided more than a hint that he plans to be around for quite some time. He set 2035 as a target for the realisation of his efforts to correct China’s income inequality and achieve his goal of providing more equal access to basic services.

That benchmark date, 2035, is two further five-year cycles of the National Party Congress. In 2035, Xi would be 82, having ruled China for 20 years.

Tony Walker 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. China’s sixth plenum will consolidate Xi Jinping’s power and chart the country’s ambitions for the next 5 years – https://theconversation.com/chinas-sixth-plenum-will-consolidate-xi-jinpings-power-and-chart-the-countrys-ambitions-for-the-next-5-years-171395

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Naomi Strout, Researcher, Midwife, Nurse, UNSW Microbiome Research Centre, UNSW

Researchers in the UK recently discovered a rapid test that checks the vaginal microbiome and can detect risks of preterm birth. Usually, tests to check the microbiome are complicated and it takes a long time to get a result.

Up to 50% of preterm births are associated with microbial causes and preterm birth is the most common cause of death in children under 5. So, a rapid test that can return results within minutes could make a world of difference for patients and families.

This groundbreaking research sheds further light on how the vaginal microbiome works and what it can tell someone about the health of their body and their baby.

Read more:
Group B strep and having a baby: what pregnant women need to know

Not just for guts

The microbiome is a buzz word that has popped up a lot lately – and yes, most people associate it with gut health.

In fact, microbiome is the term used when describing all of the DNA content of our microbiota – the trillions of “bugs” that live as a community in us and on us (including our gut, mouth, urine, skin and yes, vagina). These microorganisms include bacteria, viruses and fungi.

Without our microbiome, our bodies would not function correctly. Our microbiome has been shown to impact our immune development, disease defences and our behaviour and mental health. Research shows intergenerational and matrilineal inheritance patterns of birth microbiota. In other words, we inherit the microbiome of our mothers and grandmothers at birth.

While large studies investigating our gut and mouth microbiome and links with health and disease are well established, the science behind the vaginal microbiome is still in its infancy. One of the first papers showing distinct microbial changes throughout the trimesters of pregnancy was only published in 2012. But there is a growing emphasis on how a person’s vaginal microbiome can impact reproductive and public health.

What makes the vaginal microbiome different?

The vaginal microbiome is complex and fascinating. Its dynamics differ significantly between non-pregnant and pregnant states, and over the course of our lifespan – from birth, through to puberty, and beyond menopause.

Ethnicity, socioeconomic status, menstrual cycle, and sexual partners all impact on the microbiota present in your vagina.

Dominated by Lactobacillus species (usually L. crispatus, L. iners, L. jensenii or L. gasseri), the vaginal microbiome has long regarded “healthy” or “normal” in people of European ancestry. But now we understand healthy non-pregnant African-American and Hispanic people have a non-Lactobacillus-dominated microbiome.

States of play

The vaginal microbiome needs to be looked at in two contexts – non-pregnant, and pregnant. When a person is not pregnant, their “normal” vaginal microbiome should be highly diverse and dynamic, fluctuating with their normal hormonal cycle and lifestyle. Once they fall pregnant, these fluctuations should stabilise and overall diversity of the vaginal microbiome should decrease.

Sometimes, the microbiome loses stability and becomes out of balance – this is called dysbiosis. When the vaginal microbiome is out of balance, people may notice inflammation, itch, malodour, discharge or redness.

Some may be familiar with the uncomfortable feeling of a candida (yeast) infection or have encountered the fishy smell commonly caused by bacterial vaginosis. But it’s not just these conditions that come from an imbalanced microbiome.

There is evidence to suggest this can also affect the ability to fall pregnant, pregnancy well-being (such as the potential to develop gestational diabetes or pre-eclampsia) and result in preterm labour and birth.

Read more:
Coronavirus while pregnant or giving birth: here’s what you need to know

How can I keep my vaginal microbiome healthy?

There are strategies to improve the health of one’s microbiome – but a magic pill isn’t the answer. Your microbiome is unique and there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

The best way to ensure a healthy microbiome is by eating well, drinking lots of water, exercising regularly and refraining from smoking and alcohol. Minimising stress and maintaining good general hygiene are also essential. But do not douche – this can negatively effect the makeup of your vaginal microbiome! The vagina is considered a “self-cleaning oven”.

There isn’t a lot of high quality evidence on the benefits of probiotics to improve you vaginal microbiome. One paper suggests changes are only present during dosing schedules, and disappear when the person ceases the medication. This indicates the probiotic does not colonise the vaginal microbiome and stick around long term.

Read more:
Your vagina cleans itself: why vagina cleaning fads are unnecessary and harmful

Rapid testing on the way

The new research could lead to a convenient, bedside test for preterm birth risk. This would enable clinicians to make faster and more targeted decisions on treatment options, resulting in better outcomes for both mum and bub.

Researchers point out rapid testing might also be useful in other clinical scenarios, but this is yet to be tested. Ultimately, this is new technology, and the focus of a clinical trial – there is still a way to go before we see rapid testing in Australian hospitals or other healthcare settings.

UNSW’s Microbiome Research Centre is recruiting people actively planning a pregnancy, to determine if their preconception microbiome might influence pregnancy and birth outcomes. If we can determine whether your microbiome is dysbiotic before you even fall pregnant, we could transform maternal and child health worldwide.

Naomi Strout works for UNSW’s Microbiome Reseach Centre. She has received funding from the MRFF to conduct The MothersBabies Study.

Mathew Leonardi receives funding from the MRFF, Australian Women and Children’s Foundation, AbbVie. He is working with the UNSW’s Microbiome Research Centre.

– ref. Just don’t douche – what your vaginal biome can tell you about your health and pregnancy – https://theconversation.com/just-dont-douche-what-your-vaginal-biome-can-tell-you-about-your-health-and-pregnancy-170859

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ellie Martus, Lecturer in Public Policy, Centre for Governance and Public Policy, Griffith University

Former US president Barack Obama took specific aim at Russia at the Glasgow COP26 climate talks this week. According to Obama, the fact Russian President Vladimir Putin (as well as Chinese President Xi Jinping) declined to attend the conference reflects “a dangerous absence of urgency, a willingness to maintain the status quo” on climate action.

As the world’s fourth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases and one of the world’s top coal, oil, and gas producers and exporters, Russia is a key player in international climate action. Decarbonisation of carbon-intensive economies like Russia is crucial to reaching global emissions targets.

But like Australia, Russia is seen as an international climate laggard, and must overcome significant resistance to genuine climate policy reform at home.

Despite vastly different political systems, we can draw interesting parallels between Russia and Australia on the climate front.

Read more:
To reach net zero, we must decarbonise shipping. But two big problems are getting in the way

Russia’s international participation on climate

In a surprise announcement two weeks out from COP26, Putin said Russia will aim to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060. But his decision not to attend COP26 dealt a blow to the summit’s prospects of success.

Russia has long been a reluctant participant in international climate change negotiations. It refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol until 2004, then failed to sign up for Kyoto’s second commitment period. Similarly, Russia signed the Paris Agreement in 2016, but delayed its final decision on ratification until late 2019.

That’s despite a long tradition of Russian climate science research dating back to the Soviet period.

In the end, ratifying the Paris Agreement was an easy political win, given how weak Russia’s commitments under the agreement are.

Russia’s updated NDC (nationally determined contribution, meaning the action it will take to meet its climate commitments) was submitted in November 2020. It sets an emissions reduction target of 70% relative to 1990 levels by 2030.

The target sounds ambitious but the nation’s economic decline in the 1990s, and subsequent fall in greenhouse gas emissions, means it’s easily achievable. This target also leverages the capacity of Russia’s forests to absorb CO₂, though many scientists dispute the extent of this.

So what explains Russia’s limited commitments to date? The domestic politics surrounding climate change offer clues.

Domestic climate politics and obstacles to reform

Domestic politics on climate change in Russia are fiercely contested, with key individuals and groups competing for influence. These debates occur mostly at an elite level, with little space given to civil society actors.

Attempts to strengthen domestic climate policy in the past have been met with strong opposition from powerful economic interests.

The coal industry remains one of the most significant obstacles to reform. At a time when a growing number of countries are committed to phasing out coal, Russia is actively seeking to expand its industry. The coal industry has close links with key government ministries, including the powerful ministry for energy. The industry has successfully lobbied for subsidies and state support.

Coal politics in Russia are made more complex by the heavy dependence on coal for employment and heating in certain regions, such as the Kuzbass in Siberia. Attempts to wind down the industry would meet significant opposition from locals and regional elites.

Oil and gas companies are moving ahead with their plans to expand into the Arctic, with a warming climate making the region more accessible. Revenues from oil and gas exports make up a significant portion of Russia’s budget, so its highly unlikely Russia will give this up anytime soon.

Putin’s own position on climate has been ambiguous. He and other members of the elite often portray Russia as a global climate leader and “ecological donor” due to its vast forest resources.

However, Russia’s limited policy commitments to date make such statements little more than symbolic.

Recent political shifts

More recently however, we’ve seen some important developments which suggest a shift may be occurring.

A pro-climate lobby is emerging around the ministry for economic development and other government actors. They take a pragmatic view of climate change and acknowledge the economic cost to Russia of doing nothing.

International pressures are also mounting.

The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (which puts a carbon price on certain imports) has many in the Russian government concerned, given the significant impact anticipated for key Russian exports. Some in government have also questioned the long-term viability of coal given global decarbonisation trends.

Two of Russia’s major state owned corporations, Rosatom and Gazprom, are at the forefront of an attempt to reposition Russia as a renewable energy superpower, centred on the expanding hydrogen and nuclear industries. Both provide Russia with potential to generate significant export revenues.

Support for a more active stance on climate has also come from some of Russia’s largest private companies. Groups such as EN+ and Rusal have made their own net-zero by 2050 commitments, keen to demonstrate their climate credentials to environmentally sensitive international markets.

This newfound momentum has led to a number of important policy developments, culminating in the net-zero by 2060 announcement. So while the obstacles remain huge, there has been a discernible shift in Russia’s approach to climate change.

What can Australia learn?

Both Australia and Russia are regarded as climate laggards and face increased international criticism over their lack of policy ambition.

Both have elements of strong resistance to climate action at a domestic level, particularly in the coal industry. But both also have corporate players acting to reduce emissions in spite of government policy inaction.

While much attention has been focused on net zero targets, little detail has been given by either country about how these will be achieved. And neither Russia nor Australia’s net zero commitments say anything about exported emissions.

Ambitious declarations mean nothing if they’re not backed by serious policy reform. Promises aside, significant work needs to be done in both nations to address the gap between vague, high-level commitments and concrete, implementable policies.

Read more:
Scott Morrison is hiding behind future technologies, when we should just deploy what already exists

Ellie Martus 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. Can climate laggards change? Russia, like Australia, first needs to overcome significant domestic resistance – https://theconversation.com/can-climate-laggards-change-russia-like-australia-first-needs-to-overcome-significant-domestic-resistance-170461

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Coghlan, Senior Research Fellow in Digital Ethics, Centre for AI and Digital Ethics, School of Computing and Information Systems, The University of Melbourne

Universities are increasingly using computer programs to supervise university students sitting their exams. Is this the future of testing?

Due to the pandemic, institutions worldwide have rapidly adopted exam software like Examplify, ExamSoft and ProctorU.

Proctoring technology allows exam-takers to be monitored off-campus. They can sit exams in their homes, instead of a person having to watch them in a traditional exam room. Some programs simply enable a person to supervise students remotely.

More sophisticated, automated proctoring software hijacks the student’s computer to block and monitor suspicious activity. These programs often use artificial intelligence (AI) to scrutinise exam conduct.

Our recent research paper explored the ethics of automated proctoring. We found the promise of the software alluring, but it carries substantial risks.

Read more:
Online exam monitoring is now common in Australian universities — but is it here to stay?

Some educational institutions claim proctoring technologies are needed to prevent cheating. Some other institutions and students are concerned about hidden dangers.

Indeed, students have launched protests, petitions and lawsuits. They condemn online proctoring as discriminatory and intrusive, with overtones of Big Brother. Some proctoring companies have responded with attempts to stifle protest, which include suing their critics.

What does the software do?

Automated proctoring programs offer tools for examiners to prevent cheating. The programs can capture system information, block web access and analyse keyboard strokes. They can also commandeer computer cameras and microphones to record exam-takers and their surroundings.

Some programs use AI to “flag” suspicious behaviour. Facial recognition algorithms check to make sure the student is still seated and no one else has entered the room. The programs also identify whispering, atypical typing, unusual movements and other behaviours that could suggest cheating.

After the program “flags” an incident, examiners can investigate further by viewing stored video and audio and questioning the student.

Why use proctoring software?

Automated proctoring software purports to reduce cheating in remotely administered exams — a necessity during the pandemic. Fair exams protect the value of qualifications and signal that academic honesty matters. They are a key part of certification requirements for professional fields like medicine and law.

Cheating is unfair to honest students. If left unchecked, it increases incentives for these students to cheat.

The companies selling proctoring software claim their tools prevent cheating and improve exam fairness for everyone — but our work calls that into question.

So what are the problems?

Security

We evaluated the software and found simple technical tricks can bypass many of the anti-cheating protections. This finding suggests the tools may provide only limited benefits.

Requiring students to install software with such powerful control over a computer is a security risk. In some cases the software surreptitiously remains even after students uninstall it.

Access

Some students may lack access to the right devices and the fast internet connections the software requires. This leads to technical issues that cause stress and disadvantage. In one incident, 41% of students experienced technical problems.

Privacy

Online proctoring creates privacy issues. Video capture means examiners can see into students’ homes and scrutinise their faces without being noticed. Such intimate monitoring, which is recorded for potential repeat viewings, distinguishes it from traditional in-person exam supervision.

Fairness and bias

Proctoring software raises significant fairness concerns. Facial recognition algorithms in the software we evaluated are not always accurate.

A forthcoming paper by one of us found the algorithms used by the major US-based manufacturers do not identify darker-skinned faces as accurately as lighter-skinned faces. The resulting hidden discrimination may add to societal biases. Others have reported similar concerns in proctoring software and in facial recognition technology generally.

Read more:
Why facial recognition algorithms can’t be perfectly fair

Also of concern, the proctoring algorithms may falsely flag atypical eye or head movements in exam-takers. This could lead to unwarranted suspicions about students who are not neuro-typical or who have idiosyncratic exam-sitting styles. Even without automated proctoring, exams are already stressful events that affect our behaviour.

Investigating baseless suspicions

Educational institutions can often choose which automated functions to use or reject. Proctoring companies may insist AI-generated “flags” are not proof of academic dishonesty but only reasons to investigate possible cheating at the institution’s discretion.

However, merely investigating and questioning a student can itself be unfair and traumatic when based on spurious machine-generated suspicions.

Surveillance culture

Finally, automated exam monitoring may set a broader precedent. Public concerns about surveillance and automated decision-making are growing. We should be cautious when introducing potentially harmful technologies, especially when these are imposed without our genuine consent.

Read more:
Online exam monitoring can invade privacy and erode trust at universities

Where to from here?

It’s important to find ways to fairly administer exams remotely. We will not always be able to replace exams with other assessments.

Nonetheless, institutions using automated proctoring software need to be accountable. This means being transparent with students about how the technology works and what can happen to student data.

Examiners could also offer meaningful alternatives such as in-person exam-sitting options. Offering alternatives is fundamental to informed consent.

While proctoring tools seemingly offer a panacea, institutions must carefully weigh the risks inherent in the technology.

Simon Coghlan receives funding from the Australian Communications Consumer Action Network.

Jeannie Marie Paterson receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Communication Consumers Action Network.

Shaanan Cohney receives funding from the Algorand Foundation.

Tim Miller receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Defence Science and Technology Group.

– ref. Unis are using artificial intelligence to keep students sitting exams honest. But this creates its own problems – https://theconversation.com/unis-are-using-artificial-intelligence-to-keep-students-sitting-exams-honest-but-this-creates-its-own-problems-170708

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Victoria Stead, Senior Research Fellow, Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin University

I met Elisabeth the day she learned she was being sent back to Vanuatu.

She had arrived in Shepparton, in north-central Victoria, two months earlier. She was meant to stay for six months, working in a packing shed as part of the Seasonal Worker Programme, which provides temporary visas to workers from nine Pacific Island countries and Timor-Leste (East Timor).

But her employer had decided she wasn’t productive enough. So Elisabeth’s contract had been cancelled. She had hoped to save a few thousand dollars from her time in Australia, enough to buy a small plot of land on which to build a house and transform her family’s life. Instead she was taking back a plastic shopping bag with chocolate Easter eggs she had bought that afternoon at the supermarket in a nearby town.

Read more:
If Australia cares about Pacific nations, we should also invest in their care givers

More that 80% of workers in Australia’s horticultural industry industry are migrants on temporary work visas (or undocumented). The Seasonal Worker Programme
is often regarded as one of the better pathways to this work.

It is, for example, more highly regulated than the larger (pre-pandemic) Working Holiday Maker scheme, which provides the industry with backpackers. In 2020-21 it provided about 12,000 of the roughly 80,000 strong (formally employed) seasonal workforce.

But the regulations are a double-edged sword, also working as mechanisms of control.

Unlike the Working Holiday Maker scheme, Seasonal Worker Programme visas are typically arranged by labour-hire companies, who recruit and then place workers on client farms. Under the condition of the visa, workers can only work for that employer. Employers in turn are obliged to provide things like accommodation. But this can be become an opportunity to exploitation, through overcharging workers for rent.

If the employer is dissatisfied with a worker, as in Elisabeth’s case, they can be sent home, or refused a place in subsequent years. But if the worker is dissatisfied with the employer, it’s even worse.

Tying workers to their employers stymies their capacity to act in the face of poor conditions. Backpackers who find themselves being underpaid or exploited at least have the option of leaving. Those in the Seasonal Worker Programme can’t do the same.

Campaign against ‘absconding’

This is the context for the federal government’s concerns about seasonal workers “absconding” – a word more typically associated with escaping from custody.

Government figures provided to media outlets suggest 1,181 workers absconded in the past financial year, up on 225 the year before.

A campaign warning visa holders not to leave their designated employer and seek work elsewhere warns of consequences including visa cancellation; not being allowed to work in Australia again (“this may include your family and community members”), and bringing “shame to your family’s reputation”.

It’s a characteristically patronising and insulting message that ignores – and abdicates responsibility for – the conditions that drive SWP workers to abscond.

During the pandemic, vulnerabilities for workers have intensified. The experience of Anne, another worker from Vanuatu, is illustrative.

When COVID-19 hit in March 2020, Anne was working in a fruit-packing shed in regional Victoria. This was her sixth placement. She had been due to go back to Vanuatu in July, but had her visa extended under special COVID-19 provisions.

This was not lucrative for her, though. When I spoke to her in October last year she working on a farm in NSW. Her labour-hire agency had placed her there (with no input from her). Crossing the state border, she spent two weeks in quarantine, during which time she had to cover her living costs, eating into the savings she was hoped to take back to her family. Isolated and missing her children, she felt desperate about how little money she had been able to save.

Shifting responsiblity

There are indeed, as the government campaign states, unscrupulous labour contractors spreading misinformation and encouraging people to abscond, particularly under these pandemic circumstances.

But this is not the case of a few bad apples. It is the very conditions of horticultural labour that produce vulnerability and insecurity, and drive absconding. Nor are Pacific workers who do abscond dupes; they are people navigating circumstances that often leave them with no good choices.

The government’s campaign obscures these things. It instead places responsibility on Pacific workers themselves.

This moralising and patronising discourse is consistent with an established pattern of Australian engagement with the Pacific. Think, for example, of then Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack’s 2019 dismissal of Pacific Island nation’s concerns about climate change. “They’ll continue to survive,” he said, “because many of their workers come here and pick our fruit.”

Meaningful reforms

Undocumented workers provide as much as one-third of Australia’s national seasonal horticultural workforce. A visa amnesty – something advocates have long called for and a handful of federal National Party MPs have already endorsed – would support and protect these communities.

Beyond this, the Fair Work Commission’s decision last week to guarantee farm workers a minimum wage is a good step in improving working conditions. But there’s more to be done.

Read more:
Closing the loophole: a minimum wage for Australia’s farm workers is long overdue

All workers on seasonal visas need a right to return in subsequent seasons. This would enable them to complain about mistreatment with less fear of being punished.

They also deserve to make their own choices about accommodation and other living conditions. There needs to be capacity to move between employers, and meaningful consequences to hold labour-hire contractors to account for mistreatment. There should also be pathways to permanent residency, as there are for other temporary migration visas.

Migrant workers are critical to Australia’s farming sector and food security. What is shameful are the conditions leading so many to abscond.

Victoria Stead receives funding from the Australian Research Council (grant DE180101224).

– ref. Australia needs better working conditions, not shaming, for Pacific Islander farm workers – https://theconversation.com/australia-needs-better-working-conditions-not-shaming-for-pacific-islander-farm-workers-171404

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Indigenous Studies and Director of The Centre for Global Indigenous Futures, Macquarie University

Review: Preppers, created by Nakkiah Lui and Gabriel Dowrick, ABC TV

A sophisticated multi-layered critique of colonialism, capitalism and patriarchy with an all-star Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cast (along with some well-known non-Indigenous personalities playing an assortment of “allies”), Preppers is hilarious.

Trying to navigate being the only Indigenous person on an all-white TV morning show, Wake up Australia, and dealing with daily microaggressions, Charlie (Nakkiah Lui) finds herself suffering feelings of inadequacy and soothing herself with self-help affirmations.

Then, after a series of unfortunate events, she wakes to find herself at a doomsday preppers hold out known as “Eden 2”. The six-part series then unfolds in an isolated camp where power relations shift as everyone prepares for the end of the world.

The core cast of seven is led by a group of brilliant Blak actors: Lui is joined by Jack Charles, Meyne Wyatt, Ursula Yovich and Aaron McGrath, with non-Indigenous actors Eryn Jean Norvill and Chum Ehelepola rounding out the preppers.

Many other wonderful actors move in and out of the series, including Miranda Tapsell, Luke Carroll and Christine Anu, as it tackles some big issues such as colonial violence, frontier wars, inter-generational trauma and the politics of identity.

But it does this all in the great Aussie tradition of taking the piss: making fun of the things that are absurd, risible, offensive and hurtful.

A story of allyship

Much has been written on the topic of allyship with Indigenous people, particularly the danger that, in seeking “ally” status one is really seeking to position oneself as the “good white person”.

If white allies are motivated solely by a desire to be seen as a “good person”, there is a danger they might remain ignorant of or indifferent to larger structures of power. Preppers explores this complexity in a way that will make us all laugh, while also revealing how allyship operates to silence or take from Indigenous people.

In one episode, the group is accidentally locked in the bunker. Jayden (Aaron McGrath) calls on Kirby (Eryn Jean Norvill) to be sacrificed before they run out of air. As Jayden describes it, this would be “the ultimate display of white allyship”.

Kirby, not very happy to comply, responds by stating she should survive to go on and tell the story.

“We don’t need another white person to tell a Black story,” says Jayden.

Becoming an ally is no simple or straightforward matter. Instead, it requires constant reflection on your social position, and remaining accountable to those with whom you are “allied” – but you probably won’t be called to self-sacrifice to ensure enough air is left in your doomsday bunker.

In true Hollywood end-of-days fashion, the group turns on itself. Kirby declares Charlie (Lui) will be the one to die.

Charlie’s reward will be becoming the namesake for a future child of born again Christians Lionel (New Zealand-Sri Lankan actor Chum Ehelepola) and Kelly (Ursula Yovich). Not the first or the second child but one of the later ones, Kelly notes.

An annual day of honour will also be bestowed upon Charlie – “a day of mourning and dancing and stuff”. Thankfully, they are saved by the arrival of Charlie’s mum, Marie (Christine Anu).

Tough truths through comedy

Preppers unpacks what we think we know – and what has been taught to us as truth – about colonisation. In one scene, bones are found. The preppers suspect the bones could be those of an Aboriginal person killed during the frontier wars.

The truth of these atrocities is questioned by some members of the group. “Don’t they teach you that in school?”, Jayden asks.

“We used to make boomerangs out of Popsicle sticks, does that count?”, asks Lionel.

The resident Elder, Monty (Jack Charles), reveals he may have some records of local frontier wars and quips “that is the thing with you white fellas. You deny it but you wrote it down”.

Describing frontier violence as an apocalypse, Monty shows the group a series of slides of colonial soldiers and settlers killing Aboriginal people, declaring they were “led by a cruel man, a real dog. He shot, burnt, beat, hung local Aboriginal people”.

Even though Preppers is a comedy, the show provides a deep reading often left out of recollections of colonial violence. Indigenous people were not just passive victims of the heinous crimes. They were people who fought for their lives and Country.

“They ambushed this colonial dog and his men, stole their weapons and turned the guns back on them. The Blackfullas had their revenge”, says Monty.

Blackfulla deadly

From Charlie, whose anxiety manifests into uncontrollable flatulence, to a Black Bear Grylls-alpha-male-wannabe (Guy, played by Meyne Wyatt), to a pair of amorous born again Christians practising abstinence, Preppers includes brilliant performances from all in the cast.

Preppers embodies the true definition of Blak humour in all its intricacies, and the unique ways Indigenous comedy can address the complexities of everyday life of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in contemporary Australia.

The series is, to quote a line in one of the episodes, “like deadly, like Blackfulla deadly, not like gammin [fake or pretend]” – a must watch!

Preppers is on ABC from November 10.

Read more:
What’s so funny about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander humour?

Bronwyn Carlson 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. Preppers is a deep reading of colonial violence – and a hilarious, must-watch Aussie TV comedy – https://theconversation.com/preppers-is-a-deep-reading-of-colonial-violence-and-a-hilarious-must-watch-aussie-tv-comedy-170100

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paul Heyward, Head of Initial Teacher Education, University of Auckland

The news that all staff members at a small King Country school were still unvaccinated a week out from the government’s November 15 mandatory deadline underlines how challenging the weeks ahead might be.

Next Monday marks the day teachers will need to have received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine if they want to continue to work with students in a face-to-face learning environment.

It will also be the day educational leaders find out with some certainty who their vaccine-hesitant colleagues are, and when the career pathways of many committed educators will come to a crossroads.

With it looking likely some schools will face significant staff shortages, the teaching profession now has to seriously wrestle with how to demonstrate the value of manaakitanga to all colleagues, including the unvaccinated.

The code of responsibility

As a fully registered teacher (as well as an academic) I will be free to teach in New Zealand schools, alert levels allowing, because I am double vaccinated. But I know that is not the case for some of my very talented and committed colleagues who have refused the Pfizer jab.

I can only imagine the professional identity crises these colleagues must be experiencing.

I’m thinking of those teachers who sincerely believe they are honouring their commitment to society – espoused in the Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand (TCANZ) Code of Professional Responsibility – by standing up for the human rights of New Zealanders to bodily autonomy.

Read more:
To be truly ethical, vaccine mandates must be about more than just lifting jab rates

I’m thinking of those teachers who passionately believe they are honouring their commitment to society by displaying the ethical integrity to stand up to a power they believe is misleading the public.

I’m thinking of those teachers who believe they are “walking the talk” of a critically reflective practitioner by refusing to be vaccinated.

And I’m thinking of my own commitment to those teachers as my professional colleagues, notwithstanding my fundamental disagreement with their anti-vaccination beliefs.

Teaching as an ethical activity

The TCANZ guiding document for teachers – Our Code, Our Standards – outlines the ethical commitments of all teachers. The council recognises that for the code to be “owned”, the professional commitments should not be seen as a list of prescribed rules.

Rather, it is a set of agreed aspirations that encourage collaborative conversations between practitioners about the ethical nature of their work.

There is no doubt the vaccine mandate will demand some of the most ethically challenging conversations teachers from both vaccination camps will have in their professional careers.

Read more:
Are employers and workers at odds over NZ’s workplace vaccine mandates? Our research suggests they might be

However, that’s no reason to shy away from collegial awkwardness. One of New Zealand’s pre-eminent educational thinkers, the late Ivan Snook, believed teaching is an innately ethical activity as it involves close personal relationships, not least between colleagues.

Snook also provides us with some wise guidance on how we might go about these challenging discussions. He addresses the fundamental tension teachers face when trying to persuade others to take a on a point of view they believe is demonstrably rational.

Snook frames this tension as the “conflicting obligations to respect the learner’s state of mind and also move her towards a more adequate understanding and a more enlightened practice”.

An ethic of care

As colleagues in discussion with those who disagree with us on the vaccine mandate, we must be ready to respect the ethical integrity of alternative viewpoints, while providing rational alternatives based on reputable scientific evidence.

Nor should we decry those who distrust authority. As Snook argues, a major task of educators is to help others come to understand the importance, and limitations, of all authorities.

It is my hope that over the next few months we will see the code truly become “our code” as it guides vaccinated and unvaccinated teachers to have these respectful conversations about what it is to be a critically reflective, ethical teacher in a society in the grip of a global pandemic.

Read more:
Protesting during a pandemic: New Zealand’s balancing act between a long tradition of protests and COVID rules

But if the code is to guide teachers through these difficult conversations it needs to be used with care. If it’s simply a weapon of entrenched positions there is nothing to be gained.

Educational philosopher Nel Noddings said conversations of this complexity need to happen within an “ethic of care” that is sensitive to the relationships in which we must all continue to live.

In the spirit of whanaungatanga, I encourage my vaccinated and unvaccinated colleagues to be courageous and use the code to discuss the vaccine mandate within such an ethic of care.

Let us decide together what that is, and what it means to be an ethical teacher in Aotearoa New Zealand in this watershed moment for our profession.

I have publicly commented on the development and implementation of the Teaching Council Document ‘Our Codes, Our Standards’ in the media.

– ref. How do NZ’s vaccinated teachers have those hard conversations with their anti-vax colleagues? – https://theconversation.com/how-do-nzs-vaccinated-teachers-have-those-hard-conversations-with-their-anti-vax-colleagues-171474

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

Prime Minister Scott Morrison will on Wednesday announce $500 million towards a new $1 billion fund to promote investment in Australian companies to develop low-emissions technologies.

But the government will use the legislation for the fund to try to wedge Labor.

The $500 million will be provided to the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, with the legislative package including the expansion of the remit of the CEFC to enable it to invest in carbon capture and storage (CCS).

The CEFC can invest in a broad range of low-emissions technologies, with the only exceptions being nuclear and CCS. The government has previously tried to remove the barrier to the CEFC investing in CCS but has been frustrated by the Senate.

By linking the $500 million to the expansion of the CEFC’s investment remit, the government believes it will put pressure on Labor, which opposed the wider brief for the corporation.

While the government’s legislation would remove the prohibition relating to CCS, there would be no change to the nuclear prohibition.

The government regards CCS, which is controversial and as yet unproven at scale, as a priority technology under its Technology Investment Roadmap.

The proposed fund is the latest in a round of announcements this week as Morrison campaigns on his technology-based energy policy for net-zero by 2050.

Read more:
Word from The Hill: Scott Morrison has decided electric cars won’t threaten Aussie weekends

But Tuesday’s unveiling of his policy to encourage the take-up of electric vehicles – with $178 million for modest initiatives but no subsidies to assist purchasers – ran into immediate flak, with strong criticisms from experts and the opposition, who said it was totally inadequate.

NSW Environment Minister Matt Kean made it clear the Morrison government should be doing a great deal more.

He said he would like to see it directly support electric vehicles so they would be cheaper for families and businesses. A number of taxes and charges could be waived.

The federal government should also invest more heavily in in electric vehicle charging infrastructure, he told the ABC on Tuesday night.

But Kean said the biggest thing the federal government could do was deal with the issue of fuel standards – Australia had some of the worst fuel standards in the world, worse than China or India.

NSW on Wednesday will announce support for the fleet industry to purchase electric vehicles.

At a news conference on Tuesday Morrison was confronted by reporters over his 2019 trenchant attacks on Labor’s electric vehicle policy, which he said would “end the weekend”. Despite the quotes, Morrison denied he had campaigned against EVs at the election.

“I didn’t. That is just a Labor lie. I was against Bill Shorten’s mandate policy, trying to tell people what to do with their lives, what cars they were supposed to drive and where they could drive.”

The proposed “low emissions technology commercialisation fund” would include $500 million from private sector investors.

Morrison says in a statement the fund would back Australian early stage companies to develop new technologies.

Emissions reduction minister Angus Taylor says it would “address a gap in the Australian market, where currently small, complex, technology-focussed start-ups can be considered to be too risky to finance”.

The investments would be in the form of equity, not grants or loans.

Read more:
As the world surges ahead on electric vehicle policy, the Morrison government’s new strategy leaves Australia idling in the garage

The latest initiative brings the government’s public investment commitments to low emissions technologies by 2030 to more than $21 billion.

The government will introduce legislation to establish the fund – expected to earn a positive return for taxpayers – in this term of parliament.

The government’s list of example of potential areas for the fund’s investments include:

• direct air capture of CO₂ and permanent storage underground
• materials or techniques with the potential to reduce emissions in the production in steel and aluminium
• soil carbon measurement technologies
• livestock feed technologies to reduce methane emissions from cattle
• improvements to solar panels
• lighter and smaller battery cases
• software developments to improve the operational efficiency of a variety of low-emissions technologies in all sectors of the economy.

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. Morrison to link $500 million for new technologies to easing way for carbon capture and storage – https://theconversation.com/morrison-to-link-500-million-for-new-technologies-to-easing-way-for-carbon-capture-and-storage-171528

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Nicole Lee, Professor at the National Drug Research Institute (Melbourne), Curtin University

As part of a Halloween-inspired campaign, the Australian Federal Police has released a series of ill-advised memes attempting to highlight the “lesser-known impacts” of illicit drug use.

The campaign demonstrates a skewed and overly simplistic understanding of drug problems. It’s superficial, inaccurate and demonises people who use drugs.

People who use drugs are depicted as spine-chilling zombies that “bankroll criminals who enslave women and destroy the environment”. Cocaine use is linked to infertility, jokingly exclaiming “get off the junk to protect your junk”. People who use heroin are blamed for increasing insurance premiums.

Arguably the worst of the memes is a computer generated image, manufactured by the AFP’s Forensics Facial Recognition team, claiming to be “before” and “after” methamphetamine use. It seems to be inspired by the infamous American “Faces of Meth” and Montana Meth Project campaigns, which have been widely criticised as ineffective, inaccurate and highly stigmatising. In fact, they may have increased risk of use.

Concerned community organisations are calling on the AFP to remove the posts.

Here’s what the AFP campaign gets wrong.

Scare campaigns and distorted ‘facts’ don’t reduce use or harms

The AFP campaign uses confronting imagery and distorted and exaggerated claims in an attempt to scare people from using drugs.

Decades of evidence show scare tactics don’t work. And mass media campaigns aren’t very effective in reducing illicit drug use.

The overwhelming majority of the 16.4% of Australians who currently use illicit drugs do so occasionally and without harmful consequences. So when they see exaggerated images or messages trying to make drugs seem more dangerous or risky than they are, they switch off.

Scare tactics have been shown to make drugs seem more alluring, increasing the risk of use, not decreasing it. Some may see it as a challenge, it can increase awareness of specific drugs, and sometimes young people are attracted to activities that are forbidden.

It’s best to stick to the facts

Most people who use methamphetamine don’t look like the “Faces of Meth” images. The typical person who uses methamphetamine is in their 20s, and they use the powdered form of the drug (commonly referred to as “speed”) just once or twice a year.

There are multiple and very complex reasons why people’s appearance might change when they use drugs over a long period. Most of them aren’t to do with the drug itself but are related to a range of other social factors, like poor diet, lack of access to health care and mental health problems that often predate the drug use.

The “Faces of Meth” are really the faces of poverty, trauma and exclusion.

The belief that bugs are crawling under your skin can occur with methamphetamine-related psychosis. But it isn’t very common, and people with other forms of psychosis, unrelated to drug use, also sometimes experience this delusion.

The role of cocaine use on male fertility still isn’t clear.

The link between drug use and crime isn’t straightforward. Most people who use illicit drugs don’t commit crimes, other than the drug use itself.

Even among people who are dependent on drugs, risk of offending actually increases when they can’t access treatment.

Treatment reduces criminal behaviour. For every A$1 spent on drug treatment, the community saves $7 in other costs. This includes a reduction in the costs to society related to crime.

Demonising people increases problems

Even if you have a moral objection to drug use, making simplistic links between drug use and physical appearance, offending and other behaviours does nothing to stop people using.

The campaign tagline, “have a conscience”, suggests people who use drugs are morally corrupt. This makes the problem worse by increasing stigma.

Stigma is one of the biggest barriers to seeking help for drug problems. It delays help-seeking and increases the risk of dropout from treatment.

Any public messaging about drugs should follow well-established guidelines for reporting on drug-related issues, including those from Mindframe and AOD Media Watch.

Blaming individuals for structural problems doesn’t reduce use or harms

The AFP’s cocaine post tries to link individual drug use to large scale structural problems, like organised crime and the global drug trade.

This ignores the key underlying causes of organised crime, which are linked to the massive profits made possible by the prohibition of drugs. If drugs were regulated, it could significantly reduce the black market and generate revenue for more treatment.

Drugs are more harmful because they’re illegal. They’re manufactured in backyard labs with no quality or dose control.

This is why most experts support drug law reform, such as decriminalisation or legalisation. Public support for legalisation of drugs has been increasing, with more people now supporting the legalisation of cannabis than opposing it.

Some argue that with the massive amount of money spent on drug law enforcement (66% of the entire spend on drugs) and the very small long-term impact on the drug market, we need a different approach.

What does work?

What works in preventing uptake is providing good factual information about drugs from an early age, including evidence-based school drug education.

Harm reduction strategies, like needle and syringe programs and medically supervised injecting facilities, reduce harms from drug use. Often these activities also reduce use, although this isn’t their main aim.

Treatment is effective in reducing drug use and harms.

There has been a significant shift in Australia and internationally to viewing drug use as a health and human rights issue rather than a criminal justice issue.

Law enforcement should stick to policing. Drug prevention and harm reduction are specialised areas of health science, and public health isn’t served by the AFP acting outside its area of expertise.

Getting help

If you’re worried about your own or someone else’s use of alcohol or other drugs call the National Alcohol and other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015, free from anywhere in Australia.

You can also chat online with a counsellor at Alcohol & Drug Counselling Online, join an online support group at SMART Recovery, or talk to your GP about seeing a psychologist or counsellor. You may be able to access support via telehealth.

Nicole Lee works as a consultant in the alcohol and other drug sector and a psychologist in private practice. She has previously been awarded funding from Australian and state governments, NHMRC and other bodies for evaluation and research into drug prevention and treatment. She is a member of the Australian National Advisory Council on Alcohol and other Drugs (ANACAD) and the Board of Directors of Hello Sunday Morning and The Loop Australia.

Jarryd Bartle works as a consultant in the alcohol and other drug sector

– ref. The police’s new scare campaign won’t stop people from using drugs. But it will increase stigma – https://theconversation.com/the-polices-new-scare-campaign-wont-stop-people-from-using-drugs-but-it-will-increase-stigma-171303