Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed – for lack of a better word – is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms – greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge – has marked the upward surge of mankind.

– Gordon Gekko, Wall Street 1987

Fifty years ago, well before the movie Wall Street, Chicago economist Milton Friedman set down what for many was the essence of the famous speech in Wall Street in an article for the New York times magazine entitled “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits”.

His point, which along with his other contributions was recognised when he was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1976, was that businesses serve society best when they abandon talk of “social responsibilities” and solely maximise returns for shareholders.

Incredibly influential (the past week has seen special conferences and anniversary analyses), the essay has been credited with ushering in the doctrine of “shareholder primacy,” and with it short-termism, hostile takeovers, colossal frauds and savage job cuts.

Its a doctrine not seriously challenged until the 2008-2009 global financial crisis.

But in an important respect it was misread.

Although not clear from the title of the essay, Friedman himself was quite concerned with broader social aims.

His essay was about how best to achieve them.

His point was that if companies made as much money as they could for their shareholders, those shareholders could spend it on social goals, “if they wished to do so”.

For the company to attempt to guess what goals its shareholders would want to support and to support them itself would be for the company to do its main job badly.

Although it made a certain sort of sense, the Friedman doctrine has turned out to be incomplete.

As Harvard University’s Oliver Hart (who also won the Nobel Prize for Economics) has points out, corporations are often much better than their shareholders at achieving the goals their shareholders care about.

Corporations can achieve more than individuals

Individual shareholders can’t do much to avert climate change, but the corporations they own can.

A mining company could either stop operating an environmentally-damaging mine or run the mine, make a bunch of money and pay it to shareholders who could use the money to mitigate the damage “if they wished to do so”.

Its hard to argue that, if shareholders do indeed “wish to do so”, the first option isn’t better.

To cite a recent instance, is hard to “un-blow-up” 46,000 years of Indigenous heritage.

Read more: Corporate dysfunction on Indigenous affairs: Why heads rolled at Rio Tinto

In contrast, Friedman was almost surely right about corporate charitable contributions, which was in many ways the impetus for the article.

In what way are corporations better at giving money to charities (and political parties) than individuals. In none that are obvious (and not potentially corrupt).

So where do we draw the line about what corporations do and don’t do?

Proponents of the “stakeholder view” now endorsed by an increasing number of superannuation funds think corporations should have a composite objective that takes into account the interests of shareholders, bondholders, workers, suppliers, the environment, and more.

Yet a point in every direction…

The problem with this, as recognised by the arrow-covered pointless man in the animated Harry Nilsson film What’s The Point? is that “a point in every direction is the same as no point at all”.

As Friedman put it, composite objectives suffer from “looseness and lack of rigour”.

Others, such as Hart and University of Chicago professor Luigi Zingales think firms should find out what shareholders most want, and “pursue that goal.”

This has the virtue of permitting a social objective while creating a concrete, measurable goal.

It’s a way of giving shareholders (and super fund members) a voice that is more direct than simply electing directors every few years.

Friedman helped start an important discussion. Fifty years on, it isn’t finished.

– ref. Vital Signs: 50 years ago Milton Friedman told us greed was good. He was half right – https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-50-years-ago-milton-friedman-told-us-greed-was-good-he-was-half-right-146294

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emily van der Nagel, Lecturer in Social Media, Monash University

Sex is fascinating, important, and sometimes scary. Sex is a normal part of life. Yet, the multiplicity and richness of sexual practices on social media rarely make it into everyday conversations.

Nudes, it seems, are now part of everyday life. On social media, there are platform rules around what kinds of adult content is allowed. Some platforms heavily restrict displays of nudity or sexual activity; others allow it. But between these rules, people engage in a variety of tactics to control what facets of their identities can be seen by their audiences.

The sociologist Erving Goffman called this “audience segregation”: we make sure our different audiences – those to whom you are good daughter versus those to whom you are kinky sex goddess – do not mix.

Since our audiences are mostly invisible on social media, we need to imagine who they are. This imaginary then guides what we choose to say, show, share or otherwise express.

We have spent years studying people’s sexual practices on social media. Through interviews, online observation, and content analysis we have identified three main tactics of expressing sexual selfhood: setting up alternative accounts or incorporating alternative platforms; omissions – i.e. strategically leaving out details from the information one shares; and anonymity or using a pseudonym.

Read more: Health Check: what controls our sex drive? When and why do we feel like sex?

‘Networked sex accounts’

Choosing to express different facets of oneself on different platforms or through different accounts is a common practice, and not necessarily a sexual one. But how these multiple platforms are used when it comes to sex, varies enormously.

Some find it appropriate to post Not Safe for Work (NSFW) content on mainstream social media like Twitter or Instagram and do so from their given name or “main” account. This includes those in the sex industry, but also others including artists, activists, feminists, body-positive bloggers, educators, actors, models and nudists.

Other people create alternative accounts on platforms they’re familiar with, or accounts on another platform, to express sexual aspects of their self, but keep the audiences separate.

Some people create a secondary or “alt” account for their sexual identity on Twitter. They then use it to connect with like-minded people, talk about sex and share nudes, usually in a small, intimate circle of other alt accounts.

In this space made up of networked sex accounts, sexual images flow in abundance, even if the platform more broadly is better known for images of coffee art, political talk or aggressive arguments.

This is not to say that people show their full, entire self in these secondary accounts. These are still facets. However, the facets do vary considerably in depth and detail.

For instance, on Facebook, people show their face, but not their naked body. They talk using their real name, about their jobs and maybe their children.

On Tumblr, they might show their bodies, but not their faces. They post under a pseudonym and talk about both the profound – private thoughts, desires, anxieties – and the completely trivial (a favourite dish, a beloved cartoon character, a silly joke).

Read more: The safest sex you’ll never have: how coronavirus is changing online dating

What’s left out

Deciding what information to leave out is integral to Reddit Gonewild. This exhibitionist subreddit, a themed thread on the bulletin board Reddit, features posts of women in stages of undress and sexual pleasure. These women mostly choose to obscure their faces, avoid unique backdrops, blur out recognisable tattoos and use a pseudonym while posting.

The appeal of the posts lies in their everydayness; these are women who enjoy showing off sexually, revealing intimate parts of their bodies and lives while staying unidentifiable.

Reddit Gonewild itself encourages this, urging those posting to stay anonymous by making a “throwaway” or temporary, anonymous account; using a service that strips metadata from photos, (deleting automatically generated information like the device used, location details, and time the photo was taken); and making sure the photo obscures enough.

Its rules state:

You should blur out tattoos or maybe certain birth marks someone could recognise if they’ve seen you in a low cut or sleeveless shirt. Don’t stand next to the wacky lamp that everyone in your dorm knows you for. Don’t pose seductively on the hood of a car with your license plate showing […]

You CAN be creative even under these constraints. Take it up as part of the challenge. Dress up your room a little! Reverse the comforter on your bed. Clear off the bathroom counter. Do anything to make the picture look sexy and fun, but make yourself a little less recognisable – a little harder to place. This is your alter ego!

It is common also to evade some questions or fabricate information in sexual social media interactions or posts. Typically, this includes changing information about where one lives.

How comfortable someone is in saying which country, state or city they are from depends quite a lot on the size of that territory, but also on their goals and needs. Wanting to receive information or access to local events, groups and people requires you to reveal your location quite accurately.

In our research, we found American participants were usually happy to name their state, some even their (large) city on NSFW Tumblr. However, people from very small European countries preferred not to share this information, to avoid being known as that one Estonian naked on the internet.

On other platforms, where choosing one’s location from a drop-down menu is a mandatory part of setting up a profile, many people interested in consuming sexual information and not interactions choose Antarctica as their location (and being 98-years-old).

Sharing information about one’s occupation followed similar logic. The more specific the field or the position, the less likely it was to be shared.

Other information sharing rules people have for themselves are less about audience segregation and more about their purposes for using social media.

Those interested in cheating might not mention they had a partner, although building a relationship from shared commiseration regarding partners is very common. Others do not mention their children on principle.

Pseudonyms

Images of faces in profile pictures are an important source of identification on social media, but names and user names continue to be the main way people are identified.

Because of this, anonymity and pseudonyms are key to any compartmentalisation strategies.

When search engines, networks, connections and tags figure so prominently in the experience of social media, using a name other than the one identifying you publicly is often the main way of maintaining contextual integrity.

Pseudonyms have a rich history of being used to communicate politically, creatively, and playfully. They are often used to segregate audiences. Mathematician Charles Dodgson, for instance, wrote children’s books under the pen name Lewis Carroll.

A pseudonym for a sexy social media account, or to use as a porn performer or sex worker, does similar identity work of compartmentalising.

As porn star Conner Habib explains, creating a name is creating an identity, one that protects him as a porn performer from complicated and sometimes discriminatory entanglements. Habib’s porn name reflects his Irish and Syrian heritage, and introduces a Middle Eastern name to porn, an element he recognises as underrepresented.

Habib titled an essay “The name of your first pet and the street you grew up on”, a common method for identifying a pseudonym that would work for a porn star. He also has highlighted a common refrain. “What’s your real name?” is often asked of porn performers as a way of demanding intimacy.

Read more: The rise of the ‘porntropreneur’: even hustlers need side hustles in the gig economy

Choosing a name is an assertion of power: one highly successful Finnish porn performer is known as Rakel Liekki, which translates in English to “Rachel Flame”.

Her chosen name is a character, media persona and brand, as well as a way of separating her private life from her performing life. “Flame” conjures images of fire, heat, and a kind of primal, natural sexuality.

Using pseudonyms, porn performers and sex workers can be identifiable, and build a reputation while keeping their occupation private.

One insight that anonymous, intimate posts about sex provides us is that sharing sexual experiences and anxieties helps people feel less alone.

Last year, journalist Anna Borges published a list of anonymous insecurities about sex that people submitted to her through an online form in a BuzzFeed article: 37 confessions about sex that will make you feel less alone.

The article includes confessions about being a virgin, wanting to experience anal pleasure as a straight man in a heterosexual marriage, vaginismus and female sexual dysfunction, asexuality, being pressured to make moaning noises during sex, and the way one’s own genitals look:

I have been plagued for as long as I can remember with the fact that I don’t have a perfect little Barbie-type vagina. I have heard so many men make jokes (not about me directly) about “roast beef” vaginas, how long labia = loose/slutty vagina, etc. So for the most part, I avoid sex with new partners for fear of judgement or grossing them out completely.

Borges presented these confessions to reassure the reader they are not unique in worrying about sex: we all have personal issues and internalised media messages that can get in the way of positive sexual experiences.

Existing as posts to websites that sit outside, yet often flow through, social media, sex confession projects frame such confessions as a healthy way to find out what other people think and do in their intimate lives.

Read more: Sexual subcultures are collateral damage in Tumblr’s ban on adult content

Another corner of Reddit features people disclosing sexual abuse in order to seek support in order to heal. Our colleague Nazanin Andalibi and her co-authors found people posting about sexual abuse in subreddits designed for this purpose.

When people feel anonymous they are more likely to share personal and intimate information, and dedicated spaces for these disclosures coupled with a culture of pseudonyms have led to many people seeking support on these bulletin boards.

Many use a throwaway account rather than their persistent, pseudonymous Reddit username.

But pseudonymity is not foolproof. Even when people take care to hide their identity, others sometimes endeavour to find them out.

One NSFW Tumblr study participant told of a friend’s frightening experience. It is very common to post partial images of bodies on Tumblr – legs, a slice of torso, clavicles and breasts.

An obsessive follower had collected all of these slices of a woman’s body and assembled a bizarre Frankenstein image created from it. After figuring out the town where the woman lives from image metadata and other information, the follower sent the collage and this information to the Tumblr user.

While men posting images can also have obsessive stalkers and abusers, examples such as this one reflect widespread ideas of gendered shame.

The shame that is evoked when girls and women participate in sexy identity practices works to shift responsibility from the person (usually a man) who violated trust by taking the sexy selfies out of context. The shame is redirected towards the woman who dared to be sexy or naked to a select audience.

You, or not you

Whether or not a social media account is an “alter ego” depends on how its creator thinks about it.

For some, the online sexual self expresses a completely different persona to the Facebook account they use to friend their colleagues, high school buddies and netball group.

For others, it’s considered an extension of that person; the difference between what they do in the office and the bedroom.

One interviewee said:

I think a lot of people think that when they follow social media, they understand a person as a whole, but really, any social media thing is still a persona or a ratioed amount, or a curated element of a person. It’s not the entire person […] my whole self is not owed to a certain social media channel or to a certain following.

While “compartments” suggest neat boundaries, the reality is much leakier.

There’s plenty of play between public and private accounts – even when social media platforms would prefer people to sign up with one account for what they consider to be a singular, fixed identity.

This is an edited extract from Sex and Social Media by Katrin Tiidenberg and Emily van der Nagel, out now with Emerald.

– ref. Friday essay: shifting identities – performing sexual selves on social media – https://theconversation.com/friday-essay-shifting-identities-performing-sexual-selves-on-social-media-145322

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

The government is extending the COVID health measures for a further six months, until the end of March, in its latest acknowledgement that pandemic assistance will be needed on various fronts for a longer period.

The extension, costing $2 billion, covers the telehealth services provided by doctors and a range of allied health professionals, home medicine delivery, and free COVID-19 pathology tests.

It also includes the cost of funding for further personal protective equipment for the national medical stockpile, GP-led respiratory clinics, half the cost of activities to respond to COVID-19 in hospitals, and continuation of the private hospital agreement to ensure access to beds.

Telehealth, which started in March, has proved highly popular with three out of every ten GP services at present done virtually. So far, over 30 million services have been provided to more than ten million patients, delivered by more than 77,000 practitioners. Some $1.55 billion has been paid in benefits.

Given the convenience and high usage of telehealth, the government will be under pressure to build it into the health system permanently.

Scott Morrison said telehealth and home delivery medicine services reduced the risk of exposure to COVID-19 in the community while supporting people in isolation.

“Importantly this also includes mental health services, delivered over the phone, by trained specialists and GPs,” he said.

The extension of the health funding comes as national cabinet meets on Friday, when it will discuss the increase in the cap — from 4,000 to 6,000 a week nationally – that the government has announced for people coming home from overseas.

Western Australia has been critical of the government for pre-empting the national cabinet with its announcement.

Morrison was adamant on Thursday the increased cap was a fait accompli, not a request to the states.

“The planes will land with people on them … It’s a decision. It’s not a proposal. The Commonwealth government has made a decision that those caps have been moved to those levels and planes will be able to fly to those ports carrying that many passengers a week,” he said.

Jane Halton, a former health department secretary who is on the government’s COVID-19 commission and has done an audit of quarantine arrangements around the country, will brief Friday’s meeting.

Meanwhile tensions remain over state border restrictions, especially in relation to the Queensland border. But with the Queensland election looming and the state government’s policy favoured by many voters, Morrison on Thursday was treading carefully.

“I’ve never said the Queensland border should be taken down,” he insisted. “What I’ve said is it should be managed sensibly. What I’ve said is it should be managed compassionately. What I’ve said is that they should explain to people what the rules for it are and the medical basis of it are,” he said.

“No doubt people in Queensland may feel that the borders are protecting their health situation. I understand that. But there’s also the impact that it is having more broadly on jobs and business and industry in Queensland.”

The 14-day quarantine rule operating in Queensland will mean neither Morrison nor Anthony Albanese will be able to campaign on the ground for the late October election.

Morrison said NSW and Victoria and South Australia were working to get their borders down.

“The border between New South Wales and Victoria is likely to come down before the one in New South Wales and Queensland,” he said.

– ref. Government extends COVID health initiatives at $2 billion cost – https://theconversation.com/government-extends-covid-health-initiatives-at-2-billion-cost-146430

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

If Labor were threatening to build a power station, the Liberals would likely be screaming “socialists”.

As for a Coalition government contemplating such a thing — well, to say the obvious, it hardly fits with the Liberals’ stated free market, private enterprise philosophy. But hey, neither does the hyper-Keynesian support package to cushion the economy through the pandemic.

Only a few within its own ranks would dispute the government’s COVID mega spending, whatever the ideological contradiction. And they’re keeping their voices to private whispers.

The gas power plant is another matter, and it will be fascinating to see how the debate plays out if the threat turns into reality.

Read more: Morrison government threatens to use Snowy Hydro to build gas generator, as it outlines ‘gas-fired recovery’ plan

The threat is part of the go-with-gas policy unveiled by Scott Morrison this week, spruiked as driving a “gas-fired” recovery, especially for manufacturing. This sounds suspiciously like a three word slogan that promises more than it is likely to deliver.

But Morrison has signed up to the church of gas, whose pastors include Nev Power, chairman of the prime minister’s COVID-19 commission and Andrew Liveris, the head of its (now defunct) manufacturing taskforce, which delivered a pro-gas report. Morrison this week referenced his discussions with Liveris at Kirribilli House.

Much of the gas plan is broad and aspirational at this stage. But the threat is specific enough, and Morrison adopted a grim, school teacher tone when he delivered it in his speech at Newcastle unveiling the policy.

He said the electricity sector must lock in by April investments to deliver 1,000 megawatts of new dispatchable energy to replace the Liddell coal fired power station before it closes in 2023. Or else. The government-owned Snowy Hydro was working on options, Morrison said.

Going back to Malcolm Turnbull’s time, the government conducted — and lost — a bitter battle with AGL over the planned Liddell closure. It exerted maximum pressure on the company to extend the life of the station, or alternatively, sell it, but to no avail.

The gas policy, especially the threat, hasn’t gone down well — with the energy sector or environmentalists. And it’s come under criticism from experts and even within Coalition ranks.

The Australian Energy Council, representing investors and generators, warned the spectre of a government gas generator could put off private investors.

Environmentalists are against gas anyway, whoever produces it, because it is a fossil fuel and therefore has emissions, albeit not as bad as coal.

The Nationals Matt Canavan, who not so long ago was resources minister, says if a new power station is to be built in the Hunter region it should be coal-fired.

And the director of the Grattan Institute’s energy program, Tony Wood, says the government’s claim that 1000 megawatts of new dispatchable capacity is needed isn’t supported by the advice from its own Liddell taskforce.

Read more: Politics with Michelle Grattan: Angus Taylor on the ‘gas-fired’ recovery

More generally, Wood argues the idea of a gas–led recovery “is a mirage”.

He says east coast gas prices are unlikely to fall to very low levels and anyway, even very low prices would not stimulate major economic activity. “Investing in more gas infrastructure in the face of climate change looks more like a herd of stampeding white elephants,” is Wood’s blunt assessment.

“Gas is very likely to have a role for some time to balance solar and wind. This role will be important but diminishing in volume and the pace of change will be determined by the relative economics of gas versus storage technologies and hydrogen.”

Some see the government’s big takeup of gas as a way of walking away from coal, without fanfare. The government denies this, but it would fit with Morrison’s middle-course pragmatism.

That pragmatism is reflected in the week’s other major energy announcement, for $1.9 billion investment in new and emerging technologies to lower emissions.

Morrison explicitly spelled out the government’s view that renewables, notably solar and wind, have boomed commercially and can take care of themselves.

The policy looks both backwards and forwards.

Backwards, with its support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) which — leaving aside its problems as a technology — is an encouragement to fossil fuels.

Forwards, by extending support to a wide range of technologies of the future.

Critics don’t like the proposed expansion of the remit of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) beyond supporting renewables.

If the government can get the legislation through the Senate, these bodies would be able to back a wide range of projects, including CCS.

The government is also clinging to its Emissions Reduction Fund, which has had trouble attracting proposals. It plans to reform the fund’s processes.

Taken as a whole and leaving aside the arguments about their efficacy, this week’s decisions have a clear political element. They are relatively risk averse within the Coalition, the threatened power plant notwithstanding.

Energy has been such a fraught area for the government that Morrison is very aware of juggling the conflicting forces within his ranks.

Read more: Government targets emerging technologies with $1.9 billion, saying renewables can stand on own feet

The internal coal lobby, spearheaded by Canavan but wider than him, will continue to mutter. The crunch will come when the government’s feasibility study for a Queensland coal fired power station is finished. But putting gas at the centre of the picture will reassure some in the Coalition who remain deeply suspicious of renewables.

The Liberals in seats where climate change is a big preoccupation may or may not find enough to sell in this week’s packages. They can emphasise the “transition” nature of gas — Morrison described it as “a stable transition fuel” — and talk up the support for emerging technologies.

But they will confront the counter argument that the government is not doing enough or proceeding fast enough on climate change.

Meanwhile, Labor struggles with its own energy and climate policies, which caused it such problems last election, when it had dual or confusing messaging in the country’s south and north and lacked costings.

Post election, the spectrum of Labor thinking on these issues has been exposed, and resources spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon, who takes many of his cues from his NSW coal seat of Hunter, frequently speaks out.

Like Morrison, on energy and climate policy Anthony Albanese will be seeking to position himself somewhere in the middle ground for the election. He’ll look to being to the left of the PM — but not way out on a limb.

– ref. Grattan on Friday: Morrison signs up to the gas gospel, but the choir is not in tune – https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-morrison-signs-up-to-the-gas-gospel-but-the-choir-is-not-in-tune-146405

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Duckett, Director, Health Program, Grattan Institute

With the number of COVID-19 cases in Victoria continuing to trend downwards, Premier Daniel Andrews yesterday announced a phased restart of elective procedures in public and private hospitals.

Regional Victoria moves to return to 75% of usual elective surgery activity from today, and 85% from September 28. In metropolitan Melbourne, hospitals can move towards 75% from September 28, and 85% from October 26. A return to full capacity across the state is slated for November 23.

But after two partial shutdowns totalling about six months, we’re left with a significant backlog of elective surgeries in Victoria.

To clear this backlog quickly and efficiently, the state government will need to make changes to the way it manages elective surgeries.

Stopping and starting

Elective procedures — particularly category 3 procedures, which are deemed non-urgent but should be done within a year of listing — were one of the early casualties of COVID-19.

Hospitals have only been undertaking category 1 (urgent elective procedures that should be completed within 30 days of listing) and some category 2 procedures (semi-urgent, within 90 days).

The aim was to ensure there was adequate personal protective equipment for staff and beds would be available for an anticipated influx of patients with COVID-19.

There was a brief restart between the first and second waves of the pandemic, but the “care debt” of needed-but-deferred procedures mounted during both slowdowns.

The number of patients waiting for elective surgeries in Victoria increased almost 14% from December 2019 to June 2020, from 49,341 to 56,039. It’s almost certainly increased even more since then. New South Wales is facing a similar problem.

Read more: Getting an initial specialists’ appointment is the hidden waitlist

That’s just the tip of the iceberg

Outpatient attendances have also slowed during the pandemic, meaning patients referred to public hospitals haven’t received the specialist assessments necessary to determine whether they need a procedure.

The number of new specialist appointments in public hospitals in Victoria dropped by more than 15% between April-June 2019 and April-June 2020. That’s equivalent to more than 2,000 fewer appointments each week in 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.

So a further hidden waiting list — of unknown proportions — is looming behind the waiting list of patients assessed as needing a procedure.

Hospitals can ramp up their work temporarily to reduce the backlog. They could contract private hospitals, although private hospitals are busy clearing their own backlogs.

When the 75/85% caps are lifted, public hospitals could introduce overtime shifts, extending operating times in the evenings or on weekends. But even adding one extra day a week, it would take a whole year to clear 50 days’ worth of backlog.

A better way

Restarting the tired, failing approach to managing elective procedures — which left thousands waiting too long for care even before the pandemic — will guarantee extended waits for those Victorians on the waiting list.

The Victorian government needs to make three immediate changes to address the problem.

1. Centralise waiting lists

Good management of lines — be it in supermarkets or for elective procedures — involves creating and managing a single queue. Multiple queues lead to inequity and long waits.

Hospital waiting lists in each specialty should be merged — potentially into three clusters in metropolitan Melbourne and three in regional Victoria. All orthopaedic patients in southeastern Melbourne, for example, should be on one list and offered a place at the first available location.

The government should provide extra funding for extra activity to help clear waiting lists — but that funding should prioritise hospitals that meet criteria of both good outcomes for patients and good efficiency.

2. Review waiting lists

Not everyone on a waiting list needs their elective procedure. We know low-value care occurs in public hospitals, and we shouldn’t restart that.

Non-surgical treatment should be considered where there’s good evidence it’s appropriate, such as in the case of spinal fusion surgery and some orthopaedic procedures.

Specialist clinical groups should review treatment pathways and admission criteria to ensure best contemporary practice is implemented as part of reopening elective procedures. This way, priority would go to patients most likely to benefit.

Read more: The coronavirus ban on elective surgeries might show us many people can avoid going under the knife

3. Modernise the system

Simply adding extra operating sessions won’t fix the extensive waiting list, let alone address the hidden backlog of people currently waiting for outpatient appointments.

Many patients having elective surgeries need to stay in hospital for several days, so the number of beds available can also limit capacity for admissions.

Hospitals should be funded to implement and evaluate changes in their approaches to treatment. For example, the current length of stay for elective hip replacements in Australia is about four to five days. But hospitals in Europe and the United States have been performing hip replacements on a same-day basis for selected patients for a decade, with comparable outcomes.

Patients on waiting lists should also be offered programs to improve the likelihood of better outcomes from their surgery, for example “prehabilitation”, a strategy that uses exercise to improve patients’ functional capacity before surgery, and quit smoking programs. Patients in better health will stay in hospital for a shorter time.

Let’s capitalise on this opportunity

The Victorian government’s announcement that elective procedures will restart is unquestionably welcome news for the tens of thousands of people waiting for a procedure. But it will be a missed opportunity if it doesn’t also involve rethinking the elective procedures system.

Fixing the backlog within a reasonable time will require major change to the way elective procedures are delivered in Victoria. This would benefit not only those currently waiting, but will have long-term effects after the pandemic has passed.

Read more: ‘Slow and steady’ exit from lockdown as Victorian government sets sights on ‘COVID-normal’ Christmas

– ref. How to clear Victoria’s backlog of elective surgeries after a 6-month slowdown? We need to rethink the system – https://theconversation.com/how-to-clear-victorias-backlog-of-elective-surgeries-after-a-6-month-slowdown-we-need-to-rethink-the-system-146298

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ivan Diaz-Rainey, Associate Professor of Finance & Director, Climate and Energy Finance Group, University of Otago

This week’s announcement of mandatory disclosures of climate-related risks for companies and financial institutions is arguably the New Zealand government’s most significant climate policy — even more so than the Zero Carbon Act itself.

The new policy will come into effect in 2023. It requires all banks, asset managers and insurance companies with more than NZ$1 billion in assets to disclose their climate risks, in line with the emerging global standard from the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). This is a smart move, as it ties risk disclosure to international best practice, which is likely to evolve in the coming years.

There will be a collective gulp in bank boards and company risk management departments of the roughly 200 affected entities, but initiatives such as the Aotearoa Circle Sustainable Finance Forum show a growing proportion of the financial sector understands climate risk disclosures are necessary.

I have criticised this government’s climate policy in the past for being big on promise but short on concrete policies. But this financial disclosure policy has some real teeth.

Banking on a brighter future

New Zealand has a bank-based financial system. This means banks — rather than the stock or bond markets — are the primary source of finance for companies.

New Zealand’s Exchange (NZX) has a market capitalisation of around NZ$170 billion, while the four big New Zealand banks (all subsidiaries of Australian banks) have assets, consisting largely of loans, of around NZ$500 billion.

Including banks and insurance companies in the new mandatory disclosure rules means the whole of the economy will be seen through a climate risk lens, not just large companies listed on the stock market.

Read more: Super funds are feeling the financial heat from climate change

Banks will need to think seriously about transition, physical and liability risk when lending and offering insurance to households and small and medium size enterprises (SMEs). This matters most to domestic real estate, by far the largest item on the balance sheet of New Zealand banks, and agricultural and small businesses more generally.

It would be unreasonable to ask SMEs and households to disclose climate risks, so the task is being delegated to banks and insurers.

Figuring out what climate risks lie within banks is not a simple task. Banks will need to scale up their ability to estimate flooding risk from extreme rain, storms and sea level rise on residential housing.

New Zealand’s emissions profile is dominated by agricultural emissions. Banks will need to evaluate whether future loan applications for dairy intensification are consistent with the Paris Agreement, or if those farm loans might become stranded assets through future regulatory changes, such as the eventual entry of agriculture into New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme.

Read more: NZ’s environmental watchdog challenges climate policy on farm emissions and forestry offsets

The Kiwi tail wagging the Aussie dog

The policy could cause some interesting spillover effects for other countries. Around 20% of ANZ Banking Group assets are from its ANZ New Zealand subsidiary. Might this force greater disclosure by the Australian parent? Or will banks try to wriggle out of New Zealand’s disclosure requirements through “foreign exempt issuers status”?

The latter seems improbable, since the policy explicitly mentions banks with more than NZ$1 billion in assets. This threshold could cover 13 banks registered in New Zealand. It will be interesting to see how large international banks such as the Bank of China, which has a “small” presence in New Zealand, will respond.

The policy will also mean the half of NZX-listed companies currently not disclosing greenhouse gas emissions will have to do so. Our recent study reveals substantial climate transition risks for a number of listed companies.

The table below presents how climate change could hit the bottom lines of major companies in New Zealand, showing projected percentage decreases in revenue for 2018, 2030 and 2050. These calculations are based on carbon prices in the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s report on New Zealand’s transition to a low-emissions economy.

Our research shows it is generally smaller and less profitable firms that do not disclose.

Having all listed firms disclose will level the playing field. Importantly, it will allow investment managers (who also need to disclose their climate risks) to overcome past issues of insufficient data to create genuinely climate-friendly investment products.

The task of independent monitoring, reporting and enforcement of the rules will fall to the financial regulator, the Financial Markets Authority.

Reporting by the 200 or so affected entities will be on a “report or explain basis”. But companies with significant risks that choose the explain option will be disciplined by the market and potentially by the authority.

Disclosure will increase and companies, investment managers, insurers and banks will be comparable on a like-for-like basis — finally allowing consumers to make fully informed decisions about where their money goes. These new rules will unleash the market and drive it in a more climate-friendly direction — beginning the long process of delivering a genuinely sustainable financial system.

– ref. New Zealand will make big banks, insurers and firms disclose their climate risk. It’s time other countries did too – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-will-make-big-banks-insurers-and-firms-disclose-their-climate-risk-its-time-other-countries-did-too-146392

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

The return of the Archibald Prize, albeit somewhat delayed, can be taken as a signal life in Sydney is returning to normal. Or maybe not.

The announcement of the finalists took place with a reduced media scrum, and likewise the eventual winners will share their moment of glory via a live stream camera. The traditional Archibald night reception will also be streamed to invitees who must provide their own champagne.

It may be that the enforced idleness of lockdown has concentrated artists’ minds, but this year there are not only a record number of entries (1,068) but 40% of the finalists are first time entrants. This includes Meyne Wyatt, the winner of the packing room prize.

The result is probably the most refreshing Archibald exhibition I can remember.

In the way of all things Archibald, some of the works have already been seen. Behrouz Boochani’s haunting, tortured eyes as painted by Angus McDonald, challenge Australia’s conscience.

His presence here is a reminder that the prize specifies “Australasia”, not Australia, so both New Zealand and Papua New Guinea are welcome. New Zealand is also represented by Jonathan Dalton’s portrait of fellow artist Angela Tiatia.

Wendy Sharpe, who won the Archibald in 1996, has captured both the comedy and the angst of Magda Szubanski, outlined against the bushfires that claimed last summer.

There are other media figures, most delightfully Yoshio Honjo’s portrait of Adam Liaw with Bream and James Powditch’s Once upon a time in Marrickville — Anthony Albanese, painted to look like the veteran fighter he is.

Because the prize announcement is made from a podium set up in the central court of the exhibition at the Art Gallery of New South Wales, this is the space where the winner is most likely to be hung.

The trustees of the gallery, who are the judges, don’t hang the exhibition but as the curator is present throughout their initial selection she knows which works most excited them. Almost certainly one of the works hanging in this room will be the winner. The trick is to work out which one.

Four outstanding paintings

There are four outstanding paintings in the central court, each painted in a different style. Three of them are by Aboriginal artists. The non-Aboriginal artist is Ramesh Mario Nithiyendran whose richly coloured, heavily textured self portrait is as cheeky as the artist.

Kaylene Whiskey’s Dolly visits Indulkana is a magical fantasy. She has long had a love of Dolly Parton and pop culture.

Her delightful naive style is complemented by other equally innocent works hung nearby. There is Emily Crockford’s Self-portrait with Daddy in the daisies watching the field of planes, Sleeping Beauty, Marc Etherington’s mordant portrait of Michael Reid as the undead, Neil Tomkins and Digby Webster’s joint portrait of the Ernest brothers and Tiger Yaltangki’s exhuberant Self-portrait.

Vincent Namatjira has been a finalist several times, and has also won other major art prizes. His lush, painterly style is far removed from that of his great-grandfather Albert Namatjira, and he is also more openly political. This year his subject is a double portrait of himself with Adam Goodes, Stand Strong For Who You Are.

Goodes is shown in various guises — playing football, lifting his shirt to show he is black and proud, and with the Aboriginal flag. In any other year this would be the stand out entry and a shoo-in for the prize.

But this isn’t any other year. The room, and the exhibition, is dominated by Writing in the sand, by Blak Douglas (aka Adam Hill). The subject is Dujuan Hoosen, the young hero of the 2019 documentary In My Blood It Runs shot in Mparntwe (Alice Springs), Sandy Bore Homeland and Borroloola Community, Northern Territory.

Hoosen’s head fills most of picture, staring out, but his eyes are strangely dead. Blak Douglas has painted them in the tiniest of dotted, concentric circles. The background implies traditional Aboriginal patterning, but on a closer look it contains written text containing Hoosen’s indictment of the white school system and the teaching that eradicates his culture. By any measure this is a major work.

Aboriginal subjects form a significant grouping this year. They include Thea Anamara Perkins’ portrait of the Gadigal elder Charles Madden, Julie Fragar’s portrait of the veteran activist artist Richard Bell and Craig Ruddy’s portrait of Bruce Pascoe. Both Ruddy and Louise Hearman, who has entered a portrait of Barry Jones, are previous winners.

Most years, the Archibald is worth seeing as an amusing exercise in social history. This year it is worth viewing for the art.

After next week’s judgement, the finalists will be on view at the AGNSW until January 10. They will then travel to the Tweed Regional Gallery & Margaret Olley Art Centre, Cairns Art Gallery, Griffith Regional Art Gallery, Broken Hill Regional Art Gallery, Shoalhaven Regional Gallery, and Penrith Regional Gallery.

– ref. ‘The most refreshing Archibald exhibition I can remember’: the 2020 portrait prize finalists – https://theconversation.com/the-most-refreshing-archibald-exhibition-i-can-remember-the-2020-portrait-prize-finalists-146295

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rod Lamberts, Deputy Director, Australian National Centre for Public Awareness of Science, Australian National University

In an unprecedented step, prestigious science publication Scientific American has launched a scathing attack on President Donald Trump and endorsed his opponent, Democratic candidate Joe Biden, in the upcoming US election. It’s the first presidential endorsement in the magazine’s 175-year history.

To this, we say: about bloody time! As we’ve noted before:

Science is political. The science we do is inherently shaped by the funding landscape of government and the problems and issues of society. This means that to have any influence on how science is organised and funded in Australia (or the US or any other country), we as scientists and science communicators must act in ways that matter in the arena of politics.

It’s now more critical than ever, as the editors at Scientific American clearly lay out, that the people who are actually knowledgeable about the world’s crises speak out and represent that knowledge (or “collective wisdom”) in public, out loud and with their names attached.

Under Trump, science isn’t just ignored. It is lampooned and directly attacked, especially on issues such as climate change and the coronavirus pandemic. This actively threatens the lives (and livelihoods) of not just millions of Americans, but countless others around the world.

Respect the messenger

In the past, it has been suggested scientists who comment beyond their specific, narrow sphere of reach by delving into politics are tainting their credibility – perhaps even behaving unethically.

But as we now stare down the barrel of an ongoing global pandemic (and relentless climate change continuing in the background), to remain quiet on the politics is not just unethical, but actively dangerous.

Read more: 5 big environment stories you probably missed while you’ve been watching coronavirus

The argument that science is somehow tainted by offering policy or political opinions is an idea whose time has long gone.

Who is better placed to add valuable weight to public debates about the key problems we’re facing, than those who represent the voice of evidence, reason and debate (such as Scientific American)?

As one of us has previously argued, in Australia we should encourage scientists and science communicators to:

Become more active in challenging the status quo, or to help support those who wish to by engendering a professional environment that encourages risk-taking and speaking out in public about critical social issues.

It’s the principle, not the votes

Scientific American is not entirely alone in pushing for the involvement of scientists in public policy and action. Other reputable publications have taken similar stances in the past.

In 2017, Nature argued “debates over climate change and genome editing present the need for researchers to venture beyond their comfort zones to engage with citizens”. Earlier in 2012, Nature explicitly endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama over Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

In Australia, our news publications have a tradition of endorsing political parties at federal elections, but our science publishing landscape has typically remained agnostic.

Peak bodies such as the Australian Academy of Science, and Science and Technology Australia, have commented on the political decision-making process, but have rarely been so forthright as the Scientific American’s recent editorial.

Not only should scientists take a stand, they should also be encouraged and professionally acknowledged for it.

Scientists as citizens have the right to advocate for political positions and figures that support the best possible evidence. In fact, when it comes to matters as serious as COVID-19 and climate change, we believe they have an obligation to.

Scientific American’s intervention may not impact votes, but that’s not the point. The point is it’s crucial for people who believe in knowledge and expertise to stand up and call out misinformation for what it is. To do less is to accept the current state.

Australia’s work in progress

Nonetheless, many scientists in Australia rely on government funding. This can make it difficult to speak up when legitimate evidence clashes with the orientation of the government of the day. Confronted with the possible loss of funding, what can a scientist do?

There’s no perfect solution. Many may feel the risks of speaking are too great. For many, they will be.

In such cases, scientists could perhaps look for intermediaries to make their case on their behalf – whether these are trustworthy journalists, or publicly visible academics like us.

Read more: Research reveals shocking detail on how Australia’s environmental scientists are being silenced

In the long term, defending those who have gone out of their way to act responsibly will help. The more this becomes normal, the more likely it will become the norm. But it’s also an unfortunate reality that change rarely occurs without discomfort.

When it comes to truly world-shaking crises like COVID-19 and climate change, scientists are political citizens like everyone else. And just like everyone else, they need to weigh the price of action against the price of inaction.

Speaking out can’t always be someone else’s job.

– ref. ‘Science is political’: Scientific American has endorsed Joe Biden over Trump for president. Australia should take note – https://theconversation.com/science-is-political-scientific-american-has-endorsed-joe-biden-over-trump-for-president-australia-should-take-note-146394

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kassia Beetham, Exercise Physiology Lecturer, Australian Catholic University

Controversy has erupted in recent days over the launch of Kim Kardashian West’s new range of maternity shapewear.

Available online from today, the products are part of Kardashian West’s existing shapewear brand, SKIMS.

These sorts of garments are otherwise known as maternity support bands, and have actually been around for a long time. But there’s limited evidence to support their touted medical benefits, including alleviating back and pelvic pain.

In the case of Kardashian West’s pregnancy shapewear, endorsing these products to millions of followers is concerning for women already plagued with body image issues.

What is a maternity support band?

Designed to support the belly during pregnancy, this garment generally features a tubular piece of elastic that sits underneath the breast and covers the trunk. The material around the stomach is a slightly thinner than at the back, to allow the belly to grow.

Some maternity support bands include built-in shorts for compression in the bottom and thighs, and can also provide coverage of the upper back and bust.

These bands are commonly used to try to alleviate pregnancy conditions such as pain in the lower back or pelvis. Some health professionals might also recommend wearing them after childbirth to help close a separation in the abdominal walls.

Maternity support bands shouldn’t be confused with belly belts, which are more rigid and sit below the belly, bearing weight.

Do they work, and are they safe?

There’s no quality evidence wearing maternity support bands during pregnancy or after birth can relieve back pain or pelvic pain, or reduce the separation in abdominal muscles.

A small study has shown improvements in pain, but considering limitations in the research design, this may well have been a placebo effect.

Your best bet to reduce pain in pregnancy is to see a doctor or an exercise professional.

Read more: Is vigorous exercise safe during the third trimester of pregnancy?

There’s also a lack of quality research on the possible negative effects of wearing maternity support bands.

In one study, women who were at risk of premature labour were instructed to avoid constrictive clothing around the trunk.

This group had significantly lower incidence of premature births than a control group who were not advised on constrictive clothing. This needs further study, but could indicate long-term use of constrictive clothing around the trunk may lead to issues with blood flow.

If there’s potential to improve pain (whether placebo or not), and we have no conclusive evidence to suggest maternity support bands are not safe, then what’s the problem?

Body image in pregnancy

While maternity support bands may help some women with pain, the commercialisation of pregnancy shapewear is probably contributing to body image dissatisfaction and unrealistic expectations for pregnant women.

Research shows many women feel dissatisfied with their bodies during pregnancy. In a 1990 study, up to 40% of pregnant women feared weight gain during pregnancy.

With social media often perpetuating unrealistic expectations of body image during pregnancy and after birth, this has likely become even more of a problem in recent years.

A 2016 study found an association between increased time spent on social media and greater body dissatisfaction in pregnancy.

Read more: ‘Fat, bland, boring incubators’: ordinary pregnant women don’t feel like Beyoncé

There seems to be a perceived expectation women will maintain their same figure, just with a cute bump. But for most women, that’s not the case.

Products in the SKIMS maternity range carry descriptions like: “lifts, sculpts and shapes your natural silhouette during pregnancy”.

Kardashian West has defended against criticism, emphasising her products are not designed to slim but to support.

It’s important women don’t feel shapewear is necessary to “slim” any part of their body during pregnancy.

Fat and cellulite are normal

You do accumulate more fat when you’re pregnant — it accounts for about half of normal pregnancy weight gain.

Thanks to various hormones, you’ll store more fat on your arms, thighs and bottom (to name a few!). Your body is working to give you enough support to grow a baby, while the increased fat also helps prepare for breastfeeding.

With an increase in fat you’ll also have an increase in cellulite. This is a completely normal adaptation to pregnancy.

It is pleasing to see some influencers sharing more typical body changes on social media, both during pregnancy and after birth.

Embrace your changing body

In severe cases, body dissatisfaction can lead to disordered eating and excessive exercise in pregnancy. And if mum doesn’t gain enough weight, it puts the baby at risk of being born prematurely or at a low birth weight.

The amount of weight you should gain during pregnancy depends on the weight at which you start pregnancy. This is something you can discuss with your doctor.

It’s important for women to eat an array of healthy foods and do regular physical activity (150–300 minutes per week) throughout pregnancy. The goal here should be the health of both mum and baby — not weight loss.

If shapewear makes you feel more comfortable or confident, by all means wear it. Just check with your medical professional whether it’s right for you.

And remember, regardless of what you eat, how much you exercise, or even what you wear, it’s unrealistic to expect you won’t accumulate any fat beyond your belly. So try to embrace your changing body — after all, it’s making it possible for you to grow a baby for nine months.

Read more: Weight gain during pregnancy: how much is too much?

– ref. SKIMS: Kim Kardashian’s new range of maternity shapewear could exacerbate body image issues for pregnant women – https://theconversation.com/skims-kim-kardashians-new-range-of-maternity-shapewear-could-exacerbate-body-image-issues-for-pregnant-women-146200

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith University

Amid mounting concern about Australians stranded overseas during COVID-19, Labor leader Anthony Albanese has offered a solution.

This week, he suggested using the Royal Australia Air Force (RAAF) VIP aircraft to bring people home. Albanese says these could bring the estimated 25,000 Australians stuck overseas, “100 at a time”.

Read more: Federal government pre-empts national cabinet to raise the cap for returning Australians

While the federal government has downplayed this suggestion, the pressure to do more to bring home Australians stuck overseas continues.

So, is it feasible to use the RAAF? What challenges might this pose?

What are the VIP aircraft?

The VIP fleet is operated by the air force to fly the governor-general, politicians and military leaders on official business when commercial flights are not suitable.

Albanese has honed in on the VIP fleet for obvious reasons: it’s currently sitting idle, the aircrews involved need to maintain their flying proficiency and Australians have always held a jaundiced view of the aircraft being simply another “pollie perk”.

However, while all five aircraft are long range, only the two B737 Boeing Business Jets could conceivably carry the 100 people mentioned — and that’s after reconfiguring their normal VIP fit-out that accommodates 30 passengers. The other three aircraft, the brand new Dassault Falcon 7X executive jets, have room for only 14 passengers.

The five aircraft are good for the VIP role, but they are not large capacity international airliners. They are inherently a rather inefficient way to move large numbers of people.

What else could the RAAF use?

The RAAF does have seven large airliners in service. These are the aptly named KC-30A Multi-Role Tanker Transport, a modified Airbus A330 airliner used for air-to-air refuelling of fighter aircraft and strategic airlift.

In the latter role, each aircraft can carry 270 passengers. For the past several years, the aircraft have been busy in the Middle East. But the last deployed KC-30A is just returning.

Allowing for some aircraft being under maintenance and others busy with ongoing training, the RAAF could potentially allocate two to three KC-30A aircraft to the “bringing Aussies home” task.

It’s possible but not straightforward

This would not be as simple as it sounds. The KC-30As are military aircraft, so decisions would need to be made whether to fly them into civil or military airfields overseas.

In the latter case, embarking passengers may be difficult. Moreover, being military aircraft (not scheduled civil air services), formal diplomatic approval would need to granted by the other countries involved.

There are further technical issues of guarding RAAF aircraft if they need to remain overnight at a foreign airfield, refuelling the aircraft on arrival, embarkation procedures and keeping the crews COVID–free.

There are also more mundane matters. like having aircraft stairs available and monitoring pilot duty hours — exhausted pilots are a flight safety hazard.

What about Qantas?

While this is technically feasible, there are also efficiency concerns.

Australians are scattered across the globe. They may need to find their way to major departure airport hubs — as diverting a large aircraft to pick up only a few passengers from a country may not be sensible. In addition, smaller countries may be unsure about letting a large, obviously military aircraft use their airfields.

It is in these smaller countries that Albanese’s idea of using the two B737 Business Jets might be more appropriate.

Read more: Australians don’t have a ‘right’ to travel. Does COVID mean our days of carefree overseas trips are over?

But if the RAAF has airliners, so too do the civil airlines. Qantas has many aircraft and crews available at the moment who, like the RAAF’s VIP crews, need to maintain their flying experience.

It’s true Australian taxpayers have already paid for the RAAF aircraft and crews, so the additional costs of picking up stranded Australians would be low. On the other hand, the airlines and their associated unions are in difficult circumstances. Should the RAAF do what Qantas could?

On Thursday, Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce told Radio National the airline was in talks with the federal government to subsidise flights home.

Finally, there’s the issue of quarantine. Only 4,000 Australians have been allowed back each week due to government imposed quarantine hotel restrictions. After a federal government push to the states, this is set to be increased to 6,000.

Large airliners, whether operated by the RAAF or commercial airlines, can bring many people home, but the cap on arrivals is a notable constraint.

This means the biggest benefit of such an approach might be not so much bringing more people home, but making the flights affordable and available. Today, with strict passenger limits, the airlines are charging high fees. This is a significant impediment to people returning, even with the Australian government offering loans to assist.

We could use the RAAF if we wanted to

So, while Albanese’s idea may be critiqued on its finer points, it is broadly doable. It’s perhaps a good if small example of politics in action.

At its core, when it comes to bringing home Australians in distress, it becomes a simple political question.

How should the government spend Australia’s taxpayer dollars?

Read more: There’s a ban on leaving Australia under COVID-19. Who can get an exemption to go overseas? And how?

– ref. Can we use the RAAF to bring home stranded Aussies overseas? – https://theconversation.com/can-we-use-the-raaf-to-bring-home-stranded-aussies-overseas-146309

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University

The Morrison government today announced A$1.9 billion over ten years to develop clean technology in industry, agriculture and transport. In some ways it’s a step in the right direction, but a far cry from what’s needed to drive Australia’s shift to a low emissions economy.

The big change involves what the money is for. The new funding will enable the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) to support technologies such as green steel production, industrial processes to reduce energy consumption and somewhat controversially, carbon-capture and storage and soil-carbon sequestration.

This is a big move away from ARENA’s current investment priorities. Importantly it means ARENA will continue to operate, as it is running out of money now.

However technology development alone is not enough to cut Australia’s emissions deeply and quickly – which is what’s needed to address the climate threat. Other policies and more money will be needed.

New role for ARENA

ARENA will receive the lion’s share of the money: A$1.4 billion over ten years in guaranteed baseline funding. ARENA has spent A$1.6 billion since it was established in 2012. So the new funding is lower on an annual basis. It’s also far less than what’s needed to properly meet the challenge, in a country with a large industrial sector and huge opportunities for zero carbon production.

To date, ARENA’s investments have focused on renewable energy supply. Prime Minister Scott Morrison today said the renewables industry was enjoying a “world-leading boom” and no longer needs government subsidies. Critics may be dismayed to see ARENA steered away from its original purpose. But it is true solar parks and wind farms are now commercially viable, and technologies to integrate large amounts of renewables into the grid are available.

So it makes sense to spend new research and development (R&D) funding on the next generation of low-emissions technologies. But how to choose what to spend the money on?

A few simple principles should inform those choices. The spending should help develop new zero- or low-emissions technologies or make them cheaper. It should also enable the shift to a net-zero emissions future, rather than locking in structures that continue to emit. The investment choices should be made by independent bodies such as ARENA’s board, based on research and expert judgement, rather than politically determined priorities.

For the industrial sector, the case for supporting zero-emissions technologies is clear. A sizeable share of Australia’s total emissions stem from fossil fuel use in industry.

Read more: No, Prime Minister, gas doesn’t ‘work for all Australians’ and your scare tactics ignore modern energy problems

In some cases, government-supported R&D could help lay the foundation for zero-emissions industries of the future. But in others, what’s needed is a financial incentive for businesses to switch to clean energy or zero-emissions production methods, or regulation to require cleaner processes.

Green steel is a perfect example of the positive change that is possible. Steel can be made using clean hydrogen and renewable electricity, and the long term possibility of a green steel industry in Australia is tantalising.

A future for fossil fuels?

The government’s support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) will be highly contested, because it’s a way to continue using fossil fuels at reduced – though not zero – emissions. This is achieved by capturing carbon dioxide before it enters the atmosphere and storing it underground, a technically feasible but costly process.

CCS will not perpetuate fossil fuel use in the energy sector, because renewables combined with energy storage are now much cheaper. Rather, CCS can be an option in specific processes that do not have ready alternatives, such as the production of cement, chemicals and fertiliser.

One step further is so-called “carbon capture and use” (CCU), where carbon dioxide is not pumped underground but turned into products, such as building materials. One program announced is for pilot projects of that kind.

Read more: Yes, carbon emissions fell during COVID-19. But it’s the shift away from coal that really matters

A different proposition is the idea of hydrogen produced from coal or gas, in which some resulting emissions are captured. This method competes with “green” hydrogen produced using renewable electricity. It seems the government for now intends to support fossil fuel-derived hydrogen.

Reducing fossil fuel use, and using CCS/CCU where it makes sense, will not get the world to net-zero emissions. Emissions from other sources must be cut by as much as technically possible, at justifiable cost. Remaining emissions must then be negated by drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such “negative emissions” can be achieved through technological means, and also by permanently increasing the amount of carbon stored in plants and soil.

The new funding includes support for increasing the amount of soil carbon. This method may hold promise in principle, but in practice its effectiveness is uncertain, and hard to measure. At the same time, the large emissions from agriculture are not yet addressed.

A piecemeal effort

The spending amounts to A$140 million per year for ARENA, plus about A$500 million all up through other programs. A dose of reality is needed about what this money can achieve. It will create better understanding of options, some technological progress across the board and surely the occasional highlight. But a much greater effort is likely needed to achieve fundamental technological breakthroughs. And crucially, new technologies must be widely deployed.

For a sense of scale, consider that the Snowy 2.0 scheme is costed at around A$5 billion, and a single 1 gigawatt gas power plant, as mooted by the government for the Hunter Valley, would cost in the order of A$1.5 billion to build.

As well as additional spending, policies will be needed to drive the uptake of low-emissions technologies. The shift to renewables is now happening in the energy sector without government help, though some hurdles remain. But we cannot expect the same across the economy.

Governments will need to help drive uptake through policy. The most efficient way is usually to ensure producers of emissions pay for the environmental damage caused. In other words, putting a price on carbon.

The funding announced today is merely one piece of a national long-term strategy to deeply cut emissions – and not a particularly big piece.

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

– ref. ‘A dose of reality’: Morrison government’s new $1.9 billion techno-fix for climate change is a small step – https://theconversation.com/a-dose-of-reality-morrison-governments-new-1-9-billion-techno-fix-for-climate-change-is-a-small-step-146341

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University

The Morrison government today announced A$1.9 billion over ten years to develop clean technology in industry, agriculture and transport. In some ways it’s a step in the right direction, but a far cry from what’s needed to drive Australia’s shift to a low emissions economy.

The big change involves what the money is for. The new funding will enable the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) to support technologies such as green steel production, industrial processes to reduce energy consumption and somewhat controversially, carbon-capture and storage and soil-carbon sequestration.

This is a big move away from ARENA’s current investment priorities. Importantly it means ARENA will continue to operate, as it is running out of money now.

However technology development alone is not enough to cut Australia’s emissions deeply and quickly – which is what’s needed to address the climate threat. Other policies and more money will be needed.

New role for ARENA

ARENA will receive the lion’s share of the money: A$1.4 billion over ten years in guaranteed baseline funding. ARENA has spent A$1.6 billion since it was established in 2012. So the new funding is lower on an annual basis. It’s also far less than what’s needed to properly meet the challenge, in a country with a large industrial sector and huge opportunities for zero carbon production.

To date, ARENA’s investments have focused on renewable energy supply. Prime Minister Scott Morrison today said the renewables industry was enjoying a “world-leading boom” and no longer needs government subsidies. Critics may be dismayed to see ARENA steered away from its original purpose. But it is true solar parks and wind farms are now commercially viable, and technologies to integrate large amounts of renewables into the grid are available.

So it makes sense to spend new research and development (R&D) funding on the next generation of low-emissions technologies. But how to choose what to spend the money on?

A few simple principles should inform those choices. The spending should help develop new zero- or low-emissions technologies or make them cheaper. It should also enable the shift to a net-zero emissions future, rather than locking in structures that continue to emit. The investment choices should be made by independent bodies such as ARENA’s board, based on research and expert judgement, rather than politically determined priorities.

For the industrial sector, the case for supporting zero-emissions technologies is clear. A sizeable share of Australia’s total emissions stem from fossil fuel use in industry.

Read more: No, Prime Minister, gas doesn’t ‘work for all Australians’ and your scare tactics ignore modern energy problems

In some cases, government-supported R&D could help lay the foundation for zero-emissions industries of the future. But in others, what’s needed is a financial incentive for businesses to switch to clean energy or zero-emissions production methods, or regulation to require cleaner processes.

Green steel is a perfect example of the positive change that is possible. Steel can be made using clean hydrogen and renewable electricity, and the long term possibility of a green steel industry in Australia is tantalising.

A future for fossil fuels?

The government’s support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) will be highly contested, because it’s a way to continue using fossil fuels at reduced – though not zero – emissions. This is achieved by capturing carbon dioxide before it enters the atmosphere and storing it underground, a technically feasible but costly process.

CCS will not perpetuate fossil fuel use in the energy sector, because renewables combined with energy storage are now much cheaper. Rather, CCS can be an option in specific processes that do not have ready alternatives, such as the production of cement, chemicals and fertiliser.

Read more: Yes, carbon emissions fell during COVID-19. But it’s the shift away from coal that really matters

One step further is so-called “carbon capture and use” (CCU), where carbon dioxide is not pumped underground but turned into products, such as building materials. One program announced is for pilot projects of that kind.

A different proposition is the idea of hydrogen produced from coal or gas, in which some resulting emissions are captured. This method competes with “green” hydrogen produced using renewable electricity. It seems the government for now intends to support fossil fuel-derived hydrogen.

Reducing fossil fuel use, and using CCS/CCU where it makes sense, will not get the world to net-zero emissions. Emissions from other sources must be cut by as much as technically possible, at justifiable cost. Remaining emissions must then be negated by drawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such “negative emissions” can be achieved through technological means, and also by permanently increasing the amount of carbon stored in plants and soil.

The new funding includes support for increasing the amount of soil carbon. This method may hold promise in principle, but in practice its effectiveness is uncertain, and hard to measure. At the same time, the large emissions from agriculture are not yet addressed.

A piecemeal effort

The spending amounts to A$140 million per year for ARENA, plus about A$500 million all up through other programs. A dose of reality is needed about what this money can achieve. It will create better understanding of options, some technological progress across the board and surely the occasional highlight. But a much greater effort is likely needed to achieve fundamental technological breakthroughs. And crucially new technologies must be widely deployed.

For a sense of scale, consider that the Snowy 2.0 scheme is costed at around A$5 billion, and a single 1 gigawatt gas power plant, as mooted by the government for the Hunter Valley, would cost in the order of A$1.5 billion to build.

As well as additional spending, policies will be needed to drive the uptake of low-emissions technologies. The shift to renewables is now happening in the energy sector without government help, though some hurdles remain. But we cannot expect the same across the economy.

Governments will need to help drive uptake through policy. The most efficient way is usually to ensure producers of emissions pay for the environmental damage caused. In other words, putting a price on carbon.

The funding announced today is merely one piece of a national long-term strategy to deeply cut emissions – and not a particularly big piece.

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

– ref. Morrison government’s new $1.9 billion techno-fix for climate change is a small step – https://theconversation.com/morrison-governments-new-1-9-billion-techno-fix-for-climate-change-is-a-small-step-146341

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Irina Vetter, Australian Research Council Future Fellow, The University of Queensland

Australia is home to some of the world’s most dangerous wildlife. Anyone who spends time outdoors in eastern Australia is wise to keep an eye out for snakes, spiders, swooping birds, crocodiles, deadly cone snails and tiny toxic jellyfish.

But what not everybody knows is that even some of the trees will get you.

Our research on the venom of Australian stinging trees, found in the country’s northeast, shows these dangerous plants can inject unwary wanderers with chemicals much like those found in the stings of scorpions, spiders and cone snails.

The stinging trees

In the forests of eastern Australia there are a handful of nettle trees so noxious that signs are commonly placed where humans trample through their habitat. These trees are called gympie-gympie in the language of the Indigenous Gubbi Gubbi people, and Dendrocnide in botanical Latin (meaning “tree stinger”).

A casual split-second touch on an arm by a leaf or stem is enough to induce pain for hours or days. In some cases the pain has been reported to last for weeks.

A gympie-gympie sting feels like fire at first, then subsides over hours to a pain reminiscent of having the affected body part caught in a slammed car door. A final stage called allodynia occurs for days after the sting, during which innocuous activities such as taking a shower or scratching the affected skin reignites the pain.

Read more: ‘The worst kind of pain you can imagine’ – what it’s like to be stung by a stinging tree

How do the trees cause pain?

Pain is an important sensation that tells us something is wrong or that something should be avoided. Pain also creates an enormous health burden with serious impacts on our quality of life and the economy, including secondary issues such as the opiate crisis.

To control pain better, we need to understand it better. One way is to study new ways to induce pain, which is what we wanted to accomplish by better defining the pain-causing mechanism of gympie-gympie trees.

How does these plants cause pain? It turns out they have quite a bit in common with venomous animals.

The plant is covered in hollow needle-like hairs called trichomes, which are strengthened with silica. Like common nettles, these hairs contain noxious substances, but they must have something extra to deliver so much pain.

Earlier research on the species Dendrocnide moroides identified a molecule called moroidin that was thought to cause pain. However, experiments to inject human subjects with moroidin failed to induce the distinct series of painful symptoms seen with a full Dendrocnide sting.

Finding the culprits

We studied the stinging hairs from the giant Australian stinging tree, Dendrocnide excelsa. Taking extracts from these hairs, we separated them out into their individual molecular constituents.

One of these isolated fractions caused significant pain responses when tested in the laboratory. We found it contains a small family of related mini-proteins significantly larger in size than moroidin.

We then analysed all the genes expressed in the gympie-gympie leaves to determine which gene could produce something with the size and fingerprint of our mystery toxin. As a result, we discovered molecules that can reproduce the pain response even when made synthetically in the lab and applied in isolation.

The genome of Dendrocnide moroides also turned out to contain similar genes encoding toxins. These Dendrocnide peptides have been christened gympietides.

Gympietides

The gympietides have an intricate three-dimensional structure that is kept stable by a network of links within the molecule that form a knotted shape. This makes it highly stable, meaning it likely stays intact for a long time once injected into the victim. Indeed, there are anecdotes reporting even 100-year-old stinging tree specimens kept in herbariums can still produce painful stings.

What was surprising was the 3D structure of these gympietides resembles the shape of well-studied toxins from spider and cone snail venom. This was a big clue as to how these toxins might be working, as similar venom peptides from scorpions, spiders, and cone snails are known to affect structures called ion channels in nerve cells, which are important mediators of pain.

Specifically, the gympietides interfere with an important pathway for conducting pain signals in the body, called voltage-gated sodium ion channels. In a cell affected by gympietides, these channels do not close normally, which means the cell has difficulty turning off the pain signal.

Read more: Explainer: what is pain and what is happening when we feel it?

Better understanding may bring new treatments

The Australian stinging trees make a neurotoxin that resembles a venom in both its molecular structure and how it is deployed by injection. Taking these two things together, it would seem two very different evolutionary processes have converged on similar solutions to win the endgame of inflicting pain.

In the process, evolution has also presented us with an invaluable tool to understand how pain is caused. The precise mechanisms by which gympietides affect ion channels and nerve cells are currently under investigation. During that investigation, we may find new avenues to bring pain under control.

– ref. Australian stinging trees inject scorpion-like venom. The pain lasts for days – https://theconversation.com/australian-stinging-trees-inject-scorpion-like-venom-the-pain-lasts-for-days-146115

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bassina Farbenblum, Associate professor, UNSW

In early April, Prime Minister Scott Morrison sent a clear message to temporary visa holders that if they were no longer financially solvent to ride out the pandemic, they were not welcome in Australia.

As much as it’s lovely to have visitors to Australia in good times, at times like this, if you are a visitor in this country, it is time […] to make your way home.

As our new research published today shows, this statement fuelled feelings of abandonment and worthlessness among temporary visa holders who have been left out of the government’s economic support schemes during the COVID-19 crisis.

In our survey of more than 6,100 temporary visa holders (including international students, backpackers and holiday workers), many used stark, dehumanising language to describe how they’ve felt since the pandemic began in Australia six months ago:

• like we do not exist

• aliens who don’t belong here

• inanimate objects

• discarded, unimportant and expendable

• garbage

• dirt.

Others recounted harrowing experiences of racist attacks — being punched, kicked, shoved and deliberately spat at or coughed on by passers-by — as well as a range of xenophobic slurs.

For many of our respondents, this has destroyed their sense of belonging in Australia and fundamentally changed their perceptions of the country and its leaders.

Read more: ‘I will never come to Australia again’: new research reveals the suffering of temporary migrants during the COVID-19 crisis

‘ATMs of the Australian government’

Our earlier research, and that of other scholars, has documented how temporary visa holders have suffered financially during the crisis.

These visa holders include international students, backpackers, graduates, sponsored workers and refugees. Many work in casualised industries, such as hospitality and retail, lost their jobs and struggled to meet basic living expenses.

There are more than one million temporary visa holders in Australia — who may comprise up to 10% of Australia’s workforce — but they have been excluded from the federal JobKeeper and JobSeeker support schemes.

Read more: 4 out of 5 international students are still in Australia – how we treat them will have consequences

In our latest survey, thousands of respondents voiced their distress and anger at the government’s lack of support during lockdown. Many felt their only value to Australia was as a revenue stream, since they worked here and paid taxes or spent considerable sums to study at universities.

A striking number used words such as “cash cows”, “money-making plants”, “ATMs of the Australian government” and “walking moneybags”.

Many felt callously used for their cheap labour. A Russian master’s student said:

We paid taxes. We did all dirty work Australians don’t want to do and what about us? […] It is nice to have invisible cheap workers that will be silently committing to work when you and your family can stay at home or work from home and get government support and don’t lose any money.

International students, in particular, have been encouraged by the government and universities to invest heavily in Australia — often spending their life savings — to set up new lives here. Many stay for at least five years — a three-year bachelor’s degree followed by a two-year temporary graduate visa.

As one French graduate visa holder put it:

some of us have been here for years and consider Australia like our home now. Quitting everything we have done and been through is just unimaginable.

Racist slurs and taunts

For some, their experiences have gone beyond social exclusion to overt racism. Almost a quarter of our respondents said they had been subjected to racist verbal abuse since the pandemic began in March. And a quarter said people avoided them because of their appearance.

More than half (52%) of Chinese respondents reported experiencing at least one of these forms of racism, as did more than 40% of those from other East Asian and Southeast Asian countries.

We also received more than 1,600 personal accounts of targeted xenophobic slurs, such as people saying “coronavirus”, “Chinese virus”, “Asian virus” or worse to them in public or at work.

One Chinese woman noted:

a stranger shouted in my face that I am the virus in the supermarket.

Another international student observed this kind of harassment

is a regular thing for Asian people in Australia.

In an echo of the prime minister’s words, many respondents from a range of nationalities reported being told to “get out of Australia”.

As one Colombian student put it,

I received many comments from Australian[s] telling me leave the country, go back your home, ask you[r] family for money, respect the Australian people.

An Indian student recalled being told

to go back to my country by random strangers on the street while working as an Uber Eats delivery man.

Abandoning people in their time of need

Clearly, the impact of the exclusion felt by these temporary visa holders will far outlast the pandemic.

The government’s failure to support these vulnerable people has the potential to profoundly impact Australia’s global reputation. The country’s education and tourism sectors will also likely suffer the economic consequences for years to come.

Of the students and working holiday makers in our survey, 60% indicated they are now less likely or much less likely to recommend Australia as a place to study or work.

This includes international students from important education markets like China and Nepal (76% and 69% less likely to recommend Australia, respectively).

Read more: We know racism and recessions go together. Australia must prepare to stop a racism spike here

Our survey reveals the financial situation of many respondents is rapidly worsening, with more than a third of international students indicating they will run out of funds by next month.

The government must use the October budget to rectify the exclusion of temporary migrants from social support measures.

If it is not compelled to act for ethical or diplomatic reasons, it should at least listen to the observations of one survey respondent. This is emblematic of the sentiments expressed by thousands more:

Australia showed its true colours when it came to international students. They call us friends but then abandon us in our time of need. I think Australia will struggle to attract international students after the disgraceful treatment and lack of compassion shown during COVID.

– ref. ‘Garbage’ and ‘cash cows’: temporary migrants describe anguish of exclusion and racism during COVID-19 – https://theconversation.com/garbage-and-cash-cows-temporary-migrants-describe-anguish-of-exclusion-and-racism-during-covid-19-146098

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Julian Savulescu, Visiting Professor in Biomedical Ethics, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute; Distinguished Visiting Professor in Law, University of Melbourne; Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, University of Oxford

Melbourne’s lockdown has been described as one of the harshest in the world. And jurisdictions outside Australia have taken other measures to limit the spread of COVID-19 once case numbers have eased.

So, in the absence of a reliable COVID-19 treatment or licensed vaccine, is lockdown still worth it?

To answer this, we not only need scientific evidence, we need ethics to decide which factors should weigh most heavily in our decision-making.

Some of these factors are not so obvious.

How should we measure the impact of COVID-19?

Clearly, when measuring the impact of COVID-19, cases and deaths are relevant. But a case is not necessarily “bad”. Although estimates vary, about 40-45% of cases are asymptomatic. And it’s not death (in itself) that matters.

Death is bad because it denies us life we could have had. But if you die one second earlier than you could have died, this is not particularly bad. What matters, ethically, is not death per se, but years of life lost.

Even this is not what ultimately matters. If you could live an extra 20 years in a coma, you would hardly call this a win. What matters is years of good (enough) life lost.

Read more: ‘Died from’ or ‘died with’ COVID-19? We need a transparent approach to counting coronavirus deaths

How much should we pay to save a life?

In an ideal world, how much it costs to save a life would be irrelevant. But we operate with limited resources.

So, the concept of “Quality Adjusted Life Years” or QALY lets us put a price on life, or at least to how much we will spend on trying to save one. This is a year of life, adjusted for its quality. A year in perfect quality of life is 1, coma is close to zero.

This idea is understandably controversial, not least because it assigns a lower value to a year spent living with a disability.

Nevertheless, how much quality of life we save is relevant. Before the pandemic, Australia’s public health spending was typically no more than A$50,000 per QALY.

At the end of March, US-based economists estimated large-scale COVID-19 measures such as lockdowns cost between US$75,000 and US$650,000 per QALY (about A$102,000 to A$888,000).

Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott has said the cost per QALY Australia has spent so far during the pandemic exceeds our usual standards:

Even if mandatory shutdown in Australia really was all that avoided the initially predicted 150,000 deaths, that still works out at about $2 million per life saved. And if the average age of those who would have died is 80, even with roughly 10 years of expected life left, that’s still $200,000 per quality life year or substantially beyond what governments are usually prepared to pay for life-saving drugs.

But evaluating the cost of lockdown is not so simple. We also have to weigh the potential cost of not having a lockdown.

One goal of lockdown is to protect health systems from being stretched beyond breaking point. If COVID-19 escalates out of control, we would lose many more lives, with vast suffering and grave risks to social stability. The cost in life years and financial losses would be staggering.

Read more: Open letter from 265 Australian economists: don’t sacrifice health for ‘the economy’

Initial data also appears to refute the idea public health and economic health are fundamentally at odds. A well-controlled virus may keep more money coming in, in the medium term. If lockdown is the only way to achieve control, it may be warranted economically as well as in terms of health.

But if there are other effective health measures that are less economically damaging, they would be preferable.

So how do we account for the cost per QALY of lockdown? This is an uncomfortable and difficult issue. But it needs to be addressed.

The flipside of lockdown

While lockdown may limit our exposure to COVID-19, it can be bad for our health.

In lockdown, we’re less likely to access health care for seemingly less urgent issues. Cancer detection rates are currently well below expected, potentially leading to a rise in preventable deaths.

There have also been concerns about increases in suicide, alcohol abuse, other mental health issues, and domestic violence.

We may not know the mental and social toll of lockdown for some time. But we should attempt to include these effects in our assessment. Poor mental health outcomes can shorten lives, or reduce their quality significantly. Poor social outcomes can impact for generations.

Read more: COVID lockdowns have human costs as well as benefits. It’s time to consider both

What alternatives achieve the same goal for a lower cost?

We should not merely compare lockdown to doing nothing, but weigh it against other strategies. Here we can learn from other countries and how other policies might replace lockdown once numbers are manageable.

Although South Korea’s vigorous track-and-trace program raised privacy concerns, it targeted social distancing to keep deaths to around 370 so far.

Iceland, Vietnam, Singapore and Taiwan used methods such as mass testing, contact tracing, and strictly enforced self-isolation. In Singapore, breaches were punished with up to six months’ jail.

Read more: Another day, another hotel quarantine fail. So what can Australia learn from other countries?

True, there have been some costly mistakes. Singapore, for example, allowed returning citizens to quarantine with other family members who were not themselves isolated, prompting a partial lockdown. Nevertheless, these countries appear to have been able to regain control.

Even if the number of life years saved by these alternative strategies and lockdown is the same, these alternative strategies, when implemented well, are preferable. That’s because they impose fewer costs: economically, socially, and in lost freedom.

Which value do you value?

The use of QALYs as an outcome measure faces staunch criticism. Often, there is an irresolvable conflict between maximising QALYs and giving every person an equal chance at living their longest, best quality life.

Imagine a doctor is faced with the choice of giving their last ICU bed to a person who is 30, in complete health, with two children and job, or an 85-year-old with advanced dementia, who does not recognise herself or her family.

A QALY-maximisation approach says admit the 30-year-old; if you favour equality, toss a coin. The COVID pandemic forces us to get off the fence on whether all lives are equally valuable, or equally worth saving.

Then there’s fairness or justice (or what philosophers call “desert”). Young people have had less good life than older people, and have more ahead of them. They are at little risk of dying. Yet during the pandemic, they have had to make significant sacrifices in the quality of their lives, whether that’s through job losses, lost opportunities or curtailment of movement. If we value “desert”, we value the idea young people deserve to be favoured.

This takes us to the value of liberty. Lockdown, curfew and restriction of freedom of movement, association and protest are arguably among the most severe restrictions possible. So we should be restricting people’s liberty as least as possible, using this strategy sparingly, locally, and for a specific purpose.

So, where does this take us?

To answer whether lockdown is worth the cost, we need to agree on how we should evaluate outcomes (cases, lives, life years lost, QALYs) and what other ethical principles matter (equality, liberty, desert).

The right strategy will vary. A short, sharp, early lockdown might stamp out the virus and allow life for everyone to continue as normal and preserve the economy. Longer lockdown may be necessary when the health system is threatened; this might prevent huge loss of life across all diseases. A lockdown to give time to establish other more nuanced systems to be put in place effectively also has value.

But lockdown is a sledgehammer of a solution. For most countries now, other strategies are likely to be of more value to the community.

– ref. Is lockdown worth the pain? No, it’s a sledgehammer and we have better options – https://theconversation.com/is-lockdown-worth-the-pain-no-its-a-sledgehammer-and-we-have-better-options-145555

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lachlan G. Howell, PhD Candidate | School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle

In the next few weeks, federal Environment Minister Sussan Ley will decide whether to approve a New South Wales quarry expansion that will destroy critical koala breeding grounds.

The case, involving the Brandy Hill Quarry at Port Stephens, is emblematic of how NSW environment laws are failing wildlife — particularly koalas. Efforts to erode koala protections hit the headlines last week when NSW Nationals leader John Barilaro threatened to detonate the Coalition over the issue.

Read more: The NSW koala wars showed one thing: the Nationals appear ill-equipped to help rural Australia

Koala populations are already under huge pressure. A NSW parliamentary inquiry in June warned the koala faces extinction in the state by 2050 if the government doesn’t better control land clearing and habitat loss.

Ley could either continue these alarming trends, or set a welcome precedent for koala protection. Her decision is also the first big test of federal environment laws since an interim review found they were failing wildlife. So let’s take a closer look at what’s at stake in this latest controversy.

The Brandy Hill Quarry expansion

The NSW government gave approval to Hanson Construction Materials, a subsidiary of Heidelberg Cement, to expand the existing Brandy Hill Quarry in Seaham in Port Stephens.

The project would provide concrete to meet Sydney’s growing construction demands, as the state fast-tracks infrastructure projects to help the economy recover from COVID-19.

The approval came despite the known presence of koalas in the area. A koala survey report, completed on behalf of the developer in 2019, determined the project would “result in a significant impact to the koala”.

The report recommended the quarry expansion be referred to the federal Environment Minister under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act 1999, for its potential impacts on “Matters of National Environmental Significance”.

Read more: View from The Hill: Barilaro keeps Nationals in the tent; koalas stay in limbo

The expansion site intersects habitat with preferred high quality koala feed and shelter trees. This habitat is established forest containing various key mature Eucalyptus trees, including the forest red gum and swamp mahogany.

The survey report didn’t propose any mitigation strategies to sustain the habitat. Instead, it suggested minimisation measures, such as ecologists to be present during habitat clearing, low speed limits for vehicles on site, and education on koalas for workers.

A disaster for koalas

In support of a community grassroots campaign (Save Port Stephens Koalas), we produced an report on the effect of the quarry expansion on koalas. The report now sits with Ley ahead of her decision, which is due by October 13.

The expansion will clear more than 50 hectares of koala habitat. We found koalas breeding within 1 kilometre of the current quarry boundary, which indicates the expansion site is likely to destroy critical koala breeding habitat.

During the breeding season, male koalas bellow to attract females. Within 1km of the boundary we observed a female koala and a bellowing male koala 96m apart. A second male was reported bellowing 227m from the quarry boundary.

What’s more, the site expansion occurs within a NSW government listed Area of Regional Koala Significance. The expansion site actually has higher average koala habitat suitability than all remaining habitat on the quarry property.

CSIRO research from 2016 suggests koalas in Port Stephens can move hundreds of metres in a day and up to 5km in one month. Movement is highest during the breeding season. This potential for koalas to move away was a key reason the NSW government approved the expansion.

Koalas can move in to the remaining property to breed, or they can move away from it. But habitat outside the expansion site is, on average, lesser quality, and this is where the expansion would force the koalas to move to.

Read more: Stopping koala extinction is agonisingly simple. But here’s why I’m not optimistic

This habitat fragmentation would not only result in lost access to potential breeding grounds, but also further restrict movement and expose koalas to threats such as predation or road traffic.

Lastly, the expansion would sever a crucial East–West corridor koalas likely use to move across the landscape and breed.

Approved under the state’s weak environmental protections

It may seem surprising this destructive project was approved by the NSW government. But it’s a common story under the state’s protections.

Alarm over the weaknesses of NSW environmental protections has been raised by NSW government agencies including the Natural Resources Commission and NSW Audit Office.

Read more: Our laws failed these endangered flying-foxes at every turn. On Saturday, Cairns council will put another nail in the coffin

The expansion approval is an example of how the NSW government relaxed the regulatory requirements for land clearing between 2016 and 2017. This led to a 13-fold increase in land clearing approvals, and tipped the balance away from sustainable development.

The expansion shines another spotlight on NSW’s poor biodiversity offset laws.

Biodiversity offsets involve compensating for environmental damage in one location by improving the environment elsewhere. Under the expansions approval, the developer was required to protect an estimated 450 hectares of habitat as offset.

But the recent parliamentary inquiry into NSW koalas recommended offsetting of prime koala habitat — such as that involved in the quarry expansion — be prohibited, which would mean not destroying the habitat in the first place.

Read more: Let there be no doubt: blame for our failing environment laws lies squarely at the feet of government

The NSW decision also does not account for the Black Summer Bushfires which claimed 5,000 koalas and burned millions of hectares of koala habitat. The Port Stephens population was unburned but more than 75% of its habitat has been lost since colonial occupation. Securing this population is important for the overall security of koalas in the state.

The koalas are in Sussan Ley’s hands

Sussan Ley will now assess the expansion under the EPBC Act. A recent interim report into the laws said they’d allowed an “unsustainable state of decline” of Australia’s environment.

Rejections under these laws are rare; just 22 of 6,500 projects referred for approval under the act have been refused. However, it’s not impossible.

Earlier this year Ley rejected a wind-farm in Queensland which threatened unburned koala habitat. If Ley gives full consideration to the evidence in our report, she should make the same decision.

Read more: Be worried when fossil fuel lobbyists support current environmental laws

– ref. Environment Minister Sussan Ley faces a critical test: will she let a mine destroy koala breeding grounds? – https://theconversation.com/environment-minister-sussan-ley-faces-a-critical-test-will-she-let-a-mine-destroy-koala-breeding-grounds-145839

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jeff Seadon, Senior Lecturer, Auckland University of Technology

New Zealand’s government recently put more than NZ$160 million towards developing a domestic recycling sector to create jobs as part of its economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.

New Zealanders recycle 1.3 million tonnes of materials each year, but 70% is currently exported. A recent NZ$36.7 million funding boost to upgrade recycling plants throughout the country followed a NZ$124 million injection into recycling infrastructure to grow processing capacity onshore. The investment signals a focus on supporting services that create employment and increase efficiency or reduce waste.

The potential for expansion in onshore processing of recyclable waste is enormous – and it could lead to 3.1 million tonnes of waste being diverted from landfills. But it will only work if it is part of a strategy with clear and measurable targets.

COVID-19 impacts

During New Zealand’s level 4 lockdown between March and May, general rubbish collection was classed as an essential service and continued to operate. But recycling was sporadic.

Whether or not recycling services continued depended on storage space and the ability to separate recyclables under lockdown conditions. Facilities that relied on manual sorting could not meet those requirements and their recycling was sent to landfill. Only recycling plants with automated sorting could operate.

New Zealand’s reliance on international markets showed a lack of resilience in the waste management system. Any changes in international prices were duplicated in New Zealand and while exports could continue under tighter border controls, it was no longer economically viable to do so for certain recyclable materials.

International cardboard and paper markets collapsed and operators without sufficient storage space sent materials to landfill. Most plastics became uneconomic to recycle.

In contrast, for materials processed in New Zealand — including glass, metals and some plastics — recycling remains viable. Many local authorities are now limiting their plastic collections to those types that have expanding onshore processing capacity.

Soft packaging plastics are also being collected again, but only in some places and in smaller quantities than at the height of the soft plastics recycling scheme, to be turned into fence posts and other farm materials.

Read more: What happens to the plastic you recycle? Researchers lift the lid

The investment in onshore processing facilities is part of a move towards a circular economy. The government provided the capital for plants to recycle PET plastics, used to make most drink bottles and food trays. PET plastics can be reprocessed several times.

This means items such as meat trays previously made from polystyrene, which is not recyclable from households, could be made from fully recyclable PET. Some of the most recent funding goes towards providing automatic optical sorters to allow recycling plants to keep operating under lockdown conditions.

Regulation changes

The government also announced an expansion of the landfill levy to cover more types of landfills and for those that accept household wastea progressive increase from NZ$10 to NZ$60 per tonne of waste.

This will provide more money for the Waste Minimisation Fund, which in turn funds projects that lead to more onshore processing and jobs.

Last year’s ban on single-use plastic bags took more than a billion bags out of circulation, which represents about 180 tonnes of plastic that is not landfilled. But this is a small portion of the 3.7 million tonnes of waste that go to landfill each year.

More substantial diversion schemes include mandatory product stewardship schemes currently being implemented for tyres, electrical and electronic products, agrichemicals and their containers, refrigerants and other synthetic greenhouse gases, farm plastics and packaging.

An example of the potential gains for product stewardship schemes is e-waste. Currently New Zealand produces about 80,000 tonnes of e-waste per year, but recycles only about 2% (1,600 tonnes), most of which goes offshore for processing. Under the scheme, e-waste will be brought to collection depots and more will be processed onshore.

Landfilling New Zealand’s total annual e-waste provides about 50 jobs. Recycling it could create 200 jobs and reusing it is estimated to provide work for 6,400 people.

Read more: Waste not, want not: Morrison government’s $1b recycling plan must include avoiding waste in the first place

But all these initiatives are not enough. We need a coordinated strategy with clear targets.

The current Waste Strategy has only two goals: to reduce the harmful effects of waste and improve resource use efficiency. Such vague goals have resulted in a 37% increase in waste disposal to landfill in the last decade.

An earlier 2002 strategy achieved significantly better progress. The challenge is clear. A government strategy with measurable targets for waste diversion from landfill can lead us to better resource use and more jobs.

– ref. New Zealand invests in growing its domestic recycling industry to create jobs and dump less rubbish at landfills – https://theconversation.com/new-zealand-invests-in-growing-its-domestic-recycling-industry-to-create-jobs-and-dump-less-rubbish-at-landfills-143684

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Pasi Sahlberg, Professor of Education Policy, UNSW

Many parents are worried the disruptions of COVID lockdowns and school closures may affect their children’s mental health and development.

In the Royal Children’s Hospital’s National Child Health Poll in June 2020, more than one-third of parents reported the pandemic has had negative consequences on their children’s mental health. Almost half of parents said the pandemic had also been harmful to their own mental health.

Many parents spent at least some months this year supporting their children to learn from home (and still are, in Victoria). This already substantial challenge was complicated by children not being able to go out and play with other children. In Victoria, such restrictions are still in place, although some have been relaxed and playgrounds are open.

Still, it’s fair to say that across the country, some children are not socially engaging with their peers in the same way they did before. This is not only detrimental to children’s learning but also their physical and mental health. It is understandable if parents are worried.

What social isolation means for kids

In June 2020, in the context of COVID-19, a group of researchers in the UK reviewed 80 studies to find how social isolation and loneliness could impact the mental health of previously healthy children. They found social isolation increased the risk of depression and possibly anxiety, and these effects could last several years.

Read more: How to help young children regulate their emotions and behaviours during the pandemic

The review also concluded loneliness puts children’s well-being at risk of these things long after the social isolation period is over.

The impact of social isolation may be particularly significant for children with special educational needs, when support provided at school to them is interrupted.

Other children – perhaps those living in medium and high-density housing with limited access to outdoor play space – may also be particularly vulnerable to the effects of social isolation.

Some parents with only one child have also voiced concerns about loneliness.

It is difficult to substitute what real human interaction with peers means to a child. Active engagement in creative play alone or physical activity with parents can be helpful for children who miss the company of their friends.

The power of play

What could possibly fix this situation? The answer is: help children play.

The benefits of regular play are many and they are well documented in research. Paediatricians say play improves children’s language skills, early maths knowledge, peer relations, social and physical development and learning how to get new skills.

When children can’t play for any reason, anxiety and toxic stress can harm the healthy development of social behaviours.

Read more: Let them play! Kids need freedom from play restrictions to develop

During the pandemic, play can be an effective tonic for stress and can encourage the development of positive behaviours.

When children play together, play effects become even more powerful. Experts say social play can help children develop skills in cooperation, communication, negotiation, conflict resolution and empathy.

In social play, children can rehearse and role play real-world situations safely. Through play, they make sense of the world and process change. Parents playing with their children help children play better with their peers.

Now is the time to stress the importance of play. A survey done by the Gonski Institute in 2019 showed four out of five Australians believe today’s children are under pressure to grow up too quickly. More than 70% think the lifelong benefits children gained from play, such as creativity and empathy, are mostly ignored today.

Research from previous pandemics shows we need well-planned and coordinated solutions to potentially long-term emotional issues. We can embrace the role of play to mitigate the losses children have experienced while living through a pandemic.

What can parents do?

Children need both guided indoor play and free play ourdoors. Playing with family members at home, or with friends at school, are good for social play.

Digital devices can provide children a way to play together with their friends when they can’t meet with them. But the benefits of play are more long-lasting through social play in person.

Parks, green spaces and quiet streets are suitable for outdoor play. Natural environments both soothe and stimulate children, while connecting them to their environment and community. So here are four things you can do to encourage play.

1. Make time for play

The most important thing you can do is to make time every day for your children to play. Take play time seriously and show your children you value it for the benefit of their well-being, health and learning.

2. Set clear guidelines to technology use at home

It is important to talk with your children about safe and responsible use of digital media and technology. This may require agreeing to put some limits to the use of screens at home, and encourage children to actively engage with friends by playing interactive games when using digital devices.

Read more: Child’s play in the time of COVID: screen games are still ‘real’ play

3. Go out whenever possible

A recent review of nearly 200 studies found “green time” — time in parks, nature reserves and woods — appeared to be associated with favourable psychological outcomes, while high levels of screen time appeared to be associated with unfavourable psychological outcomes.

Parks and playgrounds are open now in Victoria, while in other states they have been for some time.

So find fun outdoor exploratory activities for your children, and where possible bring other kids along.

4. Be a role model of all of the above

Children often mimic their parents. The best way to ensure children grow up healthy and happy is to be a role model to them. More play, and enough quality time outdoors with children is good for your own health and happiness, too.

For more see the Raising Children Network and the Gonski Institute.

– ref. Are the kids alright? Social isolation can take a toll, but play can help – https://theconversation.com/are-the-kids-alright-social-isolation-can-take-a-toll-but-play-can-help-146023

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Wendy Stone, Associate Professor, Centre for Urban Transitions and Director, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Swinburne Research Centre, Swinburne University of Technology

New research released today asked Australians how well current housing met their needs and their ideals, both in the short and longer-term.

We found safety and security was the main aspiration of householders across age groups. Given the turbulent year for many households, we wished to explore how the pandemic might change what people want from their homes.

What do people want from a home?

We surveyed more than 7,400 Australians in young, mid-life and older households, including Indigenous, non-Indigenous and widely diverse Australians, online or in interviews.

We asked what they want from housing, and the constraints that mean they haven’t been able to get there.

We found “safety and security” were fundamental to the housing aspirations of young, mid- and later life Australians. Some 75% of respondents indicated these basic characteristics were the key housing attributes they value. For a majority of Australians, these attributes were associated with home ownership.

The figure below shows four in five Australians are satisfied with their current housing in the short term, but when they consider their longer term needs these levels of satisfaction drop considerably. This is particularly so among renters, linked to a lack of security in the tenure.

The survey asked participants to choose their ideal housing in terms of location, tenure, dwelling type and number of bedrooms. The results showed there was a preference for owning a house with three or more bedrooms within the suburbs of capital cities, with a notable number also showing a preference for regional living.

But not all households believe they can attain this ideal with rising inequality also fuelling the housing aspirations gap. When we asked households what they need to achieve their ideal housing, results show targeted support is critical — such as assistance with up-front deposits, fees or bonds, and support to manage ongoing housing costs in the context of disruptions such as COVID.

What about post-COVID?

If anything, the pandemic has reinforced trends in housing aspirations.

First, housing security matters. The disruptions of 2020 have highlighted housing insecurity, particularly among those with precarious incomes. Government interventions including JobKeeper, JobSeeker, evictions moratoria and schemes such as the Victorian Rental Relief Grant have been necessary to keep renters in their homes, with banks having deferred mortgage payments for tens of thousands of additional households.

Read more: 400,000 women over 45 are at risk of homelessness in Australia

Second, walkable neighbourhoods are the way of the future. COVID-19 reaffirms the importance of local neighbourhoods as amenity centres. This includes local areas that include green space, local produce and a sense of community. Our findings show suburban living and regional towns are attractive options for households across all ages, including younger adults.

Third, adaptable living is key. Home has never been as important as a hub of both productivity and care. Working from home and online education have become the norm for many households in Australia and globally. This requires adequate space, quality digital connectivity and adaptable living areas that can accommodate the whole family and different activities.

Young adults have needed to relocate quickly in some cases, with households at mid-life finding themselves potentially housing both young adult children (and maybe grandchildren) as well as elderly parents. As fears rise about the safety of existing aged care residences, housing that supports home-based elder care also becomes critical.

Creating a better housing future

Our research shows safety and security is key to what people want from housing, so reducing entry costs to home ownership and delivering rent-buy models (that enable people to transition from renting to buying) are important policy directions.

Improving housing knowledge and housing market skills to enable households to explore options, make more informed housing decisions and plan for their housing futures are also key elements. Creating optimal housing requires collaborating with residents as experts, on what they value.

Read more: ‘Uprooting, no matter how small a plant you are, is a trauma’: older women renters are struggling

– ref. How might COVID-19 change what Australians want from their homes? – https://theconversation.com/how-might-covid-19-change-what-australians-want-from-their-homes-145626

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Robertson, Professor, University of Western Australia

Businesses are protesting vociferously about Victoria’s extended lockdown. It’s “gut-wrenching,” “devastating,” a “trainwreck,” a “death knell”.

Yet businesses and shareholders are far from representative of those most at risk.

The best evidence we’ve got suggests the hardest hit are Victoria’s already disadvantaged.

Those arguing for extended lockdowns make the point that they are not as costly as they might seem (to anyone) because their effects need to be compared not with business as usual, but with business in which a pandemic encourages people to stay at home and reduce spending.

Australia’s recession began during the March quarter, almost all of which was before the lockdowns began on March 24.

Victoria’s job losses accelerated well ahead of the renewed Stage 3 and then Stage 4 lockdowns which began on July 8 and August 2.

In the United States it has been found that lockdowns only had a modest effect on job losses compared to what came before; one estimate is 10%.

Lockdowns hurt some more than others

But these are overall measurements. Lockdowns hurt some much more than others.

A study of 29 European Union nations found that people with high levels of education were twice as likely as people with low education to be able to work through lockdowns.

A British study found employees in the bottom 10% of earnings were seven times as likely as those in the top 10% to work in a sector that had been shut down.

An Australian study found low income workers were three times as likely as high earners to face a high risk of losing their jobs.

Mobility data shows it

This isn’t obvious from mobility data, which seems to show the opposite.

Google statistics on the movement of people with Android phones show that residents of Melbourne’s most disadvantaged suburbs have restricted their travel the least.

The most likely reason that economically and socially disadvantaged Melbourne residents are still moving is that they are in jobs that don’t allow them to work from home.

A World Bank study finds the same thing on a larger scale. The extensive voluntary reductions in activity that proceeded lockdowns were present in only rich nations, not in developing ones.

This means, in the words of a Harvard University study, that in countries where many people live at or close to subsistence, it isn’t possible to save people from the pandemic without condemning them to deprivation.

The story is as old as the plague itself.

Read more: Why coronavirus will deepen the inequality of our suburbs

During the Black Death of 1348 to 1349, King Edward fled London with his relics and staff for the safety of his country estates. The poor had nowhere to flee. Even though the odds of surviving the year in London were less than 50%, the odds of surviving without work weren’t much different.

During Great Plague of London in 1655, so many people of means deserted the city that it was dubbed “the poore’s plague”.

Throughout history and across countries, disadvantaged groups necessarily have fewer choices and hence carry a greater share of the burden of quarantine-type measures.

We should expect business to represent the interests of its shareholders – and business claims should be viewed through that lens, but there are other victims of lockdowns, less able to provide ready quotes.

However well intentioned the lockdowns are, the already-disadvantaged are likely to be hurting the most.

– ref. Who suffers most from Melbourne’s extended lockdown? Hint: they are not necessarily particularly vocal  – https://theconversation.com/who-suffers-most-from-melbournes-extended-lockdown-hint-they-are-not-necessarily-particularly-vocal-145938

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Emma Hayes, Academic, School of Communication and Creative Arts, Deakin University

Frances Hodgson Burnett’s The Secret Garden has been described as “the most significant children’s book of the 20th century.”

First published in 1911, after being serialised in The American Magazine, it was dismissed by one critic at the time as simple and lacking “plenty of excitement”. The novel is, in fact, a sensitive and complex story, which explores how a relationship with nature can foster our emotional and physical well-being. It also reveals anxieties about national identity at a time of the British Empire, drawing on ideas of Christian Science.

The Secret Garden has been read by generations, remains a fixture on children’s publishing lists today and has inspired several film versions. A new film, starring Colin Firth, Dixie Egerickx and Amir Wilson, updates the story in some ways for modern audiences.

The book opens as nine-year-old Mary Lennox is discovered abandoned in an Indian bungalow following her parents’ deaths during a cholera outbreak. Burnett depicts India as a site of permissive behaviour, illness and lassitude:

[Mary’s] hair was yellow, and her face was yellow because she had been born in India and had always been ill in one way or another.

Mary is “disagreeable”, “contrary”, “selfish” and “cross”. She makes futile attempts at gardening, planting hibiscus blossoms into mounds of earth. The Ayah tasked with caring for Mary and the other “native servants … always obeyed Mary and gave her her own way in everything.”

On the death of her parents, Mary is sent to live with her reclusive uncle Archibald Craven at Misselthwaite Manor in Yorkshire.

Mary’s arrival in England proves a shock. The “blunt frankness” of the Yorkshire servants – in contrast to those in India – checks her behaviour. Martha Sowerby, an outspoken young housemaid, presents Mary with a skipping rope: Yorkshire good sense triumphing over Mary’s imperial malaise.

Also in the manor is Colin, her 10-year-old cousin. Hidden from Mary, she discovers him after hearing his cries at night.

Colin is unable to walk and believes he will not live to reach adulthood. Sequestered in his bedroom, Colin terrorises his servants with his tantrums: he performs “hysterics” in the model of Gothic femininity.

Read more: The Yellow Wallpaper: a 19th-century short story of nervous exhaustion and the perils of women’s ‘rest cures’

Transformation

Perhaps the most famous image associated with Burnett’s text is the locked door leading to the eponymous garden.

This walled garden had formerly belonged to Colin’s mother, Lilias Craven. When she died after an accident in the garden, her husband, Archibald, locked the door and buried the key.

After Mary unearths the key, she begins to work in this mysterious, overgrown garden along with Martha’s brother, Dickon. Eventually, she manages to draw Colin out of his room with the help of Dickon, and the garden helps him to recover his strength.

Burnett draws upon the cultural connection between childhood and nature, highlighting Edwardian beliefs about the importance of the garden. Like other Edwardian texts, such as Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows (1908) and J. M. Barrie’s Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens (1906), The Secret Garden also explores an English turn-of-the-century interest in paganism and the occult, expressed through the book’s fascination with the Greek god Pan.

Dickon, who shares an affinity with animals and the natural world, is first introduced as he sits under a tree “playing on a rough wooden pipe” reminiscent of Pan’s flute.

Mary and Colin are both physically and psychically transformed through working in the garden. The stifling rooms and constricting passages of Misselthwaite Manor are contrasted to the freedom of the secret garden.

At first it seemed that green things would never cease pushing their way through the earth, in the grass, in the beds, even in the crevices of the walls. Then the green things began to show buds and the buds began to unfurl and show colour, every shade of blue, every shade of purple, every tint and hue of crimson.

Read more: B&Bs for birds and bees: transform your garden or balcony into a wildlife haven

The children are healed by gardening in the “fresh wind from the moor”. Both gain weight and strength and lose their pallor. Colin’s gardening suggests mastery of the space as he plants a rose – the floral emblem of England.

Mary is subordinated as Colin’s healing becomes the text’s main focus; Colin gains the ability to walk and – importantly – to win a race against her.

‘Just mere thoughts’

The Secret Garden emphasises the power of positive thinking: “thoughts – just mere thoughts – are as powerful as electric batteries – as good for one as sunlight is, or as bad for one as poison”.

This focus on the power of positive thoughts highlights Burnett’s interest in New Thought and Christian Science. New Thought teaches that people can enhance their lives by altering their thought patterns. It was developed by Phineas Parkhurst Quimby in the 19th century, and one of Quimby’s students was Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science. While Burnett did not join either religion, she acknowledged that they influenced her work. Both religions often reject mainstream medicine.

Read more: Why you should know about the New Thought movement

Belief in the healing power of thoughts is reflected as Colin chants about the “magic” of the garden.

The sun is shining – the sun is shining. That is the Magic. The flowers are growing – the roots are stirring. That is the Magic. Being alive is the Magic – being strong is the Magic. The Magic is in me… It’s in every one of us.

The Secret Garden today

Written in a time of British imperial expansion, The Secret Garden’s anxieties around national identity are evident. It draws implicit (and explicit) distinctions between the sickliness and languor of India, and the health and vitality associated with life on the Yorkshire moors.

Yet The Secret Garden still resonates with contemporary audiences. This new adaptation elaborates upon the “magic” associated with the healing power of thoughts, introducing a fantastic element to the story as Mary, Colin and Dickon enter a secret garden filled with otherworldly plants.

Director Marc Munden’s new adaptation also appears to revisit the colonialist emphasis of Burnett’s text. The adaptation shifts the time period during which the film is set to 1947, the year of the Partition of India.

This temporal change suggests an alteration to the original text’s ideas about national identity. While Burnett’s 1911 text considered Britain’s relationship with India at the height of British imperialism, Munden’s adaptation situates the narrative in the period of India gaining independence from Britain.

This new film suggests a desire to ensure The Secret Garden’s continued relevance to today’s audiences, who may be attuned to the book’s colonialist ideologies.

The Secret Garden opens in select cinemas today.

– ref. Guide to the Classics: The Secret Garden and the healing power of nature – https://theconversation.com/guide-to-the-classics-the-secret-garden-and-the-healing-power-of-nature-132269

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

The government has unveiled a $1.9 billion package of investments in new and emerging technologies, and reinforced its message that it is time to move on from assisting now commercially-viable renewables.

The package will be controversial, given its planned broadening of the remit of the government’s clean energy investment vehicles, currently focused on renewables, and the attention given to carbon capture and storage, which has many critics.

The latest announcement follows the “gas-fired recovery” energy plan earlier this week, which included the threat the government would build its own gas-fired power station if the electricity sector failed to fill the gap left by the scheduled closure of the coal-fired Liddell power plant in 2023.

Read more: Morrison government threatens to use Snowy Hydro to build gas generator, as it outlines ‘gas-fired recovery’ plan

Unveiling the latest policy, Scott Morrison said solar panels and wind farms were commercially viable “and have graduated from the need for government subsidies”.

The government was now looking to unlock new technologies “to help drive down costs, create jobs, improve reliability and reduce emissions. This will support our traditional industries – manufacturing, agriculture, transport – while positioning our economy for the future.”

An extra $1.62 billion will be provided for the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) to invest.

The government will expand the focus of ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) to back new technologies that would reduce emissions in agriculture, manufacturing, industry and transport.

At present ARENA can only support renewable energy and the CEFC can only invest in clean energy technologies (although it can support some types of gas projects).

The changes to ARENA and the CEFC will need legislation.

The government says it will cut the time taken to develop new Emissions Reduction Fund (ERF) methods from two years or more to under a year, involving industry in a co-design process.

This follows a review of the fund, which is a centrepiece of the Coalition’s emissions reduction policy. The cost of the changes is put at $24.6 million. The fund has had trouble attracting proposals from some sectors because of its complex administrative requirements.

Other measures in the policy include a new $95.4 million Technology Co-Investment Fund to support businesses in the agriculture, manufacturing, industrial and transport sectors to take up technologies to boost productivity and reduce emissions.

A $50 million Carbon Capture Use and Storage Development Fund will pilot carbon capture projects. This technology buries carbon but has run into many problems over the years and its opponents point to it being expensive, risky and encouraging rather than discouraging the use of fossil fuels.

Businesses and regional communities will be encouraged to use hydrogen, electric, and bio-fuelled vehicles, supported by a new $74.5 million Future Fuels Fund.

A hydrogen export hub will be set up, with $70.2 million. Chief Scientist Alan Finkel has been a strong advocate for the potential of hydrogen, saying Australia has competitive advantages as a future hydrogen exporter.

Some $67 million will back new microgrids in regional and remote communities to deliver affordable and reliable power.

There will be $52.2 million to increase the energy productivity of homes and businesses. This will include grants for hotels’ upgrades.

The government says $1.8 billion of the package is new money.

Here are the details of the package:

– ref. Government targets emerging technologies with $1.9 billion, saying renewables can stand on own feet – https://theconversation.com/government-targets-emerging-technologies-with-1-9-billion-saying-renewables-can-stand-on-own-feet-146327

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

The Coalition is having yet another go at crafting an energy policy. Faced with the huge economic challenges presented by COVID, the government this week announced its “gas-fired recovery”.

But the policy is already under fire from both environmentalists and coal advocates, and the energy sector warns it could discourage investors.

Part of the announcement was a threat – the government will build a gas generator in the Hunter Valley if the private sector fails to fill the gap in power supply that will be created by the closure of the Liddell coal-fired power plant.

This dramatic form of intervention would seem very much against the Liberal grain.

But Energy Minister Angus Taylor says: “Our focus is on good competitive markets. That’s a Liberal Party philosophy.

“Our belief is in the importance of affordable, reliable energy – we want the private sector to deliver it. That’s their obligation to their customers, we believe. But if they don’t, we will step in.”

Despite the focus on gas, Taylor said renewables would play their role in the future. “I’ve always been enormously enthusiastic about renewables, but I also see that what we need is a mix.

“And when people talk about a single technology as the answer to all our problems, I am sceptical.

“I’m not sceptical of balance and having a range of different technologies…a balance that includes hydro, solar and wind, gas, coal, batteries starting to play a role, particularly over the very short term, to help support, secure, the market.”

Additional audio

A List of Ways to Die, Lee Rosevere, from Free Music Archive.

– ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: Angus Taylor on the ‘gas-fired’ recovery – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-angus-taylor-on-the-gas-fired-recovery-146328

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

The federal government, under pressure to expand and accelerate the return of stranded Australians, has pre-empted national cabinet by announcing the “cap” on these arrivals will be expanded from about 4,000 up to 6,000 a week.

After the announcement Western Australia immediately hit out, saying the national cabinet process was being flouted.

More than 25,000 people are presently registered as having expressed a wish to return, and there have been numerous hardship cases in the media and in representations to MPs offices.

The government says the new weekly caps will be: NSW 2,950 (present cap is 2,450), Queensland 1,000 (500), South Australia 600 (500), and Western 1,025 (525). Victoria, struggling out of its second wave, will not have any arrivals.

This adds up to only 5,575 but the government hopes the other jurisdictions will take some people, although there are not commercial airline services into the ACT, the Northern Territory or Tasmania.

The government wants the higher numbers operating by late this month.

The caps were imposed at the request of states, which were concerned at pressure on their quarantine facilities, in particular when Victoria, where there was a quarantine breakdown triggering the second wave crisis, stopped taking any returnees.

People wanting to come home are not just facing the problem of the cap but the difficulty of securing flights, and at reasonable prices.

Unveiling the higher cap Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack, who has responsibility for aviation, said he had written to premiers and territory leaders to tell them the caps for international flights based on quarantine levels.

“Not every Australian will be able to come home by Christmas, I accept that. But we want to get as many of those who need to come home, want to come home, paid for a ticket to come home, to be able to do so”, McCormack said.

The federal government says it has constitutional power over quarantine, and so does not need the states’ approval. But it will take the new quotas to Friday’s national cabinet.

Under the existing deal the states make the quarantine arrangements and carry the cost – although they are now charging returnees.

The opposition has called for the government to use RAAF planes to return some people. But the government says there are thousands of unused commercial seats, and the VIP fleet has only very small capacity. It also rejects calls for the use of federal facilities for some of the returnees, saying they are not available or suitable.

Attorney-General Christian Porter, asked on Perth radio whether WA had agreed, said he did not know but “we very much hope they will”.

WA premier Mark McGowan said he had not known about the announcement beforehand and described it as “very directly outside the spirit of the national cabinet”.

“I don’t really like the fact that this has been sprung via a press conference without a discussion with the people actually required to implement it,” McGowan said.

He warned of the risks of putting pressure on hotel quarantine and said using Commonwealth facilities should be looked at.

The federal government says it would consider ADF assistance with more quarantine, noting ADF personnel have been helping WA with hotel quarantine for weeks.

WA Health Minister Roger Cook said it was extraordinary the matter was being dealt with through a letter from McCormack and said Scott Morrison should call “his dogs off” and work with the premiers.

NSW premier Gladys Berejiklian said that after a request from the prime minister “I consulted my relevant ministers and the police commissioner, who is in charge of quarantine, and everybody said they could take on that extra load”. Her agreement was on the basis other states agreed.

Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk also indicated her government was willing to take more people.

– ref. Federal government pre-empts national cabinet to raise the cap for returning Australians – https://theconversation.com/federal-government-pre-empts-national-cabinet-to-raise-the-cap-for-returning-australians-146312

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bruce Baer Arnold, Assistant Professor, School of Law, University of Canberra

The federal government has announced a plan to increase the sharing of citizen data across the public sector.

This would include data sitting with agencies such as Centrelink, the Australian Tax Office, the Department of Home Affairs, the Bureau of Statistics and potentially other external “accredited” parties such as universities and businesses.

The draft Data Availability and Transparency Bill released today will not fix ongoing problems in public administration. It won’t solve many problems in public health. It is a worrying shift to a post-privacy society.

It’s a matter of arrogance, rather than effectiveness. It highlights deficiencies in Australian law that need fixing.

Read more: Australians accept government surveillance, for now

Making sense of the plan

Australian governments on all levels have built huge silos of information about us all. We supply the data for these silos each time we deal with government.

It’s difficult to exercise your rights and responsibilities without providing data. If you’re a voter, a director, a doctor, a gun owner, on welfare, pay tax, have a driver’s licence or Medicare card – our governments have data about you.

Much of this is supplied on a legally mandatory basis. It allows the federal, state, territory and local governments to provide pensions, elections, parks, courts and hospitals, and to collect rates, fees and taxes.

The proposed Data Availability and Transparency Bill will authorise large-scale sharing of data about citizens and non-citizens across the public sector, between both public and private bodies. Previously called the “Data Sharing and Release” legislation, the word “transparency” has now replaced “release” to allay public fears.

The legislation would allow sharing between Commonwealth government agencies that are currently constrained by a range of acts overseen (weakly) by the under-resourced Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC).

The acts often only apply to specific agencies or data. Overall we have a threadbare patchwork of law that is supposed to respect our privacy but often isn’t effective. It hasn’t kept pace with law in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

The plan also envisages sharing data with trusted third parties. They might be universities or other research institutions. In future, the sharing could extend to include state or territory agencies and the private sector, too.

Any public or private bodies that receive data can then share it forward. Irrespective of whether one has anything to hide, this plan is worrying.

Why will there be sharing?

Sharing isn’t necessarily a bad thing. But it should be done accountably and appropriately.

Consultations over the past two years have highlighted the value of inter-agency sharing for law enforcement and for research into health and welfare. Universities have identified a range of uses regarding urban planning, environment protection, crime, education, employment, investment, disease control and medical treatment.

Many researchers will be delighted by the prospect of accessing data more cheaply than doing onerous small-scale surveys. IT people have also been enthusiastic about money that could be made helping the databases of different agencies talk to each other.

However, the reality is more complicated, as researchers and civil society advocates have pointed out.

Why should you be worried?

The plan for comprehensive data sharing is founded on the premise of accreditation of data recipients (entities deemed trustworthy) and oversight by the Office of the National Data Commissioner, under the proposed act.

The draft bill announced today is open for a short period of public comment before it goes to parliament. It features a consultation paper alongside a disquieting consultants’ report about the bill. In this report, the consultants refer to concerns and “high inherent risk”, but unsurprisingly appear to assume things will work out.

Federal Minister for Government Services Stuart Roberts, who presided over the tragedy known as the RoboDebt scheme, is optimistic about the Bill. He dismissed critics’ concerns by stating consent is implied when someone uses a government service. This seems disingenuous, given people typically don’t have a choice.

However, the bill does exclude some data sharing. If you’re a criminologist researching law enforcement, for example, you won’t have an open sesame. Experience with the national Privacy Act and other Commonwealth and state legislation tells us such exclusions weaken over time

Outside the narrow exclusions centred on law enforcement and national security, the bill’s default position is to share widely and often. That’s because the accreditation requirements for agencies aren’t onerous and the bases for sharing are very broad.

This proposal exacerbates ongoing questions about day-to-day privacy protection. Who’s responsible, with what framework and what resources?

Responsibility is crucial, as national and state agencies recurrently experience data breaches. Although as RoboDebt revealed, they often stick to denial. Universities are also often wide open to data breaches.

Proponents of the plan argue privacy can be protected through robust de-identification, in other words removing the ability to identify specific individuals. However, research has recurrently shown “de-identification” is no silver bullet.

Most bodies don’t recognise the scope for re-identification of de-identified personal information and lots of sharing will emphasise data matching.

Be careful what you ask for

Sharing may result in social goods such as better cities, smarter government and healthier people by providing access to data (rather than just money) for service providers and researchers.

That said, our history of aspirational statements about privacy protection without meaningful enforcement by watchdogs should provoke some hard questions. It wasn’t long ago the government failed to prevent hackers from accessing sensitive data on more than 200,000 Australians.

It’s true this bill would ostensibly provide transparency, but it won’t provide genuine accountability. It shouldn’t be taken at face value.

Read more: Seven ways the government can make Australians safer – without compromising online privacy

– ref. Towards a post-privacy world: new draft legislation would spur open data sharing between agencies – https://theconversation.com/towards-a-post-privacy-world-new-draft-legislation-would-spur-open-data-sharing-between-agencies-146292

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Evita March, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Federation University Australia

There is an urgent need to understand why people troll.

Recent Australian estimates show about one in three internet users have experienced online harassment.

Across several research studies, I have attempted to construct the psychological profile of those who trolls to harm others.

In my most recent study, I wanted to see if trolling could be linked to self-esteem. Do people troll because they have low self-worth?

What is trolling?

In scientific literature, internet trolling is defined as a malicious online behaviour, characterised by aggressive and deliberate provocation of others. “Trolls” seek to provoke, upset and harm others via inflammatory messages and posts.

Read more: Online trolling used to be funny, but now the term refers to something far more sinister

Trolling can refer to a variety of online behaviour. In some circumstances, the intent of the trolling behaviour may even be to amuse and entertain. However, in my research, I have explored trolling as a malevolent behaviour, where the troll wants to hurt their online victim.

Why is trolling a problem?

Trolling can cause significant harm and distress. It is associated with serious physical and psychological effects, including disrupted sleep, lowered self-esteem, depression, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and in some cases, even suicide.

In 2019, The Australia Institute estimated trolling and online abuse had cost the Australian economy up to $3.7 billion in health costs and lost income.

Alarmingly, it is extremely common to experience trolling. Combined with the psychological and economic costs of trolling, this demonstrates the urgency of understanding why people troll.

If we can understand why people troll, this can inform management and prevention.

Researching trolls

In my latest study, I explored gender, psychopathy, sadism and self-esteem as predictors of engaging in malevolent trolling.

Psychopathy is characterised by callousness, deceitfulness and a lack of personal responsibility. Sadism is characterised by enjoyment of physically and/or psychologically harming other people.

The study recruited 400 participants via social media advertisements. Almost 68% of participants were women, 43% were Australian, while the average age was 25. They completed an anonymous, confidential online questionnaire, which assessed personality and self-esteem.

Read more: Women troll on dating apps just as often as men

The study also measured the extent to which participants displayed troll-like behaviours. For example:

I enjoy upsetting people I do not personally know on the internet

although some people think my posts are offensive, I think they are funny.

What the study found

Results showed that gender, psychopathy, and sadism were all significant independent predictors of malevolent trolling. That is, if you are male, have high psychopathy, or high sadism, you are more likely to troll.

The most powerful predictor of trolling was sadism. The more someone enjoys hurting others, the more likely it is they will troll.

Self-esteem was not an independent predictor of trolling.

However, we found self-esteem interacts with sadism. So, if a person had high levels of sadism and high self-esteem, they were more likely to troll. This result was unexpected because low self-esteem has predicted other antisocial online behaviour, such as cyberbullying.

What does this mean?

These results have important implications for how we manage and respond to trolling.

First, based on the results of psychopathy and sadism, we understand the internet troll as someone who is callous, lacks a sense of personal responsibility and enjoys causing others harm.

The significance of psychopathy in the results also indicates trolls have an empathy deficit, particularly when it comes to their ability to experience and internalise other people’s emotions.

On top of this, the interaction between high sadism and high self-esteem suggests trolls are not trolling because they have low self-worth. In fact, this is quite the opposite. The more someone enjoys hurting others and the better they feel about themselves, the more likely they are to troll.

So, how can we use this information?

Unfortunately, the psychological profile of an internet troll means you will not get far appealing to their sense of humanity. And don’t just brush off the troll as someone who has low self-worth. Their character is far more complex, which makes managing the behaviour all the more challenging.

Previous research has found showing the troll they have upset you may only reinforce their behaviour.

It appears the popular refrain is correct: don’t feed the trolls and give them the hurt or angry response they are looking for.

This does not mean we should just ignore this behaviour. People who commit this type of cyber abuse should still be held accountable for their actions.

I propose we change the narrative. Trolls are not to be feared — their power lies in the reactions they cause.

Read more: ‘Don’t feed the trolls’ really is good advice – here’s the evidence

One way we can start is to become active bystanders. Bystanders are those who witness the trolling. Active bystanders intervene and say “this is not okay”.

Don’t fight fire with fire. Respond with outward indifference and strict no tolerance. Let’s work together to dismantle the power of the troll and take back the internet from their influence.

It is not only up to the person experiencing the trolling to respond and manage the behaviour. We all need to take responsibility for our online environment.

– ref. New research shows trolls don’t just enjoy hurting others, they also feel good about themselves – https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-trolls-dont-just-enjoy-hurting-others-they-also-feel-good-about-themselves-145931

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Georgia Atkin-Smith, Research scientist, La Trobe University

I know veins are made out of cells but what are cells made out of? It’s very tricky to answer that — Bea, 4 years old

That is a great question, Bea!

The human body is just like a big puzzle, but with billions of tiny pieces called cells. Our cells come in many different shapes and sizes. Together, they make up all of the parts of our body, from our veins to our brain.

Our cells are really, really small. For example, look at how thin a single strand of your hair is. Although it’s so thin, nearly 20 cells could fit across it. That’s how small they are.

Scientists have discovered cells are made from different building blocks we call molecules, such as water, plus other types like proteins, fats and DNA.

Just like our body, which has different parts that all work together, our cells also have different parts too. Let’s take a closer look.

Cells have skin

The outside skin of a cell is called the plasma membrane. It is made mainly of molecules called fats. This skin forms a bubble around the outside of the whole cell and holds it together.

Plants also have cells. But plant cells have an extra layer of skin called the cell wall which is strong and tough, not soft like a bubble, which explains why plants like trees can grow so tall.

Cells have skeletons

Like the bones inside our body, cells also have a kind of skeleton called the cytoskeleton (which means “cell skeleton”). It is made from molecules called proteins. The cell’s skeleton makes it strong, and also helps our cells move around the body.

Cells have brains (sort of)

One of the most important molecules in a cell is its DNA, made from a type of building block called nucleotides. DNA is like an instruction book for everything our cells have to do (including making more cells, moving, and fighting germs). As the nucleus stores most of our DNA, it’s just like the brain of the cell.

You might have heard of genes (not the ones you wear, but the ones inside you). They are just like a recipe your cells use to make you! They decide how tall you will grow, what colour your eyes or hair are, and more.

Our genes are made of DNA and we get this DNA from our mum and dad. For example, if a dad has brown eyes, he can pass on the recipe in his DNA to his child which tells their cells how to make brown eyes. This explains why we can look similar to our parents.

Cells have stomachs

When you’re hungry, you eat! Your stomach then breaks down your food, in a process called digestion. Just like this, your cells also have their own mini stomachs which are important to digest the food and waste from the cell and keep them happy.

Cells make energy

If you turn on a light switch, the room quickly lights up. This is because of electricity which is a type of energy, made in big powerhouses. We use electricity for so many things like lights but also TVs, phones, heating and cooling.

Nearly everything that happens inside a cell needs energy too. Therefore, cells have special sections in them called mitochondria, which are the powerhouses of the cell and make all the energy the cell needs to work.

Cells can talk to each other!

If our cells are so tiny and our body is so big, how can all of our cells work together? The answer is they can talk … well, kind of.

Instead of picking up the phone to talk to each other, our cells have to send messages. These messages are made of molecules that help cells communicate.

Here is a cool example. If you get stung by a bee (ouch!) your skin will start to go red and puffy. This may look scary but actually, it is your body helping you. The cells in this area are quickly sending out messages for help. Cells in other areas get these messages and then go in for the rescue.

As scientists, we know a lot about cells. But we still don’t know everything. That’s why we need young kids to stay curious and ask questions, like Bea!

Hello, curious kids! Have you got a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to curiouskids@theconversation.edu.au

– ref. Curious Kids: what are cells made out of? – https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-what-are-cells-made-out-of-142728

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben Rich, Senior lecturer in International Relations and Security Studies, Curtin University

US President Donald Trump heralded nothing short of “the dawn of a new Middle East” as the leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain signed agreements normalising ties with Israel during a ceremony at the White House this week.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu echoed that sentiment, saying “this day is a pivot of history”.

The diplomatic detente is significant — the UAE and Bahrain will join Egypt and Jordan as the only Arab countries to officially recognise the Jewish state. This will strengthen economic and security ties that have existed tacitly for years and establish diplomatic missions in the respective capitals.

But despite Trump’s grandiose statements, these agreements are little more than a footnote in the wider chaos of contemporary Middle Eastern affairs.

Less important than you’d think

The broader Arab-Israeli conflict has been dormant for decades, as the main players have been preoccupied by the threats of internal dissent and civil strife, rather than one another.

Beyond this, the UAE and Bahrain were never central to Arab hostilities with Israel. Historically, they acted as cheerleaders and financiers for the front-line states during the Cold War, such as Syria and Egypt.

The two Persian Gulf monarchies are not great powers, either. The UAE certainly swings above its weight, but its small size means it will never be a major factor in regional events.

Read more: Why increasing Arab-Israeli closeness matters

In geopolitical terms, Bahrain is far less notable — it’s effectively a vassal of Saudi Arabia.

Regardless of the immediate changes brought by these diplomatic moves, the bigger question is how Saudi Arabia will respond in the coming months.

It is rare in foreign relations to see “beta testing” of bold ideas, but the UAE and Bahrain have provided just such a test case for Riyadh in its own fraught push to normalise relations with the Jewish state.

The enemy of my enemy

Since the ascendance of the aggressively reformist Prince Mohammad Bin Salman in 2015, Saudi Arabia has made moves behind the scenes to strengthen ties with Jerusalem.

From the outset, the prince showed little interest in hostile relations with Israel, instead perceiving a natural partner in containing Iran, a rival to both states.

This led to an informal arrangement between the Saudis and Israelis, along with the United States and a number of smaller Gulf states, aimed at confronting the Iranian challenge together.

An outright solidification of an alliance between the Saudis and Israelis would allow for greater cooperation and coordination in regional security, diplomacy and trade — and build a more unified and effective front against the threat posed by Iran’s growing influence in the region.

Jumping the gun on diplomacy

But previous attempts by Israel and Saudi Arabia to warm relations have proved challenging, to say the least.

In 2018, bin Salman made the unprecedented move of declaring Israel’s right to exist, extending a clear olive branch meant to open the door to further opportunities to strengthen ties between the two countries.

Read more: Saudi Arabia’s ‘liberal’ Crown Prince is a year into his tenure – how is he doing?

However, the prince may have jumped the gun with the statement, which was met with ambivalence by the Saudi public and other Arab states.

Many felt the move too sudden and incongruous with the kindgom’s longstanding position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The Saudis have long demanded the creation of a state for the Palestinians before any sort of formal sovereign recognition could be offered to Israel.

Ultimately, this led to an embarrassing intervention by the prince’s father, King Salman, who publicly walked back his son’s statements, in part due to fears of eroding the monarchy’s domestic legitimacy.

Following his chastisement, the prince went silent on the issue for over a year. He also took a less prominent position in the public eye, a significant departure from his normal flamboyant style.

New year, new opportunities

This year, things have changed. With King Salman ailing, the prince consolidating his position within the country further and the ever-present threat of Iran across the gulf, there are new opportunities for Saudi Arabia to potentially re-engage with Israel.

New challenges have also presented themselves. The ravages of COVID-19 and a vulnerable oil market have left the kingdom in a far more precarious position than just two years ago. In such an environment, the risk of losing legitimacy from such a deal could prove far more catastrophic to the authoritarian regime.

Read more: Saudi and Iran: how our two countries could make peace and bring stability to the Middle East

Bin Salman may be up to the task, though. The prince has demonstrated a growing aptitude to navigate complex political situations.

Over the past year, for instance, he has curtailed his characteristic brashness, avoiding the blunders seen early on in his reign that damaged Saudi prestige on the international stage and drew ire from his father.

Since his 2018 Israeli misfire, the prince has displayed a more reserved and circumspect demeanour in his public activities and foreign engagements — sending a message he intends to serve out a long and productive term.

Canaries in the diplomatic coal mine

Having learned from past mistakes, a more prudent bin Salman is likely to approach a rapprochement with Israel with greater caution than before.

If people in the UAE and Bahrain prove amenable or indifferent to the warming relations between their countries and Israel — and all signs thus far suggest they do — it may encourage the prince to try his plan again.

While many on the Saudi street still oppose Israel in theory, the issue lacks the salience it once did. There is an exhausting array of crises in the region — from Yemen to Syria, Libya to COVID-19 — that have become far more immediate priorities.

Thanks in part to to a concerted propaganda effort by bin Salman, the Saudi public is also increasingly in tune with the ruling elite when it comes to the desire to counter Iran as a national security concern.

As a small country on the Mediterranean sharing no borders with the Saudis, Israel simply doesn’t pose the same kind of threat in the popular imagination as the looming expansionist giant just across the gulf.

With these political dominoes in line, the coming months may prove a far more fortuitous time for bin Salman to pursue a Saudi detente with Israel.

Such a development would not only be historically significant, but would pave the way for an Arab-Israeli alliance — the likes of which has never been seen before.

– ref. Is it too soon to herald the ‘dawn of a new Middle East’? It all depends what the Saudis do next – https://theconversation.com/is-it-too-soon-to-herald-the-dawn-of-a-new-middle-east-it-all-depends-what-the-saudis-do-next-146153

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By David Jefferson, Research Fellow, The University of Queensland

Many products we use each day contain compounds taken from nature. Aspirin, for example, is derived from willow trees. And nanofibres from spinifex grass in Queensland is added to bitumen to make stronger roads.

But throughout history, native plants, animals and other biological materials have been removed without the consent of Indigenous people. In many cases, Indigenous knowledge was also taken without permission – and Indigenous people rarely benefited from the commercial products developed as a result.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities have strong connections to country, and totemic relationships with certain plants and animals. If these are removed without permission, Indigenous people suffer significant spiritual harm. And using Indigenous knowledge without permission perpetuates the social and economic injustices of colonisation.

With those important considerations in mind, the Queensland government last month reformed a law governing “biodiscovery” – the taking, analysing and using of native biological material. It should serve as a model for other states to follow.

A leader in biodiscovery law

In 2004, Queensland was the first Australian jurisdiction to regulate biodiscovery. Since then, the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments have also passed biodiscovery laws.

Queensland’s original Biodiscovery Act was beset with limitations, such as:

• it did not cover traditional knowledge. This meant Indigenous people were left out of benefit-sharing negotiations

• it didn’t meet all requirements of the 2014 Nagoya Protocol, which sets conditions for access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge

• the approvals process for biodiversity researchers was burdensome

• only biological materials from state land or waters were regulated – not those from private or Indigenous land.

The Queensland government wanted to rectify these issues. During the reform process, it consulted widely – including with Indigenous people, scientists, and experts on intellectual property and Indigenous rights.

So what’s changed?

Under the revised law, anyone engaging in biodiscovery must take all reasonable measures to form agreement with the custodians of Indigenous knowledge being used. This includes a benefit-sharing agreement.

The act now aligns with the Nagoya Protocol. This is important for those in the Queensland biodiscovery industry who want to export to countries that have ratified the protocol, such as in Europe. The approvals process has also been streamlined.

Read more: ‘All things will outlast us’: how the Indigenous concept of deep time helps us understand environmental destruction

Finally, the Queensland government is designing a “Traditional Knowledge Code of Practice” in consultation with Indigenous communities and other experts. The code will aim to help the biodiscovery industry work more inclusively with traditional knowledge custodians. It will be important to monitor whether the code meets these aims.

Collaboration is key

The Queensland government hopes the reforms will lead to more biodiscovery activities. These will often rely on the knowledge and practices of Indigenous people.

As well as custodians of Indigenous knowledge, others involved in the biodiscovery process include:

• scientists researching the properties of native biological materials

• businesses that commercialise new products

• consumers who buy the products

• government officials who grant regulatory approvals.

Collaboration between all these groups is key. One good example of this involves the Chuulangun Aboriginal Corporation and researchers at the University of South Australia. In 2013, the partners began work on a biodiscovery project in the Kuuku I’yu Northern Kaanju homelands in Cape York. It investigated traditional medicinal plants used to treat ailments such as psoriasis, a skin condition.

Read more: Strength from perpetual grief: how Aboriginal people experience the bushfire crisis

David Claudie – a coauthor of this article and Kuuku I’yu Northern Kaanju Traditional Owner – knows how to use local plants as medicine. Working together, traditional knowledge custodians and scientists collected medicinal plants and analysed them in a lab. This approach drew on both Indigenous and Western perspectives, and led to plant-based medicinal products being developed.

The project also protected Indigenous intellectual property and negotiated an agreement to share commercial benefits. Claudie is named as an inventor on the patents and an author of scientific articles published from the collaboration.

An important example

Australia is one of 17 countries considered “megadiverse”. It is home to up to 700,000 species, many found nowhere else in the world. This means the biodiscovery industry has big potential in Australia – but Indigenous knowledge must be protected.

Queensland’s reforms to biodiscovery laws set an important example. Other Australian states should follow Queensland’s lead and develop better legal protections for Indigenous knowledge. These should take into account both Indigenous and Western perspectives, for the benefit of all.

– ref. Australia’s plants and animals have long been used without Indigenous consent. Now Queensland has taken a stand – https://theconversation.com/australias-plants-and-animals-have-long-been-used-without-indigenous-consent-now-queensland-has-taken-a-stand-144813