NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Only 6% of gen Z actually favour dictatorship – not half, as some reports would have you believe

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bobby Duffy, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Policy Institute, King’s College London

    Shutterstock/Dedraw Studio

    America’s constitutional framework was designed specifically to prevent the concentration of power and to impede any president’s authoritarian aspirations. It is certainly being put to the test right now.

    When US vice-president J.D. Vance recently wrote that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power”, he gave perhaps the clearest indication to date that the Trump administration might ignore court rulings, potentially laying the ground for what some have argued would amount to a dictatorship.

    Given this context, it certainly seemed plausible when a recent Channel 4 study suggested UK democracy could be heading towards a similar crisis. However, we have conducted research that paints a very different picture of gen z’s tendency towards dictatorship.

    Media reports about the Channel 4 research claimed over half of gen Z in Britain supported the country becoming a dictatorship. Headlines included: “Voting’s such a hassle… of course Gen Z like dictators”. An article published the day after Holocaust memorial day lamented: “Of all the days to discover Gen Z’s misguided affection for dictators”.

    The study actually asked 13-to-27-year-olds whether they agreed that “the UK would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge who does not have to bother with parliament and elections”. In their findings and press release, Channel 4 didn’t suggest that this equated to support for a dictatorship – but just about every news and comment piece that picked up the study did.

    It might seem like a very justifiable interpretation, though the first sign that we should be cautious was that two major ongoing academic studies which ask a very similar question to the one released by Channel 4 get very different results.

    In 2024, the British Election Study (BES) found only 13% of gen Z across Great Britain agree or strongly agree that “the best way to run the country would be to have a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections”.

    In 2022, the World Values Survey (WVS), a study which has tracked attitudes to democracy since 1981, found 27% of gen Z in Britain think that “having a strong leader who does not have to bother with parliament and elections” is a very or fairly good way of governing the country.

    Gen Z isn’t done with democracy, they’re just disillusioned with the delivery.
    Shutterstock/EF Stock

    So the BES finding is around a quarter the level found in the Channel 4 study, and the WVS finding is around half the level. Together, these suggest we should be extremely wary about putting too much weight on the Channel 4 finding.

    As an aside, the difference between these two larger, more rigorous studies is very likely to be related to the varying response categories used. The BES allows people to choose “neither agree nor disagree”. The WVS does not include this option.

    What gen Z actually think

    To explore these discrepancies further, we ran our own test in a survey of 1,000 13-to-27-year-olds. We simply replaced the wording “strong leader” with “dictator”. Instead of 52%, we found only 22% agree with that version.

    That still leaves a worryingly large minority of gen Z who seem to be supporting an extreme form of autocratic government. We tested that view further by asking those who agreed whether that meant they wanted no control or checks on the leader by MPs in parliament and no national elections at all. When these implications are spelled out, around half say no, actually, we would like some control and elections.

    When you work it all through, only 6% of gen Z really support a dictatorship, in any recognised sense of the term. The problem we seem to be facing is not a whole generation of autocratic young people but a complex question answered quickly in online polls and hugely overinterpreted in subsequent reporting.

    And the fact that this interpretation was picked up so widely really is a problem, in at least three ways.

    First, it adds to sense of generational division, and particularly our willingness to believe that the current generation of young is the worst ever. It’s a deep human trait for older people to think ill of the young, and it’s been supercharged for us today by the media environment, including social media. Generational labels have become helpful shorthand for spreading stereotypes and division.



    Read more:
    Boomers vs millennials? Free yourself from the phoney generation wars

    Second, there is a risk that attention-grabbing discussion encourages a sense among gen Z that supporting dictatorship is the norm. Media coverage of one poll doesn’t mean the line it pushes will become immediately true, but we know perceptions of what the norm is for our group can have powerful effects on our own views and behaviour.

    If we have concerns about gen Z’s connection to liberal democracy, we should be extra careful not to spread an exaggerated negative view.

    Which leads to the third problem – that the noise around this distracts us from real and serious issues with gen Z’s engagement with politics and institutions. We risk labelling a whole generation as “authoritarian” when the real problem is a lack of confidence in the delivery of democratic institutions and systems.

    Our analysis of the WVS shows precisely this. Gen Z are the least likely to think we even currently live in a democracy. That’s perhaps understandable from their perspective when so many policy decisions – from pensions and housing, to support for the costs of education and childcare – have favoured older people.

    Older generations face a serious challenge convincing gen Z that democracy and our political institutions can work for them. But exaggerating their desire to rip it all up doesn’t increase the sense of urgency, it just adds to the drama of generational division. It risks giving a false sense of momentum to the decline of democracy, which is the last thing we need right now.

    Bobby Duffy receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council who funded the World Values Survey in the UK.

    Paolo Morini receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council who funded the World Values Survey in the UK.

    – ref. Only 6% of gen Z actually favour dictatorship – not half, as some reports would have you believe – https://theconversation.com/only-6-of-gen-z-actually-favour-dictatorship-not-half-as-some-reports-would-have-you-believe-250945

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Quantum navigation could transform how we travel. So what is it, and how does it work?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Allison Kealy, Director, Innovative Planet Institute, Swinburne University of Technology

    Triff/Shutterstock

    Quantum technology is no longer confined to the lab – it’s making its way into our everyday lives. Now, it’s about to transform something even more fundamental: how we navigate the world.

    Imagine submarines travelling beneath the ocean, never needing to surface for location updates. Planes flying across continents with unshakeable precision, unaffected by signal disruptions.

    Emergency responders could navigate smoke-filled buildings or underground tunnels with flawless accuracy, while autonomous vehicles chart perfect courses through dense urban environments.

    These scenarios might sound like science fiction, but they can all be made possible with an emerging approach known as quantum navigation.

    This game-changing tech will one day redefine movement, exploration and connectivity in ways we’re only just beginning to imagine. So, what is it?

    Satellite navigation is at the heart of many things

    Global navigation satellite systems, like GPS, are deeply embedded in modern society. We use them daily for navigation, ordering deliveries and tagging photo locations. But their impact goes far beyond convenience.

    Timing signals from satellites in Earth’s orbit authenticate stock market trades and help balance the electricity grid. In agriculture, satellite navigation guides autonomous tractors and helps muster cattle.

    Emergency services rely on navigation satellite systems for rapid response, reducing the time it takes to reach those in need.

    Despite their benefits, systems like GPS are quite vulnerable. Satellite signals can be jammed or interfered with. This can be due to active warfare, terrorism or for legitimate (or illegitimate) privacy concerns. Maps like GPSJAM show real-time interference hotspots, such as those in the Middle East, areas around Russia and Ukraine, and Myanmar.

    The environment of space isn’t constant, either. The Sun regularly ejects giant balls of plasma, causing what we know as solar storms. These emissions slam into Earth’s magnetic field, disrupting satellites and GPS signals. Often these effects are temporary, but they can also cause significant damage, depending on the severity of the storm.

    An outage of global navigation satellite systems would be more than an inconvenience – it would disrupt our most critical infrastructure.

    Estimates suggest a loss of GPS would cost just the United States economy about US$1 billion per day (A$1.5 billion), causing cascading failures across interconnected systems.

    Quantum navigation to the rescue

    In some environments, navigation signals from satellites don’t work very well. They don’t penetrate water or underground spaces, for example.

    If you’ve ever tried to use Google Maps in a built-up city with skyscrapers, you may have run into issues. Tall buildings cause signal reflections that degrade accuracy, and signals are weakened or completely unavailable inside buildings.

    This is where quantum navigation could step in one day.

    Quantum science describes the behaviour of particles at scales smaller than an atom. It reveals mind-boggling effects like superposition – particles existing in multiple states simultaneously – and entanglement (when particles are connected through space and time in ways that defy classical understanding).

    These effects are fragile and typically collapse under observation, which is why we don’t notice them in everyday life. But the very fragility of quantum processes also lets them work as exquisite sensors.

    A sensor is a device that detects changes in the world around it and turns that information into a signal we can measure or use. Think automatic doors that open when we walk near them, or phone screens that respond to our touch.

    Quantum sensors are so sensitive because quantum particles react to tiny changes in their environment. Unlike normal sensors, which can miss weak signals, quantum sensors are extremely good at detecting even the smallest changes in things like time, gravity or magnetic fields.

    Their sensitivity comes from how easily quantum states change when something in their surroundings shifts, allowing us to measure things with much greater accuracy than before.

    This precision is critical for robust navigation systems.

    Our team is researching new ways to use quantum sensors to measure Earth’s magnetic field for navigation. By using quantum effects in diamonds, we can detect Earth’s magnetic field in real time and compare the measurements to pre-existing magnetic field maps, providing a resilient alternative to satellite navigation like GPS.

    Since magnetic signals are unaffected by jamming and work underwater, they offer a promising backup system.

    A quantum magnetometer used in our research.
    Swinburne University/RMIT/Phasor

    The future of navigation

    The future of navigation will integrate quantum sensors to enhance location accuracy (via Earth’s magnetic and gravitational fields), improve orientation (via quantum gyroscopes), and enable superior timing (through compact atomic clocks and interconnected timekeeping systems).

    These technologies promise to complement and, in some cases, provide alternatives to traditional satellite-based navigation.

    However, while the potential of quantum navigation is clear, making it a practical reality remains a significant challenge. Researchers and companies worldwide are working to refine these technologies, with major efforts underway in academia, government labs and industry.

    Startups and established players are developing prototypes of quantum accelerometers (devices that measure movement) and gyroscopes, but most remain in early testing phases or specialised applications.

    Key hurdles include reducing the size and power demands of quantum sensors, improving their stability outside of controlled laboratory settings, and integrating them into existing navigation systems.

    Cost is another barrier – today’s quantum devices are expensive and complex, meaning widespread adoption is still years away.

    If these challenges can be overcome, quantum navigation could reshape everyday life in subtle but profound ways. While quantum navigation won’t replace GPS overnight, it could become an essential part of the infrastructure that keeps the world moving.

    Allison Kealy is affiliated with Quantum Australia as a board member.

    Allison Kealy is a research collaborator with RMIT University and Phasor Quantum.

    – ref. Quantum navigation could transform how we travel. So what is it, and how does it work? – https://theconversation.com/quantum-navigation-could-transform-how-we-travel-so-what-is-it-and-how-does-it-work-250285

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Manipulated media: The weapon of the Right

    The re-election of Donald Trump is proof that the Right’s most powerful weapon is media manipulation, ensuring the public sphere is not engaged in rational debate, reports the Independent Australia.

    COMMENTARY: By Victoria Fielding

    I once heard someone say that when the Left and the Right became polarised — when they divorced from each other — the Left got all the institutions of truth including science, education, justice and democratic government.

    The Right got the institution of manipulation: the media. This statement hit me for six at the time because it seemed so clearly true.

    What was also immediately clear is that there was an obvious reason why the Left sided with the institutions of truth and the Right resorted to manipulation. It is because truth does not suit right-wing arguments.

    The existence of climate change does not suit fossil fuel billionaires. Evidence that wealth does not trickle down does not suit the capitalist class. The idea that diversity, equity and inclusion (yes, I put those words in that order on purpose) is better for everyone, rather than a discriminatory, hateful, destructive, divided unequal world is dangerous for the Right to admit.

    The Right’s embrace of the media institution also makes sense when you consider that the institutions of truth are difficult to buy, whereas billionaires can easily own manipulative media.

    Just ask Elon Musk, who bought Twitter and turned it into a political manipulation machine. Just ask Rupert Murdoch, who is currently engaged in a bitter family war to stop three of his children opposing him and his son Lachlan from using their “news” organisations as a form of political manipulation for right-wing interests.

    Right-wingers also know that truthful institutions only have one way of communicating their truths to the public: via the media. Once the media environment is manipulated, we enter a post-truth world.

    Experts derided as untrustworthy ‘elitists’
    This is the world where billionaire fossil fuel interests undermine climate action. It is where scientists create vaccines to save lives but the manipulated public refuses to take them. Where experts are derided as untrustworthy “elitists”.

    And it is where the whole idea of democratic government in the US has been overthrown to install an autocratic billionaire-enriching oligarchy led by an incompetent fool who calls himself the King.

    Once you recognise this manipulated media environment, you also understand that there is not — and never has been — such as thing as a rational public debate. Those engaged in the institutions of the Left — in science, education, justice and democratic government — seem mostly unwilling to accept this fact.

    Instead, they continue to believe if they just keep telling people the truth and communicating what they see as entirely rational arguments, the public will accept what they have to say.

    I think part of the reason that the Left refuses to accept that public debate is not rational and rather, is a manipulated bin fire of misleading information, including mis/disinformation and propaganda, is because they are not equipped to compete in this reality. What do those on the Left do with “post-truth”?

    They seem to just want to ignore it and hope it goes away.

    A perfect example of this misunderstanding of the post-truth world and the manipulated media environment’s impact on the public is this paper, by political science professors at the Australian National University Ian McAllister and Nicholas Biddle.

    Stunningly absolutist claim
    Their research sought to understand why polling at the start of the 2023 Indigenous Voice to Parliament Referendum showed widespread public support for the Voice but over the course of the campaign, this support dropped to the point where the Voice was defeated with 60 per cent voting “No” and 40 per cent, “Yes”.

    In presenting their study’s findings, the authors make the stunningly absolutist claim that:

    ‘…the public’s exposure to all forms of mass media – as we have measured it here – had no impact on the result’.

    A note is then attached to this finding with the caveat:

    ‘As noted earlier, given the data at hand we are unable to test the possibility that the content of the media being consumed resulted in a reinforcement of existing beliefs and partisanship rather than a conversion.’

    This caveat leaves a gaping hole in the finding by failing to account for how media reinforcing existing beliefs is an important media effect – as argued by Neil Gavin here. Since it was not measured, how can they possibly say there was no effect?

    Furthermore, the very premise of the author’s sweeping statement that media exposure had no impact on the result of the Referendum is based on two naive assumptions:

    • that voters were rational in their deliberations over the Referendum question; and
    • that the information environment voters were presented with was rational.

    Dual assumption of rationality
    This dual assumption of rationality – one that the authors interestingly admit is an assumption – is evidenced in their hypothesis which states:

    ‘Voters who did not follow the campaign in the mass media were more likely to move from a yes to a no vote compared to voters who did follow the campaign in the mass media.’

    This hypothesis, the authors explain, is premised on the assumption ‘that those with less information are more likely to opt for the status quo and cast a no vote’, and therefore that less exposure to media would change a vote from “Yes” to “No”. What this hypothesis assumes is that if a voter received more rational information in the media about the Referendum, that information would rationally drive their vote in the “Yes” direction. When their data disproved this hypothesis, the authors used this finding to claim that the media had no effect.

    To understand the reality of what happened in the Referendum debate, the word “rational” needs to be taken out of the equation and the word “manipulated” put in.

    We know, of course, that the Referendum was awash with manipulative information, which all supported the “No” campaign. For example, my study of News Corp’s Voice coverage — Australia’s largest and most influential news organisation — found that News Corp actively campaigned for the “No” proposition in concert with the “No” campaign, presenting content more like a political campaign than traditional journalism and commentary.

    A study by Queensland University of Technology’s Tim Graham analysed how the Voice Referendum was discussed on social media platform, X. Far from a rational debate, Graham identified that the “No” campaign and its supporters engaged in a participatory disinformation propaganda campaign, which became a “truth market” about the Voice.

    The ‘truth market’
    This “truth market” was described as drawing “Yes” campaigners into a debate about the truth of the Voice, sidetracking them from promoting their own cause.

    What such studies showed was that, far from McAllister and Biddle’s assumed rational information environment, the Voice Referendum public debate was awash with manipulation, propaganda, disinformation and fear-mongering.

    The “No” campaign that delivered this manipulation perfectly demonstrates how the Right uses media to undermine institutions of truth, to undermine facts and to undermine the rationality of democratic debates.

    The completely unfounded assumption that the more information a voter received about the Voice, the more likely they would vote “Yes”, reveals a misunderstanding of the reality of a manipulated public debate environment present across all types of media, from mainstream news to social media.

    It also wrongly treats voters like rational deliberative computers by assuming that the more information that goes in, the more they accept that information. This is far from the reality of how mediated communication affects the public.

    The reason the influence of media on individuals and collectives is, in reality, so difficult to measure and should never be bluntly described as having total effect or no effect, is that people are not rational when they consume media, and every individual processes information in their own unique and unconscious ways.

    One person can watch a manipulated piece of communication and accept it wholeheartedly, others can accept part of it and others reject it outright.

    Manipulation unknown
    No one piece of information determines how people vote and not every piece of information people consume does either. That’s the point of a manipulated media environment. People who are being manipulated do not know they are being manipulated.

    Importantly, when you ask individuals how their media consumption impacted on them, they of course do not know. The decisions people make based on the information they have ephemerally consumed — whether from the media, conversations, or a wide range of other information sources, are incredibly complex and irrational.

    Surely the re-election of Donald Trump for a second time, despite all the rational arguments against him, is proof that the manipulated media environment is an incredibly powerful weapon — a weapon the Right, globally, is clearly proficient at wielding.

    It is time those on the Left caught up and at least understood the reality they are working in.

    Dr Victoria Fielding is an Independent Australia columnist. This article was first published by the Independent Australia and is republished with the author’s permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cook Islands needs to ‘stand on our own two feet,’ says Brown – wins confidence vote

    RNZ Pacific

    Prime Minister Mark Brown has survived a motion in the Cook Islands Parliament aimed at ousting his government, the second Pacific Island leader to face a no-confidence vote this week.

    In a vote yesterday afternoon (Tuesday, Cook Islands time), the man who has been at the centre of controversy in the past few weeks, defeated the motion by 13 votes to 9. Two government ministers were absent for the vote.

    The motion was put forward by the opposition MP Teariki Heather, the leader of the Cook Islands United Party.

    Ahead of the vote, Heather acknowledged that Brown had majority support in Parliament.

    However, he said he was moving the motion on principle after recent decisions by Brown, including a proposal to create a Cook Islands passport and shunning New Zealand from deals it made with China, which has divided Cook Islanders.

    “These are the merits that I am presenting before this House. We have the support of our people and those living outside the country, and so it is my challenge. Where do you stand in this House?” Heather said.

    Brown said his country has been so successful in its development in recent years that it graduated to first world status in 2020.

    ‘Engage on equal footing’
    “We need to stand on our own two feet, and we need to engage with our partners on an equal footing,” he said.

    “Economic and financial independence must come first before political independence, and that was what I discussed and made clear when I met with the New Zealand prime minister and deputy prime minister in Wellington in November.”

    Brown said the issues Cook Islanders faced today were not just about passports and agreements but about Cook Islands expressing its self-determination.

    “This is not about consultation. This is about control.”

    “We cannot compete with New Zealand. When their one-sided messaging is so compelling that even our opposition members will be swayed.

    “We never once talked to the New Zealand government about cutting our ties with New Zealand but the message our people received was that we were cutting our ties with New Zealand.

    “We have been discussing the comprehensive partnership with New Zealand for months. But the messaging that got out is that we have not consulted.

    ‘We are not a child’
    “We are a partner in the relationship with New Zealand. We are not a child.”

    He said the motion of no confidence had been built on misinformation to the extent that the mover of the motion has stated publicly that he was moving this motion in support of New Zealand.

    “The influence of New Zealand in this motion of no confidence should be of concern to all Cook Islands who value . . . who value our country.

    “My job is not to fly the New Zealand flag. My job is to fly my own country’s flag.”

    Last week, hundreds of Cook Islanders opposing Brown’s political decisions rallied in Avarua, demanding that he step down for damaging the relationship between Aotearoa and Cook Islands.

    The Cook Islands is a self-governing state in free association with New Zealand. It is part of the Realm of New Zealand, sharing the same Head of State.

    This year, the island marks its 60th year of self-governance.

    According to Cook Islands 2021 Census, its population is less than 15,000.

    New Zealand remains the largest home to the Cook Islands community, with over 80,000 Cook Islands Māori, while about 28,000 live in Australia.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: We need to switch to heat pumps fast – but can they can overcome this problem?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack Marley, Environment + Energy Editor, UK edition

    StockMediaSeller/Shutterstock

    People in the UK need to adopt heat pumps and electric vehicles as fast as they once embraced refrigerators, mobile phones and internet connection according to a new report by the Climate Change Committee (CCC).

    This government watchdog says the next 15 years will be critical for decarbonising the UK, one of the world’s largest (and earliest) carbon polluters. Eighty-seven percent of its climate-heating emissions must be eliminated by 2040 to keep the country on track for net zero emissions by mid-century, per the report. The majority (60%) of these cuts are expected to come via a single source: electricity.

    This roundup of The Conversation’s climate coverage comes from our award-winning weekly climate action newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed.

    Out of possible alternatives to a fossil fuelled economy, electrification has emerged as the favoured solution of experts at the CCC.

    Ran Boydell, an associate professor in sustainable development at Heriot-Watt University, agrees. “Home boilers will very soon move into the realm of nostalgia,” he says.



    Read more:
    UK ban on boilers in new homes rules out hydrogen as a heating source

    The reason why heat pumps are increasingly touted as the future of home heating – and not retooled boilers that burn hydrogen instead of methane – is efficiency.

    Boydell points out that green hydrogen fuel is made using electricity from solar and wind farms. We could eliminate emissions a lot quicker, he argues, if that electricity went directly to heat pumps instead.

    Electricity can be turned into a fuel – or power appliances directly.
    Piyaset/Shutterstock

    “This is because you end up with only two-thirds of the energy in the hydrogen that you started with from the electricity,” he says.

    Likewise, battery-powered vehicles have an advantage that has allowed them to race ahead of hydrogen fuel cells to comprise almost a fifth of all new vehicles sold in the UK in 2024.

    “An electric vehicle can be recharged wherever there is access to a plug socket,” say Tom Stacey and Chris Ivory, supply chain experts at Anglia Ruskin University. “The infrastructure that exists to support hydrogen vehicles is limited in comparison and will require extensive investment to introduce.”



    Read more:
    The days of the hydrogen car are already over

    If the route to zero emissions is largely settled, we need to travel it quickly.

    Electric dreams

    One of the fastest energy transitions in history occurred over a decade in South Korea, according to energy system researchers James Price and Steve Pye (UCL). Between 1977 and 1987, the generation of electricity from oil in the east Asian country collapsed – from roughly 7 million gigawatt-hours to nearly 7,000 – and was replaced with, among other sources, nuclear power.

    There are historic analogues for the rapid shift necessary to arrest climate change. But a zero-carbon power sector, which the UK government aims to achieve by 2030, is just the start.



    Read more:
    For developing world to quit coal, rich countries must eliminate oil and gas faster – new study

    “Wind and solar, which provide more than 28% of the UK’s electricity, will soon overtake gas as the main generation source as more wind farms come online,” say energy system modeller Andrew Crossland and engineer Jon Gluyas, both of Durham University.

    “But successive governments have failed to achieve the same result in homes and communities where so much high-carbon gas is burned, despite their decarbonisation being critical to net zero.”



    Read more:
    Is Britain on track for a zero-carbon power sector in six years?

    Crossland and Gluyas note that solar panels, batteries and heat pumps can be installed “in days” to rapidly cut emissions, and that doing so would create “skilled jobs across the country”. As things stand, however, it would also present a severe challenge to the grid.

    Mechanical engineer Florimond Gueniat of Birmingham City University predicts that converting UK transport to battery power wholesale would require expanding grid capacity by 46% – the equivalent of erecting 5,800 skyscraper-sized wind turbines. And that’s even accounting for the greater efficiency of electric vehicles, which waste less of the energy we put into them compared with oil-powered cars.



    Read more:
    Switching to electric vehicles will push the power grid to the brink

    A massive upgrade to the electricity network is needed, and ordinary people have a part to play. Charging cars could serve as batteries that grid operators draw from during a supply pinch. The same goes for the power generated by solar panels on top of houses.

    “Such policies in Germany have … already offset 10% of the national demand,” says Gueniat.

    Getting to net zero requires the public’s involvement. But some of the CCC’s advice may be difficult to swallow. Not least the implication that people will have to eat 35% less meat and dairy in 2050 compared with 2019.



    Read more:
    The UK must make big changes to its diets, farming and land use to hit net zero – official climate advisers

    So are people ready for a world that runs on electrons alone? Aimee Ambrose, a professor of energy policy at Sheffield Hallam University, thinks heat pumps will struggle to compete with the inviting warmth of wood stoves and coal fires. Over three years she spoke with hundreds of people in the UK, Finland, Sweden and Romania and found strong attachments to high-carbon fuels even among people committed to solving climate change.

    The allure of the wood stove is hard to ignore.
    Jaromir Chalabala/Shutterstock



    Read more:
    Heat pumps have a cosiness problem

    Human behaviour is the most difficult variable for experts who study climate change to model. There will certainly be drawbacks to abandoning fossil fuelled conveniences at breakneck speed. Yet, there are bound to be benefits too – some of which might only materialise once we get going.

    In mid-April 2020, while much of humanity was under some form of lockdown to halt the spread of COVID-19, atmospheric chemist Paul Monks of the University of Leicester was marvelling at the sudden drop in air pollution, which kills millions of people each year and is predominantly caused by burning coal, oil and gas.

    “If there is something positive to take from this terrible crisis, it could be that it’s offered a taste of the air we might breathe in a low-carbon future,” he said.



    Read more:
    Coronavirus: lockdown’s effect on air pollution provides rare glimpse of low-carbon future

    – ref. We need to switch to heat pumps fast – but can they can overcome this problem? – https://theconversation.com/we-need-to-switch-to-heat-pumps-fast-but-can-they-can-overcome-this-problem-249658

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Anti-DEI guidance from Trump Administration misinterprets the law and guts educators’ free speech rights

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul M. Collins Jr., Professor of Legal Studies and Political Science, UMass Amherst

    The Trump administration letter aims to stop teachers from discussing many topics with students. Hill Street Studios, DigitalVision/Getty Images

    The Trump administration’s attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion have continued in the form of a “Dear Colleague” letter from the Department of Education to educational institutions – from preschools through colleges and universities.

    This letter demands that schools abandon what the Trump administration refers to as “DEI programs” and threatens to withhold federal funding if schools don’t comply.

    According to President Donald Trump, these so-called DEI programs – found in the government, corporate and educational sectors and intended to reduce discrimination and promote the equitable treatment of people – are a form of antiwhite racism that hurt national unity and violate antidiscrimination laws.

    Although the letter does not have the force of law, it nonetheless signals how the Trump administration plans to aggressively take legal and financial action against educational institutions that refuse to comply, starting on Feb. 28.

    As a result, the Trump administration’s threat to remove federal funding, which both public and private educational institutions rely heavily on, is likely to coerce compliance, at least to some degree.

    As the letter explains, “The Department will vigorously enforce the law on equal terms as to all preschool, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary educational institutions, as well as state educational agencies, that receive financial assistance.”

    Thus, these directives have the potential to fundamentally change education in America.

    As professors of legal studies, we’ve taken a close look at the “Dear Colleague” letter. Here’s how the letter infringes on free speech, misunderstands the law and undermines education.

    Will professors still be able to teach about America’s history of racism?
    Jeff Gritchen/Digital First Media/Orange County Register via Getty Images

    Restricting free speech

    The First Amendment to the Constitution protects the right of the people to express viewpoints without fear of punishment by the government.

    The Trump administration’s attacks on DEI are part of a broader assault on freedom of speech in which Trump targets media, businesses and everyday Americans the president disagrees with.

    By directing schools, colleges and universities to stop DEI policies, the “Dear Colleague” letter clearly restricts free speech rights. That’s the case because creating and pursuing DEI policies is a type of freedom of expression. Banning DEI practices is a form of viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited by Supreme Court precedent that covers the speech of educational institutions as well as their faculty and staff.

    For instance, the letter aims to prevent educational institutions from pursuing missions and policies that promote the concepts of DEI. Such missions are common in higher education and can be found in universities from the conservative Brigham Young University to the liberal University of Vermont.

    Frequently, these missions are pursued by requiring students to take courses that encourage them to learn about perspectives or cultures that are different from their own.

    While the letter is not clear about which courses it would consider a problem, targeting any topics serves to suppress the free speech rights and academic freedom of faculty, including their freedom to design and teach courses.

    This vagueness may be part of the threat. After all, if teachers aren’t sure what they might get punished for, they may be extra cautious and censor themselves.

    Misunderstanding the law

    Aside from being vague, the letter also seems to willfully misrepresent the 2022 Supreme Court decision ending race-based affirmative action in higher education, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College.

    In that case, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a narrow majority opinion declaring simply that university admissions policies could not aim to create incoming classes with particular racial balances.

    Roberts’ opinion was silent on any other type of educational policy. It also states explicitly that “nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise,” so long as they are evaluated for admission as an individual.

    And yet, the “Dear Colleague” letter takes this decision and runs with it in multiple different directions. First, it falsely claims that the decision prohibits schools from eliminating standardized testing in their admissions process, something many schools have chosen to do in recent years.

    Second, the letter falsely states, in contradiction with the ruling’s own text, that the decision applies much more broadly than the context of admissions, to “hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”

    Thus, according to the letter, any program that targeted a particular group for differential treatment based on their race would come under government scrutiny, including programs designed to assist students of color, to house students according to affinity groups, and to diversify university faculty.

    There is simply no reading of the Students for Fair Admissions decision that suggests such an encroachment on the inner workings of educational institutions. Roberts’ majority opinion says only that students should be evaluated as individuals when applying to colleges and universities.

    Effort to undermine education

    What history will the Trump administration letter stop from being taught?
    Tomasz Śmigla, iStock/Getty Images Plus

    In sum, the letter places educators, especially those of us who teach about American law and government, in an impossible position.

    It states that “educational institutions have toxically indoctrinated students with the false premise that the United States is built upon ‘systemic and structural racism,’” suggesting that the U.S. does not have such a history.

    But, for example, in order to teach why affirmative action is now unconstitutional, we would have to explain the concept of strict scrutiny to our students. Strict scrutiny is when a court examines a law very carefully to make sure that it does not promote an unconstitutional racial or religious classification. It is a kind of review that is used routinely and appropriately by courts, and was used to strike down affirmative action in Students for Fair Admissions.

    That level of judicial review exists because, in the words of Roberts in Students for Fair Admissions, “for almost a century after the Civil War, state-mandated segregation was in many parts of the Nation a regrettable norm. This Court played its own role in that ignoble history, allowing in Plessy v. Ferguson the separate but equal regime that would come to deface much of America.”

    In other words, the Supreme Court created strict scrutiny as a judicial antidote to the systemic racism that it had helped perpetuate.

    Even more basically, it is impossible to teach constitutional law without acknowledging the Three-Fifths Compromise or the Fugitive Slave Clause, both of which embedded the property rights of slaveowners into the founding documents of this country, denying enslaved people full citizenship and its rights.

    To not teach students about such topics is, we believe, to fail in our role as educators. To forbid teaching it is an attack on the core mission of educational institutions in a democracy. And even more, this letter aims to prevent teachers from critiquing what the letter itself says and from explaining its own context and history.

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

    – ref. Anti-DEI guidance from Trump Administration misinterprets the law and guts educators’ free speech rights – https://theconversation.com/anti-dei-guidance-from-trump-administration-misinterprets-the-law-and-guts-educators-free-speech-rights-250574

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia could make it easier for consumers to fight back against anti-competitive behaviour. Here’s how

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mel Marquis, Deputy Associate Dean and Senior Lecturer in Law, Monash University

    From the supermarket to the petrol pump, many Australians are concerned about the power of large corporations. Are consumers getting a fair deal? Do they have enough choice?

    This week, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is due to hand the government the final report from its inquiry into Australia’s supermarket sector. They have already said the sector is highly concentrated, with just a few sellers controlling prices and exploiting small suppliers.

    This advocacy highlights a key source of pressure on wallets. The ACCC is also pursuing consumer law claims against the big supermarkets for creating the “illusion” of discounted prices.

    But across the economy, it is unlikely consumer interests are being protected as much as they could be. Further reforms in competition law would help.

    In some countries, consumers can band together to sue private companies and demand compensation if they’ve been harmed by anti-competitive behaviour.

    Australian consumers can sue companies too – but it can be burdensome, expensive and complicated. In fact, consumer suits seeking damages for such conduct are rare. Australia could make it easier to fight back.

    The problem

    Treasury will wrap up a major review of competition law in August.

    Two areas of reform have rightly been given particular attention: a merger law for the whole economy, and special rules for large digital platforms.

    The ACCC is Australia’s competition regulator and consumer law advocate.
    Jarretera/Shutterstock

    The merger reform has led to amendments to help the ACCC protect markets and a consultation on regulating platforms which has recently concluded.

    Treasury is considering other reforms as well. However, putting consumers in a better position to claim damages for anti-competitive conduct is not on the agenda.

    That is unfortunate. Consumers should feel more secure using competition law to demand compensation for anti-competitive harm. As the ACCC has said, the annual damage caused by cartels could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, a staggering figure.

    Even when the ACCC and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions succeed in bringing cartellists to court to obtain penalties or even criminal sentences, it is a way to punish and deter. It does not make victims whole.

    Overseas solutions

    Australia lags behind its global counterparts.

    In 2005, the European Union launched a debate on this subject. Laws were passed to ensure victims of anti-competitive conduct have a right to full compensation.

    The European Union has seen a growth in private competition law actions.
    MDart10/Shutterstock

    Since then, it appears to have become easier for consumers there to seek damages. From 2014 to 2019, one study showed a fivefold increase in the number of cases lodged in the EU, from 50 up to 239 private claims seeking compensation.

    In the United States, private antitrust enforcement thrives due to large class actions, where consumers with a similar grievance come together to take action against corporate defendants.

    US antitrust law allows treble damages, which means consumers can in theory receive three times the value of any harm suffered plus the costs of the lawsuit. In reality they recover less than that, but with large classes of claimants, the incentives to pursue claims through litigation and settlements are strong.

    The Australian situation

    On paper, private enforcement of competition law already exists in Australia. However, incentives appear weaker here.

    In the EU and US, class actions are designed to encourage claimants to seek compensation for anti-competitive harm, but the rarity of such claims in Australia suggests the settings aren’t quite right.

    Google is currently subject to antitrust action in Australia.
    JHVEPhoto/Shutterstock

    A class action against major banks for allegedly rigging exchange rates, and a recently lodged class action against Google relating to its AdTech operations, are the exceptions, not the rule.

    A 2012 article in the UNSW Law Journal said it was “time for an Australian debate”, but little has happened since.

    What now? Here are some possible reforms

    Various reforms and initiatives could bolster private enforcement in Australia, including:

    1. Reviewing evidence rules to allow judges to order the disclosure of documents collected during investigations, provided the public interest is not compromised. If evidence is too hard to access, victims of cartels have no chance of proving their case.

    2. Making it easier for a willing defendant to settle out of court. Sometimes, one defendant in a cartel case may be open to settling out of court but the other defendants are not. In such a case, to make it easier for the willing defendant to settle, it could be clarified that the non-settling defendants – if eventually ordered to pay the claimants – cannot then reclaim part of those damages as a “contribution” from the defendant that did settle.

    Without this assurance, individual defendants that would otherwise be ready to settle may hesitate for fear of paying more than their share.

    3. The ACCC could also more aggressively seek redress for consumers, which would reduce the need for damages actions. So far, the ACCC and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions have not made enough use of their ability to seek orders granting such compensation in cartel cases.

    Competition law is not just about promoting dynamism and productivity growth, and fairer prices and potential wage growth, though these are clearly desirable.

    Competition law should also be about securing relief for victims to make them whole, and to boost their trust in markets. Facilitating private rights of action for consumers can help to elevate justice in this area of the law.

    Mel Marquis has in the past received research grants funded by the Commonwealth of Australia and administered by the ACCC. He is a member of the Competition and Consumer Committee of the Law Institute of Victoria. The views expressed are personal to the author.

    – ref. Australia could make it easier for consumers to fight back against anti-competitive behaviour. Here’s how – https://theconversation.com/australia-could-make-it-easier-for-consumers-to-fight-back-against-anti-competitive-behaviour-heres-how-250505

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: There’s a new ‘rapid review’ into school bullying. Research shows we need to involve the whole school to stop it

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Fiona MacDonald, Principal Research Fellow, Institute for Sustainable Industries and Liveable Cities, Victoria University

    shutterstock LBeddoe/Shutterstock

    About one in four students report being regularly bullied in Australian schools.

    Children who are bullied can feel anxious and excluded, stop sleeping and eating well, and lose interest in school. There are serious potential long-term effects, which include anxiety and depression. Being bullied is also a risk factor for suicidal thoughts and behaviours.

    Following the 2024 death of Sydney Year 7 student Charlotte O’Brien, the federal government wants to develop a national standard to address bullying in schools.

    It has just announced a “rapid review” of bullying in schools, to be done in six months (though not before the federal election). This will look at what schools currently do to address bullying and what they should be doing.

    What does the research tell us works when it comes to addressing bullying in schools?

    What is bullying?

    Bullying is behaviour that is aggressive, intentional, repetitive and unprovoked.

    It also involves a power imbalance in favour of the perpetrator.

    As well as physical abuse, these behaviours can involve verbal teasing, harassment, damaging property, and antisocial behaviours such as spreading gossip or excluding someone. It can happen in person or online.

    Bullying can mean a child stops wanting to go to school.
    Doria Nippot/Shutterstock



    Read more:
    5 questions your child’s school should be able to answer about bullying

    Initial responses to bullying

    Much of the early research response to incidents on school bullying focused on the perpetrator and victim, and what the school should do in response to the bullying incident.

    This involved senior teachers such as the principal and school counsellor meeting with the perpetrator and victim and their parents/guardians. Here they would work out strategies to try and make amends and prevent future incidents.

    For example, a perpetrator may have had to apologise to the victim and take on additional responsibilities in the school. They may also be warned about suspension or exclusion.

    But these responses do not address the complexity of bullying. This includes the reasons why a child might bully another as well as its broader impact. Often other students are also inadvertently involved in or affected by bullying. Seeing someone else being bullied can be upsetting, students may feel angry, sad or concerned they may also be bullied.

    The shift to prevention

    So more recent research has emphasised the importance of prevention to reduce rates of school bullying. This could include anti-bullying policies, classroom rules and discussions about bullying as well as information for parents.

    This relies on what researchers call a “whole school approach”. Instead of bullying being seen as the responsibility of the principal or other senior teachers to deal with a few “at risk” kids, it is the responsibility of all staff, students and parents – and even the broader community.

    This means students are educated to understand what is and is not bullying and what to do if they witness it. It also means teachers have clear policies to follow and a clear understanding of “gateway behaviours,” which can escalate into bullying. Parents likewise know what to do if their child is being bullied or the kinds of behaviours that can lead up to it – such as namecalling or eyerolling.

    Other measures could include a dedicated staff member to champion anti-bullying measures in the school and partnerships with community members and organisations. This could be junior sporting clubs or even the school crossing guard (who can provide information about antisocial behaviours they observe).

    The aim is to create a school culture which is safe and supportive for students, where harmful behaviour is clearly understood and dealt with early if it happens.

    A whole school approach sees students invovled in prevention bullying at their school.
    Monkey Business Images/ Shutterstock



    Read more:
    Why do kids bully? And what can parents do about it?

    The importance of data

    Current research also emphasises the importance of schools regularly collecting, analysing and acting on data about bullying and the school environment. This enables schools to identify changes within the school environment before they escalate to bullying.

    Schools already collect data about their students and behaviours, including attendance, playground incidents and their attitudes to school. But many don’t have the time or expertise to analyse it.

    Listening to students

    Research also shows anti-bullying efforts are more effective when students are involved.

    This helps build trust between students, families and school staff, gives students a sense of ownership about solutions. Importantly it also enables young people to share their perspectives about what will work in their lives and classrooms.

    This could include schools regularly asking students about bullying and other issues they are having at schools and genuinely considering their suggestions about how to improve both prevention and responses.

    Fiona MacDonald received funding from Alannah & Madeline Foundation for this research.

    Nina Van Dyke received funding from the Alannah & Madeline Foundation for this research.

    – ref. There’s a new ‘rapid review’ into school bullying. Research shows we need to involve the whole school to stop it – https://theconversation.com/theres-a-new-rapid-review-into-school-bullying-research-shows-we-need-to-involve-the-whole-school-to-stop-it-250519

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Intense heat changes our biology and can make us age significantly faster: study

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rongbin Xu, Research Fellow in Health and Epigenetics, Monash University

    PorporLing/Shutterstock

    Heat takes it out of you. After a long, hot day, we feel tired and grumpy.

    But sustained periods of heat do more than that – they age us faster. Cumulative heat stress changes our epigenetics – how our cells turn on or off gene switches in response to environmental pressure.

    Now, new research from the United States explores the pressing question of how extreme heat affects humans. The findings are concerning. The more days of intense heat a participant endured, the faster they aged. Longer periods of extreme heat accelerated ageing in older people by more than two years.

    As the climate heats up, humans will be exposed to more and more heat – and our bodies will respond to these stresses by ageing faster. These findings are especially pertinent to Australia, where heatwaves are expected to become more frequent and intense in a warmer world.

    How, exactly, does heat age us?

    Ageing is natural. But the rate of ageing varies from human to human. As we go through life, our bodies are affected by stresses and shocks. For instance, if we don’t get enough sleep over a long period, we will age faster.

    While heat can directly sicken or kill us, it also has a long tail. Sustained heat stresses our bodies and make them less efficient at doing the many jobs needed to stay alive. This is what we mean when we say it accelerates biological ageing. This deterioration is likely to precede the later development of diseases and disabilities.

    What does that look like on a genetic level? You might think your genes don’t change over your life, and this is mostly true (apart from random mutations).

    But what does change is how your genes are expressed. That is, while your DNA stays the same, your cells can switch some of its thousands of genes off or on in response to stresses. At any one time, only a fraction of the genes in any cell are turned on – meaning they are busy making proteins.

    This is known as epigenetics. The most common and best understood pathway here is called DNA methylation (DNAm). Methylation here refers to a chemical our cells can use to block a DNA sequence from activating and producing proteins with various functions. Cellular changes in DNAm can lead to proteins being produced more or less, which in turn can flow on to affect physiological functions and our health status. This can be both bad or good.

    Heat stress can alter the pattern of which genes are turned off or on, which in turn can affect our rate of ageing.

    Severe heat stress can be remembered in cells, leading them to change their DNAm patterns over time. In laboratory testing, the effect is pronounced in fish, chickens, guinea pigs and mice.

    To date, much research on how heat affects epigenetics has focused on animals and plants. Here, the evidence is clear – even a single episode of extreme heat has been shown to have a long-lasting effect on mice.

    But only a couple of studies have been done involving humans, and they have been limited. This is the gap this new research is intended to help fill.

    Sustained heat changes how our cells express genes – accelerating ageing.
    aleks333/Shutterstock

    What did the study find?

    The study by researchers at the University of Southern California involved almost 3,700 people, with an average age of 68 years.

    Heat affects older people more than younger people. Our ability to control our body temperature drops as we age, and we are less resilient to outside stresses and shocks. We also know periods of extreme heat trigger a wave of illness and death, especially among older people.

    The study set out to better understand what happens to human bodies at a biological level when they’re exposed to intense heat over the short, medium and longer term.

    To do this, the researchers took blood samples and measured epigenetic changes at thousands of sites across the genome, which were used to calculate three clocks measuring biological age, named PcPhenoAge, PCGrimAge and DunedinPACE.

    Ageing is natural – but the speed at which we age can change.
    Bricolage/Shutterstock

    Then, they looked at the levels of heat each participant would have been exposed in their geographic areas over the preceding six years, which was 2010–16. They used the US heat index to assess heat, from caution (days up to 32°C), extreme caution (32–39°C) and danger (39–51°C). They used regression modelling to see how much faster people were ageing over the normal rate of ageing.

    The effect of heat was clear in the three biological clocks. Longer term exposure to intense heat increased biological age by 2.48 years over the six year period of the study according to PCPhenoAge, 1.09 years according to PCGrimAge and 0.05 years according to DunedinPACE.

    Over the period of the study, the effect was up to 2.48 years faster than normal ageing, where one calendar year equals one biological year of ageing. That is, rather than their bodies ageing the equivalent of six years over a six year period, heat could have aged their bodies up to 8.48 years.

    Importantly, the biological clocks differ quite substantially and we don’t yet know why. The authors suggest the PCPhenoAge clock may capture a broader spectrum of biological ageing, covering both short term and longer term heat stress, while the other two may be more sensitive to long term heat exposure.

    The way these researchers have conducted their study gives us confidence in their findings – the study sample was large and representative, and the use of the heat index rather than air temperature is an improvement over previous studies. However, the findings don’t account for whether the participants had airconditioning in their homes or spent much time outside.

    We need to know more

    Perhaps surprisingly, there has been little research done to date on what heat does to human epigenetics.

    In 2020, we conducted a systemic review of the science of how environment affects human epigenetics. We found only seven studies, with most focused on the effect of cold rather than heat.

    Now we have this new research which sheds light on the extent to which heat ages us.

    As we face a warmer future, our epigenetics will change in response. There is still a lot of work to do to see how we can adapt to these changes – or if we even can, in some parts of the world.

    Rongbin Xu received funding from VicHealth.

    Shuai Li receives funding from NHMRC, Cancer Australia, Victorian Cancer Agency, Cancer Council Victoria and NIH.

    – ref. Intense heat changes our biology and can make us age significantly faster: study – https://theconversation.com/intense-heat-changes-our-biology-and-can-make-us-age-significantly-faster-study-250784

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The atmosphere is getting better at cleaning itself – but that’s not all good news

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hinrich Schaefer, Research Scientist Trace Gases, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)

    Baring Head station, overlooking Cook Strait, is one of the places where air samples are collected to track greenhouse gases. Author provided, CC BY-SA

    Imagine for a moment the atmosphere is a kitchen sink. Wildfires, industry emissions, plants and microbes dump their grimy dishes into it in the form of noxious and planet-heating gases.

    The only reason why these gases are not continuously accumulating in the atmosphere and we are not choking in a giant smog cloud is that the atmosphere makes its own detergent: hydroxyl.

    The hydroxyl radical (OH) is generated in complex chemical cycles and removes organic gases by reacting with them. This includes the potent greenhouse gas methane – OH removes about 90% of it from the atmosphere.

    An important question for climate scientists is whether our ongoing emissions could use up the OH detergent and leave the atmosphere less able to cleanse itself.

    While that may seem likely, we also emit compounds like nitrogen oxides (from engines and power plants) that increase OH production. Which of the two processes dominates and whether OH levels are going up or down has been hotly debated.

    But as we show in our new study, OH has been increasing and the atmosphere’s self-cleaning ability has been strengthening since 1997.

    This finding gets us a step closer to understanding what happens to methane once it enters the atmosphere. While it is good news that the atmosphere’s scrubbing capacity has been increasing, it also suggests that methane emissions are rising faster than scientists and policy makers assumed.

    Complex measurements

    OH is very challenging to measure directly. It only exists for a second before it reacts again.

    Instead, we used the radiocarbon content of carbon monoxide (14CO) as a footprint of OH activity. Only reaction with OH removes 14CO, which makes it a robust tracer and indicates how much OH is in the air.

    The 14CO radioactive isotope (which is chemically the same as carbon monoxide but heavier) forms when cosmic rays start a chain of reactions in the atmosphere. We can calculate this production rate accurately and therefore know how much 14CO enters the atmosphere.

    For each of the hundreds of data points used in our study, we used air samples collected at two remote stations in New Zealand and Antarctica, respectively, over the past 33 years.

    From these samples, we isolated only the carbon monoxide, which we then turned into carbon dioxide and eventually into graphite (pure carbon) to measure how many of the graphite atoms represent the carbon isotope 14C.

    Confirmation by modelling

    We found a statistically significant decrease in 14CO over the past 25 years. This can only be caused by an increase in OH.

    Our computer model that calculates climate and atmospheric chemistry confirms this. The combination of measurements and simulations shows that OH is increasing, but proves it only for the Southern Hemisphere where we have collected samples.

    This is interesting because this part of the world is affected by the “grime” gases, including methane, that react with OH but is far from more industrialised regions that emit compounds that generate OH (especially nitrogen oxides).

    If we can detect an OH rise in the more pristine southern hemisphere, chances are the increase is global. Indeed, our model shows that OH is likely rising faster in the northern hemisphere.

    The simulations also suggest the main factors at play. Higher methane fluxes suppress OH, as expected, and by themselves would cause a downward trend. In contrast, nitrogen oxide emissions, ozone depletion in the stratosphere and global warming favour the formation of new OH, turning the balance to an overall increase.

    These findings are a big step in the understanding of atmospheric chemistry. They show that rising OH levels have so far saved us from even faster rising atmospheric methane levels and the associated warming.

    Currently, urban and industrial pollution of nitrogen oxides maintains this state. But the danger is that the very necessary efforts to clean up these pollutants could cut the OH supply to the atmospheric kitchen sink. With less detergent and the same input of grime, the dishwater will turn dirty.

    Hinrich Schaefer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article.

    – ref. The atmosphere is getting better at cleaning itself – but that’s not all good news – https://theconversation.com/the-atmosphere-is-getting-better-at-cleaning-itself-but-thats-not-all-good-news-248734

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australians can wait at least 258 days for their first psychiatry appointment, our new study shows

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Yuting Zhang, Professor of Health Economics, The University of Melbourne

    chainarong06/Shutterstock

    Anyone who needs to make their first appointment with a psychiatrist may expect a bit of a wait. Our new research shows Australians are waiting an average 77 days for this initial appointment. But some were waiting for at least eight months.

    We also showed people are waiting longer and longer for these appointments over the past decade or so, particularly in regional and remote areas. And telehealth has not reduced this city-country disparity.

    Our study is the first of its kind to look at the national picture of wait times for a first appointment with a psychiatrist. Here’s why our findings are so concerning.

    What we did

    We analysed data from the Medicare Benefits Schedule from 2011 to 2022. This allowed us to analyse trends in wait times without accessing individual patients’ medical records.

    The particular dataset we used allowed us to look at the time from a GP referral to the first appointment with a private psychiatrist.

    A first appointment with a psychiatrist is crucial as it may lead to an official diagnosis if there is not one already, or it may map out future treatment options, including whether medicine or hospital admission is needed. Depending on the situation, treatment may start immediately, then be reviewed at subsequent appointments. However, with a delayed initial appointment, there’s the risk of delayed diagnosis and treatment, and symptoms worsening.

    We focused on wait times for initial outpatient appointments with private psychiatrists, and looked at wait times for face-to-face and telehealth attendances separately.

    We did not include wait times to see psychiatrists at public hospitals. And we couldn’t see what psychiatry appointments were for, and how urgent it was for a patient to see a psychiatrist at short notice.

    What we found

    We found wait times for the first psychiatry appointment after a GP referral had increased steadily in the past decade or so, especially since 2020. In 2011, the mean waiting time was 51 days, rising to 77 days by 2022.

    Waiting times varied substantially between patients. For example, in 2022, 25% of the wait times for a face-to-face appointment were under ten days. But 95% of wait times were under 258 days. This means the longest wait times were more than 258 days.

    For telehealth services in 2022, the equivalent wait times ranged from 11 to 235 days.

    Wait times also varied by location. People in regional and remote areas consistently had longer wait times than those living in major cities, for both in-person and telehealth services.

    The disparity remained over time, except for in-person services during the early years of the COVID pandemic. This is when rural areas in Australia had fewer lockdowns and less stringent movement restrictions compared to major cities.

    Why didn’t telehealth help?

    Our study did not look at reasons for increasing wait times. However, longer waits do not appear to be due to increased demand, considering the total number of visits has not gone up. For example, we showed the total number of visits for combined in-person and telehealth first appointments was 108,630 in 2020, 111,718 in 2021, and 104,214 in 2022.

    But what about telehealth? This has widely been touted as a boon for regional and remote Australians, as it allows them to access psychiatry services without the time and expense of having to travel long distances.

    Telehealth took off in 2020 due to COVID. There were 2,066 total first psychiatry visits between 2011 and 2019, increasing to 12,860 in 2020. But in 2022, there were 27,527.

    However, we found the number of telehealth visits offset the number of face-to-face visits, and the total visits remained stable in recent years. As telehealth still takes up psychiatrists’ time, it did not help to reduce wait times.

    What are the implications?

    The national rise in wait times over the past decade or so is concerning, especially for high-risk patients with severe mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, severe depression and bipolar disorder. Any delays in treatment for these patients could cause substantial harms to them and others in their communities.

    Our results also come at a time of increased pressure on mental health services more broadly including:

    Now, more than ever, we need to pay continued attention to access and distribution of psychiatric services across Australia.

    Yuting Zhang has received funding from the Australian Research Council (future fellowship project ID FT200100630), Department of Veterans’ Affairs, the Victorian Department of Health, and National Health and Medical Research Council. In the past, Professor Zhang has received funding from several US institutes including the US National Institutes of Health, Commonwealth fund, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. She has not received funding from for-profit industry including the private health insurance industry.

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

    – ref. Australians can wait at least 258 days for their first psychiatry appointment, our new study shows – https://theconversation.com/australians-can-wait-at-least-258-days-for-their-first-psychiatry-appointment-our-new-study-shows-248012

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: We analysed almost 1,000 social media posts about 5 popular medical tests. Most were utterly misleading

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brooke Nickel, NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellow, University of Sydney

    C-R-V/Shutterstock

    When Kim Kardashian posted on Instagram about having had a full-body MRI, she enthused that the test can be “life saving”, detecting diseases in the earliest stages before symptoms arise.

    What Kardashian neglected to say was there’s no evidence this expensive scan can bring benefits for healthy people. She also didn’t mention it can carry harms including unnecessary diagnoses and inappropriate treatments.

    With this post in mind, we wanted to explore what influencers are telling us about medical tests.

    In a new study published today in JAMA Network Open, we analysed nearly 1,000 Instagram and TikTok posts about five popular medical tests which can all do more harm than good to healthy people, including the full-body MRI scan.

    We found the overwhelming majority of these posts were utterly misleading.

    5 controversial tests

    Before we get into the details of what we found, a bit about the five tests included in our study.

    While these tests can be valuable to some, all five carry the risk of overdiagnosis for generally healthy people. Overdiagnosis is the diagnosis of a condition which would have never caused symptoms or problems. Overdiagnosis leads to overtreatment, which can cause unnecessary side effects and stress for the person, and wasted resources for the health system.

    As an example, estimates suggest 29,000 cancers a year are overdiagnosed in Australia alone.

    Overdiagnosis is a global problem, and it’s driven in part by healthy people having tests like these. Often, they’re promoted under the guise of early screening, as a way to “take control” of your health. But most healthy people simply don’t need them.

    These are the five tests we looked at:

    The full-body MRI scan claims to test for up to 500 conditions, including cancer. Yet there is no proven benefit of the scan for healthy people, and a real risk of unnecessary treatment from “false alarm” diagnoses.

    The “egg timer” test (technically known as the AMH, or anti-mullarian hormone test) is often falsely promoted as a fertility test for healthy women. While it may be beneficial for women within a fertility clinic setting, it cannot reliably predict the chance of a woman conceiving, or menopause starting. However, low results can increase fear and anxiety, and lead to unnecessary and expensive fertility treatments.

    Multi-cancer early detection blood tests are being heavily marketed as the “holy grail of cancer detection”, with claims they can screen for more than 50 cancers. In reality, clinical trials are still a long way from finished. There’s no good evidence yet that the benefits will outweigh the harms of unnecessary cancer diagnoses.

    The gut microbiome test of your stool promises “wellness” via early detection of many conditions, from flatulence to depression, again without good evidence of benefit. There’s also concern that test results can lead to wasted resources.

    Testosterone testing in healthy men is not supported by any high-quality evidence, with concerns direct-to-consumer advertising leads men to get tested and take testosterone replacement therapy unnecessarily. Use of testosterone replacement therapy carries its own risk of potential harms with the long-term safety in relation to heart disease and mortality still largely unknown.

    Multi-cancer early detection blood tests are heavily marketed.
    Yuri A/Shutterstock

    What we found

    Together with an international group of health researchers, we analysed 982 posts pertaining to the above tests from across Instagram and TikTok. The posts we looked at came from influencers and account holders with at least 1,000 followers, some with a few million followers. In total, the creators of the posts we included had close to 200 million followers.

    Even discounting the bots, that’s a massive amount of influence (and likely doesn’t reflect their actual reach to non-followers too).

    The vast majority of posts were misleading, failing to even mention the possibility of harm arising from taking one of these tests. We found:

    • 87% of posts mentioned test benefits, while only 15% mentioned potential harms

    • only 6% of posts mentioned the risk of overdiagnosis

    • only 6% of posts discussed any scientific evidence, while 34% of posts used personal stories to promote the test

    • 68% of influencers and account holders had financial interests in promoting the test (for example, a partnership, collaboration, sponsorship or selling for their own profit in some way).

    Further analysis revealed medical doctors were slightly more balanced in their posts. They were more likely to mention the harms of the test, and less likely to have a strongly promotional tone.

    The vast majority of posts we looked at were misleading.
    DimaBerlin/Shutterstock

    As all studies do, ours had some limitations. For example, we didn’t analyse comments connected to posts. These may give further insights into the information being provided about these tests, and how social media users perceive them.

    Nonetheless, our findings add to the growing body of evidence showing misleading medical information is widespread on social media.

    What can we do about it?

    Experts have proposed a range of solutions including pre-bunking strategies, which means proactively educating the public about common misinformation techniques.

    However, solutions like these often place responsibility on the individual. And with all the information on social media to navigate, that’s a big ask, even for people with adequate health literacy.

    What’s urgently needed is stronger regulation to prevent misleading information being created and shared in the first place. This is especially important given social media platforms including Instagram are moving away from fact-checking.

    In the meantime, remember that if information about medical tests promoted by influencers sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

    Brooke Nickel receives fellowship funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). She is on the Scientific Committee of the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference.

    Joshua Zadro receives fellowship funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).

    Ray Moynihan has received research funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council.

    – ref. We analysed almost 1,000 social media posts about 5 popular medical tests. Most were utterly misleading – https://theconversation.com/we-analysed-almost-1-000-social-media-posts-about-5-popular-medical-tests-most-were-utterly-misleading-247362

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: DeepSeek is now a global force. But it’s just one player in China’s booming AI industry

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mimi Zou, Professor, School of Private & Commercial Law, UNSW Sydney

    Dorason/Shutterstock

    When small Chinese artificial intelligence (AI) company DeepSeek released a family of extremely efficient and highly competitive AI models last month, it rocked the global tech community. The release revealed China’s growing technological prowess. It also showcased a distinctly Chinese approach to AI advancement.

    This approach is characterised by strategic investment, efficient innovation and careful regulatory oversight. And it’s evident throughout China’s broader AI landscape, of which DeepSeek is just one player.

    In fact, the country has a vast ecosystem of AI companies.

    They may not be globally recognisable names like other AI companies such as DeepSeek, OpenAI and Anthropic. But each has carved out their own speciality and is contributing to the development of this rapidly evolving technology.

    Tech giants and startups

    The giants of China’s technology industry include Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent. All these companies are investing heavily in AI development.

    Alibaba CEO Eddie Wu earlier this month said the multibillion dollar company plans to “aggressively invest” in its pursuit of developing AI that is equal to, or more advanced than, human intelligence.

    The company is already working with Apple to incorporate its existing AI models into Chinese iPhones. (Outside China, iPhones offer similar integration with OpenAI’s ChatGPT.)

    But a new generation of smaller, specialised AI companies has also emerged.

    For example, Shanghai-listed Cambricon Technologies focuses on AI chip development. Yitu Technology specialises in healthcare and smart city applications.

    Megvii Technology and CloudWalk Technology have carved out niches in image recognition and computer vision, while iFLYTEK creates voice recognition technology.

    Multibillion dollar Chinese tech company Alibaba plans to aggressively invest in AI.
    testing/Shutterstock

    Innovative paths to success

    Despite United States’ chip sanctions and China’s restricted information environment, these Chinese AI companies have found paths to success.

    US companies such as OpenAI have trained their large language models on the open internet. But Chinese companies have used vast datasets from domestic platforms such as WeChat, Weibo and Zhihu. They also use government-authorised data sources.

    Many Chinese AI companies also embrace open-source development. This means they publish detailed technical papers and release their models for others to build upon. This approach focuses on efficiency and practical application rather than raw computing power.

    The result is a distinctly Chinese approach to AI.

    Importantly, China’s state support for AI development has also been substantial. Besides the central government, local and provincial governments have provided massive funding through venture funds, subsidies and tax incentives.

    China has also established at least 48 data exchanges across different cities in recent years. These are authorised marketplaces where AI companies can purchase massive datasets in a regulated environment.

    By 2028, China also plans to establish more than 100 “trusted data spaces”.

    These are secure, regulated environments designed to standardise data exchanges across sectors and regions. They will form the foundation of a comprehensive national data market, allowing access to and use of diverse datasets within a controlled framework.

    A strong education push

    The growth of the AI industry in China is also tied to a strong AI education push.

    In 2018, China’s Ministry of Education launched an action plan for accelerating AI innovation in universities.

    Publicly available data shows 535 universities have established AI undergraduate majors and some 43 specialised AI schools and research institutes have also been created since 2017. (In comparison, there are at least 14 colleges and universities in the United States offering formal AI undergraduate degrees.)

    Together, these institutions are building an AI talent pipeline in China. This is crucial to Beijing’s ambition of becoming a global AI innovation leader by 2030.

    China’s AI strategy combines extensive state support with targeted regulation. Rather than imposing blanket controls, regulators have developed a targeted approach to managing AI risks.

    The 2023 regulations on generative AI are particularly revealing of Beijing’s approach.

    They impose content-related obligations specifically on public-facing generative AI services, such as ensuring all content created and services provided are lawful, uphold core socialist values and respect intellectual property rights. These obligations, however, exclude generative AI used for enterprise, research and development. This allows for some unrestricted innovation.

    There are 43 specialised AI schools and research institutes in China, including at Renmen University in Beijing.
    humphery/Shutterstock

    International players

    China and the US dominate the global AI landscape. But several significant players are emerging elsewhere.

    For example, France’s Mistral AI has raised over €1 billion (A$1.6 billion) to date to build large language models. In comparison, OpenAI raised US$6.6 billion (A$9.4 billion) in a recent funding round, and is in talks to raise a further US$40 billion.

    Other European companies are focused on specialised applications, specific industries or regional markets. For example, Germany’s Aleph Alpha offers an AI tool that allows companies to customise third-party models for their own purposes

    In the United Kingdom, Graphcore is manufacturing AI chips and Wayve is making autonomous driving AI systems.

    Challenging conventional wisdom

    DeepSeek’s breakthrough last month demonstrated massive computing infrastructure and multibillion dollar budgets aren’t always necessary for the successful development of AI.

    For those invested in the technology’s future, companies that achieve DeepSeek-level efficiencies could significantly influence the trajectory of AI development.

    We may see a global landscape where innovative AI companies elsewhere can achieve breakthroughs, while still operating within ecosystems dominated by American and Chinese advantages in talent, data and investment.

    The future of AI may not be determined solely by who leads the race. Instead, it may be determined by how different approaches shape the technology’s development.

    China’s model offers important lessons for other countries seeking to build their AI capabilities while managing certain risks.

    Mimi Zou has previously received funding from the British Academy. She is affiliated with the Asia Society Australia.

    – ref. DeepSeek is now a global force. But it’s just one player in China’s booming AI industry – https://theconversation.com/deepseek-is-now-a-global-force-but-its-just-one-player-in-chinas-booming-ai-industry-250494

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘One of the best films I’ve seen’: new Australian prison film Inside is an astonishing debut

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia

    Bonsai Films

    Every so often a film comes along that’s so good that, as we sit in the dark in the cinema, our whole being seems to become charged with electricity and we find ourselves forgetting to breathe. All of our thoughts become anchored to the screen, and the suspension of disbelief comes as close to complete as it ever could be.

    Inside, written and directed by first time feature filmmaker Charles Williams (he won the Palme d’Or at Cannes for his 2018 short film, All These Creatures, so he’s not exactly a beginner), is such a film.

    To say it’s one of the best Australian films I’ve seen is to qualify it with an unnecessary adjective – it’s one of the best films I’ve seen, period.

    A rich tradition of prision dramas

    Australian cinema has a rich tradition focusing on gangsters and criminals, from Bruce Beresford’s masterful hardboiled larrikin thriller Money Movers (1978) to more recent examples like Justin Kurzel’s hypnotic Snowtown (2011).

    Within this subset there have been some stellar prison films. Everynight, Everynight (1994) still packs a punch, and the opening and closing sections of Chopper (2000), set in prison, are the most compelling parts of the movie.

    Inside follows juvenile murderer Mel Blight (Vincent Miller) as he turns 18 and is moved to adult prison while awaiting (but perhaps not really wanting) parole.

    Once there, he befriends charismatic career criminal Warren Murfett (Guy Pearce) who takes him under his wing and tries to coerce him into murdering fellow inmate Mark Shepard (Cosmo Jarvis), a child murderer with a contract recently taken out on him by the family of his victim.

    Mel can get close enough to Shepard to do the hit – he befriends Shepard while sharing a cell with him, and starts playing keyboard in accompaniment of Shepard’s bizarre born-again sermons – but whether or not he will do so generates much of the tension of the film.

    Measured intensity

    Williams spent six years working on the film, and it shows.

    Every element is meticulously realised, from the litany of striking, monstrous faces of the extras in the prison (who seem so authentic, one assumes Williams used real convicts) to the perverse but wholly believable actions of Murfett’s estranged son Adrian (Toby Wallace), when Murfett visits him for a day trip.

    (Let’s just say it’s no sentimental reunion: there’s nothing Shawshank Redemption about Inside.)

    The performances match the measured intensity of the rest of the film.
    Bonsai Films

    The film is so good as a whole that it’s perhaps unfair to single out any element, but the score by Chiara Costanza is particularly mesmerising. It captures – in a low-key fashion – the mix of controlled fear and narcissistic bravado that constitutes life inside for these characters.

    The performances match the measured intensity of the rest of the film.

    Jarvis is astonishingly good as Mark Shepherd. He emanates a kind of calm, restrained power at all times, as though his body is primed for shocking violence at any moment, yet devoid of frenetic energy. He’s so good, it’s hard to believe this British actor isn’t an Australian.

    Cosmo Jarvis is astonishingly good as Mark Shepherd.
    Bonsai Films

    Fellow countryman Wallace is similarly brilliant, endowing his small role as Murfett’s son with a memorable combination of arrogance and nastiness.

    Miller as Mel, in his first feature film, possesses a quality of stillness difficult for a young actor to achieve. All that nervous energy has to go somewhere, and it usually goes into bigger and louder.

    Pearce is also fine, though as a seasoned screen veteran of this kind of role, one senses he could do it in his sleep.

    Stunningly simple

    Inside’s stunningly simple narrative sustains profound analyses of and reflections on the human character and condition.

    This is one example of the classical Hollywood narrative structure being done with precision and purpose, with form and content seamlessly operating together in the unfolding of the drama.

    There are no self-conscious winks at the viewer, no homages to genre, and no attempts to be clever. Watching the film is a decidedly intense experience – it contains one of the most viscerally shocking scenes I’ve seen – but at the same time this is underscored in places by an extremely subtle, wry sense of humour, like when Murfett and Mel bond over (the now defunct) Fantales lollies.

    The film refuses to give the viewer an easy moral position. There are no pat explanations of characters’ motivations and actions, no attempts at psychologically or morally explaining away the ambiguities and tensions of this world to appease the stomach of the viewer.

    The film refuses to give the viewer an easy moral position.
    Bonsai Films

    This sets it apart from the vast majority of commercial films made these days. Though it represents the actions of the characters within a context (which is both personal and sociological), there’s no nifty three-minute speech at the end about how crime begets crime, or how we should treat prisoners more humanely.

    Simply put, Inside is a brilliant film. Williams poetically charges a fairly conventional Aussie prison narrative with profound existential questions in a way that never feels overbearing or heavy-handed. He proves himself, here, a formidable writer-director.

    I can’t wait to see the next film he makes. If the critical acclaim certain to follow Inside is indicative, it should be in fewer than six years.

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

    – ref. ‘One of the best films I’ve seen’: new Australian prison film Inside is an astonishing debut – https://theconversation.com/one-of-the-best-films-ive-seen-new-australian-prison-film-inside-is-an-astonishing-debut-247206

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Politicians are podcasting their way onto phone screens, but the impact may be fleeting

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Susan Grantham, Lecturer in Communication, Griffith University

    TikTok

    Australian podcast listeners have been treated to two appearances by the same guest in the past week: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.

    Yesterday, sports comedy team The Grade Cricketer announced a new podcast, The Circus, in which Albanese was the first guest. While Albanese isn’t necessarily known for his love of cricket, he appeared relaxed, laughing and authentic.

    It came hot on the heels of his previous podcast appearance, with influencer Abbie Chatfield. Chatfield’s content is often about feminism and social justice: a very different demographic of consumers.

    While few voters may listen to a full episode (and many may have never heard of the podcasts or the attached personalities), that doesn’t really matter. The real impact is in the short-form video clips that get repackaged for TikTok and Instagram.

    These viral snippets offer politicians a chance to appear authentic, relatable and human: traits that can make or break a modern political campaign, especially one that will likely be decided by Australians under 40.

    The politics of podcasting

    Podcasting has become a vital component of modern political strategy, offering long-form, intimate conversations that contrast with the often combative nature of traditional media interviews.

    As podcast interviews are usually conducted by hosts highly sympathetic to the politician’s cause, they’re rarely as hard-hitting as traditional media. It’s unsurprising politicians would seek them out for that reason alone.

    In last year’s US presidential race, both candidates went on popular podcasts to boost their messaging.

    In Australia, consider the case of Chatfield’s podcast. Her strong social media presence (more than 580,000 followers on both Instagram and TikTok) ensures any political commentary reaches a vast and engaged audience.

    Combine this with further amplification by other influencers such as Holly MacAlpine (who has 100,000 TikTok followers), and the virality of the message becomes significant.

    MacAlpine has been trending for a while after her contribution to accusations about Opposition Leader Peter Dutton’s private life, further amplifying her political commentary.

    Earlier this month, Albanese also appeared on Betoota Talks, the podcast run by the creators of satirical news site The Betoota Advocate. It’s clear Labor is relying on podcasts with strong social media followings to reach younger, digitally engaged audiences.

    It’s not just Labor using podcasts and influencers.

    Dutton appeared on Diving Deep with Sam Fricker, an Olympian turned influencer. His TikTok boasts two million followers. Airing back in December, it was an early nod from the Liberal Party leader that his election campaigning had commenced.

    Hiding the real power

    While podcasts offer politicians a platform for extended storytelling, the real political currency comes from the carefully clipped, high-impact moments that make their way to TikTok and Instagram reels.

    These videos are bite-sized, making them easier to consume and share. They are emotionally engaging – laughter, passion and frustration all translate well.

    It creates a platform for individual leaders to further solidify their political authenticity through sharing the clips.

    Crucially, it provides further opportunities for influencers and other social media users to amplify, engage with, and reshape the content, extending its reach and impact across digital networks.

    This is important to reach the younger voters who largely make up the user base of TikTok. This election will be the first that Baby Boomer voters are outnumbered by Gen Z and Millenials, so political parties can’t afford to ignore them.

    Slow off the blocks?

    In 2022, Labor’s digital campaign was widely praised for its effectiveness. From meme-driven content to a strong presence on TikTok, Labor successfully tapped into online culture to engage younger voters and shape the political narrative.

    Now, it’s unclear whether that strategy is still being deployed effectively. Yes, individual influencers are propping up Albanese’s image, but is the party itself doing enough to drive a coordinated digital campaign?

    Consider Dutton’s decision to join TikTok. It was a move that, while seemingly contradictory to the Coalition’s prior stance on banning the platform, signals an understanding that TikTok is an unavoidable political battleground.

    The Liberal Party has upped its TikTok game. Its videos often outperform Labor’s.

    The videos that are posted on Albanese’s TikTok, which he first posted to in December, are often poorly received.

    Labor seems to be relying on influencer support and positive branding by association rather than running its own robust, digital-first strategy.

    Where to from here?

    What’s clear is that political campaigning is no longer just about ads, speeches, and debates. It’s about engagement on the platforms where voters actually spend their time. If parties don’t take control of their narratives in these spaces, others will do it for them.

    The crossover of podcasting and short-form video is redefining political engagement. Politicians who appear on the right platforms are tapping into a new form of authenticity that resonates online.

    But unless those appearances are part of a structured, strategic approach, they remain fleeting moments rather than sustained influence.

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

    – ref. Politicians are podcasting their way onto phone screens, but the impact may be fleeting – https://theconversation.com/politicians-are-podcasting-their-way-onto-phone-screens-but-the-impact-may-be-fleeting-250793

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: We should care more about emerging infectious diseases, and the tools we need to fight them

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Idowu Olawoye, Postdoctoral Associate, Microbiology & Immunology, Western University

    A patient undergoing infusion therapy. Treatment failure can happen when a disease adapts to become resistant to antibiotics. (Unsplash/Olga Kononenko)

    Throughout human history, disease outbreaks have emerged and re-emerged. What’s different now is that with global travel, outbreaks can move quickly among and between populations.

    A familiar example would be the COVID-19 pandemic and how it disrupted the world as we know it today. During this period, a lot of technological advancements were achieved during a short time such as vaccine roll-out and also tracking of variants globally.

    Since this pandemic, we have been constantly reminded of the threat that emerging infectious diseases pose, as well as new strains of existing microbes, and even infections that may eventually become untreatable. This should also serve as a constant reminder of the need to continue developing the tools and technology to fight them.

    Infectious disease outbreaks since COVID-19

    In 2022, shortly after the worst of the devastating COVID-19 pandemic had passed, the world was rocked by another infectious disease outbreak, which was soon classified as a public health emergency of international concern.

    The culprit was mpox, then known as the monkeypox virus.

    Unlike SARS-CoV-2, which causes COVID-19, this was not a novel virus but had been identified in laboratory monkeys in Denmark as far back as 1958. The first human cases were documented in 1970 among children in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

    Since then, there have been multiple reported outbreaks of mpox, the majority of them limited to Africa. This includes a 2022 global outbreak that caused about 250 deaths, representing a fatality rate of 0.2 per cent.

    An ongoing outbreak started in 2023 in Central Africa, claiming about 900 lives with a fatality rate of five per cent.

    According to the World Health Organization, the two most recent mpox outbreaks were primarily driven by sexual transmission or body contact. There is currently no treatment approved by the FDA for mpox.

    In early 2024, an avian influenza outbreak resurfaced in the United States when the viral infection that typically affects birds was detected in dairy cows for the first time. It has since spread to about 973 cattle in 17 states, and there have been about 70 human cases among people associated with farm animals.

    Recently, a respiratory outbreak known as hMPV has been overwhelming hospitals in Northern China, with children, adolescents and senior citizens being at most risk. The origin of this outbreak is not yet known.

    Untreatable sexually transmitted infection

    Microscopic image of the bacteria that causes gonorrhea.
    (NIAID), CC BY

    Gonorrhoea is a widely known sexually transmitted infection (STI). Approximately 80 million people were infected by this bacterium in 2020. Though most cases remain treatable, an untreatable form of gonorrhoea is becoming more prevalent, threatening victims with infertility or even cancer.

    Treatment failure can happen when a disease adapts to become resistant to antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance has significant implications for global health, including massive financial implications for health care.

    An emerging STI threat

    Other, uncommon but difficult to treat STIs are emerging. One is called Mycoplasma genitalium, the causative agent for non-gonococcal urethritis — a typically painful infection of the tube that carries urine from the bladder.



    Read more:
    Antimicrobial resistance now hits lower-income countries the hardest, but superbugs are a global threat we must all fight

    With symptoms similar to gonorrhoea, it can lead to infertility, increased susceptibility to HIV, failed pregnancy, cancer of the cervix and more. Yet, it is often misdiagnosed due to it being understudied and its complexity.

    This understudied bacterium is naturally resistant to many antibiotics due to its unique structure, making it notoriously difficult to treat.

    The WHO works to control the spread of gonorrhoea infections that are resistant to antibiotics through surveillance. My own research is adopting a similar strategy for M. genitalium, by using genomic surveillance to improve our knowledge of the infection and the improved ability to detect antibiotic resistance.

    What is genomic surveillance?

    Genomic surveillance uses next-generation sequencing technology to identify specific strains of pathogens circulating during an outbreak. This can also determine what genetic characteristics makes some strains more aggressive than others.

    This technique was used effectively during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic and helped identify variants quickly.

    Genomic surveillance can help us understand what we are facing, allowing us to tackle emerging threats more quickly and efficiently. It can help us develop sensitive, rapid diagnostic tools to detect drug resistance, especially for bacteria that are difficult to study in the lab, such as Mycoplasma genitalium, which is an extremely slow-growing and challenging bacteria.

    With the continuing emergence of untreatable infections and new disease outbreaks, genomic sequencing can help meet emerging threats even in regions that lack adequate infrastructure where these tend to occur frequently.

    This can be achieved through implementing affordable, user friendly diagnostic tools or developing effective vaccines for endemic regions. An example is the COVID-19 self-test kit that can be used at home. This is one of the key areas my research is also trying to accomplish: improving diagnostics in health care and making them accessible.

    Pathogens are constantly evolving to become resistant to treatment in the perpetual battle between humans and infectious diseases.

    To get the upper hand, we need to continue developing technology, including rapid and sensitive tools for identifying resistant bacteria and innovative methods for halting the spread of untreatable infections before they become serious pandemics.

    Idowu Olawoye receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Western Research at the University of Western Ontario.

    – ref. We should care more about emerging infectious diseases, and the tools we need to fight them – https://theconversation.com/we-should-care-more-about-emerging-infectious-diseases-and-the-tools-we-need-to-fight-them-248427

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Alberta’s oil and gas wells threaten people’s health, but there are disparities in who is most at risk

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martin Lavoie, Senior Scientist and Data Analyst, St. Francis Xavier University

    Around 13 per cent of Albertans live within 1.5 kilometres of an active oil or gas well. Given the link between oil and gas production and ill health, this leaves a significant proportion of the province’s population at risk.

    But certain groups may be at a disproportionately greater risk, according to recent research our team published. Our study revealed stark socioeconomic disparities in those at the greatest risk of health problems due to their proximity to an oil or gas well — with Indigenous people and those who were less educated most affected.

    The link between oil and gas production, air pollution and human health is well documented. Oil and gas production emits numerous pollutants into the air we breathe. These pollutants are associated with poor cardiovascular and respiratory health.

    But while numerous studies have been published on the link between proximity to oil and gas producers and ill health, this data has mainly come from the United States — the world’s leading oil and gas producer. Relatively little research on this topic has been done in Canada. This is what our recent research sought to do.

    Alberta residents

    The study examined Alberta — the province which in 2023 was responsible for 80 per cent of Canada’s oil, and 61 per cent of its gas production. We analyzed multiple datasets including census, health, emissions and oil and gas activity data. This allowed our lab to create the first spatial understanding of oil and gas air pollution in Alberta.

    This also made it possible to identify the sociodemographic characteristics of those living nearest the pollution’s source, alongside their experiences with cardiovascular or respiratory health issues.

    The study found that over 360,000 Albertans live within one kilometre of an active oil or gas well. Nearly half a million people live within 1.5 kilometres of one. These are significant numbers considering the province only has around four million residents.

    Albertans living within one or 1.5 kilometres of an active oil and gas well are more likely to be rural residents (10 per cent), people with less formal education (20 per cent) and Indigenous people (21 per cent).

    Our findings align with previous studies which have shown that people with similar sociodemographic characteristics are more likely to experience worse health outcomes compared to the general population.

    Unnervingly, our study also found that those living within at least 1.5 kilometres of an oil or gas well faced an estimated nine to 21 per cent higher risk of experiencing cardiovascular or respiratory issues due to their proximity. The closer a person lived to an oil or gas well, the greater their risk.

    Although we adjusted our findings for age and sex, there was no information available in the datasets we used on other factors which may have affected the results, such as lifestyle habits or pre-existing health conditions. It will be important for more research to be conducted on this topic which takes these factors into account.

    Health risks

    Our findings align with other published studies on the topic which have found a link between health issues and proximity to oil and gas producers.

    Notably, much of the oil and gas workforce are located in rural areas near production facilities. This may explain why our study found rural residents were more likely to experience health issues from oil and gas wells.

    Our findings also align with research from the U.S. on this topic. For comparison, a 2022 study found nearly 18 million U.S. residents live within 1.6 kilometres of an active oil and gas well, with some states such as West Virginia and Oklahoma seeing over 50 per cent of their total population in this proximity. Research has also found similar socioeconomic disparities in exposure to oil and gas wells in the U.S. as our study did.

    Our study highlights the need for more research on this topic, especially since it has been suggested that oil and gas emissions are often underestimated. It’s possible that even more people are impacted than our study determined.

    It will also be important for studies to investigate the effects of specific oil and gas pollutants (such as nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds) on health. Currently in Alberta, regulations on the minimum distance between residents and oil and gas wells primarily focus on hydrogen sulphide levels.

    Overlooking other relevant air pollutants may mean that minimum setbacks from pollution sources may be insufficient, especially given the impacts our study showed in those residing within 1.5 kilometres of an oil or gas well.

    Nearly 100 countries produce oil and gas. Air emissions from this sector represent an urgent global problem. Targeted actions such as stricter policies for air emissions, as well as health risk assessments when building developments, are necessary to protect people living in these regions.

    David Risk receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

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

    – ref. Alberta’s oil and gas wells threaten people’s health, but there are disparities in who is most at risk – https://theconversation.com/albertas-oil-and-gas-wells-threaten-peoples-health-but-there-are-disparities-in-who-is-most-at-risk-249637

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Big corporations are getting away with catastrophic air pollution – putting Canadians at risk

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By David R Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on human rights & environment and Associate Professor of Law, Policy and Sustainability, University of British Columbia

    Penalties imposed on corporate polluters in Canada are often extremely lenient. (Dennis MacDonald/ Shutterstock)

    Millions of kilograms of toxic pollutants, over 17,000 deaths annually and environmental laws that aren’t being diligently enforced. This is the troubling picture that emerged when we, a group of environmental researchers, investigated trends in air pollution enforcement in Canada.

    Federal and provincial governments share responsibility for regulating air pollution. However, environmental laws and regulations are only useful if they’re properly enforced. Our research shows Canada needs to take greater action in enforcing the widely endorsed “polluter pays” principle for air pollution. According to this principle, those who produce pollution should pay for cleaning up any environmental damage.

    We built a publicly-available dataset in Canada of air pollution enforcement actions. We scoured all available sources, creating a database of more than 2,200 enforcement actions that took place between 2000 and 2020 from eight provinces as well as the federal government. This helped us identify patterns in the way air pollution laws were being enforced.

    Broken rules

    One of the disappointing patterns we saw is that the majority of enforcement actions in our dataset — 63 per cent — were against individuals for offences such as illegal campfires. Meanwhile, only one-third of enforcement actions were brought against companies — including those that had dumped vast volumes of toxic substances into Canada’s air, or caused catastrophic emissions offences (such as the Toronto Sunrise Propane explosion).

    Even in the uncommon cases where rules were enforced against large corporations, the penalties imposed were extremely lenient. These penalties amounted to barely a slap on the wrist for repeat industrial polluters.

    For example, the mining corporation Rio Tinto was fined $150,000 in Québec for breaking air pollution laws in 2013. This fine equated to only 0.00023 per cent of the company’s annual revenue. To put this into perspective, if a Canadian family earning the average income of $62,900 after taxes was given a 0.00023 per cent fine, this would equate to $14.47.

    It’s not surprising, then, that this company would go on to violate air pollution laws again less than one month later. They also violated these laws again in 2016 and 2019.

    Even the relatively small fine of $150,000 is well above the median fine for industrial air polluters. According to our study, fines ranged from $2,500 to $10,000 for most types of offences — including excess emissions or violating an environmental standard. This is less than some people would be fined for driving with a suspended licence. These fines are less than one per cent of the maximum penalties permitted by law for environmental offences — which range up to $12 million.

    Another concerning pattern our study revealed is that some large industrial polluters are repeat offenders. While government policies indicate there should be increasingly strict enforcement applied in these cases, this doesn’t appear to be the general practice. Instead, chronic law-breakers tended to receive multiple warning letters — not increasingly large fines or prosecutions.

    For instance, over the last five years, four provincial orders were reportedly issued against INEOS — one of the world’s largest chemical production companies. These orders were issued so the company would address its benzene emissions. This toxic chemical is linked with cancer.

    Following federal and provincial orders to reduce benzene emissions in 2024, INEOS decided to close the offending facility. The company was never fined for its toxic pollution.

    Enforcement actions don’t seem to be taking into account the way human and environmental health are jeopardized by industrial air pollution. Vulnerable or marginalized groups who live near large industrial facilities are particularly at risk of harm.

    We found that on average, businesses were generally fined less for committing an actual pollution violation — such as illegally dumping large quantities of contaminants into the air — than they were for failing to notify an enforcement agency that they’d committed a violation.

    Improving environmental enforcement

    Canadian enforcement agencies are failing to properly hold high-risk offenders and repeat offenders to account.

    But positive change is possible. Going forward, there are three key actions enforcement agencies should take:

    • Increased penalties: Polluters should pay for their pollution. The consequences of breaking the law should be proportional to the risks to public health and the environment. Substantial mandatory minimum fines should replace the current practice of warning letters and grossly inadequate tickets or fines.

    • Transparency: The public should have access to environmental information through standardized data on air pollution violations. This information should include who committed the violation, the details and location of what occurred and what was done about it. Ideally, the federal government would co-ordinate and publish all environmental enforcement data from across provinces the same way it publishes a national inventory of industrial pollutant releases.

    • Focus on high-risk offenses: The focus of enforcement actions should be on high-risk offenders, such as super-polluters (businesses that produce disproportionate volumes of air pollution relative to their competitors), repeat offenders and inter-provincial offenders.

    By properly enforcing environmental regulations, Canada can protect the public from the perils of poor air quality. This would also be a vital step towards realizing everyone’s right to a healthy environment — a right that was recently recognized in an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

    This story was co-authored by Claire Ewing, Senior Climate Action Specialist, who completed her Master’s of Science in Resources, Environment and Sustainability at the University of British Columbia in 2021.

    David R Boyd receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    Amanda Giang receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

    – ref. Big corporations are getting away with catastrophic air pollution – putting Canadians at risk – https://theconversation.com/big-corporations-are-getting-away-with-catastrophic-air-pollution-putting-canadians-at-risk-250013

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Buying Canadian’ is an opportunity to reflect on the ethics of consumerism

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Michael Walschots, Postdoctoral Fellow, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz

    Ever since Donald Trump threatened to impose a 25 per cent tariff on all imports from Canada, everyday citizens have retaliated by pledging to “Buy Canadian.” Even though the tariffs were later postponed, the damage was already done.

    The Buy Canadian movement is broad: people are not only buying more Canadian goods, they are also altering their travels plans and attempting to watch more Canadian-made films and TV.

    Local businesses have reported an increase in traffic, Air Canada has said it will decrease the number of flights to U.S. destinations and there are now apps and a website to help citizens find Canadian products.

    This new movement offers us the opportunity to reflect on the ethics of our consumption practices more generally, especially when consumers co-ordinate their purchasing on a national scale. As consumers, we all have a responsibility to use our buying power in an ethically conscious way.

    A CBC News report on how consumers are using apps to help them buy Canadian products.

    Boycotts and buycotts

    Most of us as consumers decide what to buy based on the price and quality of goods. But our values play a role in our decision-making: what we buy and where we buy it is influenced by our beliefs. Last year, for instance, many Canadians boycotted Loblaws on the grounds that it was price gouging amid inflation.

    A boycott is just one way of altering our habits based on our values. Another way is a “buycott”; that is, intentionally buying products from companies we feel align with our values. The Buy Canadian movement itself is best described as a buycott, but for many, it’s also a boycott of American-made goods.

    The reasons behind consumers choices are essential here. For example, we might avoid buying certain cosmetics because we are opposed to animal testing. Or we might vote with our forks and eat at farm-to-table restaurants to combat climate change.

    Our choices are often complex and motivated by many concerns: I might buy eggs from my local farmers market not only because I want to support local businesses, but also to encourage the fair treatment of animals and express my frustration with high prices at chain stores.

    Social change and co-ordinated consuming

    One of the most important reasons behind many of our consuming practices is social change: we want to change the way others, and we as a society, behave. Consuming for social change is particularly effective when it is done by a co-ordinated group that shares certain values.

    Consider the practice of buying fair trade coffee: by means of proper certification and product labelling, consumers give coffee companies an economic incentive to treat farmers more equitably.

    This is a huge power that consumers have. But with great power comes great responsibility, so when we make co-ordinated consuming efforts, we need to think about how to do so responsibly.

    Not all co-ordinated consuming efforts are ethically permissible. Consider a reprehensible but particularly relevant example: in the 1930s, initiatives developed to encourage consumers not to buy Jewish products in Germany, other European countries and the U.S. Such a practice was wrong not only because it was motivated by hatred, but also because it deprived a group of citizens of their freedom of religion.

    Another more recent example concerns the Christian American Family Association which boycotted Walt Disney, Ford and other businesses because of their support of same-sex couples. This boycott was wrong not only because it was motivated by discriminatory beliefs, but also because it did not representative how many other people feel.

    The moral here is that social change should not only be influenced by well-co-ordinated groups, because the loudest voices are not the only ones, nor are they necessarily the right ones.

    Ethical boycotting

    How do we make sure that our co-ordinated consuming efforts are ethical? Philosophy professor Waheed Hussain argued that when we act as a co-ordinated group seeking to achieve social change, we should treat our consuming choices as “proto-legislative” — that is, as if they could become legislation.

    This is because our efforts in this context are no longer aimed at merely satisfying our self-interest, but the common good, and so the standards should be higher. We should act in ways that are appropriately representative and that do not deprive our fellow citizens of their freedoms. Furthermore, Hussain argued that the reasons behind our consumption practices should be public and subject to scrutiny by our fellow citizens.

    When we seek to effect social change across national boundaries, it has been argued that we should not impose our ideals of social change on foreign citizens. In this case our choices are subject to additional constraints. We should respect the values of the target country, for instance, and use our purchasing power in ways that help local workers and communities there.

    What this all means for the Buy Canadian movement is a complex question. For instance, it might mean that a boycott of American products should not include some states like Kentucky, whose governor has openly opposed the tariffs. But at the very least, it’s an opportunity for us to reflect on the immense power we have as consumers, as well as the responsibilities that go along with it.

    Michael Walschots receives funding from the German Research Foundation. In the past he has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the German Academic Exchange Service

    – ref. ‘Buying Canadian’ is an opportunity to reflect on the ethics of consumerism – https://theconversation.com/buying-canadian-is-an-opportunity-to-reflect-on-the-ethics-of-consumerism-249830

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Canada is one step closer to high-speed rail, but many hurdles remain

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ryan M. Katz-Rosene, Associate Professor, School of Political Studies, with Cross-Appointment to Geography, Environment and Geomatics, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

    Canada is the only G7 country without a high-speed rail line, yet not for lack of trying. Over the last half century, numerous high-speed rail projects have been proposed, studied and even approved by political leaders. The obstacles to actually getting them built have proven insurmountable thus far.

    Proponents of high-speed rail had much to celebrate earlier this month when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced Alto, a high-speed train line that will connect Québec City and Toronto, with stops in Trois-Rivières, Laval, Montréal, Ottawa and Peterborough.

    After a lengthy tender process, the $3.9 billion six-year contract was awarded to the Cadence consortium, which comprises Air Canada, CDPQ Infra, AtkinsRéalis, Keolis, SYSTRA and SNCF Voyageurs. The consortium will work with the federal government to bring the proposed high-speed rail line to fruition.

    Yet, while this announcement is a milestone, multiple political and economic hurdles must be cleared for this project to ever see the light of day.

    Politically uncertain future

    Four main challenges stand between Trudeau’s announcement and the first high-speed journey. The first is the current political context. With an election on the horizon, the project’s fate could hinge on which party forms the next government.

    Trudeau announced the project less than a month before the pre-determined end to his tenure as prime minister, and it remains unclear who will be Canada’s next, how long their term will last or which party (or coalition) will form the next government.

    Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre currently leads the polls, and although his party has expressed support for high-speed rail infrastructure, it also has called for a major scaling back of government spending.

    History could very well repeat itself if Poilievre comes to power and cancels the project — just as Ontario Premier Doug Ford paused funding and halted plans for the high-speed rail project his Liberal predecessor, Kathleen Wynne, had announced upon taking office.

    The federal Conservatives have already criticized the recent high-speed rail announcement. In contrast, Mark Carney, who is currently the frontrunner for the Liberal Party’s leadership, has expressed support for high-speed rail, but he has also made comments about the need to reduce spending.

    The cost factor

    Beyond political risk, the second major challenge is cost. Canadian governments have, on multiple occasions, engaged in commercial feasibility studies of high-speed rail projects, only to abandon plans once a clearer sense of the price tag emerged.

    The recent announcement involves a $3.9 billion federal commitment — but this funding is only for the next design phase of the project. This phase includes route planning, station location identification, environmental assessments and consultation with Indigenous communities.

    At the end of this multi-year phase, there should be a plan in place, but there will still not be any actual material infrastructure built or rail equipment purchased.

    The actual costs of construction and physical asset procurement remain uncertain, with estimates ranging from $80 to $120 billion. Considering the cost of other high-speed rail projects around the world, a 1,000 kilometre high-speed rail line would likely cost tens of billions of dollars.

    Regional politics and fairness

    The third obstacle lies in inter-provincial and regional politics. Large-scale infrastructure projects in Canada have faced resistance from provinces that feel excluded, and this high-speed rail initiative is no exception.

    One study on the political economy of Canadian high-speed rail identified inter-provincial and regional politics as a central challenge for a costly Québec-Ontario project such as this one.

    Ottawa risks being accused of funnelling billions of taxpayer dollars into a massive infrastructure project that only directly benefits two of Canada’s provinces. This could create friction with the Western provinces, the Prairies, the Maritime provinces and the Northern territories, whose leaders and residents may ask what they might get in return.

    An additional challenge is the perception that the project is a Trudeau-era legacy initiative. Some may see the investment as another example of “Laurentian elites” disproportionately benefiting from the nation’s resource wealth — a long-standing narrative used to critique inter-provincial economic disparities.

    Time and execution

    Finally — though not exhaustively — time itself could prove to be a hurdle. The current co-development phase of the project is expected to last up to five years, after which additional funds and decisions will be required before the build phase can begin.

    Even if the project goes ahead, large-scale infrastructure projects are notoriously prone to delays and cost overruns. There is a well-known saying in megaproject development: projects like this tend to be “over budget, over time, over and over again.”

    This raises concerns that Alto could face serious delays or even failure, as the proposed plan needs to sustain not only the next five years of inter-provincial and federal politics, but also the subsequent build phase.

    A cautionary example is California’s high-speed rail line, which originally intended to link San Francisco and Los Angeles by 2020 at a cost of US$33 billion. Today, only a portion of the infrastructure has been built, cost estimates now exceed US$128 billion, neither major city is yet connected and there is no clear completion date in sight.

    Possibility of transformation

    The Alto project marks a significant step toward Canada joining the ranks of nations with high-speed rail. However, political and economic realities serve as a reminder that many obstacles have yet to be overcome before that vision becomes reality.

    If done right, this project could usher in a new era of 21st-century sustainable transport infrastructure in Canada.

    If done wrong, the project will rack up costs, sow political division and waste taxpayers’ dollars. How domestic political economic realities evolve in the coming months and year will have a significant bearing on whether this is the high-speed rail plan that finally breaks through.

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

    – ref. Canada is one step closer to high-speed rail, but many hurdles remain – https://theconversation.com/canada-is-one-step-closer-to-high-speed-rail-but-many-hurdles-remain-250384

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From sunscreen to essential oils, why some personal care products could be harmful to your health

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Asit Kumar Mishra, Research Fellow in School of Public of Health, University College Cork

    RomarioIen/Shutterstock

    Each time you apply sunscreen to your face, you may inhale somewhere between 10 to 30 milligrams of ethanol, the type of alcohol used in alcoholic drinks. While the ethanol in sunscreen may not give you a buzz, it could make you think about what other chemicals you might be exposed to from personal care products.

    Products that are applied to the face, like sunscreen, can increase the inhalation of some chemicals by ten times or more than you would inhale from your home air in the entire day.

    The levels of ethanol in cosmetics and skincare products may be reasonably safe – although it can still dry out the skin, causing pain, redness and swelling, and irritate the eyes, causing tears, burning and stinging – but personal care products such as shampoos, skin creams, deodorants, cosmetics and perfumes contain fragrances and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can be inhaled, absorbed through skin or ingested and some are more toxic than others.

    Unfortunately, manufacturers of personal care products do not have to disclose every fragrance compound used. This is concerning when you consider the potential effects of toxic compounds that have been detected in the air from personal care products. For example, hair-smoothing products have released formaldehyde, a toxic chemical that can cause a range of symptoms from dermatitis to low sperm count. Some perfumes and deodorants have generated monoterpenes, chemicals which can prove toxic for some users.

    Some of the VOCs found in personal care products may trigger skin irritation, headaches – and difficulty breathing, which can develop into an asthma attack in some users. The highest or peak concentration of these VOCs are likely to occur within ten minutes of application. But these concentrations may take up to two hours to decrease to background levels, depending on your home’s ventilation.

    Natural doesn’t mean risk free

    But even if the levels of VOCs in personal care products are kept within safe limits, they can still cause discomfort and a variety of health issues, including irritation of the eyes and airways, migraines and asthmatic reactions, in those who’re fragrance sensitive. In the UK, 27% of the population self reports as fragrance sensitive.

    It makes sense then that some people attempt to avoid potentially toxic synthetic chemicals in cosmetics by opting for “natural” or “clean” personal care products. But, natural does not mean safer.

    For instance, essential oils are often used in “natural” personal care products as fragrance. Essential oils, though, are a source of terpenes, some of which can be toxic if absorbed, inhaled or swallowed.

    Indoor concentration of terpenes are often at levels where you can smell them but not high enough to cause eye or respiratory tract irritation. However, the terpenes from essential oils can react with other chemicals, such as ozone from outdoor air, producing byproducts like formaldehyde, a known carcinogen and allergens.

    Beauty salon safety

    Beauty salons can be particularly risky environments for exposure to VOCs. Studies have found contaminants such as formaldehyde, ammonia and toluene, a potentially harmful ingredient used in many personal care products, at high levels in salons, putting staff who work there at the highest risk.

    Formaldehyde levels in some salons have reached above safety limits. Methyl methacrylate, which can cause skin irritation, allergic reactions and potential respiratory issues has been detected in the air of nail salons.

    These contaminants are not necessarily limited to the places in a salon where a certain product is being used. Beauty salons with poor ventilation are likely to expose workers and customers to much higher levels of contaminants. Some of the components of personal care products are known, harmful contaminants and carcinogens.

    Regulations specifically related to ventilation in environments where large volumes of these products are used do reduce exposures. For instance, studies show that after ventilation regulations came into effect in Boston, US in 2011, the air quality inside nail salons improved.

    When visiting your nail salon or hair stylist, check with them about their ventilation system and other steps they are taking to reduce exposure to VOCs.

    To limit exposure to potential VOCs at home when using personal care products, try to open windows and use extractor fans in wet rooms. Be especially careful when applying products to the face or when using a high temperature application – high temperatures can increase emissions.

    Asit Kumar Mishra is a DOROTHY co-fund Fellow and Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellow and receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101034345.

    – ref. From sunscreen to essential oils, why some personal care products could be harmful to your health – https://theconversation.com/from-sunscreen-to-essential-oils-why-some-personal-care-products-could-be-harmful-to-your-health-248273

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From Messi to Mika Häkkinen: how top athletes can slow down time

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Taylor, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Leeds Beckett University

    Jay Hirano/Shutterstock

    With the new Formula 1 season is about to begin, it’s worth pondering what makes a great racing driver. There are no doubt several important qualities, such as calmness under pressure, the courage to take risks, quick reflexes and excellent coordination.

    But there is a more obscure ability that may separate the best drivers – and other top athletes – from the rest: the ability to “slow down” time.

    In 1994, a British racing driver named Mark Hughes had “one of the greatest days” of his life when he began a race right at the back of the grid, with 25 other cars in front of him. Somehow he managed to overtake 23 cars, finishing third. While driving, Hughes felt a strange sense of detachment, as if he was watching from outside his body. He also felt a peculiar sense of timelessness.

    As he told the author Clyde Brolin for his book In the Zone (2017): “It’s funny and it sounds weird but it felt unconnected to time … It’s not really time … You felt you could go back, analyse and have a look”.

    Many racing drivers have reported similar experiences. In another Brolin book, Overdrive (2010), Finnish driver Mika Häkkinen reported that, when driving at his best, “Everything becomes like slow motion — even though you’re going at unbelievable speed around the Monaco track.”

    The Scottish driver Jackie Stewart, who competed in Formula 1 during the 1960s and 70s, told Brolin that this skill is an essential prerequisite for success in racing. “At 195 mph, you should still have a very clear vision, almost in slow motion, of going through that corner — so that you have time to brake, time to line the car up, time to recognise the amount of drift.”

    Time expansion experiences, as I refer to them in my research, are common in other sports too. The American sprinter Steve Williams — who equalled the men’s 100- and 200-metre world records in the 1970s — described to me how, when he was running well, “10 seconds seems like 60. Time switches to slow motion.”

    Many players of ball games report moments of time-slowing too. In my research, a man described a game of table tennis that suddenly “turned into slow motion … I could see the ball and its flight and spin perfectly, anticipating its precise bounce, and position my body, arm, hands and wrist to hit perfect returns”.

    I also cite the experience of an ice hockey player for whom “the play which seemed to last for about 10 minutes all occurred in the space of about eight seconds”.

    A lucky few

    In my book, Time Expansion Experiences (2024), I suggest that only a tiny proportion of extraordinary athletes have easy access to time expansion experiences.

    One example is the baseball player Ted Williams, whose career ran from 1939 to 1960. Williams is usually regarded as one of the greatest hitters (if not the best) ever. He claimed to be able to see the stitches on the seam of the ball as it flew toward him at 100 mph. He described how the ball sometimes appeared to grow, so that it seemed like a beach ball floating toward him in slow motion.

    This may also be true of Lionel Messi, often described as the best footballer of his generation. Some scientists believe that Messi may experience anomalous neurological processing that slows down his perception of time. This would account for his “impossible” goals that seem to defy the laws of physics.

    Some scientists think Messi’s brain is different.
    Shutterstock

    Explaining time expansion

    How can this extraordinary ability be explained scientifically? We don’t really know for sure yet.

    There is some evidence that physical exercise generally slows down time. In a recent study, 33 cyclists were asked to estimate the duration of trials, and believed that more time had passed than it actually had. Perhaps this effect is more pronounced for higher level athletes, because of their higher levels of fitness and stamina.

    However, this wouldn’t explain why certain sportspeople, such as Messi or Williams, have a more pronounced ability to slow down time than other, equally fit peers. In 2016, a group of German scientists suggested that they may be able to “buy time” due to superior motor skills that allow their “predictive brains to make better use of time than other players to read the games and plan ahead”.

    My own explanation is slightly different. I believe the key to understanding time expansion is through altered states of consciousness. Our normal time perception is linked to our usual state of consciousness. In some mildly altered states (such as being in a state of flow) time passes very quickly. But during intense, altered states, time usually expands dramatically, or seems to disappear altogether.

    This may be why radical time expansion is a common feature of psychedelic drugs, and of accidents and emergencies. The sudden shock of an accident may disrupt our normal psychological processes and functions, causing an abrupt shift in consciousness.

    In sport, intense altered states are due to what I call “super-absorption.” Absorption normally makes time pass faster, as in flow. However, when it becomes especially intense, over a long period of sustained concentration, the opposite occurs. In some cases, an athlete builds up concentration gradually over the course of a game or contest. A racing driver or a golfer may concentrate hard for hours, eventually attaining a state of intense absorption.

    Here the game is akin to a meditation, in which a person gradually focuses their mind, attaining deeper states of stillness and well-being. In other cases, an athlete shifts quickly into super-absorption during a critical period of a game — for example, when they (or their team) are losing and making a concerted effort to catch up or in the final minutes of a game when scores are tied or close.

    Although many factors contribute to success in sports, perhaps the key to extraordinary ability is the capacity to enter an altered state of consciousness through intense absorption. And the most important feature of this altered state is time expansion.

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

    – ref. From Messi to Mika Häkkinen: how top athletes can slow down time – https://theconversation.com/from-messi-to-mika-hakkinen-how-top-athletes-can-slow-down-time-249780

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Theatre’s thriving horror revival reflects a cultural moment of collective anxiety

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Hand, Professor of Media Practice, University of East Anglia

    The stage has long presented horror as entertainment, from 19th-century ghost and revenge melodramas to the blood-soaked spectacles of the grand-guignol, the Parisian “theatre of horror’.

    In recent decades, horror theatre has often been perceived as a relic of the past, overshadowed by its more commercially dominant and popular cinematic and digital counterparts. This may have seemed evident in 2023 when The Woman in Black finally closed after 33 years of haunting London’s West End.

    Yet, a recent wave of new and revived horror plays suggests that the genre is once again thriving on stage. With audiences flocking to 2:22 A Ghost Story, Paranormal Activity, Saint Maud, Inside No. 9 Stage/Fright and two concurrent but unrelated adaptations of the infamous Enfield poltergeist case, it begs the question: what is driving this resurgence? And could it be a reflection of our cultural moment – one that echoes the anxieties and uncertainties of previous gothic ages?

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    The original 19th-century gothic period in theatre was characterised by its fascination with the supernatural, the macabre and psychological extremes. Drawing inspiration from gothic literature, these plays often featured doomed heroines, villainous aristocrats and vengeful spectres, creating a haunting atmosphere of terror, suspense and unease.

    Melodrama played a key role, with heightened emotions, moral polarities, and elaborate stage effects – such as trapdoors, phantasmagorical projections and eerie soundscapes – enhancing the spectacle. Gothic theatre reflected contemporary anxieties about the unknown, scientific progress, and the boundaries between reason and madness, captivating audiences with its thrilling blend of horror and theatrical illusion.

    The demise of the neo-Victorian gothic The Woman in Black aside, horror theatre is anything but exorcised from the stage. The Leeds Playhouse stage adaptation of Paranormal Activity, directed by Felix Barrett, used technology, scene staging and ingeniously deployed magic tricks for a spine-chilling experience as compellingly immersive as many of the director’s more famous Punchdrunk shows.

    Danny Robins, whose podcast and TV show Uncanny has captivated audiences with real-life supernatural tales, enjoyed success when his 2:22 A Ghost Story materialised in the nervous context of a post-lockdown London in 2021. The play has continued in revivals and on tour while, in parallel, Robins’ podcast became a live stage tour, Uncanny: I Know What I Saw, filling theatres across the UK.

    Similarly, Inside No. 9 Stage/Fright has recently opened in London giving the beloved but concluded television programme an afterlife, and proving its signature brand of macabre storytelling is highly suited to a live environment.

    These productions, and others like them, are drawing significant audiences, not just for their jump scares and eerie atmospheres but because they tap into something deeper: a desire to engage with horror in a way that feels immediate and unfiltered by the distraction of screens.

    Live performance offers something that no digital medium can fully replicate: physical presence, unpredictability, and the heightened emotional responses that come from sharing an experience in real time with real people, most of whom will be complete strangers.

    Horror theatre’s resurgence taps into a collective psychological need to process fear in a safe space. Stage horror offers audiences a cathartic release – a chance to confront, experience, and ultimately purge fear in a controlled environment.

    The communal nature of theatre makes this experience all the more potent: the gasps, shrieks, and laughter of fellow audience members reinforce the sense of shared vulnerability and nervousness, exhilaration and hilarity.

    At a time when people are overwhelmed by an endless stream of manipulated digital content, horror theatre provides a real and visceral alternative. The genre’s success also speaks to theatre’s ability to evolve with changing audience expectations, incorporating elements of interactivity, immersion and technological innovation that mirror trends in gaming, VR, and participatory storytelling.

    Horror theatre’s return is about more than just entertainment and escapism: it reflects a cultural shift reminiscent of past gothic revivals. Historically, horror has flourished during times of social and political upheaval.

    The 19th-century fascination with ghosts, revenge narratives and heightened melodramas coincided with anxieties about revolution, industrialisation, urbanisation, shifting morality, and scientific progress that threatened religious beliefs. The French grand-guignol mirrored a period of deep social unrest, shifting political landscapes and the simultaneous awe and angst about technological and medical advances.

    Theatre, as a medium, has always been uniquely responsive to “the moment”. Today, as we grapple with global crises, from pandemics and climate change to political volatility and technological overreach, it is no surprise that horror has found renewed cultural relevance.

    The horror stories that dominate recent productions are not just exercises in fright – they are reflections of contemporary anxieties. The current touring revival of Jeremy Dyson and Andy Nyman’s Ghost Stories, the stage adaptations of Peter James’ macabre thrillers, and other unnerving productions signals a fascination with the blurred boundary between everyday reality and our phobias, mirroring wider societal debates around truth, belief, and uncertainty.

    What we are witnessing, then, is not just a nostalgic resurgence of the old-fashioned genre of horror theatre but the reflection of a new gothic age, one shaped by our era’s profound fears and instabilities. The success of these productions suggests that horror is not only commercially viable in the theatre but culturally necessary.

    Whether through traditional ghost stories, psychological thrillers, or experimental immersive experiences, horror theatre is asserting its place as a genre that speaks to the present moment. As long as there are cultural fears to be explored and exorcised, horror theatre will continue to haunt our stages – and our imaginations.

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

    – ref. Theatre’s thriving horror revival reflects a cultural moment of collective anxiety – https://theconversation.com/theatres-thriving-horror-revival-reflects-a-cultural-moment-of-collective-anxiety-249651

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Trump the ‘master deal-maker’ failed when it came to negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Philip A. Berry, Visiting Research Fellow, Department of War Studies, King’s College London

    News that Ukraine may be ready to sign a deal granting the US joint development rights to its minerals in the hope of a future security guarantee may be seen as a win by Donald Trump’s supporters who criticised Joe Biden’s unconditional support for Ukraine. After all, whether and how this agreement will actually protect Ukraine from continuing Russian aggression remains unclear.

    But Kyiv will be well aware that Trump’s track record as an international deal broker is less than stellar, despite the US president’s regular boast that he is a master deal-maker.

    Trump’s self-belief was encapsulated in his ghostwritten memoir, The Art of the Deal, which laid out his tactics to negotiate business transactions. One important tip was: “The best thing you can do is deal from strength, and leverage is the biggest strength you can have.”

    Last week, Trump left Zelensky, and European nations reeling when he cut them out of talks with Russia over the war in Ukraine. In doing so, the president had arguably forgotten his own advice: to deal from strength and to use leverage in negotiations.

    Trump may have extracted a concession from Ukraine in the form of the mineral deal – although far less than the US$500 billion (£394 billion) of revenue he initially demanded – but in doing so he significantly weakened the US position towards Russia.

    Trump not only shattered the western position on Ukraine, but he also unilaterally ended Russia’s three-year isolation without securing any concessions from the Kremlin before inviting them to the negotiating table.

    Instead, it was the US that gave leverage away by sidelining Ukraine from the talks, rejecting the country’s desire for Nato membership and conceding that Ukraine was unlikely to restore its pre-2014 borders.

    Trump further undermined Zelensky by promoting the false claim that Ukraine started the war and calling him a “dictator”. This week, the US even voted with Russia and China at the United Nations security council over the conflict.

    Trump’s criticism of an ally and conciliatory overtures to a country that illegally invaded its neighbour marks a dramatic swing in US policy. The previous US administration provided Ukraine with military and diplomatic support, while imposing economic sanctions on Russia.

    A key question being asked in Kyiv and western capitals is what else Trump will concede to secure a deal with the Kremlin. While the contexts between the US’s involvement in Afghanistan and support for Ukraine are very different, Trump’s early strategy for the latter has some hallmarks of the US’s disastrous deal with the Taliban.

    Trump’s deal with the Taliban

    In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a US-led coalition invaded Afghanistan in October 2001. The allies quickly deposed the repressive Taliban regime and installed a western-backed government.

    But by the time that Trump came to office in 2017, the war was at a stalemate. To make matters worse for the president, the US was spending US$27 billion (£21.3 billion) annually on military expenditure. Given this, Trump’s reflex was to withdraw from Afghanistan as quickly as possible.

    However, the president’s national security team – largely comprised of former and current military generals who did not owe personal loyalty to Trump – persuaded him to increase the US’s commitment to Afghanistan. The new strategy also set the conditions for a negotiated settlement with the Taliban.

    The following year, angered by the lack of progress, Trump argued that the US should “get out” of Afghanistan as the strategy had been a “total failure”.

    By this time, the US had talked directly to the Taliban, without the Afghan government in the room – a key Taliban demand. While the talks were designed to lead to intra-Afghan negotiations, it resulted in the Afghan republic being sidelined from the process.

    Throughout these talks, Trump frequently threatened to withdraw from Afghanistan. US officials referred to this constant threat as the “Tweet of Damocles” – meaning at any point, the president would announce on Twitter that the US was departing Afghanistan.

    The secretary of state at the time, Mike Pompeo – a diehard Trump loyalist – knew the president could pull the plug on the talks at any time. He therefore instructed lead US negotiator, Zalmay Khalilzad, to secure a deal at all costs.

    As a former senior Pentagon official who was present at the talks told me, it became clear Pompeo and Khalilzad had “no red lines” as both believed that “any deal was better than no deal”.

    Khalilzad abandoned the original Afghan-led process and worked to secure an agreement with the Taliban, which inevitably caused dismay within the sidelined Afghan government. Trump also largely refused to consult the Afghan president, Ashraf Ghani, about his plans.

    Compounding matters, the US president made several public statements about his desire to withdraw US forces from Afghanistan. This weakened Khalilzad’s position and encouraged the Taliban to remain resolute in negotiations.

    The US-Taliban agreement, which was signed in Doha in February 2020, favoured the insurgents and damaged the Afghan government. Khalilzad had conceded to the Taliban’s key demand: the withdrawal of all US and coalition troops from the country, which was scheduled over 14 months.

    In return, the Taliban promised to prevent terrorist groups from basing themselves in Afghanistan and agreed to hold talks with the Afghan government. If the Taliban did not adhere to these conditions, the US would – in theory – halt reducing its troop numbers.

    “This was a terrible deal. It was deeply injurious to US interests, let alone ruinous to Afghan interests,” the former Pentagon official told me.

    In the end, the Taliban failed to honour its counterterrorism commitments, and only half-heartedly pursued intra-Afghan talks.

    The deal set the conditions for the insurgents to retake Kabul by force, although the disastrous withdrawal overseen by the administration of Trump’s successor, Joe Biden, in 2021 proved fatal for the Afghan government.

    Trump’s Taliban deal excluded the US’s ally, conceded too much to an adversary, and was partly motivated by the perception of wasting American dollars in a far-off land. Unfortunately, these hallmarks are all too evident in the president’s stance on Ukraine.

    The early signs of Trump’s approach to talks with Russia do not augur well for Ukraine or the western alliance. If Trump does secure a peace deal with Russia that mirrors the accord struck with the Taliban, not only will Ukraine lose out, but Russia may be emboldened to again pursue its expansionist agenda.

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

    – ref. How Trump the ‘master deal-maker’ failed when it came to negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan – https://theconversation.com/how-trump-the-master-deal-maker-failed-when-it-came-to-negotiating-with-the-taliban-in-afghanistan-250835

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Will the UK’s proposed long-term emissions strategy get us to net zero? An expert review

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By John Barrett, Professor of Energy and Climate Policy, Deputy Director of the Priestly Centre for Climate Futures, Theme Lead for the UKRI Energy Demand Research Centre, University of Leeds

    In the seventh carbon budget, electric vehicles are key to reducing carbon emissions. nrqemi / shutterstock

    The UK government’s official advisory Climate Change Committee (CCC) has now published its recommendations for the country’s “seventh carbon budget”, covering the period from 2038 to 2042.

    This advice provides robust evidence for the government to set legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions over this five year period, while striving to meet its international commitments on climate change.

    The late 2030s may seem far off, but long-term planning is essential. Achieving these targets requires the rollout of low-carbon technologies and the building of consensus for social change. It takes a long time to plan, design and build a power plant or factory.

    It could take even longer to change social norms and values around flying, driving or the foods we eat. Setting targets more than a decade in advance gives much needed clarity to investors, businesses and citizens on the direction of travel.

    Colleagues and I at the University of Leeds’s Climate Evidence Unit have produced a detailed analysis of the nearly 400 page CCC report. One key takeaway is that the transition to net zero is not only possible but highly beneficial.

    Academic analyses (including our own) consistently support this conclusion, showing that it will strengthen the economy and position the UK as a leader in global climate action. And it will deliver warmer homes, cheaper household bills, reduced air pollution, greater energy security with less reliance on imported gas, and many other benefits.

    While the report acknowledges the upfront costs, it confirms that acting now will reduce expenses in the long run, with cost savings emerging by the late 2030s and beyond. However, the report significantly underestimates the full economic impacts of the transition, as the CCC’s analysis does not factor in the financial losses associated with extreme weather and other effects of climate change.

    These losses could be substantial. A recent report by the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries suggests the effects of climate change could shrink global GDP by 50% between 2070 and 2090. When combined with the additional benefits of climate action, it’s clear that a “do nothing” approach is simply not an option.

    The CCC’s proposed plan to achieve this goal, known as the “balanced pathway”, leans heavily on key technologies while placing less emphasis on broader societal changes that help to fully realise these benefits. Compared to the sixth carbon budget report from 2020, this latest analysis gives greater consideration to reducing demand for energy, but the technological bias remains.

    It’s politically easier to boost electric vehicles than it is to get people to drive less.
    brian.martin.photographer / shutterstock

    There is a sense that the report pre-empts what the government would prefer as opposed to challenging current thinking. The problem with this approach is that failing to fully address demand makes the technological transition harder and more expensive than necessary, and increases the risk of failure. More energy must be generated, more car miles need to be driven, and more materials and products must be supplied.

    The technological transition

    So, what technologies are expected to drive emissions reductions? The first key point is the increasing reliance on technologies that, although they are already available, still need to be deployed at scale. These include electric vehicles, heat pumps for both households and industry, and the rapid expansion of solar and wind power.

    In contrast, the report places less emphasis than previous recommendations on currently expensive and emerging technologies, such as hydrogen power or “direct air capture” – essentially huge machines that filter carbon from the air. This is very welcome as it keeps the focus on decarbonisation, rather than emitting now and cleaning up later.

    This shift is particularly evident when examining individual sectors, where the focus is on scaling up existing solutions rather than banking on future technological breakthroughs.

    Surface transport, for instance, accounts for about a quarter of the UK’s emissions. The report places heavy reliance on electric vehicles (EVs), projecting that they will be responsible for 72% of all surface transport emissions reduced between 2025 and 2050.

    To put this into perspective, from this point forward, the UK would need to substantially outpace Norway, the current global leader in EV adoption. In contrast, only 11% of total emissions reductions are attributed to people shifting from driving to public transport or walking and cycling.

    Switching from gas boilers to heat pumps like these will deliver most household emissions savings.
    Wozzie/Shutterstock

    Electrification is also expected to be the primary driver of emissions reductions in both homes and the industrial sector, mostly through replacing gas heating with heat pumps. This will be a particular challenge in industries which require high temperature heat pumps, a technology that hasn’t been installed yet.

    Efficiency measures and unsustainably high consumption patterns receive less attention in the industry section. In homes, improved insulation will reduce demand though there is little space for new and additional energy saving actions.

    In the food and farming sector, the report identifies three roughly equal sources of emissions reductions: low-carbon farming, reductions in livestock numbers, and land management improvements. The reduction in livestock numbers primarily reflects lower meat and dairy consumption, while the other measures rely predominantly on technological solutions.

    Overall, this is a very welcome report from the Climate Change Committee with a robust analysis that lets the government, industry and citizens know that the pathway to net zero is possible and very much needed. However, it does place enormous responsibility on some key technologies and their rapid roll out to achieve these goals.

    As the UK government digests the findings, my colleagues and I would suggest greater consideration of the “social” transformation that examines how we travel and what we buy, to fully unlock the benefits of net zero.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    John Barrett receives funding by the Priestly Centre for Climate Futures where he holds the position of Deputy Director of Policy. He is also funded by a UKRI centre, called the Energy Demand Research Centre where he is the Futures theme lead.

    – ref. Will the UK’s proposed long-term emissions strategy get us to net zero? An expert review – https://theconversation.com/will-the-uks-proposed-long-term-emissions-strategy-get-us-to-net-zero-an-expert-review-250845

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The world needs a circular economy. But workers in developing countries shouldn’t pay the price

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sukyung Park, Assistant Professor in International Business, Strategy, and Innovation, Loughborough University

    hanohiki/Shutterstock

    The circular economy offers a fresh approach to how we produce and consume, focusing on reducing, reusing, recycling and recovering. It moves us away from the traditional “make, use, discard” model, creating a more sustainable system to balance the needs of the economy, society and nature. Living within the planet’s limits is vital if we are to fight climate change, biodiversity loss and the twin crises of waste and pollution.

    But that’s not all the circular economy is important for. In promoting resource efficiency and reducing dependency on finite materials, it can also encourage innovation and job creation.

    Advances in biomaterials, for instance, are providing durable and recyclable alternatives to plastic packaging. And innovative approaches to textiles are enabling manufacturers to make fibres from agricultural waste.

    But all this comes at a cost – and raises the question of who should pay. While the circular economy offers promising solutions to environmental and economic challenges, the transition raises critical questions about equity. It’s vital to include the workers and communities from developing countries at every stage of the transition.

    Despite the potential of a circular economy to bring long-term benefits to both society and the environment, access to resources is uneven. There are also economic disparities. A lack of funding, insufficient investment and skills gaps make the shift towards a circular economy challenging for some developing countries.

    And power dynamics are shifting across industries and regions. The circular transition can hit utility companies (electricity, gas and water) as demand from other firms falls. At the same time, in some countries it can bring significant gains to sectors such as construction – possibly driven by manufacturing firms investing in new buildings after saving money on material and energy costs.

    In a recent review of 167 studies of the circular economy, we found that there was limited focus on democratic planning. Communities were not involved enough in decision-making about the transition to a circular economy – especially in low-income countries. Local workers and communities being shut out of decision-making and excluded from opportunities, such as green jobs in renewable energy or sustainable design, could worsen inequalities. This is particularly the case in low-income areas with limited resources and economic resilience.

    In developing countries, persistent problems including low wages and poor working conditions can continue even as circular practices gain momentum, unless these concerns are integrated into the model. In the fashion industry, for example, workers face the same precarious working conditions regardless of whether they are working with virgin or recycled materials.

    And new tensions are emerging over who benefits and loses in the transition to a circular economy. For example, a textile factory owner in the Tamil Nadu region of India voiced concerns that slower fashion cycles – promoted by circular initiatives in wealthier countries – could threaten jobs and livelihoods, making the case (in the words of one interviewee) for “much faster fashion”.

    Without careful planning, textile workers in developing countries could lose their livelihoods in the transition to a circular economy.
    Ruma Dey Acharya/Shutterstock

    Among textile manufacturers, secondhand clothing was seen in a negative light as it might decrease the need for new products. The recycling industry on the other hand was booming in the same area and was seen as a positive thing. This was reflected in the words of a textile factory manager: “It’s my message (to not) reuse, we can recycle so that we get some work in the future.”

    Nevertheless, even recycling was not considered to be a purely positive thing. Many cotton farmers dependent on traditional production face disruption to their livelihoods as recycled textiles gain popularity.

    This is in stark contrast to the narrative in the developed economies, where circular strategies advocating “buy nothing” or slow fashion cycles are championed for their environmental benefits.

    A path forward

    To ensure the circular economy benefits everyone, it is crucial to address its social dimensions. Policies and strategies often overlook marginalised voices, particularly in developing countries. Inclusive circular economy models must be rooted in local contexts, reflecting the unique socio-economic realities of these regions.

    Grassroots entrepreneurs in places where resources are scarce are well positioned to create innovative, locally tailored solutions. Supporting their efforts can lead to practices that address the challenges of their communities while contributing to broader circular goals. Recognising and nurturing this local capacity is essential for a sustainable and fair transition.

    International organisations, national governments, and businesses play a pivotal role in driving inclusivity. Initiatives should be judged not only on environmental and economic outcomes but also for their impact on jobs, livelihoods, education, equity and justice. Businesses must engage with local communities to share knowledge, resources, costs and profits equitably between developing and developed nations.

    This could be funding local innovators, supporting small enterprises or promoting cross-border collaboration on circular practices. For example, circular economy finance and international partnerships can help develop affordable energy solutions for low-income communities and engage developing countries in circular value chains to collect and process e-waste components. International frameworks, such as the EU’s Just Transition Mechanism, must ensure that no one is left behind. And businesses should guarantee living wages in global circular supply chains.

    There’s a risk the circular economy could perpetuate inequalities. That’s why it is vital to reach people at even the far end of supply chains to ensure they are included in decisions and transitions. An equitable circular economy is not just an environmental or economic necessity – it’s also a moral imperative.

    Anna Kristiina Härri receives funding from the Strategic Research Council of Finland. She is affiliated with the Greens in Finland.

    Jarkko Levänen has received funding from the Research Council of Finland and Business Finland.

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

    – ref. The world needs a circular economy. But workers in developing countries shouldn’t pay the price – https://theconversation.com/the-world-needs-a-circular-economy-but-workers-in-developing-countries-shouldnt-pay-the-price-246453

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: African Union’s new chair has a long list of tough tasks – what it will take to get them done

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Ulf Engel, Professor, Institute of African Studies, University of Leipzig

    Following seven rounds of balloting, 60-year-old diplomat Mahmoud Ali Youssouf was elected the sixth chair of the African Union Commission in February 2025. Politics professor Ulf Engel, who is the editor of the Yearbook on the African Union, explains the role and its challenges.

    What’s the new AU Commission chair’s background?

    Youssouf is a seasoned diplomat from Djibouti. He is the longest serving minister of foreign affairs and international cooperation of his country (2005-2025), and has also served as chair of the Council of Ministers of the Arab League (2007, 2017) and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (2012).

    What’s the job?

    It involves navigating the different levels of commitments of AU member states, promoting the pan-African agenda on the global stage and developing the professionalisation of the commission.

    The chair is the chief executive officer and legal representative of the African Union as well as the accounting officer of the AU Commission.

    They are directly responsible to the AU executive council. The chair is elected by the assembly for a four-year term, renewable once.

    Their functions include:

    • chairing all meetings and deliberations of the AU Commission

    • keeping records of the deliberations of the AU Assembly, the executive council and the permanent representatives council

    • preparing the AU budget

    • acting as a depository of all AU treaties and other legal instruments

    • consulting and coordinating with the governments of member states and the regional economic communities on the activities of the AU.

    In the transition phase from the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to the AU (1999–2002), the office of the chair was still conceived as the “head of a secretariat”. But with the expansion of the African Union Commission’s staff from roughly 600 in the early 1990s to now well over 1,700 and the growing number of substantive tasks, this concept has evolved.

    The AU Commission has developed into the engine room of the pan-African project.

    Building on the three terms of the Tanzanian OAU secretary-general Salim Ahmed Salim (1989–2001), the commission has developed strong agency.

    On many political issues it has become the source for drafting legal and political documents.

    Through the chair, the commission coordinates relations with the regional economic communities. An example is in the field of early warning and conflict prevention.

    An example of the political guidance and leadership the chair can exercise is the 1999 report on “The Fundamental Changes Taking Place in the World and their Implications for Africa: Proposals for an African Response”.

    This had strong implications for the development of the continental body’s economic and security policies.

    It also had an impact on the 2011 report on “Current Challenges to Peace and Security on the Continent”. The report discussed the consequences of the public uprisings in northern Africa (the so-called Arab Spring).

    The 2022 report on “Unconstitutional Changes of Government in Africa” was drafted in response to the recent wave of coups d’état, especially in west Africa.

    A prominent example of proactive chairpersonship is the development of the AU’s Agenda 2063 under the leadership of Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma (South Africa, 2012–2017). This was an ambitious programme to steer the AU for the next 50 years after its 50th anniversary in 2013.

    What are the biggest challenges?

    The AU Commission chair’s main challenges include renewing member states’ commitment to the institution’s shared values amid a democratic recession.

    The new chair will have to deal with the decline in the quality of democracy across the continent.

    He will also have to deal with many member states that constantly violate AU decisions and communiqués on unconstitutional changes of government, as highlighted by the outgoing chair, Moussa Faki Mahamat (Chad), in a speech celebrating the 20th anniversary of the AU Peace and Security Council on 25 May 2024.

    The chair needs to finalise AU policy on the division of labour with the regional economic communities. In many policy fields this division is still unsystematic.

    Youssouf will have to increase the number of common African positions on key global challenges, increase ownership of positions by member states and lead the debate on defining clear obligations for member states.

    The most prominent common African position is the 2005 Ezulweni Consensus on the reform of the UN security council. It called for two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats for Africa.

    But more could be done to increase the African voice in the various international negotiation forums.

    The chair also needs to adopt a more systematic approach to the AU’s strategic partnerships with multilateral and bilateral players. For example, the AU became a member of the G20 in September 2024. Monitoring of strategic partnerships must be developed, and there should be clear guidelines which define African interests beyond funding issues.

    But the biggest task is to complete the financial and institutional reform of the AU that began in 2016/2017. This should include reducing its heavy financial dependence on international partners. Currently an estimated 58% of the budget comes from these partners, slightly down from last year’s 61%.

    The new chair needs to make the AU Commission more efficient and relevant for the African people. The lack of domestication of AU decisions by member states remains a huge challenge for Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want.

    Are any breakthroughs possible?

    G20 meetings in South Africa offer an opportunity to show how AU membership of this body can help address Africa’s concerns and rally AU member states behind a common agenda. There were meetings of G20 ministers of foreign affairs and finance in February, and heads of state and government will meet in November 2025.

    In his electoral campaign, Youssouf pledged to “defend Africa’s fair representation in international institutions and to strengthen its role in global forums”.

    He said Africa “must assert itself as an influential player in global policy discussion, advancing its economic and developmental interests”.

    With the new government in the US this certainly will become an uphill struggle. This is especially so giveng the pace with which the US president Donald Trump’s administration is dismantling established multilateral alliances, withdrawing from parts of the United Nations, and appears to be siding with Russia.

    Ulf Engel has been consulting for the African Union since 2006, mainly in early warning, conflict prevention, preventive diplomacy, and knowledge management.

    – ref. African Union’s new chair has a long list of tough tasks – what it will take to get them done – https://theconversation.com/african-unions-new-chair-has-a-long-list-of-tough-tasks-what-it-will-take-to-get-them-done-250421

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: No world order: Europe needs more radical thinking for the Trump era

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Richard Youngs, Professor of International and European Politics, University of Warwick

    There is general agreement that the US’s geopolitical shock therapy is a sign of a new world order. While European powers nominally recognise this, their policies are not, in practice, tailored towards such a change.

    The EU and other European governments are, understandably, focused on very immediate matters – talks on Ukraine, defence budgets, rebutting big US tech firms. But they also need to be guided by a clearer vision of the broader international order that flows from this inflection point.

    Even though the world has already changed profoundly over the last decade, most observers judge the current juncture to be a decisive watershed. Yet the tumult unleashed in 2025 feels not so much like a well-defined new world order as the chaotic imprecision of “no world order”. Nothing concrete has emerged as a replacement for the long-crumbling liberal order.

    Multi-polarity is not fully evident because there is little balance between powers. But the current influence of large powers rubs uneasily with the notion of a “G-zero world” in which no countries have any real control.

    The long-predicted plurilateralism, in which smaller groups of states reach political agreements, has not become reality. Yet neither is a well-ordered concert of great powers especially evident.

    A concert-based order would hardly accord the primacy now reassigned to Russia, a country that enjoys only a few of the long-term structural attributes of great-power status.

    But it’s also worth noting that “no world order” is not quite the same thing as “new world disorder”. Although many leaders make a show of flouting international rules and norms on high-profile issues like international courts, the reality is that they still matter in conditioning international behaviour.

    It can reasonably be suggested that the new order will be eclectic or composite – essentially, a combination of all of the above. Yet, the current jumble and clash of dynamics does not constitute a patterned “order”. The relationships between the different forces at work are nowhere near being worked out.

    What is European ‘independence’?

    In this void, European governments and the EU are leaning heavily on two long-familiar tenets, even as these raise operational question marks.

    One is the notion of autonomy. European leaders have now doubled down on their calls for more strategic autonomy and a narrative of Europe of being “independent” from the US and “writing its own history”.

    But autonomy is a somewhat hazy geopolitical motif. European powers of course need the autonomy to chart their own strategic priorities, but current crises palpably reinforce the need to manage complex interdependencies. Autonomy in the sense of deploying economic, political or military capabilities unconstrained by other powers is a diminished prospect.

    The other European reflex is to stress a determination to “reinforce multilateralism”, something few other world powers are apparently willing to do now.

    But multilateralism in its current form is surely beyond resuscitation. The imperative is rather to rethink multilateral norms and salvage the most essential core of liberal cooperation amid today’s lurch towards uncontrolled turbulence and power-expediency.

    I have previously proposed what I term “geoliberalism” as a path forward. This is a model that balances geopolitical reality alongside liberal and democratic values. In the second Trump era, the liberal elements of this concept are even more squeezed than they were before he was re-elected.



    Read more:
    Europe is still in short-term crisis mode over Ukraine and lacks a vision for its post-war identity

    Despite the multilateralism rhetoric, European powers actually seem to be leaning towards a more absolute version of realpolitik, with diplomacy based on practical rather than moral considerations. The European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, talks of “hyper-transactionalism”, which is less a vision of order than its negation.

    European international liberalism needs to be reframed, not jettisoned. It will be more rearguard and selective, but needs also to be more concerted to hold at bay today’s turbo-charged illiberal assault.

    It can lock onto powerful global societal trends to which realpolitik is dangerously and self-defeatingly blind. European Union powers need to be more measured but also more pointed in salvaging islands of liberal order – for example on climate change cooperation.

    There is little sign of such reflection. Familiar cliches are dominating the European response to the US illiberal pivot.

    The strategic debate has narrowed, especially around the question of defence spending. Repeating ad nauseum that “Europe must step up” and “get its act together” says little about what kind of strategy is needed to navigate the current order implosion, the end towards which defence capabilities are ultimately directed.

    European governments should indeed boost their defence spend, but that spend needs to be rooted in and directed towards an appropriate strategy for global re-ordering.

    The current flux means this is a moment when the parameters of the next international order will be defined. European powers need to prioritise practical action to influence that order more than endless, self-referential speeches about their own power status.

    Even if a degree of self-survival short-termism is understandable, the EU and European governments must lift their eyes to craft more far-sighted responses to the world’s collapsing certainties.

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

    – ref. No world order: Europe needs more radical thinking for the Trump era – https://theconversation.com/no-world-order-europe-needs-more-radical-thinking-for-the-trump-era-250864

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How palaeontologists are uncovering dinosaur behaviour

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By David Hone, Senior Lecturer in Zoology, Queen Mary University of London

    How do scientists study the behaviour of dinosaurs, who died 65 million years ago? After all, dinosaur fossils are rare enough as it is, and most are fragments and difficult to work with.

    This is something that palaeontologists have been working on since the earliest days of research on these incredible animals. Until recently, this was often only in vague terms of, for example, which animals were herbivores or carnivores.

    But new opportunities are becoming available to us. Palaeontologists have recently pieced together the colours and patterns of some feathered dinosaurs, using electron microscopes to see tiny preserved structures that used to contain the pigments of the animals in life. This is something that scientists used to think was probably impossible.

    But right now it can only tell us so much – it just tells us the colour of the individual animal at the time of its death.

    Studying more specimens of the same species could reveal if males and females were the same colours or if they differed, and if these feathers underwent seasonal changes or varied with the environment. Perhaps they turned white in winter as camouflage. Maybe feathers were different colours in different regions. This would suggest that the local environment helped these dinosaurs to hide and that they cannot have been wide ranging or their camouflage would not work.

    Perhaps the males were brightly coloured to attract mates, or perhaps both were, which would suggest both sexes were involved in rearing their offspring.

    This is something scientists should be able to tackle in the coming years. For some species at least, such as the small feathered dinosaur Anchiornis, we have the fossils, and we have the techniques. We just need to extract the data from the dinosaur fossils we have.

    We already have a good idea of what colours and patterns mean for different groups of living animals, so we can apply some of this knowledge to dinosaurs. However, much of researchers’ work on dinosaur behaviour has been stunted by a poor use of the behaviour of modern animals as a template for dinosaurs, and a tendency to focus on special specimens as being representative of bigger patterns.

    For example, we have well-studied fossils of carnivorous dinosaurs with the bones of other animals inside them. Although is incontrovertible that the carnivorous dinosaurs ate these other animals, it is hard – or even impossible – to know if the prey was scavenged or if it was hunted by the dinosaur.

    It’s too easy to think the dinosaur lived on the species the bones belonged to. Bones tend to survive the fossilisation process, but the animal might have mostly eaten muscle and organs, or even insects and they wouldn’t show up. Although such finds are important, we need to take them as evidence that something happened once, not that it was a habitual activity. Then we can go in search of other evidence to test or reject such an idea.

    In that context, we really are blessed. New fossils and new techniques (such as CT scans to get inside skulls to dinosaur brain to assess them) are still being discovered. And there are perhaps more dinosaur researchers than ever before, even if that total is not that high compared to other disciplines.

    It means that we are continually getting insights and new lines of evidence about things like how and what dinosaurs ate, their underlying physiology, the environments in which they lived, how they moved, and how they changed as they grew. This is the raw material of studies for behaviour, and adding this kind of data to our understanding of the behaviour of modern animals has enormous potential for future studies of dinosaurs (and other prehistoric animals).

    Another angle to consider is how palaeontologists formulate their ideas about dinosaur behaviour in the first place. For example, although we have numerous examples of several individuals of a dinosaur species found together, this doesn’t meant that the species habitually lived in groups, let alone that their near relatives did.

    Cats are generally solitary animals, but if you inferred the social behaviour of lions or cheetah from tigers and puma, you’d think these animals lived their lives alone. The fact is that lions and male cheetah usually live in groups.

    But they are sometimes solitary and will switch between being solo or living together at various times in their lives. So taking from the position that one group of dinosaurs died near each other means they and their relatives lived together won’t help us understand how they were really living.

    The future of the study of dinosaur behaviour is looking bright. This is why I wanted to write a book on the subject and to explore the issues we have had before, but frame the successes that are happening. Coupled with more rigorous attempts to investigate and test our hypotheses, we can establish a much firmer ground for understanding how these incredible creatures lived.

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

    – ref. How palaeontologists are uncovering dinosaur behaviour – https://theconversation.com/how-palaeontologists-are-uncovering-dinosaur-behaviour-246702

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Show Don’t Tell by Curtis Sittenfeld is moving, witty and achingly real

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sarah Trott, Senior Lecturer in American Studies and History, York St John University

    I was immediately struck by the title of Curtis Sittenfeld’s new collection of 12 short stories, Show Don’t Tell. That’s because it’s also the name of a narrative technique that allows readers to experience a story through the characters’ actions, words, thoughts and feelings, rather than the author’s explanations. It means that readers can create their own visualisations and conclusions without the author telling them what to think.

    And this is exactly what Sittenfeld does. Show Don’t Tell offers slices of life in the American midwest from a middle-aged and mostly female perspective. The stories can be enjoyed casually. Or, they can be read as a more profound exploration of individual and social conflict at a time when the US is on the verge of momentous political change.

    The self-contained stories evoke many moods and feelings. Each one is relatable in its own way, and all 12 are addictively consumable in one sitting. Within just a few paragraphs Sittenfeld’s vibrant characters feel familiar. They reflect on their lives and the changes in their desires and hopes. And they regularly wonder about their inherent “goodness” and that of those around them and the world they live in.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    Show Don’t Tell is an exploration of relationships, human emotion, honesty, compassion and contemplation. The stories offer a realistic exploration of life’s ups and downs – comical or otherwise.

    What links these the stories are the personal reflections they offer on important political subjects, from the COVID pandemic and tech billionaires, to sex and sexuality, wealth, health, marriage and racism. They represent a contemporary and timely connection to events in the US.

    Absurdist America

    The book’s title story, Show Don’t Tell, originally published in The New Yorker in 2017, lays the groundwork for the book’s focus on memory. It acknowledges the importance of youth – “when you were, like a pupa, in the process of becoming yourself” – and the cynicism that comes with age and maturity.

    The book references the American author Don DeLillo.
    Library of Congress

    The story mentions Don DeLillo’s postmodern novel White Noise (1985), referring to the author as the “ombudsman of American letters right now”. Like DeLillo, Sittenfeld’s work combines tone, style and multiple voices to create a humorous yet mildly absurdist representation of America. Her characters blunder tactlessly into faux pas after faux pas, which made me wince with sympathetic embarrassment or awkward discomfort. There is a cringeworthy quality to some situations and circumstances that feel amusingly relatable, sincere and human.

    There’s also a universality that pervades the collection. For example, Creative Differences is ultimately about toothpaste and brushing your teeth. This is the power of Sittenfeld’s work – her ability to slip complex subject matters, such as love, death, and loss, relationships between the sexes, and prejudice, into slice-of-life narratives.

    Hidden depths

    Despite the absurd or humorous surface nature of the stories, there is a profundity to the collection that lies just below the surface.

    The daily low-level dread and sense of disaster that inhabits the protagonist in Follow-Up strikes a chord, again, with DeLillo’s characters’ obsession with death and catastrophe in White Noise. But Sittenfeld gently reminds us that, considering the chaotic past decade, where death, catastrophe and complex political issues have dominated American lives, fear and anxiety are an entirely reasonable emotional response.

    She shows that it’s normal to look for human connection and comfort wherever we can find it. America has been turned upside down by a global pandemic, social conflict over sexuality, simmering racial tension and the accumulation of enormous wealth. And Sittenfeld shows us the aftermaths; the differences between then (the 1980s and 90s) and now (the 2020s). She shows us the changes between the innocence of youth and the realities of the post-9/11 and post-COVID world.

    This is the strength of the collection – reminding the reader of the universality of actions and emotions. And the authenticity that permeates the stories reminds us that we’re not alone.

    This is a clever, witty and moving collection with sometimes achingly real portrayals. The themes that unite the stories showcase women and men at moments of introspection, revealing the diversity and genuineness that permeates the multiple authentic worlds that Sittenfeld creates.

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

    – ref. Show Don’t Tell by Curtis Sittenfeld is moving, witty and achingly real – https://theconversation.com/show-dont-tell-by-curtis-sittenfeld-is-moving-witty-and-achingly-real-247853

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –