Based on recent science assessments, stakeholders and industry leaders have called for higher quotas in the Northern cod commercial fishery to continue rebuilding markets and expand processing capacity. The Total Allowable Catch (TAC) for the 2025 season is increasing from 18,000 to 38,000 tonnes, boosting economic opportunities for coastal communities.
Commercial allocations for 2025-26 are as follows:
80% is allocated to inshore harvesters including a new allocation for the inshore mobile gear fleet
10% is allocated to Indigenous groups and special allocation
9.72% is allocated to Canadian offshore fleets
0.28% is allocated to mid shore fixed gear and mobile gear fleets
Under NAFO Conservation and Enforcement measures introduced by Canada, 2,000 tonnes, an amount equal to approximately 5% of the overall TAC, is set aside for other NAFO Contracting Parties fishing outside Canada’s exclusive economic zone, fulfilling Canada’s international commitments.
Science
The latest scientific data shows Northern cod has been generally stable since 2017 and is at a healthier state relative to its Limit Reference Point (LRP) than previously thought. The approach announced today has a high probability (73%) of maintaining the stock above the critical zone.
Recreational Groundfish fishery
The Recreational Groundfish fishery remains an important social and cultural tradition.
For 2025-26, the current limits stay in place:
Five groundfish per person per day, with a maximum boat limit of 15 groundfish if three or more people are onboard.
The season will run for 39 days—every Saturday, Sunday and Monday, from June 28 to September 1, with a fall fishing period from September 20 to 28.
Supporting tour boat operators and coastal economies
To provide more flexibility and new economic opportunities for tour boat operators certified by Transport Canada, a new voluntary pilot program will launch in 2025. It will:
Introduce a tagging system providing tour boat operators greater flexibility and allowing retention seven days a week; and,
Permit passengers to retain two groundfish per day.
Persons with Disabilities
People with permanent disabilities can continue to apply for a designation that allows someone else to catch their daily groundfish limit during the Recreational Groundfish fishery on their behalf.
Fifty years ago, Steven Spielberg’s blockbuster film – along with its spooky score composed by John Williams – convinced generations of swimmers to think twice before going in the water.
As a scholar of media history and popular culture, I decided to take a deeper dive into the staying power of these two notes and learned about how they’re influenced by 19th-century classical music, Mickey Mouse and Alfred Hitchcock.
When John Williams proposed the two-note theme for ‘Jaws,’ Steven Spielberg initially thought it was a joke.
After hearing the story, freelance journalist Peter Benchley began pitching a novel based on three men’s attempt to capture a man-eating shark, basing the character of Quint off of Mundus. Doubleday commissioned Benchley to write the novel, and in 1973, Universal Studios producers Richard D. Zanuck and David Brown purchased the film rights to the novel before it was published. The 26-year-old Spielberg was signed on to be the director.
Tapping into both mythical and real fears regarding great white sharks – including an infamous set of shark attacks along the Jersey Shore in 1916 – Benchley’s 1974 novel became a bestseller. The book was a key part of Universal’s marketing campaign, which began several months before the film’s release.
Starting in the fall of 1974, Zanuck, Brown and Benchley appeared on a number of radio and television programs to simultaneously promote the release of the paperback edition of the novel and the upcoming film. The marketing also included a national television advertising campaign that featured emerging composer Williams’ two-note theme. The plan was for a summer release, which, at the time, was reserved for films with less than stellar reviews.
TV ads promoting the film featured John Williams’ two-note theme.
Films at the time typically were released market by market, preceded by local reviews. However, Universal’s decision to release the film in hundreds of theaters across the country on June 20, 1975, led to huge up-front profits, sparking a 14-week run as the No. 1 film in the U.S.
But Williams had been inspired by 19th and 20th century composers, including Claude Debussy, Igor Stravinsky and especially Antonin Dvorak’s Symphony No. 9, “From the New World.” In the “Jaws” theme, you can hear echoes of the end of Dvorak’s symphony, as well as the sounds of another character-driven musical piece, Sergei Prokofiev’s “Peter and the Wolf.”
“Peter and the Wolf” and the score from “Jaws” are both prime examples of leitmotifs, or a musical piece that represents a place or character.
The varying pace of the ostinato – a musical motif that repeats itself – elicits intensifying degrees of emotion and fear. This became more integral as Spielberg and the technical team struggled with the malfunctioning pneumatic sharks that they’d nicknamed “Bruce,” after Spielberg’s lawyer.
Mechanical issues with ‘Bruce,’ the mechanical shark, during filming forced Steven Spielberg to rely more on mood and atmosphere. Screen Archives/Moviepix via Getty Images
Sounds to manipulate emotions
Williams also has Disney to thank for revolutionizing character-driven music in film.
The two don’t just share a brimming trophy case. They also understood how music can heighten emotion and magnify action for audiences.
Although his career started in the silent film era, Disney became a titan of film, and later media, by leveraging sound to establish one of the greatest stars in media history, Mickey Mouse.
On Nov. 18, 1928, “Steamboat Willie” premiered at Universal’s Colony Theater in New York City as Disney’s first animated film to incorporate synchronized sound.
Unlike previous attempts to bring sound to film by having record players concurrently play or deploying live musicians to perform in the theater, Disney used technology that recorded sound directly on the film reel.
It wasn’t the first animated film with synchronized sound, but it was a technical improvement to previous attempts at it, and “Steamboat Willie” became an international hit, launching Mickey’s – and Disney’s – career.
The use of music or sound to match the rhythm of the characters on screen became known as “Mickey Mousing.”
“King Kong” in 1933 would deftly deploy Mickey Mousing in a live action film, with music mimicking the giant gorilla’s movements. For example, in one scene, Kong carries away Ann Darrow, who’s played by actress Fay Wray. Composer Max Steiner uses lighter tones to convey Kong’s curiosity as he holds Ann, followed by ominous, faster, tones as Ann escapes and Kong chases after her. In doing so, Steiner encourages viewers to both fear and connect with the beast throughout the film, helping them suspend disbelief and enter a world of fantasy.
In spite of this criticism, the technique was still used to score some iconic scenes, like the playing of violins in the shower as Marion Crane is stabbed in Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho.”
Spielberg idolized Hitchcock. A young Spielberg was even kicked off the Universal lot after sneaking on to watch the production of Hitchcock’s 1966 film “Torn Curtain.”
Although Hitchcock and Spielberg never met, “Jaws” clearly exhibits the influence of Hitchcock, the “Master of Suspense.” And maybe that’s why Spielberg initially overcame his doubts about using something so simple to represent tension in the thriller.
Steven Spielberg was just 26 years old when he signed on to direct ‘Jaws.’ Universal/Getty Images
The use of the two-note motif helps overcome the production issues Spielberg faced directing the first feature length movie to be filmed on the ocean. The malfunctioning animatronic shark forced Spielberg to leverage Williams’ minimalist theme to represent the shark’s ominous presence in spite of the limited appearances by the eponymous predatory star.
As Williams continued his legendary career, he would deploy a similar sonic motif for certain “Star Wars” characters. Each time Darth Vader appeared, the “Imperial March” was played to set the tone for the leader of the dark side.
As movie budgets creep closer to a half-billion dollars, the “Jaws” theme – and the way those two notes manipulate tension – is a reminder that in film, sometimes less can be more.
Jared Bahir Browsh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
When you think about ticks, you might picture nightmarish little parasites, stalking you on weekend hikes or afternoons in the park.
Your fear is well-founded. Tick-borne diseases are the most prevalent vector-borne diseases – those transmitted by living organisms – in the United States. Each tick feeds on multiple animals throughout its life, absorbing viruses and bacteria along the way and passing them on with its next bite. Some of those viruses and bacteria are harmful to humans, causing diseases that can be debilitating and sometimes lethal without treatment, such as Lyme, babesiosis and Rocky Mountain spotted fever.
In many cases, human actions long ago are the reason ticks carry these diseases so widely today. And that’s what makes ticks fascinating for environmental historians like me.
Ticks can be tiny and hard to spot. This is an adult and nymph Ixodes scapularis on an adult’s index finger. CDC
Changing forests fueled tick risks
During the 18th and 19th centuries, settlers cleared more than half the forested land across the northeastern U.S., cutting down forests for timber and to make way for farms, towns and mining operations. With large-scale land clearing came a sharp decline in wildlife of all kinds. Predators such as bears and wolves were driven out, as were deer.
As farming moved westward, Northeasterners began to recognize the ecological and economic value of trees, and they returned millions of acres to forest.
The woods regrew. Plant-eaters such as deer returned, but the apex predators that once kept their populations in check did not.
As a result, deer populations carrying borrelia burgdorferi, the bacterium that causes Lyme disease, grew rapidly. And with the deer came deer ticks (Ixodes scapularis). When a tick feeds on an infected deer, it can take up the bacteria. The tick isn’t harmed, but it can pass the bacteria to its next victim. In humans, Lyme disease can cause fever and fatigue, and if left untreated it can affect the nervous system.
For centuries, changing patterns of human settlements and the politics of land use have shaped the role of ticks and tick-borne illnesses within their environments.
In short, humans have made it easier for ticks to thrive and spread disease in our midst.
In California, the Northern Inner Coast and Santa Cruz mountain ranges that converge on San Francisco from the north and south were never clear-cut, and predators such as mountain lions and coyotes still exist there. But competition for housing has pushed human settlement deeper into wildland areas to the north, south and east of the city, reshaping tick ecology there.
While western black-legged ticks (Ixodes pacificus) tend to swarm in large forest preserves, the Lyme-causing bacterium is actually more prevalent in small, isolated patches of greenery. In these isolated patches, rodents and other tick hosts can thrive, safe from large predators, which need more habitat to move freely. But isolation and lower diversity also means infections are spread more easily within the tick’s host populations.
People tend to build isolated houses in the hills, rather than large, connected developments. As the Silicon Valley area south of San Francisco sprawls outward, this checkerboard pattern of settlement has fragmented the natural landscape, creating a hard-to-manage public health threat.
Fewer hosts, more tightly packed, often means more infected hosts, proportionally, and thus more dangerous ticks.
Domesticated livestock have also shaped the disease threat posed by ticks.
In 1892, at a meeting of cattle ranchers at the Stock Raiser’s Convention in Austin, Texas, Dr. B.A. Rogers introduced a novel theory that ticks were behind recent devastating plagues of Texas cattle fever. The disease had arrived with cattle imported from the West Indies and Mexico in the 1600s, and it was taking huge tolls on cattle herds. But how the disease spread to new victims had been a mystery.
Editors of Daniel’s Texas Medical Journal found the idea of ticks spreading disease laughable and lampooned the hypothesis, publishing a satire of what they described as an “early copy” of a forthcoming report on the subject.
The tick’s “fluid secretion, it is believed, is the poison which causes the fever … [and the tick] having been known to chew tobacco, as all other Texans do, the secretion is most probably tobacco juice,” they wrote.
Fortunately for the ranchers, not to mention the cows, the U.S. Department of Agriculture sided with Rogers. Its cattle fever tick program, started in 1906, curbed cattle fever outbreaks by limiting where and when cattle should cross tick-dense areas.
This innovative use of natural space as a public health tool helped to functionally eradicate cattle fever from 14 Southern states by 1943.
Ticks are products of their environment
When it comes to tick-borne diseases the world over, location matters.
Take the hunter tick (Hyalomma spp.) of the Mediterranean and Asia. As a juvenile, or nymph, these ticks feed on small forest animals such as mice, hares and voles, but as an adult they prefer domesticated livestock.
It’s probably too much to ask for sympathy for any ticks you meet this summer. They are bloodsucking parasites, after all.
Still, it’s worth remembering that the tick’s malevolence isn’t its own fault. Ticks are products of their environment, and humans have played many roles in turning them into the harmful parasites that seek us out today.
A Philippine coast guard vessel patrols near Pagasa, part of the Spratly Islands in the disputed South China Sea.Daniel Ceng/Anadolu via Getty Images
The South China Sea has long been a bubbling geopolitical hot spot. Recently, a series of moves by the various nations claiming a stake in the waters has stirred up yet more trouble.
Vietnam, too, has been active in the disputed waters. A Beijing-based think tank on June 7 flagged that Vietnamese engineers had been busy reclaiming land and installing military-related ports and airstrips around the Spratly Islands.
What the three Southeast Asian nations of Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia have in common is that they, along with others in the region, are trying to navigate a more assertive China at a time when the U.S. policy intentions under the second Trump Administration are fluid and hard to read. And in lieu of a coordinated response from the regional body Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, each member nation has been busy charting its course in these choppy waters.
US-China relations all at sea
Why is China trying to assert control in the South China Sea? In a 2023 speech, President Xi Jinping noted that “Western countries led by the United States have implemented all round containment, encirclement and suppression of China.”
This fear has been long held in Beijing and was reinforced by a U.S. Indo-Pacific policy announced in 2011 of rebalancing military forces away from Europe and toward Asia to confront China.
In response, China has in recent years embarked on an ambitious policy of attempting to outmuscle U.S. naval power in the South China Sea.
China is now the world’s leading builder of naval vessels and is estimated to have 440 battleships by 2030, compared with the United States’ 300.
And it comes at a time when U.S. naval power is spread around the world. China’s, meanwhile, is concentrated around the South China Sea where, since 2013, Chinese vessels have pumped sand onto reefs, turning them into islands and then weaponizing them.
Satellite imagery shows the Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea, part of the Spratly Islands group, being built by Chinese dredges. Maxar via Getty Images
Then there is the activity of China’s maritime militia of approximately 300 nominally fishing boats equipped with water cannons and reinforced hulls for ramming. This so-called gray zone fleet is increasingly active in confronting Southeast Asia nations at sea.
The U.S. response to China’s militarization in the sea has been through so-called “freedom of navigation” exercises that often deploy carrier groups in a show of force. But these episodic displays are more performative than effective, doing little to deter China’s claims.
The U.S. has also strengthened military alliances with Australia, India, Japan and the Philippines, and has increased coast guard cooperation with the Philippines and Japan.
Yet the battle over control of the South China Seas is more than just geopolitical posturing between the two superpowers.
For adjoining countries, the sea is a valuable biological resource with rich fishing grounds that provide a staple of fish protein for close to 2 billion people. There are estimates of 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil.
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, or UNCLOS, guarantees a nation an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles from around its coastline.
China is a signatory of the UNCLOS. Yet it views ownership of the South China Sea through the lens of its nine-dash line, a reference to the boundary line that Beijing has invoked since 1948. While the claim has no legal or historical basis, the delineation makes major incursions into waters around Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia and, to a lesser extent, Brunei and Indonesia as well.
As I explore in my recent book “Hedging and Conflict in the South China Sea,” part of the problem Southeast Asian nations face is that they have failed to forge a unified position.
ASEAN, the regional bloc representing 10 nations in Southeast Asia, has long been governed by the principle that major decisions need unanimous agreement. China is a major trading partner to ASEAN nations, so any regional country aligning too close to the U.S. comes with the real risk of economic consequences. And two ASEAN members, Cambodia and Laos, are especially close to China, making it difficult to generate a unified ASEAN policy that confronts China’s maritime claim.
Instead, ASEAN has promoted a regional code of conduct that effectively legitimizes China’s maritime claims, fails to mention the 2016 ruling and ignores the issue of conflicting claims.
Further complicating a united front against China is the competing claims among ASEAN nations themselves to disputed islands in the South China Sea.
In lieu of a coordinated response, Southeast Asian nations have instead turned to hedging — that is, maintaining good relationships with both China and the U.S. without fully committing to one or other.
A balancing act for Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines
Malaysia’s approach sees its government partition off the South China Sea dispute from its overall bilateral ties with China while continuing to promote an ASEAN code of conduct.
Until recently, Malaysia’s oil and gas activities were well within Malaysia’s EEZ and not far enough out to fall into China’s nine-dash claim.
But as these close-to-shore fields become exhausted, subsequent exploration will need to extend outward and into China’s nine-dash claim, putting Malaysia’s dealings with China under pressure.
China’s nine-dash line claims a significant amount of Vietnam’s EEZ, and the contested maritime area is a source of friction between the two countries; China’s maritime militia regularly harasses Vietnamese fishermen and disrupts drilling operations in Vietnam’s EEZ .
But Vietnam has to tread carefully. China plays a significant role in the Vietnamese economy as a major destination of exports and an important provider of foreign investment. China also has the ability to dam the Mekong River upstream of Vietnam — something that would disrupt agricultural production.
As a result, Vietnam’s hedging involves a careful calibration to avoid angering China. However, part of Vietnam’s heavy hedging involves the promotion of the South China Sea dispute as a core issue for domestic public opinion, which limits the Vietnamese government’s ability to offer concessions to China.
China’s nine-dash claim also includes a wide swath of the Philippines’ EEZ.
The Philippines has zigzagged in its dealings with China. The presidencies of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001–2010) and Rodrigo Duterte (2016-2022) pursued a pro-China tack that downplayed Filipino claims in the South China Sea. Presidents Benigno Aquino (2010-2016) and Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (2022-present), in contrast, have given U.S. forces greater access to its maritime bases and mobilized national and international opinion in favor of its claims.
In the shadow of two major powers battling for power in the South China Sea, Southeast Asian nations are making the best of their position along a geopolitical fracture line by advancing their claims and interests while not overly antagonizing a more assertive China or losing the support of the U.S.
This may work to tamp down tensions in the South China Sea. But it is a fluid approach not without risk, and it could yet prove to be another source of instability in a geopolitically contested and dangerous region.
John Rennie Short received funding from Fulbright Foundation
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Chee Meng Tan, Assistant Professor of Business Economics, University of Nottingham
After the second world war, the US and its western allies created a set of international agreements and institutions to govern attitudes to mutual defence, economics and human rights. For decades this created stable alliances and predictable economic plans.
But, unlike his predecessors, Donald Trump believes that international organisations undermine US interests and sovereignty. He has withdrawn the US from the World Health Organization, and there is speculation he could reduce US commitment to the UN. US investment in Nato’s mutual defence pact remains under discussion.
But while Washington is busy sounding the retreat from the very world order it had a hand in building, Beijing is looking to increase its international role. Chinese leadership in international agencies affiliated with the UN has increased over the years, and so has its financial commitment to international institutions.
That’s not all. China is also a prominent member of trade coalitions such as the
15-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, and the ten-member Brics group (led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). These groups not only promote greater economic integration among its members, but may reduce members’ reliance on the US economy and the US dollar. Amid an increasingly volatile US, China’s presence as the second largest economy in the world in these trade groups would be useful.
Now with the whole world negotiating new US trade deals, most nations see their relationship with the US as unstable. China sees this as a golden opportunity to position itself as a global counterbalance to the US. One of its policies is to “deliver greater security, prosperity and respect for developing countries”, and this is particularly relevant in African nations, where US aid is being reduced rapidly.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
A US-Sino trade deal was reached in London on June 10 2025. US tariffs on Chinese goods now stand at 55%, while Chinese tariffs on US imports will remain at 10%. But how long this trade deal will last remains uncertain, when Trump has a tendency to change his mind.
There are few details of the US trade deal with China so far.
Just a month earlier, on May 12, Washington and Beijing concluded a major trade accord in Geneva aimed at diffusing massive trade tensions. Unfortunately, this deal only lasted for 18 days before Trump started accusing China of violating the agreement.
But Trump’s tendency to escalate trade tensions and then diffuse them is not just China’s problem. His allies are also a victim of his frequent wavering. This leaves nations around the world, whether traditional US partners or not, in a crisis of not knowing what the US’s next move will be, and whether their economy will suffer.
In February 2025, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada but temporarily called off the tariffs a month later. Then in early April 2025, Trump raised tariffs on 60 countries and trading blocs, including traditional US allies such as the EU (20%), Japan (24%), South Korea (25%) and Taiwan (32%). Hours later, Trump unexpectedly rescinded these tariffs, but that caused massive damage to the global economy.
If there is a time that the world needs a more predictable partner it would be now. But it isn’t a Trump-helmed US. A recent annual report on democracy and national attitudes indicates that for first time, respondents across 100 countries view China more favourably than they do the US. So, could China be the partner that the world seeks?
Unlike liberal democracies that derive their legitimacy through elections, a large part of Beijing’s legitimacy comes from its ability to deliver sustained economic prosperity to the Chinese people. But with a battered economy that was first triggered by a real estate crisis in 2021, this task of maintaining legitimacy has become more difficult.
Exporting its way of out the economic slump may have been on Beijing’s books, as this was one of China’s traditional methods for promoting economic growth. But Trump’s trade war has made this an increasingly difficult prospect, especially to the US which imports 14.8% of total Chinese exports.
As a result, fixing China’s economy has become a priority for the Chinese government, and it is because of this that Xi tours neighbouring Asean countries such as Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia to promote trade and strategic plans to maintain economic stability.
Obstacles for China
Despite everything that China is doing, its image remains a problem, for some. For instance, China has claimed sovereignty over the South China Sea and has built ports, military installations and airstrips on artificial islands across the region, despite territorial disputes with its neighbours including Vietnam, the Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brunei.
But there are other concerns about China. The country’s rapid advancements in military technology, for example, have the potential to destabilise security within the Indo Pacific, potentially allowing China to take control of strategically placed islands to use as bases for its navy. China is also becoming a dominant hacking threat, according to UK cyber expert Richard Horne, which is likely to cause problems for worldwide cybersecurity.
Polish prime minister Donald Tusk once remarked: “With a friend like Trump, who needs enemies?” Many other national leaders are likely to share Tusk’s sentiment today, and may see opportunities to extend trade deals with China as an alternative to a turbulent relationship with Trump.
Chee Meng Tan 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.
Every night, millions of people stop breathing without knowing it. Not once, but sometimes hundreds of times. Their remedy? A mask, a hum and the steady whisper of pressurised air.
It’s not glamorous, but behind the awkward nighttime aesthetics of a Cpap (continuous positive airway pressure) machine lies a remarkable piece of engineering. It doesn’t just help you breathe; it reshapes the way your airway behaves.
So how exactly does Cpap manipulate the body’s anatomy to prevent sleep apnoea? The answer lies in an elegant understanding of pressure, posture and the floppy vulnerability of the human throat.
Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) occurs when the soft tissues of the upper airway – particularly the tongue, soft palate, uvula and pharyngeal walls – collapse during sleep, temporarily blocking airflow. But why does this happen?
The anatomy of the upper airway is uniquely precarious. Unlike the lower airway, which is supported by cartilage rings and rigid structures, the upper airway – specifically the pharynx – is a collapsible tube made up of muscle and mucosa.
It sits behind the tongue and soft palate and serves as a shared pathway for both breathing and swallowing. During wakefulness, muscle tone keeps this space open. But during sleep, especially in the deeper stages, muscle tone decreases.
In people with obstructive sleep apnoea, this reduction allows the soft tissues to sag inward, blocking airflow. Factors such as neck circumference, fat distribution and the shape of the skull and face can all increase this risk.
The result is a repetitive cycle of obstruction, oxygen deprivation and interrupted sleep. It’s a disorder rooted not in the lungs, but in the structure and behaviour of the upper airway. Enter Cpap.
Pneumatic splint
The machine doesn’t breathe for the individual; it acts more like a pneumatic splint. By delivering a constant stream of pressurised air through a mask, Cpap machines increase the pressure inside the upper airway just enough to keep the soft tissues from falling inward.
Picture the airway as a soft-sided tent: without support, it collapses inward. Cpap works like internal tent poles, quietly holding it open from within. Anatomically, this means the base of the tongue, the soft palate and the pharyngeal walls are gently pushed outward, preventing contact and collapse.
Over time, in some users, there may even be mild adaptations in tissue tone and airway behaviour during sleep, although Cpap isn’t a curative device.
The pressure settings are crucial and typically calibrated to each individual. Too low and the airway still collapses. Too high and the person may experience discomfort or aerophagia (swallowing air). But when correctly calibrated, Cpap doesn’t just reduce apnoea events, it can restore the natural stages of sleep, improve blood pressure and dramatically enhance quality of life.
Cpap’s effect isn’t limited to the upper airway; it also influences how the chest muscles work during breathing. By keeping the airway open, it makes it easier to breathe at night, so the breathing muscles – such as the diaphragm and the muscles between the ribs – don’t have to work as hard.
It also stops the repeated drops in oxygen that can trigger the body’s stress response, which is the main reason why untreated sleep apnoea increases the risk of heart problems.
There’s also evidence that long-term Cpap use can reduce swelling and inflammation in the upper airway. However, the benefits of Cpap depend a lot on people using it consistently. Unfortunately, the size and noise of the equipment can make it hard for some people to use it regularly. Despite this, it remains the gold standard treatment, especially for moderate-to-severe sleep apnoea.
For all its noise, Cpap is a quiet triumph of anatomical insight applied to engineering. Instead of surgery or drugs, it uses air – the same substance that betrays the sleeper with every collapse – to reclaim the airway and restore function. It is, in essence, a machine that manipulates the pliability of human anatomy to therapeutic advantage.
It may not be glamorous. But for many, Cpap is nothing short of life-changing – an anatomical nudge toward a safer, deeper and more restful night’s sleep.
Michelle Spear 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.
While the world’s media is largely focused on conflict in the Middle East, the focus for many Australians remains at home, with the government preparing the long task ahead of trying to lift Australia’s productivity.
Last week, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced a productivity roundtable, which will be held in mid-August. Now Treasurer Jim Chalmers has flagged the roundtable will be part of a much more ambitious debate, indicating he’s open to a broad discussion of major tax reform.
In this podcast, Chalmers is frank about his own belief in the importance of seizing the moment – even if “there’s an element of political risk” whenever governments talk about tax reform.
The way I see this is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics.
I can kind of hear that [office] clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it. You know, we’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am, by nature, impatient. I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here. And so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental.
[…] There’s no absence of courage. There is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward. And that’s what I’m seeking, not just in the roundtable, but in the second term of our government.
Chalmers says one of his takeouts from reading Abundance, a new book currently fashionable with progressives, was the need to “get out of our own away” to build more homes and renewable energy, while maintaining high standards.
A lot of regulation is necessary. So we talk about better regulation. But where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course we should seek to do that.
One of the things I’m really pleased I got the cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators and we’re going to say, ‘please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work’ […] We’re not talking about eliminating regulation. We’re talking about making sure that it’s better.
[…] I think renewable energy projects is part of the story here. I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world […] One of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is ‘we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals’.
So if we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals.
On the productivity roundtable, Chalmers wants bold ideas.
We have an open door and an open mind. This is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas that won’t be possible, in other areas, I think it will. And I think we owe it to ourselves to try.
This is a very different discussion to the [2022] Jobs and Skills Summit. Much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room.
We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-off when it comes to what they’re proposing. We’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.
On whether any new major changes – including greater tax reform – would require a fresh mandate, Chalmers wants to wait and see.
I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m sort of reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists […] I think that remains to be seen.
E&OE Transcript
MICHELLE GRATTAN, HOST: Treasurer Jim Chalmers has declared improving Australia’s dismal progress on productivity is at the top of his priorities for Labor’s second term, but addressing the National Press Club on Wednesday, it was clear that his ambitions for economic reform are wide, much wider than we’ve heard from him or from the Prime Minister in the previous term or in the election campaign.
From August 19 to 21, the Government will hold a roundtable to seek ideas for reform from business, unions, civil society and experts. This will be a small gathering held in Parliament House’s Cabinet room.
Notably, Chalmers has invited participants to put forward ideas on tax reform.
The Treasurer is our guest today. Jim Chalmers, before we get to the roundtable, let’s start with the escalating Middle East war. What are the economic implications of this so far, and on one specific issue, what are the implications going to be for oil prices?
JIM CHALMERS, TREASURER: Thanks, Michelle. This is obviously a very perilous part of the world right now, it’s a perilous moment, perilous for the global economy as well.
We’re primarily focused on the human consequences of what’s going on, including around 2,000 people who’ve registered with DFAT to try and get out of the particularly dangerous areas right now, so that’s our focus, but there will be big economic consequences as well, and we’ve already seen in the volatility in the oil price – the barrel price for oil went up between 10 and 11 per cent last Friday when a lot of this flared up, and I think that is an indication of the volatility that this escalating situation in the Middle East is creating in the economy.
I get briefed every day on movements in relevant commodity prices and the like, and there’s a lot of concern, again primarily about the human cost, but there’s a lot of concern around the world about what this means for petrol price inflation and what it means for global growth as well.
GRATTAN: Also on the international scene, are we making any progress on getting concessions on the US tariffs, or will that have to wait for a rescheduled meeting between Donald Trump and Anthony Albanese? There’s now talk, incidentally, of a meeting possibly at NATO next week, although we don’t know whether that will happen or not.
CHALMERS: The Prime Minister’s made it clear that he is considering going to the NATO meeting. By the time people listen to this podcast, it may be that that’s been determined, but whether or not he goes to Europe, we’ve got a lot of different ways and a lot of different opportunities to engage with the Americans on these key questions, and the Prime Minister met with some of the most senior people in the economic institutions of the US overseas – and he met with leaders from Japan and the UK and Germany and Canada and others, so a very worthwhile trip.
We’ll continue to engage wherever we can and whenever we can, because our national economic interest is at stake here. We’ll continue to speak up and stand up for our workers and our businesses to try and make progress on this really key question.
GRATTAN: But no progress yet.
CHALMERS: We’re continuing to engage. We have had discussions at every level, including at my level, and the Prime Minister’s had discussions. Like the whole world right now, people are trying to get a better deal in the aftermath of the announcement of these tariffs; we’re no exception.
We’re better placed and better prepared than most countries to deal with the fallout of what’s happening with these escalating trade tensions, but we are seeking a better deal for our workers and businesses and industries. The Prime Minister’s engagement reflects that, and so does the rest of ours.
GRATTAN: Now, to turn to your productivity roundtable, give us some more details about it, including whether the sessions will be public and will the Premiers be there?
CHALMERS: There are some of those details that we’re still working out. I can’t imagine it will be public in the sense that we’ll have permanent cameras in the Cabinet room, but we don’t intend to be heavy‑handed about it, we’re not seeking people to sign non‑disclosure agreements ‑ I can’t anticipate that we’ll make it kind of Chatham House rules or confidential discussions, but we’re working through all of those issues. When it comes to the states, obviously we want the states involved in one way or another, and we’re working out the best way to do that.
I already engage with the state and territory treasurers at the moment on some of these key questions. I’ll continue to do that, I’ll step that up, and we’ll work out the best way to make sure that the states’ views are represented in the room.
You know how big the Cabinet room is, Michelle, it’s about 25 seats around an oblong table, so we can’t have everybody there, but we will do everything we can to make sure that the relevant views are represented, including the views of the States and Territories.
GRATTAN: When you say you wouldn’t see you having cameras in the Cabinet room, wouldn’t you want some of it to be public, because if it wasn’t, then whoever was telling the story would be putting their slant on it?
CHALMERS: Well, we’ll try and strike the best balance. I think what will happen is, inevitably, people who are participating in the roundtable, indeed people who are providing views but not necessarily in the room, there will be a big flourishing of national policy discussion and debate; that’s a good thing. We’ll try not to restrict that excessively. I just think practically having a kind of live feed out of the Cabinet room is probably not the best way to go about things.
But I’m broadly confident ‑ comfortable, broadly comfortable with people expressing a view outside the room and characterising the discussions inside the room. There may be a convincing reason not to go about it that way, but I’m pretty relaxed about people talking about the discussions.
GRATTAN: In your Press Club speech, you spoke about seeking submissions. Now, would those be submissions before the roundtable?
CHALMERS: Absolutely, but also, we’re trying to work out, in addition to structuring this roundtable – which will be a really important way for us to seek consensus – in addition to that, we’re trying to work out how do we become really good at collecting and taking seriously the views that are put to us by people who are experts in their fields.
Not everybody can be around the Cabinet table. People have well-informed views, and we want to tap them. So we’re working out the best way to open a dedicated Treasury channel, primarily and initially, about feeding views in for the consideration of the roundtable. But if there are ways that we can do that better on an ongoing basis, we’re going to look at that too.
GRATTAN: What do you say to those in business who came out of the 2022 Jobs and Skills Summit rather cynical thinking, really, they’d been had, frankly, that this was basically a meeting to legitimise the Government giving what it wanted to to the unions?
CHALMERS: I’ve heard that view, but I don’t share it. I’ve taken the opportunity in recent days to look again at the sorts of things we progressed out of the Jobs and Skills Summit, it was much, much broader than a narrow focus on industrial relations. So I take that view seriously, but I don’t share it.
And my commitment, I gave this at the Press Club, and I will give this commitment every day between now and the roundtable if that’s necessary, we have an open door and an open mind, this is a genuine attempt to see where we can find some common ground. In some areas, that won’t be possible, in other areas I think it will, and I think we owe it to ourselves to try.
This is a very different discussion to the Jobs and Skills Summit, much smaller, much more targeted, a bigger onus on people in the room to build consensus outside of the room. We’re specifically asking people to consider the trade-offs, including the fiscal trade-offs. When it comes to what they’re proposing, we’re asking them to take a nationwide, economy-wide view, not a sectoral view about their own interests.
Let’s see how we go. We are approaching it in that fashion, a different discussion to Jobs and Skills, and we want to give ourselves every chance to progress out of that discussion with something meaningful.
GRATTAN: You say you accept the need for tax reform. This is really a big statement from you, and it is a change of emphasis from last term. Up to now, you’ve resisted any suggestion of undertaking comprehensive reform of the taxation system. So, where do you actually stand now? Are you looking for ideas for incremental change, or are you looking for something that’s really bold?
CHALMERS: First of all, I do accept that the economic reform, and particularly the tax reform we’ve engaged in so far, it has been sequenced, it has been methodical – but it’s also been, I think, more substantial than a lot of the commentary allows, about half a dozen ways we’re reforming the tax system, and I’m proud of the progress that we’ve made.
When it comes to the roundtable, the point I’ve made about tax, the thing I welcome about the roundtable is it’s not possible to think about and talk about productivity, budget sustainability and resilience amidst global volatility without allowing or encouraging, welcoming a conversation about tax. So that’s the approach I’m taking to it.
What I’m trying to do, and we’ll see how successful we can be at doing this over the course of the next couple of months, but what I’m trying to do is to not pre‑empt that discussion, I’m trying not to artificially limit that discussion about tax, and that’s because I know that people have well‑intentioned, well‑informed views about tax reform; let’s hear them.
GRATTAN: But you do seem open, from what you said, to a possible switch in the tax mix between direct and indirect.
CHALMERS: I think that will be one of the considerations that people raise at the roundtable, and I think it would be unusual to discourage that two months out. Let’s see what people want to propose. You know, I think that’s an indication of my willingness, the Prime Minister’s willingness, the Government’s, to hear people out.
And we broadly, whether it’s in tax and budget, whether it’s in productivity, resilience – I don’t want to spend too much at this roundtable with problem ID, I want to go from problem ID to ideas. That’s because we’ve had really for a long time now – probably as long as you and I have known each other, Michelle – we’ve had a lot of reports about tax, and important ones. I think the time now is to work out where are their common interests, where does the common ground exist, if it exists, on tax, and to see what we can progress together, and that requires on my part an open mind, and that’s what I’ve tried to bring to it.
GRATTAN: Of course, your former Treasury Secretary, who’s now the Prime Minister’s right-hand man as head of the Prime Minister’s department, I think has made speeches pointing out that you really do need such a switch.
CHALMERS: Yeah, and Steven Kennedy’s a very influential person in the Government. I’m delighted – we’ve been joking behind closed doors about Steven being demoted to PM&C from Treasury, but the reality is it’s amazing, it’s the best of all worlds from our point of view to have Kennedy at PM&C and Wilkinson at Treasury. That’s an amazing outcome for anyone who cares about economic reform and responsible economic management, a wonderful outcome.
Steven has made a number of comments in the past about the tax system, probably Jenny has as well. They are very informed, very considered, big thinkers when it comes to economic reform, and we’re going to tap their experience, their interest and their intellect.
GRATTAN: Well, he can now get into the Prime Minister’s ear on this matter. The other thing on tax, you did seem to wobble a bit on changing the GST; you’ve been pretty against that. I guess you left the impression at the Press Club that basically you were still probably against, but you did seem a bit more open-minded than usual.
CHALMERS: What I’m trying to do there, Michelle, and I’m pleased you asked me, because I think that was a bit of a test, a bit of an example of what I talk about in the speech, which is that obviously there are some things that governments, sensible, middle of the road, centrist governments like ours don’t consider – we don’t consider inheritance taxes, we don’t consider changing the arrangements for the family home, those sorts of things.
But what I’ve tried to do and what I tried to say in the speech is if we spend all of our time ruling things in or ruling things out, I think that has a corrosive impact on the nature of our national policy debate, and I don’t want to artificially limit the things that people bring to the roundtable discussion.
I was asked about the GST – you know that I’ve, for a decade or more, had a view about the GST. I repeated that view at the Press Club because I thought that was the honest thing to do, but what I’m going to genuinely try and do, whether it’s in this policy area or in other policy areas, is to not limit what people might bring to the table.
And so that’s what you described as a wobble, I think that really just reflects what I’m trying to do here is to not deny what I have said about these things in the past, but to try and give people the ability to raise whatever they would like at the roundtable. I suspect there will be other occasions like that, other opportunities like that between now and the roundtable where I’ll do the same thing. I’ll repeat what I’ve said, I won’t walk away from it, I haven’t changed my view on the GST. I suspect people will bring views to the roundtable about the GST. Let’s hear them.
GRATTAN: Well, of course, the GST can be a bit like a wild dog when it’s let off the leash. You’ll remember when Malcolm Turnbull let Scott Morrison as Treasurer float the idea of changing the GST, and that didn’t end well.
CHALMERS: No, I think I can recall a fascinating part of Malcolm’s book about that, if memory serves, or perhaps something else that he said or wrote subsequently. I’m obviously aware of that history, you know, and there’s ‑ let’s be upfront with each other, Michelle, when you do what I did at the Press Club today and say bring us your ideas and let’s see where there’s some common ground, there’s an element of political risk to that.
There’s a lot of history tied up in a lot of these questions, as you rightly point out in this instance, and I guess I’m demonstrating, or I’m trying to demonstrate, a willingness to hear people out, and there will be people who write about that in a way that tries to diminish this conversation that we’re setting up. That will happen. I’m open to that, relaxed about that, but let’s see what people think about our economy, about productivity, sustainability, tax, resilience, and let’s see if we can’t get around some good ideas that come out of that discussion.
GRATTAN: Which tempts me to ask, will Ken Henry be on your guest list of the famous Henry review?
CHALMERS: I think some people were surprised to see Ken there today at the National Press Club. Ken was there at the Press Club, and I think I said in the question and answer, if memory serves, and I hope it’s okay with Ken that I said this, but we’ve been engaging on drafts of the speech – we talk about some of the big issues in the Press Club speech I gave today.
I’m not sure about the final invite list. Once you start putting together a list of about 25 people, you’ve got some ministerial colleagues, you’ve got peak organisations, including the ACTU, Sally McManus will be there, maybe a community organisation, someone representing the community, some experts. Before long, it’s very easy to hit 25 people.
You’ve planned a few dinner parties in your time, Michelle, and an invite list of 25 people fills up pretty quick. We haven’t finalised that yet, but whether we invite Ken or Ken’s outside the room, he’s one of a number of people that I speak to about these big policy challenges, and regardless, I hope that he’s okay with us continuing to tap his brain.
GRATTAN: Maybe you need to adopt a sort of restaurant approach of rotational sittings.
CHALMERS: Yeah, well! –
GRATTAN: Now, I know you said today that you don’t like gotcha questions and gave us a bit of a lecture ‑‑
CHALMERS: This doesn’t sound like a good introduction, Michelle.
GRATTAN: ‑‑ about that, but your controversial tax on capital gains on superannuation balances that are very big, critics worry that this could in fact be the thin end of the wedge extending to other areas of the tax system. Would you care to rule that out?
CHALMERS: I think I said today, and I’m happy to repeat with you, Michelle, that we haven’t changed our approach here. We’ve got a policy that we announced almost two and a half years ago now, and we intend to proceed with it.
What we’re looking for here is not an opportunity at the roundtable to cancel policies that we’ve got a mandate for; we’re looking for the next round of ideas.
Now again, a bit like some of the other things we’ve been talking about, I suspect people will come either to the roundtable itself or to the big discussion that surrounds it with very strong views, and not unanimous views about superannuation. We read in a couple of our newspapers on an almost daily basis that people have got strong views about the superannuation changes, and not the identical same views, and so I suspect that will continue.
But our priority is to pass the changes that we announced, really some time ago, that we’ve taken to an election now, and that’s how we intend to proceed.
GRATTAN: So, you’re open to considering other views?
CHALMERS: On that particular issue, I think we have a pretty good sense of people’s views. I mean there’s ‑ I don’t pretend for a second that there’s unanimous support for it.
GRATTAN: I mean, extending it to other areas.
CHALMERS: No, I mean that’s not something we’ve been contemplating even for a second, and we haven’t done any work on that, we haven’t had a discussion about that, that’s not our intention.
But more broadly, when it comes to the system, I suspect people will have views about that at the roundtable – but thanks for the opportunity to clarify, we’re not planning for or strategising for extending that in additional ways.
GRATTAN: Now, artificial intelligence is obviously being seen as the next big productivity enhancer when you’re talking about the big things, but it’s also going to cost jobs, and that will exercise the unions.
Your Industry Minister Tim Ayres, has emphasised the unions have a role in this transition, must be consulted, brought into it, but you’ve said that while regulation will matter, and I quote, “We are overwhelmingly focused on capabilities and opportunities, not just guardrails. The emphasis here is different”. Do you see this as being a bit like the tariff reforms in the Hawke/Keating time, when there were big gains to be made but there were also very significant losers, and how do you deal with that situation?
CHALMERS: First of all, I think unions do have a place and a role to play in this. I can’t imagine meaningful progress on AI or technology more broadly where we wouldn’t include unions and workers in that conversation. That wouldn’t be consistent with our approach, and it wouldn’t make a lot of sense, so I share Tim’s view on that. I work closely with Tim Ayres and also Andrew Charlton, who will have a key role in some of these policy questions.
The point that I was making was it’s not a choice between regulation or capability, it’s not an either/or. Obviously we need guardrails, obviously we need regulation, but from my point of view, I see this as a game‑changer in our economy, I see it as one of the big ways that will make our economy more productive and lift living standards.
It’s not all downside for workers either – we’re talking about augmenting jobs, we’re talking about some of the routine tasks that are not the most satisfying parts of people’s work, so of course we want to include the union movement, of course we want to make sure that we’ve got appropriate guardrails.
The point that I was making in that interview with the Financial Review which you’re quoting from is that we need to get our capabilities right, we need the right skills base, I think we’ve got a huge opportunity with data centres and the infrastructure that supports artificial intelligence, and so that is a big part of the focus of our work. When it comes to productivity, when it comes to growth more broadly, industry policy, our work with the Productivity Commission, data and digital, AI, data centres, all of that I think are going to be key parts of the future economy in Australia.
GRATTAN: The last time we spoke on this podcast, you said you’d been reading the book Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, and you described it as a ripper. Now I think you’re making all your Cabinet colleagues read it too, and I’m not sure whether they thank you for that, but there it goes.
What are some of the ideas in the book that attracted you, and in particular, do you agree with the thesis that red tape is holding us back, particularly when it comes to housing and renewable energy and the transition to renewables?
CHALMERS: First of all ‑ we should be on a commission for this book, I think, from Andrew Leigh through a whole bunch of colleagues ‑ a lot of us have either read it or are in the process of reading it.
The reason that we are attracted to it is because it really is about working out as progressive people who care deeply about building more homes, rolling out more renewable energy, to make sure that the way we regulate that and approach that doesn’t get in our own way, that we don’t make it harder for us to achieve our big economic goals in the energy transformation; in housing and technology and all of these sorts of things.
What the Abundance book reminds us to do, and I think in a really timely and really punchy way, is it says, “As progressive people, let’s get out of our own way”. A lot of regulation is necessary, so we talk about better regulation, but where we can reduce compliance costs and where we can wind back some of this red tape in ways that doesn’t compromise standards, of course, we should seek to do that.
One of the things I’m really pleased I got the Cabinet to agree to earlier this week is we’re going to approach all of the regulators, and we’re going to say, “Please tell us where you think we can cut back on regulation and compliance costs in a way that doesn’t jeopardise your work”. I suspect from that, maybe not from every regulator, but from some of the regulators, I think if we are genuine about it, I think we can make some progress there to get compliance costs down, to speed up approvals so that we can deliver the things that we truly value as an economy but also as a society, and that’s what the Abundance book’s about.
GRATTAN: Of course, one of the problems is, while this sounds very good, a lot of stakeholders say we need more regulation of this or that, we need to protect flora, fauna, climate, whatever.
CHALMERS: Yeah, of course we do.
GRATTAN: And that all gets in the way of clearing away red tape, doesn’t it?
CHALMERS: We’re not talking about eliminating regulation, we are talking about making sure that it’s better, that we can use regulation in the service of our social and environmental and economic goals, but to make sure that we’re not overdoing it, that it’s not unnecessary, that it doesn’t prevent us achieving our aspirations and our objectives, including in the environment.
I think renewable energy projects are part of the story here, and I speak to a lot of international investors, there’s a big global contest and scramble for capital in the world. People are rethinking their investments, and there’s a lot of interest in Australia, and one of the things that international investors say to us about Australia is we don’t want to spend too long burning cash while we wait for approvals from multiple levels of government and other sorts of approvals.
If we can speed some of that up, if we can make sure it makes sense, if our regulation is better, then I think we give ourselves more of a chance of achieving our economic goals, but also our social and environmental goals as well.
GRATTAN: Another of your priorities is budget sustainability, and you say the Government’s made progress, but there’s a way to go. So, where are you going now? Do you need to make big savings in what areas, or are you really having to look at the revenue side more?
CHALMERS: I think there’s this kind of strange binary analysis of the budget situation. Some people say it doesn’t matter, some people say it’s beyond repair, and obviously, like a lot of things in politics and policy, the truth lies somewhere in between.
We’ve made a heap of progress on the budget; two surpluses, biggest ever nominal turnaround in the budget, we got the debt down, got the interest costs down. But what I acknowledge and what I will continue to acknowledge is there’s always more work to do to make it more sustainable.
For us, we made a heap of progress on aged care, the NDIS and interest costs, but we need to make sure that even when we think about the policy ideas that people bring to us at the roundtable, budget sustainability really matters. Where we do find something that we want to invest more in, we’ve got to consider the trade-offs, we’ve got to work out how to pay for things.
There’s probably not a day, certainly not a week that goes by where Katy Gallagher and I aren’t in one way or another engaging with colleagues on some of these structural pressures on the budget, because they do matter.
GRATTAN: Well, one, of course, is defence spending, and I was interested that you did in your remarks to the Press Club seem, while cautious, while saying, “We’re spending a lot on defence”, you seemed open to the idea that over the next decade governments will have to increase defence spending.
CHALMERS: I think the point I was trying to make there, Michelle, was it would be strange over a period of 10 years if there were no changes to any policy or levels of spending. But the thing that’s not, I think, sufficiently acknowledged is we’ve already quite dramatically increased defence spending, and you know, it’s not easy to find the extra $11 billion we found over the forward estimates, or the almost $58 billion I think we found over the decade.
We are dramatically increasing our defence spending. I acknowledge and accept and respect that some people, including some of our partners, want us to spend more on defence, but we are already spending a heap more on defence, and we’ve had to find room for that in the budget, and that’s what we’ve done.
GRATTAN: So we should be up for that conversation, as Richard Marles would say?
CHALMERS: I think what Richard’s saying, to be fair to him, is that we are more or less continuously engaging with our partners about things like defence spending, and when it comes to the Americans, they’ve made it clear around the world that they want people to spend more on defence. That’s not an unreasonable position for the Americans to put to us. We decide our level of defence spending, and we have decided collectively as a government to dramatically increase it.
GRATTAN: As Treasurer, you’re the gatekeeper for foreign investment decisions, big decisions, and there’s a takeover bid at the moment from Abu Dhabi’s national oil company for Santos. Can you give us some idea of the process, the timetable, when you would make a decision if the matter comes to you?
CHALMERS: This is a really big transaction potentially, and it raises – there are a lot of considerations around the national interest, it’s in a sensitive part of our economy for all of the obvious reasons.
What usually happens with a transaction of this magnitude, tens of billions of dollars, is it goes through a number of stages. One of those stages is a Foreign Investment Review Board process where I’ve got a heap of terrific colleagues in the Treasury who advise me on these things. What I try to do is to make sure that I refrain from commenting on these sorts of deals before I’ve got that Foreign Investment Review Board advice. I take that advice very seriously, and that means not pre‑empting it.
I know that there will be a heap of views, a heap of interest, I do acknowledge it’s a very big transaction which involves a really key sensitive part of our economy, and I’ll do what I always do with these big FIRB approval processes, which is to engage in it in a really methodical and considered way.
That will roll out over the course of the next few months. The last time I asked, which I think was yesterday, we hadn’t ‑ the FIRB hadn’t had a chance to go through or hadn’t received yet the Foreign Investment Review Board proposal. That may have changed since then, but regardless, these things take a little bit of time.
GRATTAN: Before we finish, let’s come back to productivity. You’ve said the work will take more than a term. So just give us a snapshot of where you would want to be at the end of say three years, six years.
CHALMERS: Yeah. The point I’m making there, when it comes to productivity is, unlike some of the other really important measures in our economy, there’s no instant gratification. It’s very hard to flick a switch and get an immediate, substantial, meaningful shift in the data.
The point that I’ve made is that we’re enthusiastic and very committed, very dedicated to doing meaningful things on productivity, but even those things can sometimes take a while to play out in the data, so I’m just really trying to say to people, this is important, it will pay off, some of it will pay off in the medium term and the longer term, but that shouldn’t deter us, the fact that some of these challenges take a little bit longer to fix.
Now, if there was a switch that you could flick to make our economy instantly more productive, somebody would have flicked it already. Unfortunately, there’s not, and so we’re left in a world where we have to do a lot of things at once, and some of those things will take a little while to pay off.
GRATTAN: Can you set any sort of target in terms of growth, annual growth? –
CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that.
GRATTAN: – productivity growth.
CHALMERS: I’m reluctant to do that. The budget assumes a level of productivity growth, which is higher than what we are currently seeing, so it wouldn’t be a bad start to try and get closer to the forecast. But I’m reluctant to put a target on it.
GRATTAN: And that forecast is?
CHALMERS: The Treasury changed it to 1.2 per cent, and we’re currently tracking a bit lower than that on the current 20-year average, and so we need to do better. I tried to be quite blunt about that at the Press Club. Our economy is growing, but it’s not productive enough, our budget is stronger, but it’s not sustainable enough, our economy is resilient, but not resilient enough. And this is my way of saying to people, we’ve made a lot of progress together, but we’ve got a further ‑ we’ve got more to do, and productivity is our primary focus in that regard, but not our only focus.
GRATTAN: For really big changes, say for tax changes, do you think you need another mandate or not?
CHALMERS: I think it depends on the nature of the change. I’m reluctant to think about sequencing and timing and mandates before we’ve got everybody’s ideas on the table and worked out where the consensus and common ground exists, and so I don’t like to be evasive with a good question like that, Michelle, but I think that remains to be seen. It will be to be determined once we get a firmer sense of the way forward.
GRATTAN: Just finally, you sounded in your speech rather like a man who’s been liberated since the election. Has your attitude changed? Do you think it’s just time to go for it?
CHALMERS: The way I see this, Michelle, is that I become very wary of people who say, because of the magnitude of our majority, that we will get another term. There are, as you know, few such assurances in politics, particularly in modern politics, and so I can kind of hear that clock ticking behind us, and I want to get on with it.
We’ve got a big job to do to deliver the big, substantial, ambitious agenda that we’ve already determined and taken to an election. But I am by nature impatient, I think the country has an opportunity to be ambitious here, and so if you’re detecting that in my language, that’s probably not accidental. I think we know what the challenges are, we know what people’s views are broadly, there’s no absence of courage, there is an absence of consensus, and it’s consensus that we need to move forward, and that’s what I’m seeking not just in the roundtable, but in this second term of our Government.
GRATTAN: Jim Chalmers, it’s going to be an interesting few months, and thank you for talking with us today. That’s all for today’s podcast. Thank you to my producer, Ben Roper. We’ll be back with another interview soon, but good‑bye for now.
Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Headline: Rosneft Volunteers Clean Up Over 140,000 m² of the Volga River Shoreline
As part of Volga Day, employees of Rosneft enterprises held a large-scale environmental event in Samara and Saratov. Volunteers cleaned more than 140,000 square metres of shoreline along Russia’s great river, removing 50 cubic metres of household waste and debris carried by the current.
During the campaign, employees from the Samaraneftegaz, Kuibyshev, Novokuibyshevsk and Saratov refineries, the Novokuibyshevsk Petrochemical Company and the Novokuibyshevsk Oils and Additives Plant also landscaped coastal areas in the recreational zones of Samara and Saratov.
Environmental volunteering forms an integral part of the corporate culture of Rosneft’s subsidiaries. The Samara group of enterprises has been running volunteer campaigns for several years to collect plastic lids, waste paper and batteries and other environmental initiatives.
Water conservation is an important part of the Company’s environmental work. The Company’s subsidiaries pay great attention to measures aimed at improving wastewater treatment efficiency, developing a recycled water supply system and the rational utilisation and restoration of water resources.
Samaraneftegaz is implementing a comprehensive programme to conserve natural resources. To maintain reservoir pressure, the enterprise has stopped taking water from surface water bodies completely, and now only uses recycled water in production.
The Kuibyshev Refinery is carrying out projects to modernise its production facilities, including its treatment facilities. The share of recycled water in the enterprise’s water supply reached 91.5% by 2024 due to the reconstruction of recycled water supply units, water intake and water pipelines.
Over the past five years, the Novokuibyshevsk Refinery has reduced its wastewater volume by 45%. The refinery has increased its utilisation of recycled water to 96% and reduced its intake of river water by 10.6% thanks to the operation of a membrane bioreactor at the treatment facilities throughout the year.
The Saratov Refinery has also been working hard to reduce its water consumption. Over the past five years, it has reduced its intake of natural water by 57.3%. The Syzran Refinery is reducing its intake of water from natural sources for production purposes. The proportion of recycled water used by the enterprise was 95.6% at the end of 2024. The construction and commissioning of recycled water supply units at the Novokuibyshevsk Oils and Additives Plant increased the proportion of recycled water supplied to 95%.
Rosneft’s subsidiaries are working systematically to replenish the Volga basin’s aquatic bioresources. In 2024, the Company released more than 430,000 fish fry, including the valuable sterlet species, into the Volga.
The effectiveness of the environmental policy of Rosneft’s enterprises in Volga Federal District has been repeatedly recognized at regional and national competitions. Enterprises have won the «Leader of Environmental Protection in Russia» competition many times over the years.
Department of Information and Advertising Rosneft May 23, 2025
Headline: Rosneft Volunteers Clean Up Over 140,000 m² of the Volga River Shoreline
As part of Volga Day, employees of Rosneft enterprises held a large-scale environmental event in Samara and Saratov. Volunteers cleaned more than 140,000 square metres of shoreline along Russia’s great river, removing 50 cubic metres of household waste and debris carried by the current.
During the campaign, employees from the Samaraneftegaz, Kuibyshev, Novokuibyshevsk and Saratov refineries, the Novokuibyshevsk Petrochemical Company and the Novokuibyshevsk Oils and Additives Plant also landscaped coastal areas in the recreational zones of Samara and Saratov.
Environmental volunteering forms an integral part of the corporate culture of Rosneft’s subsidiaries. The Samara group of enterprises has been running volunteer campaigns for several years to collect plastic lids, waste paper and batteries and other environmental initiatives.
Water conservation is an important part of the Company’s environmental work. The Company’s subsidiaries pay great attention to measures aimed at improving wastewater treatment efficiency, developing a recycled water supply system and the rational utilisation and restoration of water resources.
Samaraneftegaz is implementing a comprehensive programme to conserve natural resources. To maintain reservoir pressure, the enterprise has stopped taking water from surface water bodies completely, and now only uses recycled water in production.
The Kuibyshev Refinery is carrying out projects to modernise its production facilities, including its treatment facilities. The share of recycled water in the enterprise’s water supply reached 91.5% by 2024 due to the reconstruction of recycled water supply units, water intake and water pipelines.
Over the past five years, the Novokuibyshevsk Refinery has reduced its wastewater volume by 45%. The refinery has increased its utilisation of recycled water to 96% and reduced its intake of river water by 10.6% thanks to the operation of a membrane bioreactor at the treatment facilities throughout the year.
The Saratov Refinery has also been working hard to reduce its water consumption. Over the past five years, it has reduced its intake of natural water by 57.3%. The Syzran Refinery is reducing its intake of water from natural sources for production purposes. The proportion of recycled water used by the enterprise was 95.6% at the end of 2024. The construction and commissioning of recycled water supply units at the Novokuibyshevsk Oils and Additives Plant increased the proportion of recycled water supplied to 95%.
Rosneft’s subsidiaries are working systematically to replenish the Volga basin’s aquatic bioresources. In 2024, the Company released more than 430,000 fish fry, including the valuable sterlet species, into the Volga.
The effectiveness of the environmental policy of Rosneft’s enterprises in Volga Federal District has been repeatedly recognized at regional and national competitions. Enterprises have won the «Leader of Environmental Protection in Russia» competition many times over the years.
Department of Information and Advertising Rosneft May 23, 2025
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
Food irradiation is an innovative, gentle, and non-invasive technique that uses radiation to keep food fresh and safe to eat. It inactivates harmful microorganisms like salmonella, e.coli and listeria, reducing the risk of foodborne illnesses.
Food irradiation extends shelf life of food, reduce food losses and waste, and ensures that consumers have access to fresh, safe products. In Viet Nam, for example, irradiation has enabled the country to boost its food exports, prevent the spread of transboundary pests and eliminate microbes that could spoil food. These efforts are supported by the IAEA through its Joint FAO/IAEA Centre.
“Food irradiation is under utilized, but we are working to raise its profile as the benefits it provides will serve consumers and producers and help meet many food safety issues,” said Carl Blackburn, an expert in food irradiation at the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre. “With continued collaboration, support and capacity building, countries around the world are strengthening their approach to using ionizing radiation — and promoting the technology to ensure that consumers can have confidence in what’s on their plates.”
The IAEA, through the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre, will continue to support food safety and quality and forge partnerships under the Atoms4Food initiative, which aims to leverage innovative nuclear techniques to enhance agricultural productivity, reduce food losses and wastes, ensure food safety and improve nutrition.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
A systematic review published in the Journal for the American Heart Association looks at ocean microplastic pollution and the risk of cardiometabolic disease in US coastline counties.
Prof Oliver Jones, Professor of Chemistry, RMIT University, said:
“I fear this paper will lead to more “plastics cause scary disease X” headlines, but, to my mind, the evidence in this paper is quite weak.
“Firstly, the authors don’t claim that microplastics cause disease, but rather that they found an association between microplastic exposure and type 2 diabetes (T2D), coronary artery disease (CAD), and stroke. An association between two things does not necessarily mean that one caused the other; it is simply an observation. There is also a large amount of overlap in the datasets, even between the very low and very high exposure scenarios, and the authors clearly state in the paper that their “results do not imply causation”.
“Perhaps more importantly, the authors didn’t measure either microplastic exposure or the health factors they studied directly; both were estimates. Microplastic concentrations were estimated from ocean measurements, some of which were taken up to 230 miles offshore and thus may not accurately represent what coastal communities are exposed to. The rates of disease occurrence were estimated from county-level survey data, which does not provide data on individuals. Potential cofounders were limited to those listed in the survey data, meaning some potentially confounding factors could not be controlled for.
“The authors all appear to be medics, rather than chemists or environmental scientists. The paper makes a lot of incorrect generalisations about microplastics, for example, referring to “microplastic compounds like phthalates”. Phthalates are not microplastics, and not all phthalates are the same. They claim that bisphenol A and phthalates promote adverse health outcomes through their endocrine-disrupting properties, which is incorrect. The paper also refers to toxicity studies on polystyrene particles, neglecting the fact that polystyrene is far from the most common type of plastic in the environment.
“So, while the work raises interesting research questions, I do not think the evidence of harm is strong, and people living near the coast don’t need to panic”
Dr Ria Devereux, Environmental Research Fellow, the Sustainable Research Institute, the University of East London, said:
Does the press release accurately reflect the science?
“It is important to note that this research focuses solely on the United States, particularly its coastal counties, and specifically examines marine microplastics. It does not consider other types of microplastics, such as those found in marine sediment, beach sediment, atmospheric microplastics, or microplastics in soil. The title, “Living near an ocean polluted by microplastics may increase cardiometabolic disease risk,” could give the incorrect impression that these findings apply globally, which is not justified by this data.
“Both sizes of plastic particles come from the chemical breakdown (decomposition) of larger plastic waste, including food packaging (like single-use water bottles), synthetic fabrics and personal care products.” This statement is also slightly incorrect. Microplastics can also be found in the form primary microplastics (nurdles) which are made to be a particular size and are not the result of degradation. Plastics are also subjected to mechanical, biological degradation as well as chemical.
Is this good quality research? Are the conclusions backed up by solid data?
“It is very interesting research which does need further research to investigate some of the limitations of the study conducted. One major limitation that is not addressed is that microplastics contain chemicals which have been found to be harmful to human health. There is no mention in this study regarding data on water quality. For example, is there a higher abundance of chemicals found within plastics in the water surrounding these coastal communities which may be a contributing factor.
How does this work fit with the existing evidence?
“The production of plastic and its associated pollution are increasingly recognized for their potential implications on human health. Research conducted on wildlife has demonstrated severe consequences, including choking hazards and hormonal disruptions.
“Recent studies have identified plastics in various human tissues, including the placenta [1],breastmilk [2] and stool [3].
“In addition to the presence of microplastics in the human body, chemicals commonly used in plastic production have been found to pose health risks. Research indicates that exposure to these chemicals can lead to various health issues, including skin irritation, respiratory diseases, hormonal disruptions, and certain cancers [4].
Have the authors accounted for confounders? Are there important limitations to be aware of?
“The dataset from NOAA presents several limitations. It does not account for when the samples were collected—such as during storms—or the duration of the sampling periods. Additionally, there may be a lack of studies in many coastal counties. For instance, most samples from the Gulf of Mexico are concentrated around Tampa and the southern region of Florida, with only two data points near New Orleans. While the authors briefly mention this issue in relation to the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, they do not address it for the Gulf of Mexico. They note that “study design, spatial coverage, and oceanic transport dynamics” may contribute to differences observed in previous studies.
“The authors also acknowledge that theabsence of data on the types of microplastics—such as fragments and fibers—constitutes a limitation. However, this statement should also include the lack of information regarding polymer types and plastic sizes.
“Additionally, it would be relevant to consider how many people in these coastal areas consume seafood and whether it is locally sourced or imported.
“As for the timeframe investigated, How long must someone live near the coast for it potentially to impact their health?
“Regarding groundwater, the authors mention that only “35% of drinking water in the United States is supplied by groundwater.” Is the proportion of coastal residents who drink groundwater higher than that of individuals living in other parts of America?
“Perhaps the most critical issue that the authors have not fully addressed is that almost all plastic production plants in the United States, which are involved in petrochemical and petroleum manufacturing, are located either in coastal counties along the Gulf of Mexico or on the Atlantic Ocean side (according to the Plastics Inventory Map [5]). This study indicates that cases of heart disease and similar health issues are higher in these areas. Many chemicals used in plastic production, such as BPA and phthalates, have been previously linked to these health problems [6]
What are the implications in the real world? Is there any over-speculation?
“This study highlights the need for further investigation into the health impacts of plastics on human well-being throughout their entire lifecycle. While this research primarily focuses on marine microplastics, it is essential to recognize that microplastics are also present in soil, air, and water. Additionally, it is important to understand that the risks associated with plastic do not stop at ingestion or inhalation, the entire lifecycle of plastic poses threats to public health. This includes hazards linked to petroleum extraction, the use of chemicals in production, and the leaching of these substances into our environment during manufacturing and disposal.
“It is important to note that this study cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between ocean microplastic levels (which were assessed only in water, not in sediment or fish) and the development of certain diseases due to its limitations in data and design. Further research is needed to determine whether microplastics and associated chemicals are present in higher concentrations near coastlines in soil, water, and air, as well as within the human body, to fully evaluate the potential health implications of living closer to the coast. Additionally, this study should be expanded to explore whether this trend is observed worldwide.
“Unfortunately, many individuals around the globe view plastic pollution solely as an environmental issue, overlooking its potential implications for human health. Studies like this one play a crucial role in raising awareness of these risks.
Extra commentary from Dr Ria Devereux on wider context
“The adverse effects of chemicals used in plastic production are particularly pronounced in the Gulf of Mexico, an area often referred to as “Cancer Alley.” This region experiences a higher-than-average incidence of cancer, diabetes, and respiratory diseases, which are concentrated in particular areas. The reason behind this is the concentration of petrochemical, petroleum and production plants involved in plastic production and an increase in the presence of chemicals used within the plastic production such as BPA and Phthalates [7,8].
“Although the Plastics Treaty acknowledges that human health is a critical factor in regulating plastic production and the associated chemicals, reports indicate that “chemicals of concern in plastic products” are at threat of being excluded from the current treaty text [9,10,11].
“In regards to America, we may find in the future that this types of disparity in human health and microplastics become worse due to Trumps “America first” narrative on top of increasing tariffs which will cause an increase in the plastics industry to align with the needs of the consumer and manufacturers. On top of this Trump has bought plastic straws back to America [12] and has started to dismantle key government institutions such as NOAA ( The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration)[13] and the Environmental Protection Agency [14] which will push back Americas efforts to reduce plastic waste.”
‘Marine Microplastic Levels and the Prevalence of Cardiometabolic Diseases in US Coastline Counties’byMakwanaet al.will be published in Journal for the American Heart Association at 10:00UK time on Wednesday 18th June.
DOI:10.1161/JAHA.124.039891
Declared interests
Dr Ria Devereux None
Prof Oliver Jones “I am a Professor of Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. I conduct research into environmental pollution and its effects on biological systems. I don’t have any conflicts of interest to declare.”
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi
(As prepared for delivery)
I thank the President of the Security Council for allowing me the opportunity to update you on the IAEA’s activities concerning nuclear safety, security and safeguards in Ukraine. I also thank the Council for their continuing support of the IAEA’s efforts.
It has been more than two years since the war began, the first ever to be fought amid the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
The IAEA has been monitoring the situation closely and assisting Ukraine every day since the start of the war. IAEA staff are continuously present, monitoring the situation at all five of Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, including at Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant, which remains under Russian operational control.
Today my statement will focus on the recent grave violations of the five concrete principles that I first established in this very chamber on 30 May. These five concrete principles are there to prevent a nuclear accident and to maintain the integrity of the Zaporizhzhya NPP. Let me remind them what they are:
There should be no attack of any kind from or against the plant, in particular targeting the reactors, spent fuel storage, other critical infrastructure, or personnel;
ZNPP should not be used as storage or a base for heavy weapons (i.e. multiple rocket launchers, artillery systems and munitions, and tanks) or military personnel that could be used for an attack from the plant;
Off-site power to the plant should not be put at risk. To that effect, all efforts should be made to ensure off-site power remains available and secure at all times;
All structures, systems and components essential to the safe and secure operation of ZNPP should be protected from attacks or acts of sabotage;
No action should be taken that undermines these principles.
On 30 May last year I said here that observing these principles was essential to avoid the danger of a catastrophic nuclear incident and that I had respectfully and solemnly asked both sides to commit to them.
At our meeting last May distinguished Members of the Security Council and Ukraine clearly supported those principles.
Nevertheless, Madame President, over the past ten days, the first of these principles has been violated repeatedly in what marks a step-change increase in risk to nuclear safety and security at Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant.
On Sunday, 7 April, the International Support and Assistance Mission to ZNPP (ISAMZ) confirmed the first attacks since November 2022 to directly target ZNPP.
The ISAMZ team was able to inspect the location of one direct strike at the apex of the containment dome of the Unit 6 reactor building. Whilst the damage to the structure is superficial, the attack sets a very dangerous precedent of the successful targeting of the reactor containment.
The other two attacks were in close proximity to the main reactor buildings and resulted in at least one casualty.
Agency experts at the site have been informed by ZNPP of a drone strike against the site’s oxygen and nitrogen production facility; two attacks on the training centre located just outside the site perimeter and reports of a drone shot down above the turbine hall of Unit 6.
These reckless attacks must cease immediately. Though, fortunately, they have not led to a radiological incident this time, they significantly increase the risk at Zaporizhzhya NPP, where nuclear safety is already compromised.
I am not only concerned about the attacks themselves, but also the context in which they have occurred. For several months before these direct attacks there had already been an increase in isolated drone incursions in the vicinity of the facility and in the nearby town of Energodar.
In other areas of nuclear safety degradation, the plant is currently relying on just two lines of external power. There have been at least four occasions in the past year when the plant has had only one line of external power supply, with the precarity lasting for periods of up to four months.
Let me put it plainly. Two years of war are weighing heavily on nuclear safety at Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant. Every one of the IAEA’s 7 pillars of nuclear safety and security have been compromised. We cannot sit by and watch as the final weight tips the finely balanced scale.
Even though the plant’s six reactors are now in cold shutdown, with the final unit shifting into that status two days ago following the IAEA’s recommendation, the potential dangers of a major nuclear accident remain very real.
The Agency will continue closely to follow the operational status of the Zaporizhzhya Nuclear Power Plant and provide technically viable alternatives in a context of rapid changes and challenges.
Our work at this facility remains essential. This has been recognized by all, irrespective of their side in this conflict. But to be effective, the IAEA teams need timely access to assess the condition of the plant and evaluate the cumulative impact that more than 26 months in a war zone have had on nuclear safety.
Madame President,
We are getting dangerously close to a nuclear accident. We must not allow complacency to let a roll of the dice decide what happens tomorrow. We must do everything in our power today to minimize the risk of an accident.
The five principles established in this very chamber one year ago must be adhered to. They are there to prevent a major nuclear accident with potentially significant radiological consequences.
The latest attacks represent a flagrant violation of these crucial principles and must stop.
I am asking this Council for its steadfast support for the five principles and the IAEA’s seven pillars of nuclear safety and security which they help to underpin. And I am asking for your continued support of the IAEA’s role monitoring the situation, in the service of the international community.
Despite huge challenges, the IAEA has kept open the indispensable lines of communication and will continue doing so. The support of your nations and of the Council as a whole is a necessity.
I thank the Council for inviting me today, thereby demonstrating your continuing commitment to this critical issue.
The IAEA and myself remain at your disposal to assist this body in its mission to preserve international peace and security.
Source: International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) –
Nobel’s spotlight on our perilous path and how we change course
I want to start by congratulating Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha for their Nobel Peace Prize.
As a young diplomat almost 40 years ago, I was fortunate to be part of a UN disarmament fellowship programme and to visit Hiroshima. There, fellows had an opportunity to meet the hibakusha and I had a conversation with an ailing victim. I have carried to every meeting, to every negotiation, and to every posting, the memory this woman’s silent testimony. When I asked her about that morning in 1945, she struggled to express the horror in words. She tried to articulate some words but stayed silent. Looking at me, right into my eyes. The look in her eyes has stayed with me ever since, like a powerful reminder, a secret mandate, to work so that her suffering is never repeated.
For decades after the Second World War, the international community has been dealing with this unique dilemma: we built robust norms and passed nonproliferation and disarmament treaties. Instead of dozens of countries armed with nuclear weapons, as was the concern in the 1960s, there are less than ten. Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have shrunk from tens of thousands to thousands.
But on its journey through the perils of the atomic age, the world has come to a crucial crossroads. Our deep psychological connection caused by collectively seeing the horror of the consequences of nuclear war seems to be evaporating, taking with it our joint resolve to do everything possible to prevent a repetition.
Like a giant spotlight, this year’s Nobel Peace Prize has lit up our path ahead. It has done it, by reminding us of the past, and of the consequences of ignoring the perils of nuclear weapons use.
Context of conflicts
To understand the important challenges we face, we must look at the global context, at what is happening around the world.
War has returned to Europe, and it directly involves a nuclear weapon state. The conflict in Ukraine is also an indirect confrontation between the world’s biggest nuclear weapon states, the first since the end of the Cold War. But nuclear exercises and open references to the use of nuclear weapons in the theatre of this war are increasing the risks and can not be ignored.
In the Middle East, the conflict of the past year has ignited smoldering tensions between Israel and Iran and led to the unprecedented step of direct exchanges and attacks between the two. Here there is also a nuclear weapons dimension. On one side, the assumed presence of nuclear weapons looms in the background. On the other, the very real potential of nuclear proliferation is raising the stakes.
We find ourselves in a harmful loop: the erosion of the restraints around nuclear weapons is making these conflicts more dangerous. Meanwhile, these conflicts are contributing to the erosion of the restraints. The vicious circle dynamic is in motion.
An unfortunate change of direction
Doctrines regarding the use of nuclear weapons are being revised or reinterpreted. The quantity and quality of nuclear weapon stockpiles are being increased.
And in some non-nuclear weapon states – states that are important in their region – leaders are asking “why not us?”. And they are asking this openly!
At the start of the nuclear arms race, J Robert Oppenheimer described the USSR and the US as “two scorpions in a bottle” each capable of killing the other, but only by risking their own life.
Oppenheimer’s blunt statement would later be developed and elaborated under the roof of deterrence and the more sophisticated concept of “Mutual Assured Destruction,” or MAD.
Today, independent of the vantage point of the observer, there is widespread concern that the risk of mutual destruction through nuclear war is higher than it has been for more than a generation.
Lessons from history
But it does not have to be this way. We can do better. History has shown that effective dialogue among superpowers has, more often than not, led to confidence and, as a result, also to arms limitation and even disarmament. At certain moments in history, world leaders took the right decisions, to tone down, or, to use today’s parlance, to de-escalate. Let’s see:
The end of the Cuban Missile Crisis happened thanks to the direct engagement of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev and US President John F Kennedy. Decades later, at the Geneva Summit of 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev and President Ronald Reagan agreed a crucial axiom: “Nuclear war cannot be won and should never be fought.” They met again the next year in Reykjavik and significant reductions in nuclear arsenals followed. Nuclear weapon reductions and the elimination of a whole category of weapon, through the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces, or INF, Treaty, were agreed. These steps towards rapprochement took leadership and courage. They often happened despite skepticism and voices against them.
Diplomacy and dialogue (and the duty of nuclear weapon states)
A return to diplomacy and dialogue is urgently needed, and this, not only in things nuclear. Shutting the other side out has never solved a problem and almost certainly aggravates it. Top leadership involvement is simply indispensable when nuclear weapons are involved. President Trump took the initiative and talked to Kim Jong Un. More of this is needed. Some have said these talks were ill prepared. I say, this is important. Nuclear weapon policy and limitations does not work bottom up. It is of course the other way around.
We must be proactive in building the trust and protections that lower the risk of close calls and of brinkmanship, especially during today’s tensions. Not taking active steps means we rely on luck – or the assumption that the other side will show restraint – to save us from nuclear war. The longer you rely on luck, the more likely it is to run out.
Conflict and tensions compel nations to arm themselves. Diplomacy and compromise create conditions in which they can disarm.
The road to a nuclear weapon-free world is long and winding. The disarmament landscape is complex, and it’s worth acknowledging that. This does not diminish the responsibility nuclear weapons states have to make progress. After all, they committed themselves to this goal back in 1968, through the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Steps can be taken to decrease the reliance on nuclear weapons, both in their production and the scenarios for their use.
Nuclear weapon states, through their actions at home and on the world stage, have a responsibility to avoid a scenario in which more countries seek nuclear weapons. Pushing ahead with increases in arsenals leads to despair, cynicism, and a growing skepticism about the value of past commitments. Disengagement and unilateralism fuel sentiments of vulnerability in other countries, and with that, the notion nuclear weapons could be the ultimate protection against outside threats.
Engagement among the five permanent members of the Security Council is indispensable. Such engagement can take many different shapes, starting with direct contact among themselves, bilaterally or as a group. This dialogue, which still exists, has been reduced to a very low level, virtually without real impact. Perhaps its revival could be assisted by an international organization, or facilitated with the support of a respected, impartial leader. Therefore, it’s essential that the United Nations, other international organizations, and their leaders work effectively to ensure their continued relevance amid the changing needs of their stakeholders.
Do not make things worse (by falling for the siren call of proliferation)
The IAEA has played its indispensable technical role during past attempts of nuclear proliferation, particularly in the Middle East. As the difficult experiences in Iraq, Libya and Syria remind us, the draw of nuclear weapons is real and so is the geopolitical and military response.
Today’s tensions are prompting even leaders of important counties that, so far, are in good standing with the NPT to ask: “Why shouldn’t we have a nuclear weapon too?”
To this, I would say, “Do not make things worse.” Acquiring a nuclear weapon will not increase national security, it will do the opposite. Other countries will follow. And this will contribute to the unravelling of a nonproliferation regime that has had its ups and downs – and it still has its limitations – but none-the-less it has served humanity extraordinarily well. The problem and challenge to the NPT regime may come from those nuclear armed but also those who, while not having nuclear weapons, may feel the NPT has failed as a catalyst to disarmament.
Weakening the non-proliferation treaty under the argument that progress on nuclear disarmament has been slow and more drastic approaches are required, would be totally misguided and may make us throw away existing international measures committing nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states in this field.
I come from a non-nuclear weapon state. I understand the frustration that some people feel about the “haves” and “have-nots” of nuclear weapons. But I have also seen the legacy of peace and prosperity left by leaders who resisted that siren call. In the 1980s, vision, resolve and dialogue meant Brazil and Argentina changed course and did not go down the path to nuclear arms. Today, Latin America is a nuclear weapon free zone.
Multilateral leaders: step up by stepping in
Many wonder whether there’s still a role for multilateralism in guiding us through this maze of conflicting interests. Yes, there is. During difficult times in the past, international organizations have had a big impact on peace and security. But it only happens when leaders of these organizations get off the side lines and use their mandate and their own good offices effectively.
We prove our relevance in extraordinary times.
Each organization has different tools, a different mandate, a different membership, and each of their leaders will determine how to act. I can speak for the IAEA. We have nuclear science at our core, and we are the world’s nuclear weapons watchdog. Let me give you an example:
For almost three years, Ukraine, the world and the IAEA have been confronted with a completely unprecedented situation – never before has a military conflict involved the seizure of a nuclear power plant and been fought among the facilities of a major nuclear power programme.
At the beginning of the war, Ukraine’s biggest nuclear power plant – the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe, with nearly 6 gigawatts of installed capacity – was taken by Russia. This established a hotspot in the middle of a combat zone. The chance of an incident – or accident – causing terrible radiological consequences became real.
Observing this from the outside was never, in my mind, an option. Staying on the sidelines and later reflecting on “lessons learned” may have been the more traditional – or expected – path for an international organization. But to me this would have been a dereliction of duty. So, we leaned into our core mission, crossed the front lines of war, and established a permanent presence of IAEA experts at all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants. That makes us the only international organization operating independently in occupied territory. We are informing the world of what’s going on and reducing the chance that a radiological incident enflames the conflict and causes even more devastation.
We did the same by going to Kursk when a Russian nuclear reactor was at risk of coming into the line of fire. I am in constant communication with both sides.
I have been meeting with President Zelenskyy, and President Putin regularly. Nuclear safety and security during this conflict must have the buy-in and continued involvement of both leaders. Talking to only one of them would not achieve this important goal. At the same time, I am keeping an open dialogue with leaders on all continents and briefing the UN Security Council. When it comes to nuclear safety in Ukraine it has been possible to build a level of agreement that is rare during the divisions of this conflict. Where there is agreement, there is hope for more agreement.
Ukraine is not our only hotspot.
In Iran, the IAEA’s job is to verify the exclusively peaceful nature of a growing nuclear programme. Iran has now enriched uranium to a level that is hard to justify. It has not yet answered the IAEA’s questions completely and it has made our work more difficult by taking away some of our cameras and blocking some of our most experienced safeguards inspectors from going into the country. This has caused concern and led to a pattern of mistrust and recriminations. In diplomacy, progress often requires prompting, catalyzing, and suggesting ways forward. This presents a role for an impartial, honest and effective broker. It is a role I, in my capacity as the IAEA’s Director General, have been playing. In fact, I returned from my latest visit to Tehran just a few weeks ago where I presented alternatives and ideas to reduce the growing tensions, and hopefully to retain Iran within the NPT and the non-proliferation norms.
The danger of playing it safe
When it comes to working on behalf of peace and security, playing it safe is dangerous.
Silence and indifference can be deadly.
Dag Hammerskjold, the second Secretary General of the United Nations, said: “It is when we all play safe that we create a world of utmost insecurity.”
A new path
This week, the Norwegian Nobel Committee looked beyond today’s conflicts. In its own way, it did not play it safe. Instead, it shined a light on the horrors of nuclear war and the people who have been warning us about them for many decades.
In doing that, the Nobel Committee, Nihon Hidankyō and the hibakusha have illuminated the danger of the path we are now on.
We have to make a new path.
First, the leaders of the nuclear weapon states must recognize the need for a responsible management of their nuclear arsenals. Experiences from the past confirm that even at times of crisis and conflict it has been possible to recognize the unique terminal power of these weapons and the responsibility that comes with it. What Kennedy, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev, or Trump did by reaching out to a nuclear-armed adversary, sets a precedent, a useful one. Such contacts, either bilateral or at the P5 level could possibly be facilitated by a competent broker. These are the first steps to bringing down the tone so that nuclear sabre rattling recedes and the commitments to the unequivocal undertakings to move towards a nuclear free world can be fulfilled.
Secondly, an iron-clad resolve to observe and strengthen the global non-proliferation regime needs to be adopted. Nuclear weapon and nuclear non-weapon states must work together to ensure the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We need to walk through perilous times by recognizing limitations and keeping our eyes on our common objectives.
Nuclear disarmament cannot be imposed on the nuclear armed.
Realism is not defeatism. Diplomacy is not weakness.
Difficult times call for enlightened leadership, at the national level, and at the international level as well.
Putting the international system back on track is within our reach. World leaders, including those at the top of the multilateral system, have a duty and an irrevocable responsibility to work towards this.
Personally, I am convinced. Perhaps, because the secret mandate I received that day in Hiroshima from a hibakusha burns in me, stronger than ever. Thank you.
Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Delia Ramirez – Illinois (3rd District)
The selected projects respond to years of local advocacy to address safety concerns in the region, expand affordable housing, and improve infrastructure in our communities.
Chicago, IL—Today,Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez (IL-03), local leaders, and regional organizationsannounced they are advocating to bring more than $31.1 millionfor the development of 15 community projects in IL-03. When allocated in the FY26 appropriations, the dedicated funding would increase the number of affordable housing units, expand safe outdoor spaces for students and communities, enhance infrastructure and road safety, and support workforce development in IL-03.
“I’m excited to announce that our community came together to identify and submit the maximum number of projects allowed in the FY26 appropriations process. Thanks to the support of community leaders and local officials, we are ready to champion $31.1 million for critical, transformative projects across IL-03,” said Congresswoman Ramirez.“From Wayne Township to Wheaton to Albany Park, these funds will guarantee that we are investing in critical projects in our district and improving the conditions that keep our communities healthy and thriving.”
“Now, we need to get this urgent funding and protect the programs and services our communities and working people rely on! We cannot allow the same partisan politics that delayed the appropriations process last year and held up the funds for our communities to continue. I will continue to fight for critical safety net programs that help working families across the country and to bring resources back to IL-03,” added Rep. Ramirez.
During the public announcement, Congresswoman Ramirez said she was “particularly proud” of the projects selected because they respond to the immediate needs of the communities and years of advocacy.
“The Chicago Department of Housing is honored to have been submitted by Congresswoman Delia C. Ramirez for funding consideration by the House Committee on Appropriations. At a time when our nation is facing an unprecedented housing crisis, the need for bold, community-driven solutions has never been greater. Funding for Encuentro Phase II is not just an investment in safe, stable housing for working families in Chicago—it’s an investment in economic opportunity. This project will empower families to thrive, support local businesses, and remain in their communities without being burdened by skyrocketing rents. Building on the success of Phase I, Encuentro Phase II is a critical step toward making Logan Square a more equitable and inclusive neighborhood. We are deeply grateful for Congresswoman Ramirez’s commitment to housing justice and her support of this transformative project,” said Chicago Department of Housing Managing Deputy Commissioner Tamra Collins, requesting $10,000,000 for the construction of a new 98-unit housing development.
“DuPage and Chicago South Suburbs Habitat for Humanity is honored to have been selected alongside the DuPage Housing Authority, who is a proud partner in this endeavor, for Community Project Funding through our partners in the fight for affordable housing in the IL-03, Congresswoman Ramirez’s office. This infusion of federally directed dollars is a testament of what can happen when we all come together to address a critical need in our local community. A 12-unit townhome development in West Chicago will help in continuing our success of addressing the lack of housing stock within the neighborhoods we serve,” said DuPage Housing Authority Interim CEO Dorian Jenkins, requesting $2,200,000 to facilitate the pre-development of a 12-unit single-family townhome community.
“This bridge improvement study will identify key infrastructure needs to support potential Metra O’Hare Express service, serving a growing future market for air travelers and other trips,” said Metra CEO/Executive Director Jim Derwinski, requesting $1,500,000 to study viability of infrastructure improvements along the Milwaukee District North and North Central Service Metra lines.
“As Northeastern Illinois University embarks upon our next strategic plan, the Board of Trustees and I believe that the MSNEP program confers broad societal benefit, which is both economic and social, and is therefore positioned as one of our highest priorities,” said the President of Northeastern Illinois University, Katrina E. Bell-Jordan, Ph.D, requesting $1,283,976 to develop modern classrooms and a dedicated Simulation Lab at the campus.
“We are incredibly grateful for the support of U.S. Congresswoman Delia Ramirez as we work to modernize manufacturing education for students in DuPage County. With more than 1,200 manufacturing companies and over 80,000 job opportunities, DuPage plays a vital role in supporting our local workforce and opening doors for students to pursue high-demand, high-skill, and high-wage careers. Partnering with state legislators helps us create a clear, coordinated path from the classroom to the workplace—ensuring students are well-prepared to succeed in our region’s thriving manufacturing sector,” said DuPage Regional Advanced Manufacturing HubExecutive Director, Michael Fumagalli, requesting $500,000 to upgrade equipment at the Manufacturing Lab and drive economic growth.
“With this critical funding secured, Goethe Elementary School will finally complete its long-awaited outdoor renovation project – transforming the space into a safe, durable, and enriching environment for students and families alike. These improvements will not only enhance daily learning and play for Goethe students but also create a vibrant community resource accessible to all residents in the neighborhood. This investment ensures that every child in and around the Goethe community has access to an outdoor space that encourages physical well-being, supports healthy development, and promotes overall well-being,” said Goethe Elementary School Principal, Nader Elmasri, requesting $1,100,000 for enhancement against flooding of the outdoor playspace at Goethe Elementary School.
“On behalf of the Park District and the residents of the Montclare community, I’d like to extend my sincerest appreciation to Congresswoman Delia Ramirez for working to secure $3 million in funding for a new fieldhouse at Bell Park. A new fieldhouse at Bell Park to replace the existing facility would bring transformative change to the neighboring children and families by expanding recreational offerings that contribute to overall health and quality of life,” said Chicago Park District General Superintendent & CEO, Ramirez-Rosa, requesting $3,000,000 for the construction of a community field house.
“This project is necessary to provide flood relief in this area of the County, it will also improve water quality and replace aging infrastructure,” said DuPage County Board Chair, Deb Conroy, requesting $4,125,000 for the upgrade of outdated storm sewer systems.
“Every one of our school communities deserves a safe and enriching space for activities such as sporting events and gatherings. The new turf surface at Hanson Park Stadium is environmentally-sound and accessible while benefiting the larger school community. Thanks to Congresswoman Delia Ramirez and our community partners for making this amazing space a reality,” said CPS Chief Operating Officer Charles Mayfield, requesting $1,000,000 for the rehabilitation of the Hanson Park Stadium.
“This project was student voice in action. Our students have worked tirelessly for years presenting to Chicago Public Schools officials, elected officials, and other members of the community to advocate for this turf field,” said Dever Elementary SchoolPrincipal Jason Major, requesting $1,100,000 to rehabilitate Dever Elementary School’s field.
“We are deeply grateful for this investment in our students’ future. This funding marks an exciting step forward, enabling us to modernize our athletic facilities for a safer and more functional environment while simultaneously creating a dynamic new STEM lab in previously underutilized space. This dual investment underscores our commitment to the holistic development of our students, fostering both their physical well-being and their readiness for STEM fields,” said Von Steuben High School Principal Jennifer M. Sutton, requesting $1,000,000 to renovate outdated locker room facilities.
“Patrick Henry Elementary School is a neighborhood school in the Albany Park area that is a central location for families within the community. We do not have a green space within a 1 mile radius of the school and we are in need of major renovations within the playground and the surrounding area. I am thankful for the opportunity for our school and the community to have a space for families and students to enjoy,” said Patrick Henry Elementary School Principal, Mary Ann Reynolds, requesting $1,250,00 to enhance Patrick Henry Elementary School’s playground and outdoor facilities
“This high-impact project represents a significant milestone in our efforts to address flood-related challenges in our community. Not only will it directly prevent overland flooding into 27 homes, but by lowering the street, an additional 10 homes will be able to reduce the occurrences of flooding. Over the course of 30 years, this initiative is projected to save homeowners an estimated $19 million in damages currently incurred due to flooding. The project will make a tangible difference in the lives of residents impacted by flooding events, enhance the resilience of our neighborhoods and protect our residents’ properties,” said Wheaton City Manager, Mike Dzugan, requesting $1,200,000 for improvements on a flood-prone area.
“We are excited about the project as it will make an immediate and lasting impact on our students and communities. This initiative will provide increased opportunities for physical activity, fostering a stronger focus on the whole child’s development and well being. Ultimately, we believe this project will create a more connected and active place for our entire community to engage,” said Marvin Camras Children’s Engineering Elementary School Principal, Clariza Dominici, requesting $1,000,000 to improve safety at the outdoor space.
“Wayne Township is grateful to Congresswoman Ramirez for helping reduce the tax burden on our community by securing funding for much-needed safety improvements to Powis Rd. Partnerships like this show what’s possible when government agencies work together to improve infrastructure and quality of life for all residents,” said Wayne Township Highway Commissioner Martin McManamon, requesting $854 to repair the main entry road at Pratt Wayne Woods Forest Preserve.
For the recording of the public announcement, CLICK HERE.
For photos and videos, CLICK HERE.
BACKGROUND
In her first term, Congresswoman Ramirez secured $14.1 MILLION in Community Project Funding for the Illinois Third Congressional District. The funding for 15 local community projects helped secure safe, affordable housing, expand food security efforts, and make important infrastructure improvements.
During the FY25 Appropriation Process, Congresswoman Ramirez fought for $34.5 million in federal funding for 15 community projects. The funding would have increased affordable housing units, expanded safe green spaces for students and communities, strengthened climate change resilience infrastructure and road safety, and supported workforce development in IL-03. Unfortunately, the Continuing Resolution passed by Congress did not include Community Project Funding for FY25.
Steering SA’s environmental legislation to better prospects
With the climate change challenge gaining momentum around the world, South Africa, like other countries is taking steps to mitigate the effects of climate change and pollution.
This as President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill into law in January. The bill ushers in stronger measures to better protect South Africa’s oceans from ship-related pollution.
“The signing of the Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Amendment Bill is a significant step for South Africa in addressing the effects of marine pollution, aligned to the Sustainable Seas Trust’s [SST] mission and vision. This bill presents a positive shift in enhancing the country’s capacity to address marine pollution while aligning with international standards under MARPOL,” SST Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Janine Osborne told SAnews.
According to the International Marine Organization (IMO), the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) is the main international convention covering the prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes.
The MARPOL convention was adopted in November 1973 at the IMO, which is the United Nations specialised agency tasked with the responsibility “for the safety and security of shipping and the prevention of marine and atmospheric pollution by ships.”
The signing of the amendment bill is vital to safeguarding the country’s environmental and economic security, given that South Africa is endowed with a coastline stretching over 3 000 kilometres from Namibia on the Atlantic Ocean to Mozambique on the Indian Ocean.
The Presidency said the legislation is also a contribution to global efforts to protect the marine environment and sustainable economic exploitation.
The law amends the Marine Pollution Act to incorporate Annex IV and Annex VI of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships.
Annex IV regulates the activities for treatment and safe disposal of sewage from ships while Annex VI is the main global instrument that addresses ship energy-efficiency management and greenhouse gas emissions.
“By including Annex IV (sewage management) and Annex VI (air pollution and energy efficiency), the bill strengthens environmental protection and supports the sustainability of South Africa’s marine economy, which is vital for both biodiversity and job creation,” Osborne said in the interview with SAnews.
The amended legislation further broadens the powers of the Minister of Transport to make regulations relating to, among others, the prevention of air pollution from ships and the prevention of pollution by sewage from ships.
It also increases fines for any person convicted of serious offences under the Marine Pollution (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act or the international Convention which forms part of South African law. The legislation also improves prison sentences from five to ten years.
The legislation is also born out of the recognition that ships can pollute the oceans in various ways, from oil spills to harmful chemical sewage and garbage.
Osborne welcomed the increase in fines for violations and expanded regulatory powers saying it reflects “the government’s commitment to safeguarding marine resources”.
“Raising fines from R500 000 to R10 million and imprisonment from five to ten years, are a significant step towards deterring marine pollution. These penalties are financially and legally substantial enough to make non-compliance a serious risk for offenders, potentially changing behaviour in the sector.
“However, SST believes that their effectiveness will depend on consistent enforcement, monitoring, and judicial follow-through. Without these mechanisms, there is a risk that the penalties may not achieve the desired deterrent effect,” she said. Osborne added that while stricter penalties are essential, they cannot fully compensate for irreversible environmental damage caused by pollution.
“That is why SST encourages immediate action to combat waste pollution both on land and at sea.”
As a non-profit organisation (NPO) working to protect Africa’s seas and communities, the SST was one of the organisations that submitted comments into the bill.
South Africa has a large exclusive economic zone at sea and a marine economy which, in 2022, supported about 400 000 jobs in areas across the existing marine economic sectors of shipping, associated construction, tourism and fisheries.
Bordered by three oceans (South Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean and the Southern Ocean), South Africa faces significant marine pollution challenges due to plastic waste and inadequate waste management among others, which impact marine ecosystems and coastal communities.
“Accurately assessing the full extent of this issue is challenging due to limited data. Recent estimates suggest that 15,000 to 40,000 tonnes of plastic waste enter South Africa’s oceans annually, a notable decrease from earlier projections of 90,000 to 250,000 tonnes, highlighting the need for improved research and monitoring,” said Osborne in response to how much of the country’s oceanic territory is affected by pollution.
The organisation also added that education on various levels is crucial in addressing marine pollution.
This as the SST has several educational activities such as its Munch programme which encourages and enables the integration of environmental education into the school curricula and the African Waste Academy where free courses are available to the public to share critical information about pollution and proper waste management.
Environment Month
In June of every year, the country commemorates Environment Month where government and captains of industry place the awareness of environmental issues under the spotlight while also challenging all to become agents for change. Recently, government launched the National Clean Cities and Towns Campaign in Kliptown, Soweto.
Launched by Deputy President Paul Mashatile, the campaign is a nationwide initiative aimed at fostering cleaner, greener, and more inclusive urban spaces, while advancing sustainability, equality, and solidarity among citizens.
The Deputy President who also engaged in clean-up activities at the launch, said the campaign goes beyond mere cleaning but addresses broader service delivery issues and creates opportunities for community employment.
“However, the idea is not really to employ people. It is a voluntary programme. People must clean where they live. There may be instances where the city may employ people here and there, but we want to create a culture of cleaning where people don’t have to be paid to clean where they live,” the Deputy President said at the launch in Soweto.
Also recently, the country joined other countries in marking World Environment Day and World Oceans Day on 5 and 8 June 2025 respectively.
Asked about the general status of the country’s marine sector and whether the Act will have a positive impact on the economy, Osborne said the country’s marine sector has “tremendous” potential while also facing challenges.
“Despite its 3,000 km coastline and vast exclusive economic zone, the sector remains underutilised, with limited ship repair facilities, oil rig servicing, and no registered merchant fleet. Challenges such as skills shortages, port inefficiencies, and underinvestment in infrastructure hinder growth.
“However, initiatives like Operation Phakisa aim to unlock the oceans economy’s potential, targeting contributions of R177 billion to GDP [Gross Domestic Product] and up to one million jobs by 2033.”
Earlier this month, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) launched the Climate Change Coastal Adaptation Response Plan which aims to effectively manage South Africa’s coastal assets. DFFE Minister, Dr Dion George, said having the plan is essential to supporting Operation Phakisa efforts to achieve a sustainable oceans economy.
Operation Phakisa aims to unlock the full potential of South Africa’s ocean economy -spanning sectors such as marine transport, aquaculture, tourism, and offshore resources.
“SST believes that the Marine Pollution Amendment Act can positively impact South Africa’s economy by promoting sustainable marine resource management. By safeguarding vital industries such as fisheries and tourism and aligning with international environmental standards, the Act supports economic growth while protecting marine biodiversity,” she explained.
Collaboration
Additionally, the SST said it recognises that policies and legislation alone are not enough to drive meaningful change and that collaboration across all sectors of society is essential.
“Every stakeholder has a role to play in the waste management value chain. By understanding and embracing these roles, each step of the chain can contribute positively to sustainable development.”
Implementation
Osborne said the key to the success of the Act is implementation.
“However, SST believes the key to the success of the bill lies in effective implementation and enforcement. To achieve its objectives, robust monitoring systems, sufficient resources, and transparent enforcement processes are essential. It will also be important to address any potential loopholes or exemptions in emissions regulations to ensure meaningful environmental outcomes.” Osborne cautioned that without strong enforcement mechanisms, the bill’s impact may not fully meet its intended goals. “We remain committed to working with stakeholders to support effective implementation and protect South Africa’s marine environment.”
Protecting the environment
On whether government is doing enough to protect the environment, Osborne is of the view that progress has been made. “The South African government has made valuable strides in environmental protection through initiatives such as advancing renewable energy projects, enacting the Climate Change Act, and promoting a circular economy. These actions reflect a commitment to sustainability and economic growth,” she said.
The Climate Change Act is intended to enable the development of an effective climate change response and a long-term, just transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy and society in the context of sustainable development; and to provide for matters connected therewith.
However, she added that significant challenges remain, including continued reliance on coal, slow renewable energy deployment, and enforcement gaps at local levels.
“To strengthen environmental protection, we believe there is a need to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, improve coordination among government entities, and invest in infrastructure for waste management and renewable energy. “SST believes that increased public participation and transparency in environmental decision-making can strengthen efforts to achieve long-term sustainability.”
She added that her organisation is committed to supporting these efforts through awareness campaigns and education, as well as “collaborative initiatives that protect the environment and marine heritage for future generations.”
While government is not missing the boat in putting in place legislation to protect the environment, responsible human behaviour is also needed if future generations are to enjoy South Africa’s scenic natural endowments. –SAnews.gov.za
Discarded clothes from Next, Asda and M&S found in protected wetlands threatened by fast-growing waste dumps
Clothes discarded by UK consumers and exported to Ghana have been found in a huge new dumpsite growing inside internationally protected wetlands, an Unearthed and Greenpeace Africa investigation reveals.
Unearthed reporters have found garments from UK high-street brands Next, George at Asda, and Marks & Spencer inside the protected nature site home to rare birds and three species of turtles.
The clothes were located at or close to two open-air waste dumps that have recently appeared inside the wetlands. Clothing items from M&S, Zara, H&M, and Primark were also found at a sprawling third dump just on a riverbank just outside the nature reserve, from where fashion waste often floats downstream, polluting the wetlands.
Scientists are concerned about the impact on local wildlife of the microplastics and chemicals released from textile waste. Locals complain that their fishing nets, waterways and beaches are clogged with synthetic fast fashion exported to Ghana from the UK and Europe.
Ghana is the world’s largest importer of used clothing, with 15 million items of discarded garments arriving each week [1]. The UK sent more fashion waste to Ghana last year – 57,000 tonnes according to UN trade data – than to any other country except the UAE [2]. But local officials estimate about 40% of each bale is unusable – torn, stained, or unsuitable for the climate.
This overspill has overwhelmed Accra, resulting in new waste dumps appearing just outside the capital. Unearthed reporters found two fast-growing tips inside a critical biodiversity area, the Densu Delta, designated a “Ramsar site”: a wetland of “international importance” under the Convention on Wetlands. One of the dumps, Glefe, has been established for just four years, according to Google Earth historical images, and it already looms taller than a two-storey building in places. The second, Akkaway, is less than a year old but rapidly expanding.
The protected nature site provides a habitat for birds such as rare roseate terns, which migrate from the UK, and curlew sandpipers, which visit from the Arctic tundra. The endangered leatherback and green turtles lay their eggs on the conservation area’s beach, as does the Olive Ridley turtle, known for nesting en masse on the same beach where it hatched [3].
Local people rely on the ecosystem for fishing and salt production. Unearthed has spoken to local fishermen who describe hauling in textile waste in their nets and blame it for a decline in fish stocks.
Commenting on the findings, Greenpeace UK’s plastic campaigner Laura Burley said:
“It’s heartbreaking to see a protected nature site turning into a waste dump because of our addiction to fast fashion. A dress designed to be worn just once or twice before being thrown away could pose a threat to rare birds and marine turtles in these protected wetlands for decades to come, while also harming people’s livelihoods. And with the majority of these garments made of plastic fibres, our throwaway clothes are adding to the plastic pollution choking our oceans. The UK government should force fashion retailers to take some responsibility for the waste they create while backing strong targets to cut plastic production in the UN Global Plastics Treaty.”
Dr Jones Quartey, a wetland ecologist at the University of Ghana, told Unearthed that disposing of textiles in wetlands could cause irreparable harm. “This is dangerous – more so when we don’t know what chemicals are in the textile waste,” he said. “The bioaccumulation and biomagnification of microplastics in aquatic organisms and humans could pose risks such as physical damage, chemical exposure and disruption of biological processes.”
When contacted by Unearthed, the fashion labels acknowledged that the industry faces challenges around processing textile waste. M&S, George, and Primark said they run “take-back” schemes to help address the issue. H&M, Zara, and George said they would support an extended producer responsibility framework to hold labels accountable for their products’ end-of-life impact.
Keynote speech by Frank Elderson, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB and Vice-Chair of the Supervisory Board of the ECB, at the SRB Legal Conference 2025
Brussels, 18 June 2025
Thank you for your kind invitation. It is a pleasure to join you this morning to discuss the key obstacles to completing the single European market from the ECB’s perspective.
40 years ago Jacques Delors presented a now-famous “White Paper”, outlining a bold and comprehensive vision for completing the single European market. This historic document identified 279 obstacles, many of them legal in nature, that stood in the way of the free movement of goods, people, capital and services across Europe.
Delors’ White Paper did not come out of nowhere – it was conceived as a solution to tackle the challenges plaguing Europe in 1985: eurosclerosis[1], competitiveness crisis, paralysing political tensions. These issues dominated the headlines of the time.
Policymakers overcame these obstacles with the Single European Act building on a clear and actionable timeline. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Fast-forward 40 years and we now stand at a similar crossroads in Europe, this time facing even greater challenges. Geopolitical fragmentation is on the rise, sparking demand for more strategic autonomy to ensure we remain the masters of our own destiny. Our economies are undergoing profound structural changes as we navigate the clean energy and digital transitions. Meanwhile, there is a growing concern we are losing out on competitiveness, which risks threatening European standards of living.
I will start my remarks today by taking a look at why deepening the Single Market matters. I will then cover some of the main obstacles hindering the Single Market from developing its full potential and conclude by outlining a possible way forward.
In this, I am guided by Jacques Delors’ insight from 40 years ago, which could not be more relevant today – “The time for talk has now passed. The time for action has come.”
Deepening the Single Market is key for prosperity and our mandates
Over the past decades the Single Market has delivered remarkable economic results and substantially improved the wellbeing of more than 440 million citizens across the continent.
ECB economists have found that the Single Market has added between 12% and 22% to long-run EU GDP[2]. We saw a remarkable five-fold increase in the intra-EU trade of goods between 1993 and 2021[3]. And, importantly, the Single Market forms the bedrock of a predictable investment and business environment, founded on the rule of law.[4]
Yet, markets remain fragmented and too many internal barriers are preventing the Single Market from developing its full potential.
This is particularly the case for services, which account for around 75% of the EU’s GDP. Soberingly, 60% of barriers to trade in services are still the same as they were 20 years ago. And, worryingly, intra-EU services trade is no higher than services trade with non-EU countries, suggesting that the Single Market for services operates significantly below its potential.
This self-induced straightjacket comes with a significant price tag.
The IMF estimates that internal barriers to the Single Market are, on average, equivalent to a tariff of 44% for goods and a staggering 110% for services. These figures underline an ironic reality: while much of our focus is directed at the potential economic impact of external tariffs applied to goods traded with non-EU trading partners, we risk overlooking the far greater burden of self-imposed internal barriers. These barriers are weighing on our economy every single day. Fortunately, unlike external tariffs imposed on us by non-EU countries, the decision to address internal barriers lies entirely within our own competence.
One might ask: why should deepening the Single Market concern the ECB?
The establishment of a fully integrated single market could enhance the effectiveness of our monetary policy. The euro area’s single monetary policy cannot be tailored to national circumstances. Economic theory identifies this as one of the inherent costs for countries joining a monetary union. However, merging currencies can still yield substantial net benefits when countries’ economic cycles are closely synchronised, as this ensures that the ECB’s single monetary policy is appropriate for all euro area countries.[5] A deeper internal market works as a catalyst for such synchronisation by aligning the economic structures of the countries subject to a single monetary policy. This is achieved either through enhanced risk sharing and the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour.[6]
A more integrated single market is also crucial for effective banking supervision. Although we have a Single Rulebook in the banking union, national variations remain within this single prudential rulebook. In addition, foundational elements of the prudential framework, such as accounting standards, securities and insolvency laws, continue to differ across Member States, which adds unnecessary complexity. A more integrated banking system with more harmonised rules would yield significant benefits: it would make the allocation of credit inside the Single Market more efficient while providing opportunities for banks to grow and compete across borders.[7]
Deepening the internal market also offers broader advantages. It could enhance euro area competitiveness by enabling businesses to scale up, achieve economies of scale and allocate resources more efficiently. Increased competition drives innovation and productivity, while harmonised regulations lower costs and reduce administrative burdens for firms across borders. This environment attracts investment, strengthens supply chains and enhances the euro area’s strategic autonomy by reducing dependence on external markets. These advancements not only support the effectiveness of our monetary policy and banking supervision but also address the challenges of an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape.[8]
But we cannot succeed if we have 27 different policies for our firms and industries.
We cannot succeed if we fail to recognise professional qualifications across the EU.
And we certainly will not succeed if we allow a self-defeating spiral of national fragmentation to take hold. Instead, any meaningful debate on growth, productivity and strategic autonomy must begin – and end – with a firm commitment to completing the Single Market and to do so in a timely manner.
Deepening the Single Market is a legal imperative
Completing the Single Market is not only necessary in light of the challenges of our times – it is also a legal imperative anchored in the EU Treaties.
Let me first recall that the ultima ratio of the Single Market is its completion. As long as barriers persist to the free movement of persons, goods, services and capital, the Single Market remains an unfinished promise.
Second, the completion of the Single Market is not just an aspiration – it is a legal obligation. Article 3.4 of the Treaty on European Union states unequivocally that “the Union shall establish an internal market”. Hence, the Single Market is nothing less than an explicit objective of the Union under the Treaties.
And third, the Treaties are very clear that the Single Market is a key lever to foster citizens’ welfare and promote the Union’s interests in the world.[9] This is important at a time when increasing strategic autonomy has become essential in light of geopolitical rifts and shifts.
Thus, completing the Single Market is not merely something that is “nice to have”, something we might do when the moment is right, something that depends on the political winds and tides. It is a legal imperative strongly anchored in the Treaties.
So, if the Treaties are crystal clear about the need to complete the internal market, one may ask: what are the main impediments to its full completion? And, more importantly, what can be done to address them?
The “troubling three” for the ECB
To be clear, Member States and EU institutions are in the driving seat when it comes to addressing the barriers hindering the Single Market – not central bankers or prudential supervisors. However, the ECB very much welcomes the recent momentum to deepen the internal market, and I would like to reflect on this important endeavour from our perspective.
Encouragingly, the challenge of completing the internal market is well understood. The Commission has accelerated its work on making the Single Market simpler, seamless and stronger.[10] As a first step, the EU and the Member States must work together to prevent the emergence of new barriers. However, to achieve meaningful progress, the EU must also remove the barriers that obstruct the functioning of the Single Market.
In this regard, the European Commission’s new single market strategy provides a clear and focused roadmap by identifying the “terrible ten” – the most significant barriers that must be addressed.[11] This prioritisation is both pragmatic and effective. While clearly all barriers need to be removed in the long term, the Commission’s strategy wisely concentrates efforts on those whose resolution promises the greatest economic impact.
Let me highlight three key points relevant for delivering on our mandate.
Overly complex EU rules
The first one is complexity. The key issue here is not complexity per se, but excessive complexity. As Albert Einstein wisely said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler”. This principle applies equally to regulation.
EU market legislation must often balance a wide array of diverse market interests and national policy preferences, which inevitably results in complexity and diverging rules. In this context, we welcome ongoing simplification efforts provided they do not compromise the fundamental purpose of the rules.[12]
In this respect, it is important to emphasise that reducing complexity is best achieved through European harmonisation, not by lowering regulatory requirements. Harmonisation not only simplifies the legal framework but also makes it more seamless and, when based on best practices, stronger. As I stated earlier this year: don’t cut rules, harmonise them.[13] After all these decades of European integration there is still no better way to simplify and to lower the regulatory burden than to reduce 27 regimes to one.
Lack of Single Market ownership by Member States
Another main obstacle to advancing the internal market lies in the fact that it is a shared competence between the EU and the Member States.[14] Member States have legitimate policy interests that may have unintended consequences for the Single Market. Think about areas like consumer protection or health and safety. In these fields, national preferences differ, driving fragmentation and complexity in EU regulation.
Member States also contribute to market fragmentation through delayed transposition, incorrect application, or overly burdensome and unnecessarily divergent implementation of EU law – a practice commonly referred to as “gold-plating”, although it would be more fitting to speak of “lead-plating” as from a European perspective this practice results in something that is not shiny like gold but heavy like lead.
Such practices are also evident in banking supervision because the prudential framework also consists of EU directives that need to be transposed into national law.
For example, in several areas, including licensing and governance, rules differ across Member States because laws transposing EU directives are not fully harmonised. Dealing with a wide array of different national rules is far from ideal for the single European supervisor. Further harmonising the regulatory framework for the banking sector would further enhance our effectiveness as a bank supervisor.
While harmonisation within the internal market has typically been achieved through directives, there is an increasing reliance on regulations to legislate in the financial sector. Regulations offer a clear advantage: they do not require transposition into national legislation, thereby avoiding delays, transposition deficits and the risk of national preferences diluting the intended benefits of internal market rules. In areas where full harmonisation is currently politically or technically unfeasible, alternative approaches, such as introducing a “28th regime”, could provide a practical and effective interim step.
Complicated business establishment and operations
Finally, the establishment and operation of companies across the EU remains unnecessarily complex and costly, largely due to the fragmentation of legal rules across Member States. This hinders businesses, particularly start-ups, from scaling up effectively.
A related challenge persists in the banking sector where cross-border banking integration remains limited despite the banking union’s Single Rulebook, Single Supervisory Mechanism and Single Resolution Mechanism.
The advantages of deeper cross-border banking integration are clear.
Eliminating barriers to integration would enable banks to achieve economies of scale and enhance risk diversification, with cross-border mergers offering opportunities for greater profitability. However, the current limited level of cross-border integration restricts the potential for private risk-sharing within the European banking market. This fragmentation also hampers banks’ ability to optimise liquidity management, ultimately increasing risks to financial stability.[15]
European banking supervision has taken important steps to tackle obstacles to cross-border banking integration. For example, we issued a guide affirming that cross-border mergers within the euro area will be treated the same as domestic mergers.[16] We clarified that European banking supervision will not hinder banks wishing to convert subsidiaries into branches.[17] Additionally, we made it clear that banks operating across borders through subsidiaries can apply for liquidity waivers to pool liquidity across legal entities. In short, we made it as clear as we could and let me repeat this message just as clearly today: as long as regulatory prudential requirements are met, we will not stand in the way of cross-border banking consolidation and cross-border integration more generally, very much to the contrary.
However, despite these efforts, progress on financial integration in the euro area remains limited. This indicates that remaining obstacles are influenced by factors unrelated to banking supervision. In this context, reaching a political agreement on the banking union’s third pillar, a European deposit insurance scheme, is more critical than ever. Moreover, avoiding undue fragmentation of the single market and unjustified impact on the freedoms of the Treaty is critical.
Beyond progress on the banking union, advancing the capital markets union is equally critical, as the two are intrinsically linked and mutually reinforcing.[18] A stronger banking union, for instance, helps prevent shocks from spreading to broader capital markets, while robust capital markets diversify funding sources and reduce banking risks.
Currently, financial institutions looking to expand across borders face a fragmented landscape of national specificities and procedures, for example, securities, accounting and insolvency laws. Addressing these barriers through the harmonisation of securities laws, accounting frameworks and corporate insolvency rules is essential to fostering a truly integrated financial market.
Encouragingly, the Commission’s savings and investment union (SIU) proposal, with the capital markets union as a key pillar, brings renewed momentum to these efforts. Swift implementation of the full SIU strategy requires decisive action. At EU level, this includes advancing policy initiatives on supervision, as well as trading and post-trading infrastructure. At national level, reforms such as taxation of cross-border investments remain crucial.
Conclusion
Before concluding, let me offer one final practical suggestion drawing from our own experience with the Economic and Monetary Union. The success of the euro was, in part, built on the foundation of a clear and well-defined timeline in the Maastricht Treaty setting out a roadmap for economic convergence and the creation of a common currency.
Similarly, the adoption of the Single Market in 1993 crucially built on the timeline contained in the Single European Act of 1986, which was championed by Jacques Delors.
Also today, in light of the mounting challenges we face, we do not have time to waste.
Also today, we need to move forward and complete the Single Market.
To effectively drive progress, we need a clear and time-limited roadmap, which includes concrete interim milestones and – crucially – a final “mobilising deadline”, as the governor of the Banque de France has called it.[19]
We must undertake this endeavour jointly – EU institutions, Member States, businesses – ultimately all of us. Because, ultimately, completing the Single Market concerns all of us.
As Jacques Delors wisely said “Europe is not just about markets. It is about a way of life.”
To protect that European way of life and to foster prosperity, strategic autonomy and competitiveness, our best course of action is to timely complete the Single Market.[20]
Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Tuesday participated in the outreach session on energy security at the 51st G7 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, where he called for universal access to clean energy, responsible use of artificial intelligence, and greater attention to the needs of the Global South.
In a post on X, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal highlighted key takeaways from the Prime Minister’s address.
PM Modi emphasized that affordable, reliable, and sustainable energy remains India’s top priority in an increasingly technology-driven world.
“In the last century, we saw competition for energy. In this century, we will have to cooperate for technology. Moving forward on the fundamental principles of availability, accessibility, affordability, acceptability, India has chosen the path of inclusive development” PM Modi said.
He underscored India’s clean energy initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance, Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI), and the Global Biofuels Alliance.
PM Modi noted that India has already fulfilled its Paris climate commitments ahead of schedule and is rapidly advancing toward its Net Zero target by 2070.
“Currently, renewable energy accounts for around 50 percent of our total installed capacity,” he added.
PM Modi also reiterated India’s commitment to representing the concerns of the Global South on the world stage.
“Unfortunately, the Global South countries suffer the most from uncertainty and conflicts. They are the first to be hit by crises related to food, fuel, fertilizer, and finance. India considers it its responsibility to bring the priorities and concerns of the Global South to the world stage,” he said.
Highlighting India’s success in democratizing technology through Digital Public Infrastructure, the Prime Minister stressed the importance of meaningful and high-quality data as the foundation for inclusive and responsible AI.
He called for global cooperation to build governance frameworks around artificial intelligence that both encourage innovation and address emerging risks.
“AI itself is an energy-intensive technology. If there is any way to sustainably fulfill the energy requirements of a technology-driven society, it is through renewable energy,” PM Modi said.
Addressing AI risks, PM Modi warned of the growing threat of deepfakes, urging the need for safeguards.
“Deep fake is a cause of great concern. Watermarking or clear declaration should be mandatory for AI-generated content,” he said.
On the issue of terrorism, the Prime Minister strongly condemned the recent Pahalgam terror attack, describing it as an attack on humanity and democratic values.
“There should be no place for double standards on terrorism,” he said, urging the global community to adopt a consistent and firm stance against terror networks.
“For global peace and prosperity, our thought and policy must be clear — if any country supports terrorism, it will have to pay the price for it. On one hand, we are quick to impose all kinds of sanctions based on our own preferences. On the other hand, countries that openly support terrorism are rewarded,” PM Modi added.
UEFA Champions League finalists Inter Milan were held 1-1 by Mexican side Monterrey in their opening Group E game at the Club World Cup in Pasadena on Tuesday.
Inter dominated possession at the outset but underdogs Monterrey struck first, grabbing the lead when 39-year-old defender Sergio Ramos leaped above two defenders to power home a header from a corner in the 25th minute.
The Italians drew level three minutes before halftime when Kristjan Asllani’s floated free-kick into the box was played across the face of goal by Carlos Augusto to give Lautaro Martinez the easy tap-in.
Nelson Deossa had a golden opportunity to win it for Monterrey in stoppage time but his shot ended up in the side netting on a hot day at the Rose Bowl, where plenty of empty seats were visible.
“I think we could have scored a second goal, which we didn’t unfortunately,” said Inter’s Henrikh Mkhitaryan.
“But this is football, we have to work hard, we have to do our best to win the next games because it’s a new competition and the teams are very motivated to get out of the group stage.
“I think we have to be more aggressive in front of goal, we need to score more goals. Even today we had chances which we didn’t score, unfortunately.”
Tuesday’s match, the first competitive meeting between the sides, saw both teams debuting new managers.
Cristian Chivu took over from Simone Inzaghi at Inter Milan shortly after their crushing 5-0 Champions League final defeat by Paris St Germain, while Spaniard Domenec Torrent was brought in at Monterrey after their disappointing start to the season.
Both teams are back in action on Saturday.
Monterrey return to the Rose Bowl to face River Plate, who beat Urawa Reds 3-1 earlier in the day, while Inter take on the Japanese side in Seattle.
Source: Moscow Government – Government of Moscow –
The owner of a furniture shopping center located in the North-West Administrative District of Moscow has sent humanitarian parcels to the special military operation (SVO) zone more than once. Together with his employees, he managed to collect comprehensive aid — from instant drinks to blankets.
“My friends communicate directly with the special operation fighters, and through them I learned what is needed at the front now. My friends gave me a list, and my colleagues and I bought everything our guys asked for directly from it,” Oleg shared.
The valuable cargo was divided into clothing and food. The first included seasonal clothing, including regular and thermal underwear, as well as footwear, sleeping bags, comfortable pillows and warm blankets. All of these items are in great demand on the front lines.
The entrepreneur also sent long-life food products and a large number of packages of tea and coffee. Food products for the military must have a long shelf life and be in sufficiently strong packaging to be guaranteed to withstand transportation in difficult conditions. Then the soldiers will receive everything safe and sound.
The entrepreneur noted that he will help our heroes as long as it is necessary. You need to ask your friends what exactly to buy – this way the soldier will get warm comfortable boots that will serve him for a long time.
Since the first days of the SVO, owners of Moscow stores, shopping centers, car dealerships and other service establishments, as well as Moscow restaurateurs, have regularly sent humanitarian aid to the combat zone. The parcels contain products that have a long shelf life: canned meat, fish and vegetables, tons of different cereals – from rice and buckwheat to pearl barley, pasta and sweets: cookies, candies, chocolate and much more. Entrepreneurs donate personal hygiene products and seasonal clothing, among which you can find jackets, boots and thermal underwear, as well as essential medicines, building materials and even military equipment, including quadcopters and entire columns of cars.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 18, 2025.
Saving species starts at home: how you can help Australia’s 1,000 threatened invertebrates Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Umbers, Associate Professor in Zoology, Western Sydney University Atlas Moth (_Attacus wardi_) Garry Sankowsky/flickr, CC BY When we think about animals, we tend to think of furry four-legged mammals. But 95% of all animal species are invertebrates – bees, butterflies, beetles, snails, worms, octopuses, starfish, corals,
Matariki and our diminishing night sky: light pollution from cities and satellites is making stars harder to see Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shea Esterling, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, University of Canterbury Zhang Jianyong/Xinhua via Getty Images This week, Aotearoa New Zealand officially celebrates Matariki for the fourth time, marked by the reappearance in the night sky of the star cluster also known as the Pleiades. Yet, ironically, the
Why a US court allowed a dead man to deliver his own victim impact statement – via an AI avatar Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James D Metzger, Senior Lecturer in Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney Composite image: Arrington Watkins Architects / AI avatar: YouTube/StaceyWales, CC BY In November 2021, in the city of Chandler, Arizona, Chris Pelkey was shot and killed by Gabriel Horcasitas in a road rage altercation. Horcasitas was
What’s the difference between food poisoning and gastro? A gut expert explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock If you’ve got a dodgy tummy, diarrhoea and have been vomiting, it’s easy to blame a “tummy bug” or “off food”. But which is it? Gastro or food poisoning? What’s the difference anyway? What’s gastroenteritis?
Sharks come in many different shapes and sizes. But they all follow a centuries-old mathematical rule Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodie L. Rummer, Professor of Marine Biology, James Cook University Rachel Moore From hand-sized lantern sharks that glow in the deep sea to bus-sized whale sharks gliding through tropical waters, sharks come in all shapes and sizes. Despite these differences, they all face the same fundamental challenge:
Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace ANALYSIS: By Matt Fitzpatrick, Flinders University In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat. The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding
Solomon Islanders safe but unable to leave Israel amid war on Iran RNZ Pacific The Solomon Islands Foreign Ministry says five people who completed agriculture training in Israel are safe but unable to come home amid the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. The ministry said in a statement that the Solomon Islands Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, was closely monitoring the situation and maintaining
We tracked Aussie teens’ mental health. The news isn’t good – and problems are worse for girls Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Smout, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney skynesher/Getty Images We know young people in Australia and worldwide are experiencing growing mental health challenges. The most recent national survey
Australia could become the world’s first net-zero exporter of fossil fuels – here’s how Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images Australia is the world’s third largest exporter of gas and second largest exporter of coal. When burned overseas, these exports result
Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia? So far, the evidence is unclear Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University The Conversation, CC BY-NC The first term of the Albanese government was defined by its fight against inflation, but the second looks like it will be defined by a need to kick start Australia’s sluggish productivity growth. Productivity is essentially
How high can US debt go before it triggers a financial crisis? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney rarrarorro/Shutterstock The tax cuts bill currently being debated by the US Senate will add another US$3 trillion (A$4.6 trillion) to US debt. President Donald Trump calls it the “big, beautiful bill”; his erstwhile policy adviser Elon Musk called it
Jaws at 50: how two musical notes terrified an entire generation Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Cole, Composer and Lecturer in Screen Composition, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney Universal Pictures Our experience of the world often involves hearing our environment before seeing it. Whether it’s the sound of something moving through nearby water, or the rustling of vegetation, our fear
As Luxon heads to China, his government’s pivot toward the US is a stumbling block Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago Ahead of his first visit to China, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been at pains to present meetings with Chinese premier Xi Jinping and other leaders as advancing New Zealand’s best interests. But there is arguably a
The story of the journalist on the Rainbow Warrior’s last voyage, David Robie Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – In April 2025, several of the Greenpeace crew visited Matauri Bay, Northland, the final resting place of the original flagship, the Rainbow Warrior. This article was one of the reflections pieces written by an oceans communications crew member. COMMENTARY: By Emma Page I was on the
As Israeli attacks draw tit-for-tat missile responses from Iran and shuts Haifa refinery, Gaza genocide continues Israeli media report that Iranian missile strikes on Haifa oil refinery yesterday killed 3 people and closed down the installation. The Israeli death toll has risen to 24, with 400 injured and more than 2700 people displaced. Israeli authorities report 370 missiles fired by Iran in total, 30 reaching their targets. Iranian military report they
View from the Hill: Cancelled Albanese-Trump meeting a setback on tariffs, AUKUS Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Anthony Albanese’s failure to get his much-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump is not the prime minister’s fault, nor should it be characterised as a “snub” by the president. There was always a risk of derailment by outside events,
Decoding PNG leader Marape’s talks with French President Macron ANALYSIS: By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent The recent series of high-level agreements between Papua New Guinea and France marks a significant development in PNG’s geopolitical relationships, driven by what appears to be a convergence of national interests. The “deepening relationship” is less about a single personality and more about a calculated alignment of
There’s a new ban on vaping in childcare centres, but what else do we need to keep kids safe? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harper, Lecturer, School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney On Monday, the federal government announced new rules to boost safety in the early childhood sector. From September there will be mandatory reporting of any allegations or incidents of child physical or sexual abuse within
Regime change wouldn’t likely bring democracy to Iran. A more threatening force could fill the vacuum Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University The timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program. But Netanyahu has made clear another
Why is there so much concern over Iran’s nuclear program? And where could it go from here? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Zala, Senior Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, Monash University Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran. Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by
ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on June 18, 2025.
Saving species starts at home: how you can help Australia’s 1,000 threatened invertebrates Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kate Umbers, Associate Professor in Zoology, Western Sydney University Atlas Moth (_Attacus wardi_) Garry Sankowsky/flickr, CC BY When we think about animals, we tend to think of furry four-legged mammals. But 95% of all animal species are invertebrates – bees, butterflies, beetles, snails, worms, octopuses, starfish, corals,
Matariki and our diminishing night sky: light pollution from cities and satellites is making stars harder to see Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shea Esterling, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, University of Canterbury Zhang Jianyong/Xinhua via Getty Images This week, Aotearoa New Zealand officially celebrates Matariki for the fourth time, marked by the reappearance in the night sky of the star cluster also known as the Pleiades. Yet, ironically, the
Why a US court allowed a dead man to deliver his own victim impact statement – via an AI avatar Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James D Metzger, Senior Lecturer in Law & Justice, UNSW Sydney Composite image: Arrington Watkins Architects / AI avatar: YouTube/StaceyWales, CC BY In November 2021, in the city of Chandler, Arizona, Chris Pelkey was shot and killed by Gabriel Horcasitas in a road rage altercation. Horcasitas was
What’s the difference between food poisoning and gastro? A gut expert explains Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Vincent Ho, Associate Professor and Clinical Academic Gastroenterologist, Western Sydney University Andrey_Popov/Shutterstock If you’ve got a dodgy tummy, diarrhoea and have been vomiting, it’s easy to blame a “tummy bug” or “off food”. But which is it? Gastro or food poisoning? What’s the difference anyway? What’s gastroenteritis?
Sharks come in many different shapes and sizes. But they all follow a centuries-old mathematical rule Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jodie L. Rummer, Professor of Marine Biology, James Cook University Rachel Moore From hand-sized lantern sharks that glow in the deep sea to bus-sized whale sharks gliding through tropical waters, sharks come in all shapes and sizes. Despite these differences, they all face the same fundamental challenge:
Iran war: from the Middle East to America, history shows you cannot assassinate your way to peace ANALYSIS: By Matt Fitzpatrick, Flinders University In the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion among Israeli Shin Bet intelligence officers was that the key to defeating the Palestinian Liberation Organisation was to assassinate its then-leader Yasser Arafat. The elimination of Arafat, the Shin Bet commander Yehuda Arbel wrote in his diary, was “a precondition to finding
Solomon Islanders safe but unable to leave Israel amid war on Iran RNZ Pacific The Solomon Islands Foreign Ministry says five people who completed agriculture training in Israel are safe but unable to come home amid the ongoing war between Israel and Iran. The ministry said in a statement that the Solomon Islands Embassy in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, was closely monitoring the situation and maintaining
We tracked Aussie teens’ mental health. The news isn’t good – and problems are worse for girls Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Scarlett Smout, Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use and Australia’s Mental Health Think Tank, University of Sydney skynesher/Getty Images We know young people in Australia and worldwide are experiencing growing mental health challenges. The most recent national survey
Australia could become the world’s first net-zero exporter of fossil fuels – here’s how Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Frank Jotzo, Professor, Crawford School of Public Policy and Director, Centre for Climate and Energy Policy, Australian National University Photo by Jie Zhao/Corbis via Getty Images Australia is the world’s third largest exporter of gas and second largest exporter of coal. When burned overseas, these exports result
Would a corporate tax cut boost productivity in Australia? So far, the evidence is unclear Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University The Conversation, CC BY-NC The first term of the Albanese government was defined by its fight against inflation, but the second looks like it will be defined by a need to kick start Australia’s sluggish productivity growth. Productivity is essentially
How high can US debt go before it triggers a financial crisis? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luke Hartigan, Lecturer in Economics, University of Sydney rarrarorro/Shutterstock The tax cuts bill currently being debated by the US Senate will add another US$3 trillion (A$4.6 trillion) to US debt. President Donald Trump calls it the “big, beautiful bill”; his erstwhile policy adviser Elon Musk called it
Jaws at 50: how two musical notes terrified an entire generation Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alison Cole, Composer and Lecturer in Screen Composition, Sydney Conservatorium of Music, University of Sydney Universal Pictures Our experience of the world often involves hearing our environment before seeing it. Whether it’s the sound of something moving through nearby water, or the rustling of vegetation, our fear
As Luxon heads to China, his government’s pivot toward the US is a stumbling block Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Robert G. Patman, Professor of International Relations, University of Otago Ahead of his first visit to China, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been at pains to present meetings with Chinese premier Xi Jinping and other leaders as advancing New Zealand’s best interests. But there is arguably a
The story of the journalist on the Rainbow Warrior’s last voyage, David Robie Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – In April 2025, several of the Greenpeace crew visited Matauri Bay, Northland, the final resting place of the original flagship, the Rainbow Warrior. This article was one of the reflections pieces written by an oceans communications crew member. COMMENTARY: By Emma Page I was on the
As Israeli attacks draw tit-for-tat missile responses from Iran and shuts Haifa refinery, Gaza genocide continues Israeli media report that Iranian missile strikes on Haifa oil refinery yesterday killed 3 people and closed down the installation. The Israeli death toll has risen to 24, with 400 injured and more than 2700 people displaced. Israeli authorities report 370 missiles fired by Iran in total, 30 reaching their targets. Iranian military report they
View from the Hill: Cancelled Albanese-Trump meeting a setback on tariffs, AUKUS Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Anthony Albanese’s failure to get his much-anticipated meeting with US President Donald Trump is not the prime minister’s fault, nor should it be characterised as a “snub” by the president. There was always a risk of derailment by outside events,
Decoding PNG leader Marape’s talks with French President Macron ANALYSIS: By Scott Waide, RNZ Pacific PNG correspondent The recent series of high-level agreements between Papua New Guinea and France marks a significant development in PNG’s geopolitical relationships, driven by what appears to be a convergence of national interests. The “deepening relationship” is less about a single personality and more about a calculated alignment of
There’s a new ban on vaping in childcare centres, but what else do we need to keep kids safe? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Erin Harper, Lecturer, School of Education and Social Work, University of Sydney On Monday, the federal government announced new rules to boost safety in the early childhood sector. From September there will be mandatory reporting of any allegations or incidents of child physical or sexual abuse within
Regime change wouldn’t likely bring democracy to Iran. A more threatening force could fill the vacuum Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Andrew Thomas, Lecturer in Middle East Studies, Deakin University The timing and targets of Israel’s attacks on Iran tell us that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s short-term goal is to damage Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to severely diminish its weapons program. But Netanyahu has made clear another
Why is there so much concern over Iran’s nuclear program? And where could it go from here? Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Benjamin Zala, Senior Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, Monash University Maxar satellite imagery overview of the Fordow enrichment facility located southwest of Tehran. Maxar/Contributor/Getty Images Conflict between Israel and Iran is intensifying, after Israeli airstrikes on key nuclear sites and targeted assassinations last week were followed by
When we think about animals, we tend to think of furry four-legged mammals. But 95% of all animal species are invertebrates – bees, butterflies, beetles, snails, worms, octopuses, starfish, corals, spiders and many many more. These creatures make us happy, pollinate flowers, keep soils healthy, clean water, build reefs, maintain oceans and bring colour and wonder to our homes, cities, farms and wild places.
When a mammal or bird goes extinct in Australia, it’s big news. But invertebrates have gone extinct much more frequently – and with much less attention. Since colonisation, an estimated 9,000 invertebrates have gone extinct – and one or two more go extinct every week.
Invertebrates face five big challenges: climate change, habitat destruction, natural resource extraction, pollution and invasive species. For the most part, efforts to conserve them are in their infancy in Australia, likely due to the historic undervaluing of smaller animals and little critters. There are shining exceptions such as the incredible conservation success of the Lord Howe Island stick insect, but such examples are vanishingly rare.
The good news? Because invertebrates live everywhere, the opportunity to help is often literally on our doorsteps. Simple actions can help, such as planting native species, leaving logs in the garden and avoiding insecticides.
Meet some of the threatened one thousand
Threatened invertebrates live in every Australian state and territory and in our major cities. Of the almost 1,000 threatened species, 27% are snails and slugs, 25% are insects, 19% are corals, 17% are crayfish and 5% are spiders. Here are some you may come across.
Bogong moth (Agrotis infusa). These moths once filled the night skies in their billions. Now they’re listed as endangered because the cool alpine caves they rely on to escape summer heat are warming with climate change. These migratory moths fly across southern Australia, navigating to their mountain refuges each summer using the stars and earth’s magnetic field. Help map their migration to protect them.
Bogong moths migrate to cool caves in the Australian Alps in summer. Kate Umbers, CC BY
Atlas moth (Attacus wardi). This giant tropical moth with a 22 cm wingspan is now considered vulnerable due to habitat destruction and introduced weeds. If you live near Darwin, planting the native Atlas Croton tree will help feed its very hungry caterpillars.
Mangrove ant-blue butterfly (Acrodipsas illidgei). These endangered butterflies lay eggs on grey mangrove trees home to acrobat ants (Crematogaster species), which carry the eggs into its nests. When the caterpillars hatch, they eat ant larvae while in turn nourishing the ant colony with sugary secretions. Mangrove destruction, pesticide runoff and threats to their ant partners pose real threats. Protecting mangroves in southeast Queensland and reporting sightings of butterflies and ants on iNaturalist will help.
Sydney Hawk dragonfly (Austrocordulia leonardi). This strikingly coloured endangered dragonfly is largely found in Sydney. Changes to local waterways and the deep pools its aquatic larvae need threaten the species. Restoring local waterways will help.
Dural land snails (Pommerhelix duralensis). These endangered snails are found only in north-western Sydney and the lower Blue Mountains. They cruise through leaves and rocks munching on fungi and helping add compost to forest soils. You might catch a glimpse during light rain. Help them by leaving large patches of undisturbed native undergrowth – habitat loss poses the biggest threat.
Hairy bee (Leioproctus douglasiellus). This critically endangered burrowing bee lives only in and around Perth. Its numbers have fallen due to habitat loss and pesticides. Leaving patches of open soil in your garden and planting shallow flowers can help these short-tongued bees get nectar.
Giant Gippsland earthworm (Megascolides australis). This iconic earthworm can grow up to 1.5 metres long. It only lives in a patch of southern Gippsland in Victoria and is endangered in part due to farming practices such as ploughing. These gentle giants famously gurgle as they move through their tunnels keeping soil healthy. Local landholders can help by leaving patches of land along stream banks as worm conservation habitat.
Tasmanian live-bearing sea stars (Parvulastra vivipara). Most sea stars lay eggs. Not this species, which gives birth to live young. They’re endangered because they live in intertidal waters of south-eastern Tasmania affected by shoreline development and invasive species. Look carefully and you might see one as it grazes on algae-covered rocks. Join local events to tackle invasive species and log any sightings on iNaturalist.
Invertebrates bring us delight and wonder. Here’s how we can help those in trouble.
Plant flowers. Providing food for pollinators and other wonderful flower-visiting insects can help year-round.
Keep part of your garden a bit wild. If you leave logs, leaves and open soil in your garden, you make space for shiny beetles, singing crickets, native bees and other ground-dwellers.
The creek is beautiful. Help restore waterways, make a pond, learn about local water bugs and support local wetlands.
Be clever with pest control. Avoid snail baits and cancel regular broad-spectrum sprays, as these can harm many non-target species. Use critter-friendly alternatives to protect the whole food chain.
Let the stars shine. Switch off lights at night if safe or close your curtains to help nocturnal creatures such as moths and orb-weaving spiders.
Log your sightings. Conservation scientists need as much data as possible on invertebrates to understand how they are doing out there. Upload your bug photos to iNaturalist.
Kate Umbers receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Commonwealth DCCEEW, Hermon Slade Foundation, and Holsworth Foundation. She is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia, Biodiversity Council, co-chair of the IUCN Grasshopper Specialist Group, and is on the Conservation Committee for the Australian Entomological Society.
Kenny Wolfe is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.
Megan Head is affiliated with Invertebrates Australia.
Shawan Chowdhury is affiliated with Monash University and Invertebrates Australia.
Tanya Latty co-founded and volunteers for conservation organisation Invertebrates Australia. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council, NSW Saving our Species, and Agrifutures Australia
If you’ve got a dodgy tummy, diarrhoea and have been vomiting, it’s easy to blame a “tummy bug” or “off food”.
But which is it? Gastro or food poisoning?
What’s the difference anyway?
What’s gastroenteritis?
Gastroenteritis, or gastro for short, is a gut infection caused by a virus, bacterium or other microbe.
The gut is teeming with cells including healthy microbes and the cells lining the gut. But when viruses, bacteria and other microbes start to invade your gut, they colonise, build up in large numbers and eventually cause the cells lining the gut to inflame. The “-itis” at the end of gastroenteritis means inflammation.
So where do these gastro-causing microbes come from? Eating contaminated food is often the source.
However you can acquire these microbes in other ways. For example, if you touch a surface where someone sick from viral gastroenteritis had vomited on, that virus could transfer to your hands. And if your hands touched your mouth, you in turn could contract viral gastroenteritis.
What’s food poisoning?
Food poisoning refers to getting sick from eating food contaminated with chemicals, microbes or toxins.
For example if you ate food contaminated with insecticides or methyl alcohol (methanol) that would count as food poisoning. If you ate puffer fish or poisonous mushrooms that would count too. But food poisoning doesn’t include the effects of eating a food you’re allergic to.
The vast majority of food poisonings are as a result of food contaminated by microbes and their toxins. When you eat or drink them it’s like a missile strike. The toxins in particular can rapidly cause inflammation and damage the lining of the gut.
Food poisoning (or foodborne gastroenteritis) is also common in Australia. It accounts for about one-third of all cases of gastroenteritis or an estimated 5.4 million cases every year.
How can we tell the two apart?
Both gastroenteritis and food poisoning have symptoms such as diarrhoea, vomiting, nausea, abdominal cramps, fever and headaches. But these symptoms can come on in different ways.
Viral gastroenteritis, such as with norovirus, usually causes symptoms 24–48 hours after exposure, which can last for one to two days.
But food poisoning after eating microbial toxins can come on very quickly. For example, toxins from the bacterium Staphylococcus aureus can cause symptoms within 30 minutes of eating contaminated food, such as undercooked meat. Fortunately, symptoms usually get better within 24 hours.
Symptoms don’t always come on so quickly in all cases of bacterial food poisoning. For example, it can take as long as 70 days between exposure to Listeria and symptoms occurring, although, on average it’s about three weeks. This long incubation period can make it difficult to work out if a particular food is responsible for someone getting sick.
As a general guide food poisoning occurs quite quickly (within hours of eating contaminated food) while gastroenteritis can take a day or more after eating to get sick. But there is no hard and fast rule.
It can take weeks from eating soft cheese contaminated with Listeria before you have symptoms. In Green/Shutterstock
How do I prevent them?
The same precautions when handling food apply to preventing both gastroenteritis and food poisoning. These steps not only lower your risk of being affected in the first place, they lower your risk of you infecting others.
Wash your hands thoroughly with soap and water before preparing food. Use separate cutting boards and utensils for raw and cooked foods to help avoid cross-contamination. Cook food thoroughly and store it at safe temperatures.
Gastroenteritis can involve transmission of microbes through means other than food, for instance, via poo on your hands if you don’t wash your hands after using the toilet or after changing a child’s nappy. So wash your hands afterwards.
To prevent others from becoming sick, make sure you quickly disinfect contaminated surfaces thoroughly after someone vomits or has diarrhoea. First, put on gloves and wash surfaces with hot water and a detergent. Then disinfect using household bleach containing 0.1% hypochlorite.
How can I get better?
Treating both gastroenteritis and food poisoning focuses on preventing dehydration and relieving symptoms.
To avoid dehydration, drink plenty of fluids. For moderate or severe cases, you can buy commercial oral rehydration solution from a pharmacy.
You can also make your own oral rehydration solution by adding 6 teaspoons of sugar, ½ teaspoon of salt and ½ teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate to a litre of water. You can splash in some cordial for taste.
If symptoms are severe or persist you should see your GP or go to the emergency department.
Vincent Ho 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.
Source: United States Senator for North Carolina Thom Tillis
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) announced that Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) have joined the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) as cosponsors. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation will restore patent eligibility to important inventions across many fields while also resolving legitimate concerns over the patenting of mere ideas, the mere discovery of what already exists in nature, and social and cultural content that everyone agrees is beyond the scope of the patent system. It also affirms the basic principle that the patent system is central to promoting technology-based innovation.
“In recent years the Supreme Court has expanded judicial exceptions to such a degree that patent eligibility has gone from being a coarse filter to a fine one – resulting in U.S. inventors being unable to obtain patents in areas where our economic peers offer protections, such as for diagnostic medicine and for artificial intelligence,” said Senator Tillis. “Patent eligibility is but one of four criteria that determines whether a patent application can be issued as a patent. PERA will expand the aperture of patent eligibility – it does not automatically render something patentable – and will ensure that the U.S. does not shut the door to innovations that is welcomed by the patent systems of our economic peers. We cannot allow the U.S. to fall behind on the global stage and I’m glad to see more of my Senate colleagues recognize this pressing need.”
“When American innovators know their ideas are eligible for patent protection, they take the risks that push us into the future – whether that’s the next groundbreaking medical test or the latest AI technology,” said Senator Coons. “PERA restores clarity to the law on what can be patented and what cannot – guidance that federal courts have been requesting for years and that the Supreme Court has refused to provide. I’m excited to welcome my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to this bill. This is another step toward providing America’s inventors with the stable legal foundation they need to produce the cutting-edge technologies that power our economy.”
“Our patent system must fuel innovation and secure America’s competitive edge over adversaries like Communist China,” said Senator Blackburn. “The bipartisan Patent Eligibility Restoration Act would restore patent eligibility for important inventions across many critical fields to ensure America remains ahead of the curve when it comes to technological innovation.”
“A series of Supreme Court decisions restricting patent eligibility have constricted American innovation,” said Senator Hirono. “The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act will help clarify patent eligibility law, encouraging technological innovation to help ensure that our country does not fall behind on innovation. Importantly, this legislation only affects patent eligibility, it does nothing to affect the many other requirements for patentability.”
Background:
Unfortunately, due to a series of Supreme Court decisions, patent eligibility law in the United States has become confused, constricted, and unclear in recent years. This has resulted in a wide range of well-documented negative impacts – inconsistent case decisions, uncertainty in innovation and investment communities, and unpredictable business outcomes.
As of 2021, all 12 then-sitting judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lamented the state of the law. Witnesses and stakeholders from a wide array of industries, fields, interest groups, and academia have testified and submitted comments confirming the uncertainty and detailing the detrimental effects of patent eligibility confusion in the United States. There is now widespread bipartisan agreement in Congress and across all recent Administrations that reforms are necessary to restore the United States to a position of global strength and leadership in key areas of technology and innovation, such as medical diagnostics, biotechnology, personalized medicine, artificial intelligence, 5G, and blockchain.
The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act achieves this critical goal by restoring patent eligibility to important inventions across many fields, while also resolving legitimate concerns over patenting of mere ideas, the mere discovery of what already exists in nature, and social and cultural content that everyone agrees is beyond the scope of the patent system, which is a system aimed at promoting technology-based innovation. As a general approach, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act maintains the existing statutory categories of eligible subject matter, which have worked well for over two centuries, but eliminates the overly malleable set of current judicial exceptions – replacing them with five specific, defined statutory exclusions. By eliminating and replacing the current judicial exceptions, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act provides predictable patent eligibility for important computer-implemented technological developments and medical advances, creating a solid bedrock for America’s innovation future.
Full text of the bill is available HERE.
Thanks to intensive management of wild nests and a growing hand-rearing programme with Auckland Zoo, this season saw 19 fledglings take to the skies. This is a significant improvement from last year’s nine, and just three the year before.
With fewer than 45 adult birds (over a year old) remaining, every chick is precious. DNA sexing results also revealed a higher-than-normal percentage of females, which could prove a vital boost for a species whose future depends on strong female survival.
DOC’s monitoring and tracking programme provided fascinating insights into the movements of young tara iti. Juveniles fitted with satellite tags, hand reared at Auckland Zoo, surprised the team with their adventurous flights – some completing roundtrips from the Hauraki Gulf to the Far North, and one even travelling as far as New Plymouth and back.
Alex Wilson, DOC Senior Ranger, says one of the birds spotted during post-season monitoring was a zoo-reared juvenile from the 2023–24 season.
“She survived the winter months, making her the first hand-reared bird known to have done so,” says Alex. “These are exciting developments and show our new tools like satellite tagging and hand rearing are working.
“Each fledgling is a step forward, and the information we’re collecting helps us understand how to get the best outcomes from our recovery efforts.”
Post-breeding season monitoring recorded 50 individual tara iti (up from 33 individuals last season), including 28 adults, nine sub-adults and 13 fledglings. DOC’s intensive habitat management, predator control, and head-starting approach proves that when we change how we interact with nature, it has a real impact.
Still, tara iti remain in a precarious position. The population is small, and the birds face ongoing threats from habitat loss, predation, disturbance from human activities, and climate change. Ongoing intensive conservation efforts will be required for many years to secure their survival, and DOC can’t do it alone.
DOC works closely with iwi partners including Patuharakeke Te Iwi Trust Board, Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust, Nga Maungawhakahii O Kaipara Development Trust, Ngāti Wai Trust Board, and Ngāti Manuhiri Settlement Trust, strategic partner Auckland Zoo and key supporters and partners including, Auckland Council, the Shorebirds Trust, NZ Fairy Tern Charitable Trust, About Tern, Birds NZ, Tara Iti Golf Club, NZ Nature Fund, and local trapping groups.
Generous support has also been provided by the Endangered Species Foundation, Pākiri Beach Holiday Park, Manāki Whitebait, Tongariro National Trout Centre, and New Zealand King Salmon.
Aotearoa has one of the highest rates of threatened species in the world, and every New Zealander has a role to play in turning this around. Whether it’s supporting conservation efforts, reducing threats in your own backyard, or simply learning more about our native species, what we do makes a difference.
How you can help protect tara iti
Stay out of fenced nesting areas and use designated walkways.
Keep dogs on leads and out of reserves.
Avoid nests and chicks when on beaches and estuaries.
Don’t drive or cycle on beaches.
Dispose of rubbish, bait and fish scraps properly to deter predators.
If a bird swoops at you or appears injured, move away quickly – you’re likely near a nest.
Donate to the tara iti recovery programme
The public can now donate directly to DOC’s Tara iti recovery programme through the New Zealand Nature Fund. Donations will be used to accelerate DOC initiatives, including:
Developing three to five new safe breeding sites within the bird’s range.
Creating shell patch habitats at existing and new breeding sites.
Expanding predator control buffers to better protect all nesting areas.
Growing the hand-rearing and release programme to boost productivity.
There’s no such thing as too small an action; every donation helps nature, and brings us closer to securing a future for these rare and remarkable birds.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representatives Val Hoyle (OR-04), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), and Janelle Bynum (OR-05) issued a joint statement on the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement (RCBA) reached between the Federal Government and the Six Sovereigns—the states of Washington and Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation:
“We are deeply disappointed in President Trump’s unilateral decision to withdraw from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. This agreement enabled a pause to decades of litigation and reaffirmed the federal government’s responsibility to ensure healthy and abundant salmon populations in the Columbia River Basin.
“President Trump has already threatened Salmon recovery efforts through his nonsensical layoffs at key agencies – like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – which are responsible for operating hatcheries on the Columbia River System. Now, with the stroke of a pen, he has created upheaval and uncertainty for the future of salmon runs, clean energy in the Pacific Northwest, and our nation’s commitment to honoring Tribal treaty rights.
“Furthermore, this decision was made unilaterally and without any consultation with the four tribes — the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.
“We have consistently supported federal funding for salmon recovery efforts and clean energy deployment, and it is beyond frustrating to see this Administration take such a sweeping approach to dismantling these essential programs. Moving forward, we will continue to work with our partners across the Pacific Northwest to reach a resilient solution to ensure abundant salmon populations and reliable clean energy for our region.”
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representatives Val Hoyle (OR-04), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), and Janelle Bynum (OR-05) issued a joint statement on the Trump Administration’s decision to withdraw from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement (RCBA) reached between the Federal Government and the Six Sovereigns—the states of Washington and Oregon, and the Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation:
“We are deeply disappointed in President Trump’s unilateral decision to withdraw from the Resilient Columbia Basin Agreement. This agreement enabled a pause to decades of litigation and reaffirmed the federal government’s responsibility to ensure healthy and abundant salmon populations in the Columbia River Basin.
“President Trump has already threatened Salmon recovery efforts through his nonsensical layoffs at key agencies – like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – which are responsible for operating hatcheries on the Columbia River System. Now, with the stroke of a pen, he has created upheaval and uncertainty for the future of salmon runs, clean energy in the Pacific Northwest, and our nation’s commitment to honoring Tribal treaty rights.
“Furthermore, this decision was made unilaterally and without any consultation with the four tribes — the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.
“We have consistently supported federal funding for salmon recovery efforts and clean energy deployment, and it is beyond frustrating to see this Administration take such a sweeping approach to dismantling these essential programs. Moving forward, we will continue to work with our partners across the Pacific Northwest to reach a resilient solution to ensure abundant salmon populations and reliable clean energy for our region.”
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), a combat veteran, is leading bipartisan legislation alongside U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Congressman Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), and Congressman Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) to support the mental health of servicemembers as they transition into civilian life.
The Daniel J. Harvey Jr. and Adam Lambert Improving Servicemember Transition to Reduce Veteran Suicide Act is named to honor the memory of two Marines who died by suicide, including Iowan Cpl. Adam Lambert.
“Servicemembers put their lives on the line to protect our freedoms, and America owes them a debt of gratitude,” said Ernst. “We will never forget the life of Cpl. Adam Lambert. This bill honors his memory by fully supporting veterans in their transition into civilian life and providing them access to the highest quality of mental health care.”
“America is the land of the free and home of the brave because of people like Cpl. Adam Lambert. A proud Marine from Iowa, Adam raised his hand to serve our country,”?said Nunn. “Unfortunately, too often the transition back to civilian life is more difficult than it should be. In honor of Adam’s memory, I’m grateful to work with Adam’s parents to make the transition easier for America’s veterans by improving mental health services.”
Specifically, the bill amends the Department of Defense’s Transition Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) to cover counseling for the treatment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), anxiety disorders, depression, chronic pain, sleep disorders, suicidal ideation, potential effects of the loss of community and support systems experienced by a member separating from the armed forces, and other mental health conditions associated with service in the armed forces.
The bill also strengthens treatment options and resources to address substance abuse, including alcohol, prescription drug, and opioid abuse.
Click here to view the bill.
Source: United States Senator for Alaska Lisa Murkowski
06.17.25
Washington, DC – Today, U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Representatives Chellie Pingree (ME-01) and James Moylan (R-GU) reintroduced the bipartisan, bicameral Coastal Communities Ocean Acidification Act. This legislation provides resources for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to collaborate with local and tribal entities to research and monitor ocean acidification.
“The impacts of ocean acidification on our coastal communities cannot be understated, particularly on our blue economy,” said Senator Murkowski, Co-Chair of the Senate Oceans Caucus. “This legislation takes a holistic approach to understanding ocean acidification, encouraging experts from every walk of life to work together and ensure that our oceans stay healthy.”
“The oceans are in trouble. Ocean acidification caused by carbon pollution is harming marine ecosystems and coastal industries like aquaculture,” said Senator Whitehouse, Co-Chair of the Senate Oceans Caucus. “Our bipartisan legislation will assist in monitoring changes to the oceans and help us better understand how to protect Rhode Island’s blue economy from acidifying waters.”
“We’re seeing the effects of ocean acidification in real time—from threatening lobster populations in the Gulf of Maine to eroding coral reefs in tropical waters. We now know that parts of our oceans have reached dangerous acidification levels earlier than expected, threatening entire ecosystems.” said Congresswoman Pingree, ranking member of the House Appropriations Interior and Environment Subcommittee. “Coastal communities like those in Maine are on the frontlines of this crisis, and our bipartisan Coastal Communities Ocean Acidification Act ensures they won’t face it alone. This bill gives coastal communities the science, tools, and support they need to build resilience and protect ocean industries that support millions of jobs. I was proud that my colleagues in the House passed this crucial bill last Congress, it’s long past time Congress sends this bill to the President’s desk.”
“As an island territory in the heart of the Pacific, Guam is on the front lines of climate and oceanic change. Ocean acidification threatens not just our marine ecosystems, but also our cultural traditions, local fisheries, and food security,” said Congressman Moylan. “This legislation is about giving coastal communities like ours the tools and partnerships we need to understand and respond to these growing challenges. I’m proud to co-lead this bipartisan effort to ensure a healthier ocean for future generations.”
This legislation would direct NOAA to collaborate with and support state, local, and tribal entities that are conducting or have completed ocean acidification vulnerability assessments. The bill strengthens partnerships between NOAA and a wide range of stakeholders involved in ocean acidification research, such as indigenous groups, coastal communities, state and local resource managers, fishery management councils and commissions, and the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). The Coastal Communities Ocean Acidification Act passed the House in the 118th Congress.
