Do Middle-earth and Westeros make sense? Climate scientists modelled them to find out

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Cook, Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne

When English author J.R.R. Tolkien crafted his fantasy world Middle-earth, he argued storytellers are essentially “sub-creators” – they build fictional realms with internally consistent laws.

For a world to be truly immersive and believable, readers apply what is known as the “principle of minimal departure”. This assumes anything not explicitly magical, such as a planet’s weather or gravity, must adhere to the laws of the real world.

In this spirit of rigorous worldbuilding, we just published a new study where we merged the disparate disciplines of literary worldbuilding and climate modelling.

We used complex computer programs – the same ones used to forecast Earth’s future warming scenarios – to simulate the climates of famous fantasy settings such as Tolkien’s Middle-earth, the continents of Westeros in the Game of Thrones, and the far-future Earth in The Wheel of Time series. We also built a model for a fictional world developed by one of us.

It’s a seemingly whimsical exercise, but it serves serious purposes.

For starters, it provides new details on fictional worlds beyond what the author shared, “filling the gaps” with science.

More importantly, it offers a new way for us to communicate the fundamental physics of climate science to a broad, general audience. And exploring climate model behaviour under fantastical settings helps our understanding of model physics.

Why the Misty Mountains are so misty

Tolkien, the author of The Lord of the Rings, was known for his extraordinary attention to detail. He meticulously calculated distances, times, and even phenomena such as the direction of the wind at every step along the characters’ journey.

Working from Tolkien’s own detailed maps, we fed Middle-earth’s topography (land height) and bathymetry (ocean depth) into an advanced climate model.

Since Tolkien intended Middle-earth to be our own Earth at a distant point in the past, we assumed its physical parameters – such as the planetary radius, rotation rate, and distance from the Sun – were identical to ours. We then simulated the world’s climate.

The results were a remarkable confirmation of Tolkien’s intuitive worldbuilding.

The model predicted a climate similar to Western Europe and North Africa – unsurprising, given Tolkien’s geographical inspiration.

The highest precipitation fell on and to the west of the Misty Mountains, with a drier “rain-shadow” effect to the east. This effect is caused by prevailing westerly winds forcing moist air to rise and cool over the mountains, condensing water vapour into rain or snow before it reaches the eastern side.

The model’s prediction of extensive forest cover across much of Middle-earth was consistent with Elrond’s claim that in the past, squirrels could travel from the Shire to Dunland without touching the ground.

A simulation of precipitation in Middle-earth, with fictional references to author and journal publication included for fun. Dan Lunt

Climate scientist Dan Lunt first released this climate simulation in a fictional paper in 2013, and it became an unexpected success in the classroom. Educators used the exotic setting of Middle-earth to explain complex concepts underpinning weather and climate. They were able to relate this to the physical laws that govern why climate changes in the real world.

The unstable seasons of Westeros

One of the defining features of George R.R. Martin’s Game of Thrones is the unpredictable and prolonged seasons of Westeros. This unique climatic feature is not just backstory. It’s a crucial plot device, allowing the White Walkers to move southward across an ice-covered world.

Astrophysicists and climatologists have long nerded out over the possible cause. Theories have ranged from binary star systems to volcanic activity, but all have struggled to create a viable, habitable world.

We focused on the idea of a chaotically-varying axial tilt. On Earth, the stable tilt of our axis is what gives us regular seasons. We used a real-world climate model where the planet’s axis “tumbled” throughout the year, like a wobbly spinning top.

The result was striking: if the planet tumbled exactly once per orbit, one hemisphere would constantly face the sun in a fixed season, creating a permanent summer or winter.

How axial tilt affects a planet’s seasons. If the tilt stays the same, the northern hemisphere changes from summer to winter. If the axial tilt shifts, winter can stay throughout the year. Cook et al. 2026, CC BY-NC-ND

But what causes the season to suddenly flip from a long summer to a long winter? The tilt of our planet’s axis is stabilised by the gravitational influence of its moon.

Martin’s world has only one moon, but legend says it once had two, until the second moon “wandered too close to the sun and it cracked from the heat”. The loss of a second moon may have caused the planet’s axis to become unstable, providing a plausible, physics-based explanation for the world’s greatest mysteries.

Building new worlds with climate science

The benefits of climate modelling are not limited to just filling gaps in classic stories.

Our models can also inform the worldbuilding of new fantasy realms. The work now published in our new paper started when climate communicator John Cook was developing an allegorical, speculative story exploring the denialist response to environmental damage.

He worked with climate scientists to simulate the climate of his fantasy world, Terrios. The subsequent model output provided concrete details such as temperature, precipitation, and wind conditions at every step along the characters’ journey through a variety of biomes.

This ensured the world was internally consistent and richly detailed, enhancing verisimilitude and creating a more immersive experience for the reader.

How simulated biomes from a climate model inform the design of a map of a new fantasy world. Cook et al. 2026

Ultimately, applying physics to fictional lands provides an engaging way to connect general audiences with complex environmental science.

By using climate models, scientists honour Tolkien’s demand that even the most fantastical worlds must maintain a credible, finely-tuned balance between the familiar laws of realism and the fantastic.

The enduring legacy of these simulated worlds proves that when science and art collide, the resulting discoveries can be just as compelling as the stories themselves.

ref. Do Middle-earth and Westeros make sense? Climate scientists modelled them to find out – https://theconversation.com/do-middle-earth-and-westeros-make-sense-climate-scientists-modelled-them-to-find-out-277232

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/do-middle-earth-and-westeros-make-sense-climate-scientists-modelled-them-to-find-out-277232/

ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for March 11, 2026

ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on March 11, 2026.

Do Middle-earth and Westeros make sense? Climate scientists modelled them to find out
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Cook, Senior Research Fellow, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne When English author J.R.R. Tolkien crafted his fantasy world Middle-earth, he argued storytellers are essentially “sub-creators” – they build fictional realms with internally consistent laws. For a world to be truly immersive and

Commercial space technology is shaping the Iran war – the law can’t keep up
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Marie Brennan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato When the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran nearly two weeks ago, the first confirmation didn’t come from governments. It came from commercial satellites. Images from US companies Planet Labs and Vantor captured

My mind keeps on going blank. How worried should I be?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophie Andrews, Associate Professor and Lead, Healthy Brain Ageing Research Program, Thompson Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast We’ve all been there. Whether it’s at a crucial moment of an exam, walking into a room for a specific purpose, or making an impromptu speech, your mind goes

‘We’re the good guys’: why moral storytelling doesn’t make the war on Iran necessary or legal
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tamer Morris, Senior Lecturer, International Law, University of Sydney Since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran, most international law experts appear to be speaking with one voice on the legality of the attacks. Legal experts have said the attacks violated Article 2(4) of

What’s it like to be a bat? Scientists develop new solution to the puzzle of animal minds
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cristina Luz Wilkins, PhD Candidate, Department of Environmental Studies, University of New England In 1974, philosopher Thomas Nagel posed a deceptively simple question: “what is it like to be a bat?”. His point wasn’t really about bats. He was offering a provocative challenge about the limits of

Can exercise reduce period pain? And what kind is best?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mike Armour, Associate Professor at NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University Having your period can be a painful experience. Period pain, also known as dysmenorrhea, is a very common condition with around nine in ten young women aged 13 to 25 in Australia having regular period

The Oscars are usually a mess, but this year’s Best Picture nominees are strong. Here’s who should win
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ari Mattes, Lecturer in Communications and Media, University of Notre Dame Australia Film critics – myself included – love to bemoan the death of high-quality cinema in the age of streaming, pointing to mediocre Best Picture Oscar nominees as evidence that the production of great (or even

Tucker Carlson helped make Donald Trump and JD Vance. Could he be the next president?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis Altman, Vice Chancellor’s Fellow and Professorial Fellow, Institute for Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University It’s well known that Donald Trump consumes television broadcasts and often makes policy based more on Fox News punditry than advice from political or government advisors. So it’s unsurprising

Iran oil shock: the EU has very few options to limit the war’s economic impact – and prevent a recession
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sergi Basco, Profesor Agregado de Economia, Universitat de Barcelona After the US and Israel began their military strikes on Iran on February 28, oil and gas markets were plunged into chaos and energy prices shot up. As of today, Brent Crude Oil prices are 20% higher than

Trump’s war against Iran is uniquely unpopular among US military actions of the past century
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University It’s clear that regime change is among the biggest objectives of the U.S. war in Iran. “I have to be involved in the appointment” of Iran’s next leader, President Donald Trump said on March 5, 2026.

Who profits from war with Iran? Understanding that will be key to resolving the conflict
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jagannadha Pawan Tamvada, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Kingston University When US and Israeli forces launched airstrikes on Iran, the shock waves were felt far beyond the region. As the conflict escalates, understanding who benefits from this crisis might be as important as counting its costs. The timing could

Animals can talk over huge distances – but humans might be changing their range
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben JJ Walker, Researcher, UNSW Sydney Animals are noisy. And their noises can travel a long way. But making sounds can be a double-edged sword: it can help them communicate, sometimes over long distances, but it can also reveal them to predators. In new research published in

Sex, pink and empowerment are used to sell alcohol to women. They don’t always like it
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristen Foley, Research Fellow, Centre for Public Health, Equity and Human Flourishing, Torrens University Australia Ellidy pops into the bottle shop on her way out to dinner with friends. She’s faced with rows of evocative labels – using artwork, imagery and symbols to help portray the essence

All it takes is paint and pancakes. How to boost your preschooler’s science skills
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Goutam Roy, PhD Candidate in STEM education, Charles Sturt University Parents of young children will be aware of the need to encourage early reading and maths skills in their kids. They know it’s important to make time to read with their children. Or point out that “cat”

Amid a surge in energy prices, a windfall tax on gas profits could be the best way to protect households
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Locky Xianglong Liu, Research fellow, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University The war in Iran has once again exposed how vulnerable the world’s energy markets are to geopolitical disruption. In wild swings, benchmark crude oil prices spiked as high as US$120 per barrel, roughly 50% higher than

Louis Theroux’s Inside the Manosphere exposes the business model of misogyny
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Roberts, Professor of Sociology, School of Social Sciences, Monash University Over the past two years, viral clips, news headlines and TV series such as Adolescence have ensured much of the public has encountered the “manosphere” – an online ecosystem that repackages misogyny, anti-feminism and male grievance

Taking the wealth – the plunder and impoverishment of West Papua
REVIEW: By Lee Duffield Declining population in West Papua, and critical loss of life through clashes with the Indonesia military raise the question of genocide in a new book by Brisbane writer Dr Greg Poulgrain. This work, Curse of Gold, published in English by Kompas, as the title indicates traces the roots of subjugation going

View from The Hill: David Littleproud quits as Nationals leader, declaring ‘I’m buggered’
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Nationals leader David Littleproud has unexpectedly quit his post, declaring he is “buggered” and “out on my feet”. His announcement came as a shock to colleagues and follows a period of extreme turbulence for his party and the Coalition, which

Politics with Michelle Grattan: Middle East war set to push inflation higher than forecast, warns RBA deputy governor
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra The Reserve Bank’s Deputy Governor Andrew Hauser says inflation in Australia looks likely to be higher than projected before the war in the Middle East broke out. The Reserve Bank’s board will meet to discuss interest rates next week. Reserve

Australia is sending an aircraft and personnel to the Middle East. Does this mean we are entering the war?
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow, Strategic Studies, Griffith University The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is off to another Middle Eastern war, which is likely a surprise to many given how contentious the country’s involvement in the Iraq war was. The Albanese government has decided to send a

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/er-report-a-roundup-of-significant-articles-on-eveningreport-nz-for-march-11-2026/

My mind keeps on going blank. How worried should I be?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophie Andrews, Associate Professor and Lead, Healthy Brain Ageing Research Program, Thompson Institute, University of the Sunshine Coast

We’ve all been there. Whether it’s at a crucial moment of an exam, walking into a room for a specific purpose, or making an impromptu speech, your mind goes blank.

It can be frustrating, stressful or worrying.

But what’s really going on in your brain? And when should you go to your GP for a check-up?

What is mind blanking?

One of the earliest observations in psychology is that our thoughts usually produce a stream of consciousness, flowing almost constantly.

Often our attention and thoughts are focused. Other times, our mind wanders.

But less often (perhaps about 15% of the time) our mind goes completely blank. So in recent years, researchers have begun trying to find out why.

Mind blanking can happen when we intend to retrieve a memory, and find it gone. This could be completely forgetting the answers to questions in an exam, or forgetting why we walked into a room.

It can also happen when we are not aware of thinking at all. Someone might ask us a question, and we realise we had “zoned out”.

Sometimes this zoning out is due to our mind wandering, and we are aware of our thoughts. However, at other times, when we’re not sure where our mind went, this is mind blanking.

Some people are much more likely than others to say their mind goes blank. These include people with ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) or anxiety.

Mind blanking is also more common in certain kinds of dementia, such as Lewy body dementia, and in people who are sleep deprived, or after intense physical exercise.

Let’s start with the brain

To understand what causes our mind to go blank, we need to start with how our brain usually pays attention and learns new memories.

A key brain network involved in these processes is the executive attention network. This is a network of interconnected brain regions that’s important for being alert, paying attention and feeling motivated.

These brain areas are connected to regions in the outer layer of the brain, the frontal and parietal cortex, which support our planning, decision-making and sensory integration.

This executive attention network is used both for passing information to our memory systems for storage, and then later retrieving those memories when we need them.

One of the key brain chemicals that supports this network is noradrenaline, also known as norepinephrine. This controls our alertness and readiness for action.

So what happens when our mind goes blank?

Disruption in any part of the executive attention network can impact the brain’s ability to pay attention and retrieve memories, leading to a blank mind.

When we’re sleep-deprived

Fatigue caused by sleep deprivation or sleep disorders can impact the alerting part of the network.

When we are very tired, we can experience “local sleep”. This is where the activity in parts of our brains is sleep-like even if we are awake. This can cause the attention system to temporarily shut off, which researchers think may lead to mind blanks.

Neuroimaging research shows parts of the executive attention network are “deactivated” during mind blanking.

This likely explains what causes the “zoning out” kind of mind blank.

When we’re stressed

High levels of stress or anxiety, such as what we might experience in an exam room, can result in high levels of noradrenaline. This puts the body in “fight or flight mode”.

This focuses our attention on immediate threats, reducing its ability to retrieve what it sees as non-essential memories, such as information you’ve been revising the day before.

When we’re multi-tasking

If the executive attention network doesn’t encode a memory efficiently in the first place – because for example, we were multi-tasking or distracted – then it might not be easily retrieved later on. This can also lead to a mind blank.

When is it time to see your GP?

While mind blanking is common and usually no cause for concern, frequent mind blanking can be a sign of a medical condition.

Some conditions that affect these attention network systems, include depression, anxiety, dementia or stroke. A condition that affects the memory systems themselves, such as Alzheimer’s disease, can also look like mind blanking, as can some kinds of seizures.

So, generally speaking, if you’ve noticed mind blanking becoming more common, if there has been a sudden onset of symptoms, or if your friends or family have raised concerns, see your GP for a check-up.

If you’ve noticed any changes to your ability to undertake your daily activities, or you find yourself confused or disorientated, you should also see your GP.

If you go to your GP for a check-up, they may take a medical history, and ask you some questions to assess your thinking and memory skills.

They may also refer you for neuropsychological or neurological assessment, or request a brain scan (like a CT or MRI scan) to check for any brain changes caused by stroke or dementia.

ref. My mind keeps on going blank. How worried should I be? – https://theconversation.com/my-mind-keeps-on-going-blank-how-worried-should-i-be-276381

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/my-mind-keeps-on-going-blank-how-worried-should-i-be-276381/

Commercial space technology is shaping the Iran war – the law can’t keep up

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Anna Marie Brennan, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Waikato

When the United States and Israel launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran nearly two weeks ago, the first confirmation didn’t come from governments. It came from commercial satellites.

Images from US companies Planet Labs and Vantor captured smoke billowing over central Tehran and ships burning at the coastal city of Konarak – evidence of strikes on naval bases, airfields and missile sites that global media confirmed within hours.

But space-based technology was not just observing the conflict, it was also a target. US officials said early strikes hit “Iran’s equivalent of Space Command”, undermining Tehran’s ability to coordinate via satellite.

Iran has also used extensive “spoofing” to create false GPS signals to mislead receivers about their true location.

Simultaneously, US Space Command and Cyber Command launched operations to jam, hack and disrupt Iranian software systems, known as “non-kinetic” attacks in the jargon of modern warfare.

Such operations are a kind of “silent sabotage”, disabling communications or corrupting GPS signals without blowing anything up with conventional “kinetic” attacks.

This combination of advanced battlefield tactics and the rapid commercialisation of space technology, as well as the erosion of the old rules-based order in general, means international law is now falling well behind.

Blurred lines of accountability

Non-kinetic tactics have quickly spilled into civilian life. In January, amid anti-government protests, and later during the first wave of strikes, Iran used GPS jamming and spoofing to disrupt Starlink terminals, which civilians and protesters depended on to stay online and share information during internet blackouts.

At the same time, commercial satellite imagery became part of the conflict itself. After Planet Lab’s images revealed Iranian retaliatory strikes on US and US-linked sites in the Persian Gulf, the company delayed releasing new imagery to avoid aiding real‑time damage assessment by Iranian forces.

On March 10, Planet Labs extended the delay time to two weeks for non-government users, but the US military still receives immediate access.

Modern warfare depends heavily on these kinds of commercial, dual-use space systems. The same satellites that time financial transactions, support hospitals and manage global logistics also guide military operations.

This blurs the traditional legal boundary between civilian and military objects and activities. The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned repeatedly that interference with satellites can harm civilians by disrupting power grids, navigation, emergency services and humanitarian operations.

Outer space is not a legal vacuum. The United Nations’ Outer Space Treaty, the UN Charter itself, and international humanitarian law all apply to warfare in orbit. But the Iran war shows how real‑world practice is advancing faster than these legal frameworks.

A proper treaty is unlikely

Dual-use satellites providing both civilian broadband and military communications also complicate decisions about what constitutes a lawful target.

Legal experts say satellites providing essential civilian services should be presumed to be non-military unless direct military use is demonstrated. But this precept is tested daily over Iran.

Another challenge is political neutrality. If a private company based in a neutral state provides data that can assist military operations elsewhere, the neutral state may face serious questions and diplomatic pressure from other governments about whether it should be held responsible.

The law has not caught up with these commercial realities. Planet Lab’s imagery delays show how companies are having to improvise policy themselves during armed conflict.

And because cyber-attacks can disable military systems without causing physical destruction, they can fall short of “armed attack” thresholds under international law. States can exploit this legal grey zone to gain strategic advantage.

New legal norms may eventually evolve out of the behaviour of governments and commercial operators rather than through formal agreements and treaties. Indeed, geopolitical tensions make a new treaty on military space operations highly unlikely.

This leaves companies, regulators and militaries to define the boundaries of acceptable conduct through their real‑time responses. The result is a battlefield where satellites shape strategy faster than lawmakers can respond.

ref. Commercial space technology is shaping the Iran war – the law can’t keep up – https://theconversation.com/commercial-space-technology-is-shaping-the-iran-war-the-law-cant-keep-up-277940

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/commercial-space-technology-is-shaping-the-iran-war-the-law-cant-keep-up-277940/

‘We’re the good guys’: why moral storytelling doesn’t make the war on Iran necessary or legal

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tamer Morris, Senior Lecturer, International Law, University of Sydney

Since the United States and Israel launched their war against Iran, most international law experts appear to be speaking with one voice on the legality of the attacks.

Legal experts have said the attacks violated Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against states. The US and Israel have not produced any evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat to either of them. And neither has brought the matter to the UN Security Council. As such, this was a clear breach of international law.

But even though most scholars agree the strikes were unlawful, the public and political debate has shifted somewhere else entirely.

Instead of wrestling with the legal questions, many politicians, commentators, and everyday observers are counterbalancing the illegality with arguments about legitimacy.

Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump have cast the war as a “necessary” fight between good and evil. Netanyahu said:

I know the cost of war. But I know sometimes that war is necessary to protect us from the people who will destroy us. […] We have to understand that we’re fighting here the bad guys. We’re the good guys. These people massacred their own people.

Canada and Australia, two of the US’ closest allies, have both used strikingly similar language in their statements about the war, saying they supported the US:

acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent its regime from further threatening international peace and security.

This idea of legitimacy – that is, what is “right”, “necessary”, or “just” – is now being thrown around in almost every conversation about the war.

Two arguments for a ‘just’ war

These arguments echo centuries‑old thinking about “just” wars.

Christian philosophers such as St Augustine (4th–5th century) and St Thomas Aquinas (13th century), for example, were early proponents of what is known as the “just war theory”. Basically, this means you may violate the moral rule against violence if the cause is “just”.

In modern debates, arguments about the legitimacy of wars tend to fall into two categories.

The first claims attacks like the ones launched by the US and Israel are morally just and therefore ought to be permitted, regardless of what international law says.

This line of reasoning goes something like this: “So what if the action breaches international law? We removed an evil dictator.” Or: “Do we really want Iran developing nuclear weapons or long-range missiles?”

The statements by Netanyahu and Trump frame the use of force as morally necessary, implying that if an action feels righteous, legality should not be a hindrance.

The second argument dismisses international law altogether as ineffective or irrelevant.

The strand of legitimacy reasoning is also becoming common. It’s reflected in statements like: “Where was international law when people were being killed on the streets in Iran?” or “How can international law matter if Iran is constantly threatening western states and funding a proxy war?”

The conclusion drawn here is simple: if the law fails to prevent harm, it must be irrelevant. And if international law is irrelevant, then the US-Israeli strikes on Iran are legitimate.

Both of these lines of reasoning carry their own risks, not least the danger of allowing subjective morality to replace objective legal constraints.

Can a morally just war be deemed illegal?

The first argument hinges on the notion that the US and Israel strikes on Iran are just, given the brutal, repressive nature of the Iranian regime and the fact it is pursuing nuclear weapons. And international law should allow just actions.

But who decides what is just?

For the US and some of its allies, this is a binary moral equation: Iran is bad, we are good.

But this argument can also be made from Iran’s perspective: Israel and the US are bad. Therefore, we need nuclear weapons to protect ourselves.

Once states are permitted to act on their own sense of morality and justice, the international system goes down an extremely dangerous road. Every state can consider itself the “good” actor in its own story. If we allow individual morality to override the law, moral chaos follows.

Historically, moral arguments about “civilisation”, “enlightenment”, or “improvement” were also used to justify colonisation and slavery.

This is still happening in different contexts today: one group assumes its moral compass is universal, superior and mandatory for all others. If the world returns to that mode of thinking, the strongest states will once again become the arbiters of what counts as “good”.

International law must therefore remain objective, free from claims of moral exceptionalism.

Does international law still have relevance?

The second argument is even stranger: where was international law when a state like Iran committed atrocities?

This requires a clearer understanding of the role of international law. If we disregard international law because someone violates it, it’s like rejecting the rule book while still using its language to call out a foul.

Without it, there would be no norms to appeal to, no expectation of protection, no shared belief that certain harms are prohibited.

This argument also doesn’t follow logic. Murders still happen in countries like Australia. Should we therefore abandon domestic laws that prevent them?

Of course, there are double standards in international law. Powerful states have greater impunity and weaker states face more scrutiny.

But double standards also exist in domestic legal systems – wealthier people generally receive better outcomes than those with less means.

The existence of inequality in international law, then, shows the need for reform, not the abandonment of the law altogether.

Why this matters

The Iran war reveals a dangerous shift in the way states justify their actions: a growing preference for moral storytelling over legal reasoning.

Once the narrative of a “just war” replaces the rule of law, there is little left to restrain the powerful states from dominating the weaker ones.

The purpose of international law is not to determine who is morally good; it is to maintain order in a world where every state believes it is waging the “good” fight.

ref. ‘We’re the good guys’: why moral storytelling doesn’t make the war on Iran necessary or legal – https://theconversation.com/were-the-good-guys-why-moral-storytelling-doesnt-make-the-war-on-iran-necessary-or-legal-277952

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/were-the-good-guys-why-moral-storytelling-doesnt-make-the-war-on-iran-necessary-or-legal-277952/

The Oscars are usually a mess, but this year’s Best Picture nominees are strong. Here’s who should win

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

Film critics – myself included – love to bemoan the death of high-quality cinema in the age of streaming, pointing to mediocre Best Picture Oscar nominees as evidence that the production of great (or even good) films is on the wane.

But perhaps things are changing. Are people sick of being inundated with short videos on TikTok and Youtube, and once again hankering for a cinematic experience? The quality of this year’s nominees suggests they are.

For the first time in a while, most of the nominated films are excellent – and nearly all of them are watchable.


Read more: The Oscars aren’t a meritocracy – there’s a complex formula for winning


My top pick: Sentimental Value

Joachim Trier’s Sentimental Value is my pick for the Best Picture Oscar. It’s the kind of meticulously crafted film in which the naturalism seems effortless.

The narrative follows acclaimed filmmaker Gustav Borg (Stellan Skarsgård), a quintessential Euro-auteur, who comes back into the lives of his estranged daughters Nora (Renate Reinsve) and Agnes (Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas) following their mother’s death.

Gustav is making a new film, and wants his daughter Nora – an acclaimed theatre actress who has her own demons to battle (stage fright among them) – to star in it.

Nora assumes it’s a cynical manoeuvre for funding on her father’s part and refuses. So Gustav casts American star Rachel Kemp (Elle Fanning) instead, who is immediately out of her depth.

The drama unfolds around the family home in Oslo, interweaving narratives of the home’s history across generations with the tensions plaguing its current inhabitants.

[embedded content]

Sentimental Value has a strikingly lyrical quality. Some may say it’s overdone, but every element is so perfectly executed that it doesn’t come across as pretentious or laboured. It is, in many respects, thoroughly sentimental – yet never feels like it’s performing this as some kind of effect.

Despite its considerable formal and narrative complexity, it plays in a starkly simple fashion, thanks to the light touch of Trier, coupled with stunning cinematography by Kasper Tuxen Andersen.

The lead performances by Reinsve, Lilleaas and Skarsgård are extraordinarily convincing and, perhaps more surprisingly, Fanning is awesome as the uncomfortable American trying to please the European artiste.

Sentimental Value brilliantly weaves a sense of European social and cultural history with carefully observed character moments, becoming, by the end, a kind of treatise on the affirmative potential of art to transcend and transform interpersonal barriers.

Despite the difficulties of life, the detritus of broken promises and hearts, and the disappointments minor and not so minor, we can still come together – beautifully and wholeheartedly – through the practice of that abstract dream that is called art.

Other excellent contenders

There are a few other strong contenders – films which, any other year, would have stood out above the pack.

Bugonia

Yorgos Lanthimos is one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of the past decade, and yet his films have been hit and miss. After his last great film, the 2015 black comedy The Lobster, Bugonia marks a return to form.

The film follows bumbling paranoiac conspiracy nut Teddy (Jesse Plemons) as he and his half-witted cousin Don (Aidan Delbis) kidnap Michelle Fuller (Emma Stone), the CEO of pharmaceutical company Auxolith.

Fuller is the kind of ruthless business leader who appears on the cover of Forbes magazine with the caption “Breaking Barriers” and who spouts endless nonsense about diversity while her company wreaks havoc on the planet and the people around them.

According to Teddy, she is also an “Andromedon” alien sent to Earth to enslave and exploit the human population, bringing death to humans as it has been brought to the bees.

[embedded content]

The brilliance of the film largely revolves around its manipulation of our identification with the two leads. At times Teddy seems like a lunatic serial killer, and Fuller a heroic victim. At times we empathise with Teddy, while Fuller looks like a manipulative, cold-hearted sociopath.

The whole thing builds up to an immensely satisfying resolution, suitably nihilistic and absurd in equal measure.

As is often the case with Lanthimos’ films, the figures are caricaturish, but the comedic timing – and the oscillation between humour and discomfort for the viewer – is spot on, so it works.

Sinners

Ryan Coogler’s Sinners is a great yarn: a well-executed rock ‘n’ roll fable slash vampire siege, full of electrifying music.

It’s 1932. Twin gangster brothers Smoke and Stack (a dual role played by Michael B. Jordan) return from working for Al Capone in Chicago to Clarksdale, Mississippi, to open up a juke joint.

Their cousin Sammie (Miles Caton), a cotton picker and bluesman – with Charley Patton’s guitar – steals the show at the hugely successful opening night, fulfilling the legend of a musician who can play so well the barriers between the living and the dead come down. Everything seems to be going well – until some redneck vampires decide to assail the venue.

The whole thing is rather gaudy and silly. But like its forebear From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) – it’s so energetically (and pleasurably) handled that it doesn’t matter.

[embedded content]

Michael B. Jordan is brilliant in the two roles, and the end result is a muscular, satisfying film that feels like a good pulp novel or comic book – capped off with a Buddy Guy jam session in the final moments.

Sinners is a delicious dream. It’s unlikely to win Best Picture; there was a time, not so long ago, when this kind of genre film wouldn’t have made it into the mix. But it’s well worth its more than two-hour runtime.

Marty Supreme

It would be hard to think of a stupider premise for a movie. In the 1950s, fast-talking entrepreneurial New York hustler Marty Mauser (Timothée Chalamet) has to raise money so he can make it to Japan to beat world number one Koto Endo (Koto Kawaguchi) in the table tennis showdown of the century.

Yet, director/co-writer Josh Safdie treats the premise with enough seriousness that we end up with a high octane sports film to rival Rocky IV. This is helped by the stunning cinematography by Darius Khondji. Shot on 35mm film, the images have a rich colour and texture rarely matched in digital cinematography.

There’s also a dynamite score from Daniel Lopatin, and an anachronistic soundtrack featuring several stellar 1980s pop tunes from the likes of Public Image Limited, New Order and Tears for Fears, to name a few.

[embedded content]

Despite Marty’s arrogance, sweet-talking, womanising, con-artistry and generally bad behaviour, Chalamet invests the character with enough pathos and humour that he comes across as a thoroughly loveable – or at least likeable – rogue.

He is a crackpot whose self-belief and willingness to do anything to achieve his dream tricks the viewer into becoming equally invested in his absurd quest as he (and the film) bounce around New York and the world like a bright ping pong ball.

Marty Supreme is an odd – and oddly arresting – film capturing something of the madness at the heart of the American dream. Mauser does whatever he can to make it to Japan. And after several escapades – and some downright brutal scenes featuring cult director Abel Ferrara as an ageing gangster – he does make it.

The rest

Unusually for the Oscars, the pack of 2026 nominees is rounded out by several other good films.

Although not as good as some of his other films, such as Neighbouring Sounds (2012) and Bacurau (2019), Brazilian director Kleber Mendonça Filho’s The Secret Agent is a rollicking political thriller. Set in the 1970s, it features a standout performance by Wagner Moura as a dissident academic evading persecution from a brutal dictatorship.

[embedded content]

Paul Thomas Anderson’s One Battle After Another is a wacky comedy occasionally masquerading as a serious political action thriller. It follows the burnt out leftist Pat Calhoun (Leonardo DiCaprio) as, with his daughter Willa (Chase Infiniti), he evades capture by police and a militia led by the moronic Steven J. Lockjaw (Sean Penn). The whole thing is pretty silly, but like its inspiration – Thomas Pynchon’s 1990 novel Vineland – it is fun nonetheless.

[embedded content]

F1 is likewise good. This finely wrought racing flick follows all of the delightfully dumb cliches of the genre. Hard-boiled and burnt-out old timer Sonny Hayes (Brad Pitt) makes it to Formula One for the first time, and contends with a new era of racing epitomised by his nemesis, the brash young gun Joshua Pearce (Damson Idris).

It’s hard to imagine such a film being nominated for Best Picture in any other era; Tony Scott’s Days of Thunder (1990) is equally stupid, but better made, and has been universally lampooned by critics. But people seem to be craving (and appreciating) big screen popcorn films in an era where streaming and second-screen viewing has all but destroyed commercial narrative cinema.

[embedded content]

Only three nominees stick out as dreary

Clint Bentley’s Train Dreams is an earnest but visually unappealing Netflix film, following a ho-hum period love story about class, racism and the American Dream. Joel Edgerton is solid as usual, and the film is watchable enough, but the whole thing seems rather tired. And the digital video look really doesn’t work with the kinds of exterior, panoramic images that dominate the film.

[embedded content]

In Frankenstein, director Guillermo del Toro takes one of the duller, more proselytising novels in the Gothic canon and gives it a suitably ponderous treatment. Oscar Isaac hams it up in full actor mode as Dr Frankenstein. Jacob Elordi is ridiculous as the monster. And Christoph Waltz as Harlander delivers such humdingers as “Can you contain your fire, Prometheus, or are you going to burn your hands before delivering it?” (in case you didn’t know, the novel’s subtitle is The Modern Prometheus).

Made for Netflix, Frankenstein tries hard to look sumptuous with period décor, but it can’t mask the sterility of its digital images. While the novel, at least, has a simple elegance to it, del Toro’s version is meandering, gaudy and cheap-looking.

[embedded content]

It is difficult to treat Hamnet – the unbearably pretentious latest film from director Chloe Zhao – seriously, because the filmmakers do it for you. Though there are some things to like – Paul Mescal, for instance, is nice to watch, the cast are generally proficient, and the score is fine – this self-satisfied nonsense plays more like an Instagram video performing its own seriousness than a genuinely engaging feature film.

[embedded content]

7 hits out of 10

As usual, the best films of 2025 haven’t been nominated for Best Picture (where’s Sirât, Redux Redux, or Harvest?). Nonetheless, most of this year’s nominees are films that warrant watching more than once for a variety of reasons: pleasure, complexity, nuance.

Perhaps Hollywood is starting to make good films again after decades of superhero trash. Or, at least, the Academy has started to recognise them.

ref. The Oscars are usually a mess, but this year’s Best Picture nominees are strong. Here’s who should win – https://theconversation.com/the-oscars-are-usually-a-mess-but-this-years-best-picture-nominees-are-strong-heres-who-should-win-274431

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/the-oscars-are-usually-a-mess-but-this-years-best-picture-nominees-are-strong-heres-who-should-win-274431/

Can exercise reduce period pain? And what kind is best?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mike Armour, Associate Professor at NICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University

Having your period can be a painful experience.

Period pain, also known as dysmenorrhea, is a very common condition with around nine in ten young women aged 13 to 25 in Australia having regular period pain.

For many women, period pain can make exercise seem like an impossible task.

So should you avoid exercise if you have period pain? Or could exercising actually help?

What causes period pain?

There are two main types of period pain.

The most common is primary dysmenorrhea. This usually means painful cramps in the lower abdomen.

Research suggests this kind of period pain is caused by an increased number of prostaglandins. The body releases these hormone-like molecules when the lining of the uterus breaks down during the period. Prostaglandins can cause many different symptoms including period cramps, back or leg pain and loose bowels, also known as period poops.

The other type of period pain is secondary dysmenorrhea, which refers to pain caused by physical changes in the pelvis. One of the most common causes is endometriosis, a condition where tissue resembling uterine tissue grows in other parts of the body, leading to severe pain and fertility problems.


Read more: Period pain and heavy bleeding cost the Australian economy billions every year in lost productivity: study


Can exercise reduce period pain?

Unfortunately, period pain is often difficult to treat. Many women don’t respond well to standard period pain treatments. These include non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications such as ibuprofen or mefenamic acid, also known as Ponstan.

This has led researchers to examine exercise as a way to reduce period pain symptoms. And there is some evidence suggesting that regular physical activity can reduce how severe period pain is, and how long it lasts.

Imagine you have a period pain scale from zero to ten, where zero means no pain and ten indicates the worst pain. Research from 2019 suggests exercise can reduce the severity of period pain by an average of 2.5 points. This makes exercise more effective than other self-treatment methods, such as using a heat pack.

However, we have only one 2017 study which directly compares the effects of exercise and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications on period pain. This means it’s hard to make any clear recommendations. But this study suggests regular exercise is at least as helpful as taking mefenamic acid.

Exercise may also reduce how long period pain lasts. One study from 2025 found aerobic exercise, which aims to increase your breathing and heart rate, can shorten the duration of period pain by more than 12 hours.

Many women experience the worst pain in the first 48 hours of their period, so a potential 25% cut in the duration of period pain is significant.

What kinds of exercise are best?

Most of the evidence examining exercise and period pain focuses on aerobic exercise. This includes cycling, swimming and jogging. A handful of studies look at strength training, yoga and relaxation exercises such as gentle stretching.

There is some evidence to suggest strength training relieves period pain more than other kinds of exercise. However, researchers generally study a specific kind of strength training known as isometric exercises. These involve holding muscles in a static position, such as doing a plank.

Other studies show exercises such as progressive muscle relaxation, which involves tensing and then relaxing particular muscles, can also be very effective. A 2024 study found women who did relaxation-based exercises, combined with self-massage, experienced the greatest reduction in pain. And because they’re simple to do, participants were more likely to stick with relaxation-based exercises compared to other kinds of physical activity.

But most of this research focuses on primary dysmenorrhea. So for those whose period pain may be caused by an underlying condition, it may be best to start with gentler forms of exercise such as yoga. You can also speak to an exercise physiologist to get personalised advice. This is because we don’t fully understand if more intense exercise has the same effect on period pain caused by other conditions, such as endometriosis.

When and how often should I exercise?

There isn’t much research looking at the effects of exercising specifically during the period. But a 2025 review of existing studies suggests exercising two to three times a week can reduce period pain.

This review found participants who did strength training for at least 30 minutes at a time, over a minimum of eight weeks, experienced the greatest reduction in pain. However, existing research suggests you may start seeing some improvements in both pain intensity and duration in as few as four weeks.

The research is less clear when it comes to aerobic exercise. A 2025 review suggests shorter and less intense sessions of aerobic exercise may be most effective for managing period pain.

So doing at least 90 minutes of exercise a week, for at least eight weeks, may be the best exercise-based way to reduce period pain. This seems to be the case whether you exercise during your period or not. But if you experience any negative symptoms after exercising, such as pain below your belly button when you’re not menstruating, it’s best to speak to a doctor.

The bottom line

Overall, exercise is one way women can manage period pain. Current research suggests any kind of exercise, ranging from yoga to more intense aerobic workouts, can reduce the severity and duration of period pain. So everyone can benefit from exercise, regardless what time of the month it is.

ref. Can exercise reduce period pain? And what kind is best? – https://theconversation.com/can-exercise-reduce-period-pain-and-what-kind-is-best-275076

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/can-exercise-reduce-period-pain-and-what-kind-is-best-275076/

What’s it like to be a bat? Scientists develop new solution to the puzzle of animal minds

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cristina Luz Wilkins, PhD Candidate, Department of Environmental Studies, University of New England

In 1974, philosopher Thomas Nagel posed a deceptively simple question: “what is it like to be a bat?”. His point wasn’t really about bats. He was offering a provocative challenge about the limits of understanding another mind: no matter how much we try, we cannot access what it feels like to experience the world as another.

This might seem like an abstract philosophical puzzle. But it’s crucial when we consider the billions of animals in our care – whether in farms, laboratories, homes or zoos. We make daily decisions about their lives, from their environment, to separation from companions, to whether they are suffering. Still, we face Nagel’s problem. We cannot directly access their experience. We can only infer it.

For decades, animal welfare science has grappled with this challenge. But in a recent paper published in the journal Frontiers in Animal Science, we’ve developed a framework called the “teleonome” that provides a way forward – not by transcending the limits Nagel identified, but by understanding each species on its own evolutionary terms.

It’s hard to see the whole

Currently, when we assess animal welfare, we’re like mechanics checking individual car parts without understanding how the engine works.

Physiologists measure stress hormones. Behaviourists count how often animals move or vocalise. And veterinarians check for disease.

Each specialist produces valuable data. But what’s missing is a way to evaluate these data from the animals’ lived experience.

A horse might have normal cortisol concentrations, show no abnormal repetitive behaviour, and appear physically healthy. But it might still be chronically distressed by separation from its companions.

A chicken in a cage might produce eggs efficiently. But she might be suffering chronic frustration because she cannot scratch, bathe in dust, flap her wings, explore and nest – behaviours the cage makes impossible.

Enter the ‘teleonome’

The teleonome is an animal’s integrated system of perceptual, physiological, behavioural and emotional capabilities. It is shaped by evolution to enable adaptation, survival and reproduction.

Back to the bat. Its DNA doesn’t “contain” echolocation like a blueprint contains a house plan. What exists is an integrated auditory-brain-body-behaviour system that only emerges when genes encounter the right environmental conditions.

That’s the bat’s teleonome: not just the genetic potential, but the living, functioning survival system.

The teleonome operates through a continuous four-step process. It detects change, evaluates whether it’s a threat or opportunity, forecasts the best response and, finally, acts.

This isn’t conscious deliberation but an embodied system guiding physiology and behaviour across timescales from milliseconds to months.

Emotions are central to the teleonome. An animal’s feelings of fear, frustration, contentment, or curiosity are evolved mechanisms for prioritising what matters, guiding learning and coordinating adaptive responses. These emotions reflect welfare and also actively maintain it. Negative experiences stimulate animals to resolve problems; positive experiences prompt them to carry on their activities.

Of course, the behaviour of individual animals of the same species will vary. This can be explained by the “expressed teleonome”: genes provide biological potential, but lifetime experiences, current stress load, and environmental context shape expression.

The teleonome also recognises that animals need environments that offer what their bodies and brains evolved to anticipate, use and learn. A hen doesn’t just prefer to dust-bathe; she does so to keep her feathers and skin in good condition. Remove that opportunity and you disrupt the process, creating ongoing biological stress – even if the bird appears healthy.

Why this matters

The teleonome provides welfare science with a biological north star.

Instead of arguing whether enrichment is “necessary” or debating which behaviours matter most, we can ask: does this behaviour support the animal’s evolved way of functioning, and does the environment enable it?

This has immediate practical applications.

For separation anxiety in dogs, we can identify and even rank the events and contexts which, in combination, trigger distress. We can then design interventions that fully support, rather than override, evolved social systems.

For farm animals, it explains why productivity doesn’t equal welfare. Domestication creates animals that are highly productive, producing a lot of milk, eggs or meat, but that also suffer chronic stress because we’ve disrupted animal-environment relationships that evolved over millions of years.

Perhaps most importantly, the teleonome transforms the ethics debate.

Treating animals as “ends in themselves” isn’t just philosophy. Rather it means recognising what matters to them based on how they have evolved.

The teleonome provides the biological foundation for making welfare decisions grounded in the animal’s perspective, rather than human preferences or industry convenience.

We may never solve Nagel’s philosophical puzzle. But animals are not black boxes either. Understanding their teleonome gives us a practical guide for care: not just to keep them alive and productive, but to enable the lives their biology prepared them for.

ref. What’s it like to be a bat? Scientists develop new solution to the puzzle of animal minds – https://theconversation.com/whats-it-like-to-be-a-bat-scientists-develop-new-solution-to-the-puzzle-of-animal-minds-276385

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/whats-it-like-to-be-a-bat-scientists-develop-new-solution-to-the-puzzle-of-animal-minds-276385/

Who profits from war with Iran? Understanding that will be key to resolving the conflict

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jagannadha Pawan Tamvada, Professor of Entrepreneurship, Kingston University

When US and Israeli forces launched airstrikes on Iran, the shock waves were felt far beyond the region. As the conflict escalates, understanding who benefits from this crisis might be as important as counting its costs.

The timing could hardly be worse for the UK economy. Official forecasts for GDP growth in 2026 had already been downgraded to 1.1% before a single missile was fired. Predictions that inflation might dip now look optimistic; and expectations of an interest rate cut on March 19 have fallen sharply.

The energy shock is immediate. Tanker traffic in the strait of Hormuz has fallen by around 90%. Qatar, the world’s second largest exporter of liquefied natural gas, halted production indefinitely. Although the UK sources little gas directly from the Gulf, energy markets are global so UK households could see more than £500 added to their annual bills.

Beyond energy, UK stocks have fallen, the pound has come under pressure and the UK government’s £23.6 billion fiscal headroom could erode rapidly.

For defence stocks, however, the picture is different. London-based BAE Systems surged around 6% on the first day of the conflict. And the American defence industry seems determined to quadruple production of some weapons.

Peace benefits ordinary citizens, small businesses, global supply chains and the planet’s climate trajectory. The beneficiaries of war are more concentrated.

One of the most uncomfortable truths about this conflict is that while it inflicts pain on some, it creates windfalls for others. In my co-authored research, we call this the “paradox of incentives”. Determining who benefits is essential to understanding why wars persist long after it may seem rational to stop.

Defence contractors and the arms economy

On Wall Street, defence firms including Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and RTX rose between 4% and 6% on the first day of the strikes. The three firms’ combined shareholder gain on that one day was US$25–30 billion (£18.7-£22.5 billion).

In Israel, Elbit Systems briefly became the country’s most valuable listed company, with its shares up 45% since January. In Europe and the UK, defence stocks surged against a falling FTSE 100.

The rally ‘round the flag effect

Wars may also be good for incumbent politicians in the short term. Before the strikes began, the fallout from the release of the Epstein files was reverberating globally, and piling scrutiny on to many with connections to the White House. Within hours of the first strikes, web searches for the Epstein files collapsed.

But perhaps the most counterintuitive application of the paradox concerns Iran itself. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) controls up to half of Iran’s oil exports. Its engineering arm, Khatam al-Anbiya, has become one of the largest contractors in the country, controlling construction, telecoms, agriculture and energy.

Economic sanctions designed to weaken Tehran have actually entrenched the power structures they were meant to erode. As foreign firms exited and domestic companies struggled, IRGC-linked entities used access to informal trade routes, currency controls and security networks to expand their dominance.

At the same time, according to the World Bank, close to 10 million ordinary Iranians fell into poverty between 2011 and 2020 as the sanctions tightened.

The energy windfall

The oil and gas price shock is already providing a windfall in unexpected places. The US could benefit as Europe’s reliance on American energy exports, accelerated by the Ukraine war, grows even more.

For the Gulf petrostates, the picture is nuanced. Saudi Arabia and the UAE together hold a huge share of the world’s spare production capacity. They face real costs from the conflict, but their exposure to the Hormuz closure is lower than neighbours Kuwait, Qatar and Iraq. Both countries built bypass pipelines specifically to export oil without transitting the Strait.

And for Russia, the war diverts price-sensitive buyers such as India and China away from competing suppliers in the Gulf.

The green transition

Higher oil and gas prices make new fossil fuel extraction more commercially attractive. The same crisis that bolsters the case for renewables also makes fossil fuels more profitable. This could slow the transition by redirecting attention back towards oil and gas.

Higher profits from fossil fuels could stall the green transition. Irene Miller/Shutterstock

In our research, we argue that breaking the paradox of incentives is possible. But it would require the financial interests of powerful actors like those mentioned above to become aligned with solutions. In the context of this conflict, that principle points towards four routes.

The first would be a windfall tax on companies benefiting exceptionally from wars. The UK already has a precedent: its energy profits levy hits oil and gas profits above a set threshold until 2030. Although this levy has come under fire recently, there is a strong case for extending its principles to defence contractors whose share prices and profits surge during conflicts.

For oil-producing nations, a release of emergency stocks coordinated by the International Energy Agency (IEA) could cap price spikes. This happened in 2022 when IEA member countries released 60 million barrels from strategic reserves. The G7 nations have now said they “stand ready” to do this.

On the political side, democratic accountability, independent economic institutions and a free press all narrow the window within which leaders can exploit wartime popularity. These things can’t always be changed from the outside however, and underline the need for robust domestic institutions.

The green transition paradox is perhaps the hardest to address in the short term, but it is also where the fix is clearest. It has been argued that the more dependent economies become on the profits of war through arms exports, fossil fuel revenues or defence procurement, the harder it becomes to divert funding and attention to climate issues.

The solution is not to stop countries defending themselves – but to ensure that the transition to a green and secure energy system proceeds, precisely because of crises like this one.

The costs of this war are already being counted in energy markets. Before long, they will show up in national and household budgets. What makes this crisis particularly hard to resolve is the paradox at its heart: the actors best placed to end it are among those with the most to gain from its continuation.

ref. Who profits from war with Iran? Understanding that will be key to resolving the conflict – https://theconversation.com/who-profits-from-war-with-iran-understanding-that-will-be-key-to-resolving-the-conflict-277889

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/who-profits-from-war-with-iran-understanding-that-will-be-key-to-resolving-the-conflict-277889/

Trump’s war against Iran is uniquely unpopular among US military actions of the past century

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Walldorf, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Wake Forest University

It’s clear that regime change is among the biggest objectives of the U.S. war in Iran.

“I have to be involved in the appointment” of Iran’s next leader, President Donald Trump said on March 5, 2026.

Trump has also said he might put U.S. boots on the ground to get the job done.

Trump now joins a long list of modern U.S. presidents – from Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush and Barack Obama – who started wars to either overthrow hostile regimes or support embattled friendly governments abroad.

For all the parallels to history, though, Trump’s Iran war is historically unique in one critically important way: In its early stages, the war is not popular with the American public.

A recent CNN poll found that 59% of Americans oppose the war – a trend found in poll after poll since the war began.

As an expert on U.S. foreign policy and regime change wars, my research shows that what’s likely generating public opposition to the Iran war today is the absence of a big story with a grand purpose that has bolstered public support for just about every major U.S.-promoted regime change war since 1900. These broad, purpose-filled narratives generate public buy-in to support the costs of war, which are often high in terms of money spent and lives lost when regime change is at stake.

Two historical examples

In the 1930s and ’40s, a widely accepted – and largely true – story about the dangers of fascism spreading and democracies falling galvanized national support in the United States to enter and then take on the high costs of fighting in World War II.

Likewise, in the 2000s a dominant narrative about preventing a repeat of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and stopping terrorism brought strong initial public support for the war in Afghanistan, with 88% support in 2001, and the war in Iraq, with 70% support in 2003.

With no comparable narrative around Iran today, Trump and Republicans could face big problems, especially as costs continue to rise.

No anti-Iran narrative

Iran has been a thorn in the side of many American presidents for a long time. So, what’s missing? Why no grand-purpose narrative at the start of this war?

Two things.

First, grand-purpose narratives are rooted in major geopolitical gains by a rival regime – the danger to the U.S. For the anti-fascism narrative, those events were German troops plowing across Europe and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. For the anti-terrorism narrative, it was planes crashing into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

A U.S. Army carry team in Dover, Del., moves a coffin on March 7, 2026, containing the remains of a U.S. soldier killed in the retaliatory Iranian strike on Kuwait’s Port of Shuaiba. Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images

Gains like these by rivals prove traumatic to the nation. They also dislodge the status quo and provide the opportunity for new grand-purpose narratives with new policy directions to emerge.

Today, most Americans see no existential danger around Iran. A Marist poll from March 3, 2026, found that 55% of Americans view Iran as a minor threat or no threat at all. And the number who see Iran as a major threat, 44%, is down from 48% in July 2025.

By contrast, 64% of Americans saw Iraq as a “considerable threat” prior to the 2003 U.S. war in Iraq.

The poll numbers on Iran aren’t surprising. Iran is far from a geopolitical menace to the United States today. To the contrary, it’s been in geopolitical retreat in the Middle East in recent years.

In the summer of 2025, Iran’s nuclear nuclear enrichment facilities were significantly damaged – “completely and totally obliterated,” according to Trump, though there is no confirmation of that claim – during the 12-Day war between Iran and Israel.

And in recent years, Tehran has lost a major ally in Syria and witnessed its proxy network all but collapse. Iran has also faced crippling economic conditions and historic protests at home.

As the polls show, none of that has sparked a grand-purpose narrative.

Missing a good story

The second missing factor for narrative formation today is any strong messaging from the White House.

In the months prior to World War II, Roosevelt used his position of authority as president to give speech after speech, setting the context of the traumatic events of the 1930s, explaining the dangers at hand and outlining a course going forward. Though less truthful in its content, Bush did the same for nearly two years before the Iraq War.

Trump did almost none of this storytelling leading up to the Iran war. Five days before the war started, the president devoted three minutes to Iran in a nearly two-hour State of the Union Address.

President Trump appears at a press conference in Miami on March 9, 2026. Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Prior to that, he made a comment here and there to the press about Iran, but no storytelling preparing the nation for war. Likewise, since the war began, the administration’s stated reasons for military action keep shifting.

No wonder 54% of Americans polled disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran and 60% of Americans say Trump has no clear plan for Iran. Also, 60% disapprove of Trump’s handling of foreign policy in general.

By comparison, Americans approved of Bush’s handling of foreign policy by 63% in early 2003.

Absent a cohesive, unifying story, it’s also no surprise there is lots of political fracturing today.

Partisan divides run deep – Democrats and independent voters strongly oppose the war. But Trump’s MAGA coalition is cracking too, with people like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene sharply criticizing the war.

The way out

If he opts for it, there is an off-ramp for Trump from the Iran war. It’s one he knows well.

When U.S. leaders get caught up in costly regime change wars that outrun national support, they tend to back down, often with far fewer political costs than if they’d continued their unpopular war.

When the disaster referred to as Black Hawk Down hit in Somalia in 1993, killing 18 U.S. Marines, President Bill Clinton opted to end the mission to topple the warlords that ruled the country. Troops came home six months later.

Likewise, after the Benghazi attack killed four Americans in Libya in 2012, Obama pulled out all U.S. personnel working in Libya on nation-building operations.

And just last year, when Trump realized that U.S. ground troops would be necessary to topple the Houthi militant group in Yemen, he negotiated a ceasefire and ended his air war in that country with no significant political fallout.

With Trump’s Iran war, gas prices keep rising, more soldiers are likely to die, and stocks are highly volatile.

Backing down makes a lot of sense. History confirms that.

ref. Trump’s war against Iran is uniquely unpopular among US military actions of the past century – https://theconversation.com/trumps-war-against-iran-is-uniquely-unpopular-among-us-military-actions-of-the-past-century-277586

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/trumps-war-against-iran-is-uniquely-unpopular-among-us-military-actions-of-the-past-century-277586/

Iran oil shock: the EU has very few options to limit the war’s economic impact – and prevent a recession

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sergi Basco, Profesor Agregado de Economia, Universitat de Barcelona

After the US and Israel began their military strikes on Iran on February 28, oil and gas markets were plunged into chaos and energy prices shot up. As of today, Brent Crude Oil prices are 20% higher than in late February. They went from around $70 a barrel in late February to quickly surpassing $100, before falling to around $90 on March 10. The main reason for the fall was Donald Trump’s market-calming announcement that the war will end “very soon”.

The fall in oil prices is reminiscent of events that followed the April 2025 “Liberation Day” tariffs. After the announcement, stock markets plummeted, but when Trump paused the tariffs just days later, the stock market responded by rising again – just as oil prices have fallen in response to his reassurances about the war ending.

If the war is indeed drawing to a close, markets may be right to start pushing prices down, but there is a caveat to this optimism. War is not tariffs – the US administration can impose and pause tariffs, but if Iran rejects potential terms for ending the conflict, it will continue.

Despite Trump’s announcement, it remains very unclear when the Middle East’s production – and the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping route, which 20% of the world’s oil passes through – will get back to business as usual. It’s therefore extremely difficult to predict when prices will go down to February-like levels. This is a major cause for concern in Europe, which depends heavily on imported energy sources.

How oil shocks hit Europe

An increase in oil prices is different from other economic shocks because it has a direct, immediate effect. For consumers, it means instantly higher petrol and energy prices. For producers, it means an immediate increase in the cost of manufacturing and delivering goods.

To understand potential damage to the EU economy, we can take a look at the bloc’s oil consumption and production patterns.

The EU imports most of its oil and gas, and this means that, in addition to rising prices, access and supply may also be constrained by the war in the Middle East. On the positive side, however, Europe has seen a steady decline in overall energy use, and an increase in renewable energy production. With electric and hybrid cars becoming more common, many consumers will be shielded from immediate impacts like a price hike at the pump.

Diversity of energy sources and more efficient technology all mean that we are better protected than we were during, for example, the oil crisis of the 1970s. Nevertheless, some countries and industries will be more affected than others.

The EU’s main energy consumers are its biggest economies: Germany, France, Italy and Spain. These countries will be the most interested in controlling the increase in retail oil prices. Road transportation makes up the lion’s share of oil consumption (around half), while the continent’s other high energy consumption industries include chemical, paper and steel.

What can Europe do?

In February 2022, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine disrupted the continent’s gas supplies, subsequently pushing up electricity prices. To understand what’s on the table today, it’s worth looking at what the European Central Bank (ECB) and European Commission did to help EU citizens during the continent’s last energy crisis.

After an oil shock, both inflation and unemployment tend to rise, and this presents any Central Bank with a conundrum. It can reduce inflation by increasing interest rates, but this also creates more unemployment – higher borrowing costs slow growth and business activity, resulting in layoffs.

The Central Bank therefore needs to choose which objective is more important: its primary goal of keeping inflation in check (around 2% in Europe), or protecting jobs.

In July 2022, the ECB opted to raise interest rates (which were then at -0.5%) and kept raising them until they reached 4% in September 2023. But the situation then was very different, as the economy was still recovering from the large spike in inflation (9% in June 2022) caused by the Covid pandemic.

Today, interest rates stand at 2%, and the ECB will need to decide which risk is bigger: an increase in inflation (which was 1,9% in February, below the ECB’s target of 2%) or an increase in unemployment.

Beyond monetary policy

The European Commission and national governments have more direct and effective ways of dealing with the oil shock. During the 2022-2023 energy crisis, the Commission rolled out several initiatives to stabilise energy prices, including recommendations to minimise consumer energy use.

Perhaps most importantly, there were also price caps, and measures that allowed national governments to directly help their citizens, such as continent-wide joint gas purchases.

On the national level, governments have the option of borrowing to fund subsidies, as many did in 2022. However, this is a less viable option than it was in 2022, as global interest rates are now higher. Investors will be wary that many EU countries – including France, Italy and Spain – have government debt that is above 100% of their GDP. These governments were some of the most active during the last energy crisis, and also those most exposed to the oil shock today.

The EU now faces a real risk of recession. If there’s any silver lining, it may give the continent a much-needed push towards renewable energy development, but even this will depend on how national governments tackle the crisis over the coming months.


A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!


ref. Iran oil shock: the EU has very few options to limit the war’s economic impact – and prevent a recession – https://theconversation.com/iran-oil-shock-the-eu-has-very-few-options-to-limit-the-wars-economic-impact-and-prevent-a-recession-277992

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/iran-oil-shock-the-eu-has-very-few-options-to-limit-the-wars-economic-impact-and-prevent-a-recession-277992/

Tucker Carlson helped make Donald Trump and JD Vance. Could he be the next president?

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dennis Altman, Vice Chancellor’s Fellow and Professorial Fellow, Institute for Human Security and Social Change, La Trobe University

It’s well known that Donald Trump consumes television broadcasts and often makes policy based more on Fox News punditry than advice from political or government advisors. So it’s unsurprising that one of his most influential advisers, Tucker Carlson, has never held a political or government appointment.

Of course, Carlson, an early sceptic about the Iraq War, last week called the attack on Iran “absolutely disgusting and evil”. Trump responded by saying “Tucker has lost his way” and “he’s not MAGA”.

While this may signal the end of his hold over Trump, they’ve weathered disagreements before – as when Carlson attacked last year’s strikes on Iran, as well as consistently pressing Trump over the Epstein files.


Review: Hated By All the Right People: Tucker Carlson and the unravelling of the conservative mind – Jason Zengerle (Scribe)


But if Carlson’s ruptures with Trump widen, some observers told the author of a new book, “he could then portray himself to a disillusioned MAGA base as the true leader of their movement – and run for president himself in 2028”.

The great mystery of Tucker Carlson is how a once-serious journalist, whose writing for the likes of New York magazine and Esquire was admired, wandered into the crazy world of the American far right and came to dominate it.

In his book, Hated By All the Right People, Jason Zengerle (a contributing writer for the New York Times magazine) traces Carlson’s evolution over past 30 years. It is, he writes, the story of what has happened to the United States in that period.

Origin stories

Carlson was born in 1969 to a prominent conservative father and a bohemian heiress mother: they divorced before his eighth birthday and Carlson’s father got sole custody. His mother lived mostly abroad. “I don’t know this person,” Carlson reported feeling as she was dying. She left him a dollar in her will.

He failed to graduate from college, where, Zengerle writes, he was an “abysmal student”, but charmed his way into a succession of small conservative media outlets, and a few national magazines. By the turn of the century, he discovered the lure of television and went through a series of attempts to break into mainstream broadcasting.

First CNN, where Jon Stewart essentially ended Carlson’s contract and his show by savaging it, at length, while appearing as a guest. Then PBS, and MSNBC – where Carlson picked liberal self-described “butch lesbian” talk radio host Rachel Maddow to be his sparring partner. (Maddow is now one of the most high-profile media defenders of progressive politics in the US.)

At his lowest point, he became a political analyst at the only cable-news network he’d yet to work at, Fox News – or, as he’d once described it, “a mean, sick group of people”.

At his lowest point, Carlson moved to Fox News – which he once described as ‘a mean, sick group of people’. Richard Drew/AAP

His rise (and increased air time) was tied to Donald Trump’s: he was the rare conservative or Fox News pundit who didn’t initially dismiss him. Fox gave him his own show days before Trump was elected in 2016.

For seven years, Carlson was a mainstay of Fox right-wing cheerleading, until he was unceremoniously dumped in 2023. Just why he was removed is not clear. Carlson came to believe it was part of Fox’s settlement in the Dominion lawsuit. Zengerle speculates Rupert Murdoch finally lost patience with Carlson (despite his closeness to Lachlan Murdoch), as he had on several occasions with Trump too.

Considered for Trump’s ‘veep’

Carlson bounced back, creating his own successful network, on which he hosted interviews with Andrew Tate, Nazi apologist historian Darryl Cooper and Trump himself (including an interview aired on X at the same time as Fox’s first presidential primary debate, in which Trump refused to participate).

In 2024, he campaigned vigorously for Trump’s second term. Trump even told reporters, Zengerle writes, that he “was entertaining the idea of tapping Carlson as his veep”.

Carlson had endeared himself further by presenting a three-part series, Patriot Purge, which presented the riots at the Capitol on January 6 2021 as “a false flag operation, instigated by undercover FBI operatives in the crowd, so that the Biden administration could then persecute Americans for the crime of being conservative”.

During the Biden years, a bizarre crowd of conspiracy seekers and racist right-wingers paid court to Trump. Carlson was among the most important: possibly even more than Elon Musk. As Zengerle writes, he was active behind the scenes in the vice-presidential selection of JD Vance, whom he had helped mentor into politics, and at least two cabinet members: Robert F. Kennedy Jr and Tulsi Gabbard.

Carlson was instrumental in the appointment of at least two Trump cabinet members: RFK Jr and Tulsi Gabbard. Erik S Lesser/AAP

Vance’s “remarkable dressing-down” of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky was “a direct echo” of Carlson’s criticisms on his shows for the previous three years. Carlson’s criticisms of Zelensky drew on antisemitic tropes, calling him “ratlike” and “a persecutor of Christians”.

Zengerle credits Carlson with providing much of the mismatch of policies that have marked Trump’s second term (as well as the border wall with Mexico, which Carlson argued for as far back as 2005).

Trump has consistently expressed hostility to immigrants, with the notable exception of white South Africans – whose cause Carlson seems to have pioneered – and promoted Viktor Orban’s Hungarian authoritarian regime, which Carlson called a “lesson” for America after he visited to interview Orban, before anyone in the US had paid him much attention.

Unsurprisingly, Carlson has expressed sympathy for Vladimir Putin. He became the first American journalist to obtain a one-on-one interview with Putin after the invasion of Ukraine.

It was widely believed Putin played him, avoiding any difficult questions about respect for Ukrainian sovereignty: just as he had played Trump in his infamous meeting in Helsinki in 2018. Zengerle does not explore whether there is any connection between the two men’s remarkable sympathy for the Russian dictator.

Tucker Carlson interviewed Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin in Moscow: it was widely believed Putin played him. GAVRIIL GRIGOROV SPUTNIK KREMLIN POOL/AAP

Since Trump’s re-election, Carlson has become less sycophantic, particularly on Iran and the Epstein files. At one point, he claimed Epstein was working at the behest of Israel’s government: part of the increasingly antisemitic and anti-Israeli raves that characterise the contemporary Carlson.

Carlson and the Republican journey

Carlson, like Vance before he became vice president, has become a strident America Firster, opposed to involvement in foreign wars or desire for regime change.

Given the uncertain outcome of the current war on Iran, it is impossible to predict whether Carlson’s position as perhaps the most significant right-wing ideologue in the American media is doomed to burn out, or to become yet more influential.

Either way, Zengerle is right to point to Carlson’s career as a symbol of the way the Republican Party has been captured by a set of beliefs and principles previous Republican leaders would have denounced as racist and undemocratic. The two Republican candidates for president before Trump, John McCain and Mitt Romney, would no longer find a home in their party.

But of course, they both lost to Barack Obama. Trump’s 2016 victory caused a major reversal in American politics and many of the people who originally abhorred him are now part of his inner circle. Both Vance and secretary of state Marco Rubio had declared him totally unfit for office. Zengerle reminds us that while a senator, Rubio supported immigration reforms he has now disavowed in fealty to the president.

Carlson shared these doubts about Trump in 2016, though he was one of the first to recognise the strange charisma that would propel Trump to the top.

As the Republican Party has moved increasingly into territory that used to be regarded as frankly conspiratorial and crazed, so too has Carlson. But while Zengerle does an excellent job of charting this transformation, he does little to explain why it happened.

He writes well, as befits a veteran of the best US print media, but there is a surplus of information and a lack of real analysis. Take the example of Carlson’s increasingly virulent antisemitism. Early in his career, he worked with and for many prominent Jewish intellectuals, like neoconservative writers Bill Kristol and John Podhoretz. Zengerle demonstrates that Carlson is providing increasing time to extreme antisemites, but makes no real attempt to explain it.

Calculation or genuine belief?

But his drift towards the fringes of overt racism seem to date back to his founding of the briefly successful website The Daily Caller in 2010.

While it began with some claim to journalistic integrity, The Daily Caller soon found space for that particularly virulent antisemitism that ties together ancient tropes about Jews with fear and hatred of African Americans and Muslims. Carlson’s willingness to host antisemites on his program has meant his criticism of Israel’s behaviour in Gaza is too easily dismissed by the powerful Israeli lobby in the US.

Reading Carlson’s increasing attraction to fringe irrationality, I wondered how far this is political calculation and how far it represents genuinely held beliefs. Does Carlson ever wake in the night and ask himself if he bears any responsibility for Trump’s cruelty to alleged illegal aliens – or Republican attempts to disenfranchise electors?

Hated by all the Right People is a revealing title, akin to Hillary Clinton’s comment about the “basket of deplorables” who voted for Trump. But I would have liked to see Zengerle explore the reasons for Carlson’s appeal. As he concludes, Carlson now speaks to millions. Maybe he should have spoken to some of these millions, to better understand why they listen to him.

ref. Tucker Carlson helped make Donald Trump and JD Vance. Could he be the next president? – https://theconversation.com/tucker-carlson-helped-make-donald-trump-and-jd-vance-could-he-be-the-next-president-275937

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/tucker-carlson-helped-make-donald-trump-and-jd-vance-could-he-be-the-next-president-275937/

All it takes is paint and pancakes. How to boost your preschooler’s science skills

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Goutam Roy, PhD Candidate in STEM education, Charles Sturt University

Parents of young children will be aware of the need to encourage early reading and maths skills in their kids. They know it’s important to make time to read with their children. Or point out that “cat” starts with the letter “c”. Similarly, they will help their children begin to count (“how many sausages are on your plate?”).

But what about science skills? Studies suggest parents may not be as confident about teaching these skills in every day family life.

Our study, published in The Australian Educational Researcher outlines five practical ways parents can help their children develop their science skills and scientific literacy at home.

Parents can lack confidence

We know Australians science skills are slipping. For example, there are gaps in Year 12 enrolments in key areas including agricultural science, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, data science and climate science.

One way we can address this is by fostering scientific knowledge from a young age.

Children can gain scientific knowledge from everyday contexts. We know parents can play a significant role in extending children’s science literacy at home before they go to school.

But studies have found many parents believe they do not have adequate science knowledge to teach their children or respond to their questions.

However, parents do not need to be experts in science to do this. Simple science activities at home can gradually enhance scientific learning.

Here are five ways to do it.

1. Encourage science play at home

Helping your child’s science skills does not need to be about formal lessons and explanations. You can do this through play.

Parents can regularly arrange small activities at home to extend children’s interest in science. For this, they do not need specialised knowledge. They can build upon a child’s existing areas of interest.

For example, if a child shows interest in colours, provide three primary colours (red, yellow, and blue) in paints and ask children to experiment with how many colours they can produce using those three.

This experiment provides children with a greater sense of colour mixing. Parents do not need to discuss chemistry, but this experience plants a root in children’s minds about chemical reactions.

Or you could cook something like pancakes together. This shows how mixing certain ingredients and adding heat can transform them into another form. At the same time, children gain an understanding of a step-by-step approach.

2. You already have the materials

Parents do not need to offer high-cost or specialist materials. The household or nature can provide what you need.

What happens if you mix flour and water? How many different-shaped leaves can you find in the park? What insects live in our garden?

Existing toys can also help. Lego blocks can used to build an understanding of engineering (how high can you stack the tower before it wobbles?). Toy cars can be used in a game to see what surfaces are quickest.

3. Keep the emphasis on play

With little kids, creating interest in science is not about talking about abstract concepts. It’s about helping a child to understand the concept in action. And hopefully, extending their curiosity.

This is why it’s important to play or engage in the activity together.

For example, rather than discuss what text books say about photosynthesis, role play what happens to a flower in the sun. The flower needs the sun to grow, but too much sun (or not enough water) will see the flower wilt.

Sometimes parents can initiate play activities, sometimes they can follow their children’s lead.

4. Try and answer questions

Children’s questions can be tricky. And sometimes we don’t know the answer. But rather than say “magic” or “I don’t know”, tell your child you can find out together.

This might be through looking something up or doing your own experiment.

For example, “why does ice cream melt so quickly when we eat it but not in the freezer?”

You could then experiment by keeping ice cream in different places, such as at room temperature, in the freezer, and in the refrigerator. You could see how long it takes for the ice cream to melt at each temperature.

5. Get suggestions from your child’s educators

If you need some ideas for science-based games or activities, talk to your child’s educators at daycare or preschool/kinder.

Educators regularly arrange a variety of play activities at early learning centres and know how to tailor play to children’s specific interests and needs.

What now?

Keep in mind, not all development is visible. Children can internalise their learning and apply it in a new situation in their own way.

But if parents regularly talk about science and incorporate it into play, they can help build their child’s logical thinking, problem-solving, and conscious decision-making.

This paves the way for them to enjoy and engage with science subjects when they reach school.

ref. All it takes is paint and pancakes. How to boost your preschooler’s science skills – https://theconversation.com/all-it-takes-is-paint-and-pancakes-how-to-boost-your-preschoolers-science-skills-275226

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/all-it-takes-is-paint-and-pancakes-how-to-boost-your-preschoolers-science-skills-275226/

Sex, pink and empowerment are used to sell alcohol to women. They don’t always like it

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kristen Foley, Research Fellow, Centre for Public Health, Equity and Human Flourishing, Torrens University Australia

Ellidy pops into the bottle shop on her way out to dinner with friends.

She’s faced with rows of evocative labels – using artwork, imagery and symbols to help portray the essence and style of the alcohol on sale.

She narrows it down by wine variety, something local and in her price range. She chooses between two eye-catching labels: one with vivid pink flowers and another with a young woman’s face on the label, hidden by clouds.

She grabs one she thinks will mean something to the group of people she’s going to see.

Ellidy is a fictional shopper. But the labels she’s faced with are real examples from our research on how alcohol labels are designed to appeal to women.

This includes pink labels, and those featuring women’s body parts, high heels or needlework.

Here’s what else our research, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, found.

What we did and what we found

We visited ten bottle shops in South Australia over a period of two years. We photographed products that used gendered cues on labels, bottles and packaging.

We analysed 473 products – including wine, spirits and ready-to-drink products – and spotted five themes.

1. Pink, purple and glitter

Companies used pink, purple, petals and glitz (such as glitter, embossed glass, sparkles, and images of diamonds) in the product design and label.

This “pinkwashing” appeals to some women. But it perpetuates the stereotype of the pink, hyper-feminine consumer.

Labels featured pink, purple, petals and ‘glitz’. Foley, K et al (2026)

2. Names, bodies and body parts

Labels featured stereotypical and sexualised versions of women’s names, bodies and body parts. Examples included names such as “la femme” and “madame sass”, and images depicting breasts and an orgy.

Australia’s alcohol advertising code prohibits advertising that suggests social, sexual or other success.

Sex sells: sexualised images and body parts are used to sell alcohol. Foley, K et al (2026)

3. Wellness

Our analysis found labels suggested alcohol was a form of wellness, balance and connection.

This included a wine called “Mother’s Milk”. This suggests alcohol may provide replenishment in a woman’s life and care for her as she cares for others.

Another was “One Lovely Day”, which featured young women holding hands in a forest.

Labels conveyed wellness, balance and connection. Foley, K et al (2026)

4. Strong women

Alcohol promoted women’s strength, resilience and confidence. For instance, it showed them in positions traditionally associated with men (playing cricket, owning a vineyard) or exercising choice and power.

These depictions are typical of postfeminism, sometimes called “backlash” feminism, which focuses on individual women who succeed in the face of gendered adversity. This may be “doing it all” while keeping a happy, confident and “feminine” disposition.

Their success is then used to downplay the structural forces that disadvantage women. This includes sexism and misogyny, as well as gendered expectations around unpaid care and emotional labour.

Examples in this category included wines featured children with shiny purple and pink text saying “follow your dreams” or “chin up”.

Labels promoted women’s strength, resilience and confidence. Foley, K et al (2026)

5. Escaping reality

This group of products promoted the dissipation and disassociation alcohol can enable. This includes the wine label Ellidy looked at with clouds drifting over a woman’s face.

These kinds of marketing suggest alcohol can provide psychological distance from life’s pressures, somewhat like anaesthetic.

We found products that referenced mental health states such as “muddled up moscato” or “better days”. Others reflected desires for freedom, revelry or rest, such as “freebird”, “tail spin” or “silence”.

Labels depicted escaping reality. Foley, K et al (2026)

Reinforcing stereotypes

Marketing alcohol this way can reproduce harmful gendered stereotypes.

Such “femmewashing” can also be confusing for women. Alcohol may be marketed as sexy, empowering and offering escapism. Yet there’s a growing understanding of the health risks of drinking alcohol, including breast cancer.

And while it is laudable for companies to recognise women and celebrate their strengths and talents, not everyone’s a fan of this type of gendered marketing. Some feel powerless to stop it.

In other research, Australian women told us it communicates that women need to be hyper-feminine, sexy and happy if they want to succeed.

As part of Kristen’s PhD research, one woman said:

I think that there should be regulation of it […] it’s very cynical and destructive, I totally see that.

Another participant said women were conscious they were being targeted to prop up industry profits:

Large companies clearly prey on exhausted, time-poor women tempting them to find their ‘me time’ in a glass or several of wine.

Is this legal?

Our research with women shows they can often see through this marketing spin. However, it can also work in the background to reinforce harmful gendered norms, and associate drinking with femininity.

In Australia, there is no current regulatory mechanism to restrict gendered alcohol marketing, but this is needed for a number of reasons. For a start, it would bring Australia into line with World Health Organization advice to reduce gender stereotypes in alcohol control policies.

We also need to be cautious of repurposing feminism as a cheap gimmick to market empowerment as a commodity.

Some suggest commoditising feminism ironically worsens gender inequality by hiding its social and political drivers. It gives the impression that merely buying the right products will enable you to succeed as a woman.


You can report any concerning alcohol marketing to the Alcohol Advertising Review Board.

ref. Sex, pink and empowerment are used to sell alcohol to women. They don’t always like it – https://theconversation.com/sex-pink-and-empowerment-are-used-to-sell-alcohol-to-women-they-dont-always-like-it-277610

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/sex-pink-and-empowerment-are-used-to-sell-alcohol-to-women-they-dont-always-like-it-277610/

Animals can talk over huge distances – but humans might be changing their range

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Ben JJ Walker, Researcher, UNSW Sydney

Animals are noisy. And their noises can travel a long way.

But making sounds can be a double-edged sword: it can help them communicate, sometimes over long distances, but it can also reveal them to predators.

In new research published in the Journal of Mammalian Evolution, my colleague and I studied how far the sounds of 103 different mammal species travel, and discovered some surprising patterns.

What’s more, these patterns hint at an overlooked impact humans may be having on our fellow creatures: not only changing their sonic landscapes through our own noise, but also changing the world their sounds are travelling through, with unknown effects.

What’s happening in the water?

In aquatic mammals, the relationship between the size of an animal and the farthest distance its call travels is simple. Bigger animals can be heard farther away.

On a perfect day in perfect conditions, the call of a blue whale (the largest animal in history) can travel up to 1,600 kilometres. Its (slightly smaller) cousin the fin whale can be heard over a similar distance.

These are the longest-travelling animal sounds ever reported.

[embedded content]

What’s happening on land?

On land, the story is very different. Environmental factors are crucial to how far the sound of a terrestrial mammal travels.

Things that matter include the size of an animal’s home range (the area in which it lives and defends resources), whether a call is territorial (to defend against other animals), whether the environment is open versus densely vegetated, and if the animal is very social or solitary.

On a good day in the savannah, lions and elephants have sounds that travel 8km and 10km, respectively.

Lions call to announce their presence in the landscape and to defend territories. Ben JJ Walker / UNSW Sydney, CC BY-NC-ND

How does this work?

Our research is centred around the idea that your sound reveals you to predators, and that revelation leads to a higher risk of injury and death (potentially before you pass on your genes, and hence reducing what evolutionary biologists call “fitness”). This would be because the predator can more quickly locate its calling prey.

There is a delicate balance between using sounds to communicate and using sounds in the wrong place and at the wrong time.

[embedded content]

If sound is revealed at the wrong distance, it may mess up the reason an animal uses the sound in the first place.

Animals that cannot adapt to changes in the sound environment may reveal themselves and be eaten, or may be unable to find their friends.

Where does this fit?

In the midst of human-induced environmental and species change, understanding how animals use sounds to communicate and find each other has become valuable to conservation. Many ecosystems are being cleared on land to make way for development and agriculture.

Our finding that land mammals in closed habitats have evolved to have relatively farther sound distances is important because of what happens when the environment changes.

If a possum has evolved in a eucalyptus forest, for example, and the forest is cleared, its sounds will travel farther (because there are fewer trees to muffle it). As a result, the possum may reveal itself to a predator when it doesn’t mean to.

This in turn means the animal’s call leaves it more exposed than it “should” in evolutionary terms. The animal may not have the same tools to escape predators that animals evolved for open environments do, and so may be more easily eaten.

What are humans doing?

Many species have reduced in body size due to things like harvesting activities and climate change.

It’s a well documented fact that many whale species have been getting smaller as a result of human whaling activities and environmental impacts.

Since 1981, for example, the length of northern right whales has become about 7% smaller. Among gray whales, animals born in 2020 are estimated to be 1.65 metres shorter than animals born in the 1980s.

Given our finding that larger body sizes mean farther-travelling sounds in aquatic mammals, smaller whales may not be able to be heard as far away.

This means that when smaller whales call to their friends or family members, their calls may not reach these individuals over the enormous distances the species travel.

What can humans change?

Our findings add a new dimension to our understanding of how humans are affecting animals, and may help inform future conservation decisions.

Do they mean anything in our everyday lives?

For one thing, they remind us to take a moment to listen to the world around us.

We might find out where an animal is. We might observe a new species.

We might even find a quiet space in the landscapes around us to sit and connect again with the world and ourselves.

ref. Animals can talk over huge distances – but humans might be changing their range – https://theconversation.com/animals-can-talk-over-huge-distances-but-humans-might-be-changing-their-range-277742

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/animals-can-talk-over-huge-distances-but-humans-might-be-changing-their-range-277742/

Louis Theroux’s Inside the Manosphere exposes the business model of misogyny

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Steven Roberts, Professor of Sociology, School of Social Sciences, Monash University

Over the past two years, viral clips, news headlines and TV series such as Adolescence have ensured much of the public has encountered the “manosphere” – an online ecosystem that repackages misogyny, anti-feminism and male grievance as self-improvement and hustle.

Journalist Louis Theroux is further lifting the lid on this dangerous ideology with his new Netflix documentary, Inside the Manosphere, in which he showcases the individuals driving this culture.

In his measured and sometimes risky style, Theroux traces not only the rhetoric of “high-value men”, but also the livestream formats and business models that sustain this world. The result is both illuminating and unsettling.

[embedded content]

An insidious ideology

What emerges in Theroux’s exposé is not just provocation, but a clear misogynistic worldview. Across interviews and through influencers’ own content, we see the defence of a regressive gender hierarchy – and attempts to restore it.

Women are described as having innate value through their beauty and sexuality, yet dismissed as less rational and emotionally stable. Monogamy is framed as binding for women, but optional for men. Gender equality is blamed for cultural decline.

At times the language is openly authoritarian. Infamous influencer Myron Gaines describes himself to Theroux as a “dictator” in his romantic relationship. He casts intimacy as something he permits, and domestic care as something owed to men.

But Gaines also rejects that he is a misogynist; he claims he loves women, but that women don’t know what they want, and must be led.

The hypocrisy is striking. Several manosphere figures such as Harrison Sullivan publicly deride women who use platforms such as OnlyFans, while claiming to privately profit from managing their accounts.

Misogyny as a business model

Theroux also shows how the audiences of these influencers form.

In one early scene, young boys who look to be around tween age (with blurred faces) repeat lines about hating women and gay people with unsettling ease. Later, young adult men speak of having “no value” unless they accumulate wealth, status and dominance. Working a nine-to-five job is framed as submission to the “matrix” and the “hustle” as freedom.

The complaint that stable work no longer guarantees security will resonate with many. But in the manosphere, economic strain becomes personal failure: if you are struggling, you have not worked hard enough. This is not just ideology. It is a business model.

Subscription “academies”, private groups and coaching schemes convert insecurity into income. In one example from the documentary, we see American influencer Justin Waller promoting The Real World – an online university run by his close friend and business partner Andrew Tate (who is currently facing charges of rape and human trafficking in multiple countries).

Young men and boys are told they are deficient unless wealthy, muscular and emotionally invulnerable, and then charged for access to the mindset said to fix them. The hierarchy that elevates dominant men and denigrates women simultaneously and exploitatively monetises the boys beneath it.

The worldview is not confined to provocation. In one segment, Waller’s partner Kristen explains that she feels fulfilled staying in her “lane”, and caring for the children and home, while he occupies his role as provider and leader.

She speaks warmly of their respective “masculine and feminine energies”, presenting inequality not as constraint but as comfort – despite viewers learning she has no legal right to his wealth as they are not legally married.

Breeding ground for conspiracies

Running alongside the hustle narrative is a thread of conspiracy theorising. The “matrix” is invoked as a metaphor for societal and institutional systems said to keep men compliant and blind to alternative paths to power.

From there it darkens into talk of shadowy elites engineering cultural decline, including “moral” decline and the erosion of men’s place in the world (which they bizarrely link to the growth of pedophilia).

The “manfluencers”, notably Sullivan and Gaines, suggest recent political developments – such as the rise of President Trump – vindicate their worldview.

Theroux’s instinct is to return to the manfluencers’ own accounts of absent fathers and unstable upbringings. That humanising impulse tilts the story toward sympathy and, problematically, to trauma as a key explanation.

But misogyny does not require trauma to flourish, nor are most boys who experience hardship drawn into sexist worldviews. These ideas are ideological and structural, with long-standing gender hierarchies repackaged and broadcast at scale.

The real-life consequences

Inside the Manosphere does acknowledge harms to women, but doesn’t dwell on it very long.

One segment on schools uses news clips from English-speaking countries to signal the spread of misogynistic language among boys. But the documentary could have done more to highlight these significant manosphere-inspired flow-on effects.

Research I conducted with Stephanie Wescott and colleagues extensively documents how manosphere narratives have permeated schools internationally. This has resulted in higher levels of harassment and gender-based violence by some boys against girl peers and women teachers, eroding women’s workplace safety and girls’ participation.

Theroux is right to suggest we are all, in some sense, now living inside the manosphere. Understanding what drives the men at its centre matters – as does focusing on the real-world harms they cause.


Read more: Andrew Tate’s extreme views about women are infiltrating Australian schools. We need a zero-tolerance response


Louis Theroux: Inside the Manosphere is on Netlix from today.

ref. Louis Theroux’s Inside the Manosphere exposes the business model of misogyny – https://theconversation.com/louis-therouxs-inside-the-manosphere-exposes-the-business-model-of-misogyny-277509

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/louis-therouxs-inside-the-manosphere-exposes-the-business-model-of-misogyny-277509/

Amid a surge in energy prices, a windfall tax on gas profits could be the best way to protect households

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Locky Xianglong Liu, Research fellow, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University

The war in Iran has once again exposed how vulnerable the world’s energy markets are to geopolitical disruption. In wild swings, benchmark crude oil prices spiked as high as US$120 per barrel, roughly 50% higher than before the conflict, before sliding below $100.

Energy price surges hit households quickly. Higher petrol prices raise transport costs and push up everyday prices. This is the second major energy price spike in the past five years due to war.

The federal government faces a familiar question: what policy tools should it use to respond to sudden global oil price shocks and rising living costs?

For Australia, the answer is more complex because of its unique position in global energy markets. But right now, there is a strong case for taxing windfall gas profits to help households – as long as we get the policy right.

Australia’s unique position in energy markets

Australia imports most of its crude oil and refined petroleum products. Like many other oil-importing countries, it is exposed to the adverse effects of higher oil prices on transport costs, consumer prices and business costs.

But at the same time, Australia is also one of the world’s largest exporters of liquefied natural gas (LNG). Gas prices have surged about 50% in Asia and Europe since the start of the conflict, while prices for LNG export contracts typically lag by three to six months.

This means the same global energy shock that raises Australian households’ energy bills also generates very high profits for gas exporters such as Woodside, Chevron, Shell, Inpex and Santos.

Natural gas prices in Europe (Dutch TTF) surged after the outbreak of hostilites. Samuel Boivin/NurPhoto via Getty Images

However, Australia’s gas industry is largely foreign owned. This means a large share of the additional profits generated by higher energy prices flows overseas, rather than directly benefiting Australian households.

This raises an important policy question: should part of these windfall gains be captured to help households cope with higher energy costs? And how would this compare with cutting fuel taxes?

In our research, we modelled the impact of a global oil supply shock on Australia and compared two fiscal tools:

  1. a fuel excise cut, similar to the one implemented in 2022, and

  2. a temporary levy on supernormal profits in the energy sector.

Here are our findings.

The high cost of a fuel tax cut

Cutting the fuel excise can make petrol cheaper in the short term and cushion the shock. But it comes at a significant cost to the federal budget.

The federal government halved the fuel excise for six months during the last energy crisis after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.

The policy helped reduce petrol prices – but cost the budget about A$5.6 billion in lost revenue, weakening the government’s fiscal position.

And this does not address rising gas prices. Domestic businesses and households compete with overseas buyers for Australian gas, pushing energy bills higher.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers says the government is monitoring petrol prices. Mick Tsikas/AAP

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said last week the government is unlikely to repeat the fuel excise cut, saying it is “not something we’ve been considering”. Instead, he pointed to other cost-of-living measures and petrol price monitoring.

If fuel tax cuts are off the table, what other policy tools are available?

Why taxing windfall gains may work better

Our modelling suggests a temporary levy on windfall profits in the energy sector may work better.

When global energy prices surge, gas exporters can earn unusually large profits. Economists often call these “windfall gains” or “scarcity rents”. These profits arise not because companies become more productive or innovative, but from global energy price shocks.

Because much of Australia’s gas industry is foreign-owned, a significant share of these gains flows overseas. A temporary levy on windfall profits during energy shocks could capture part of these gains and redirect them to support households facing higher energy costs, without weakening the federal budget.

Global gas prices have also surged as supply from the Middle East was disrupted.

Australian gas mainly sells to Asian markets. LNG exporters benefit both from higher global LNG prices, and from rising oil-linked LNG contract prices.

This strengthens the economic case for a temporary windfall tax when Australian households face rising energy bills and cost-of-living pressures.

Designing a tax that works

Australia’s dual role as both an energy importer and exporter matters for policy design.

In our study, the energy profit levy is temporary and well defined. In practice, firms may worry that a “temporary” tax could become a precedent for repeated new taxes whenever prices rise.

This concern doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t act, but it does mean the design of the policy matters. A poorly designed tax could create uncertainty and discourage investment.

If investors feel the government will only tax the “unexpected” highs without offering support during the “unexpected” lows, they may be less likely to fund future projects. A serious policy proposal would require three features:

Well-defined triggers: Clear rules for when the tax applies.

Sunset clauses: A legal “expiry date” so the tax ends when the crisis does.

A fair tax base: Applying only to windfall profits generated by global price shocks.

A carefully designed temporary levy on windfall energy profits is therefore worth exploring to help protect Australian households from global energy shocks.

ref. Amid a surge in energy prices, a windfall tax on gas profits could be the best way to protect households – https://theconversation.com/amid-a-surge-in-energy-prices-a-windfall-tax-on-gas-profits-could-be-the-best-way-to-protect-households-277729

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/11/amid-a-surge-in-energy-prices-a-windfall-tax-on-gas-profits-could-be-the-best-way-to-protect-households-277729/

Taking the wealth – the plunder and impoverishment of West Papua

REVIEW: By Lee Duffield

Declining population in West Papua, and critical loss of life through clashes with the Indonesia military raise the question of genocide in a new book by Brisbane writer Dr Greg Poulgrain.

This work, Curse of Gold, published in English by Kompas, as the title indicates traces the roots of subjugation going on in West New Guinea (West Papua) to a cynical grabbing for resources. An Indonesian language edition is forthcoming.

The book is a history beginning with the discovery of huge deposits of gold in 1936, deposits more than twice the gold being mined at Witwatersrand, together with discovery of oil just off-shore.

The Curse of Gold cover.

The principal mine now, with an Indonesian billionaire as main owner, has 560 km of tunnels and produces 50 tonnes of gold annually.

The existence of the gold was kept secret, awaiting investment and development opportunities, held up by war with the Japanese, known just to Dutch interests, the Japanese, and significant for the future, the Rockefeller petroleum company Standard Oil in the United States.

The writer details the operation of a “Third Force” in a chain of political intrigues and manipulation over a half century: the US company, sometimes officers of the US government, and at all times an early player since the first discovery, Allen Dulles, who came to head-up the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Dulles as the lawyer for Standard Oil had already got a petroleum concession in Netherlands New Guinea before 1936, through forming a joint US-Dutch company with majority US interest.

Heyday of CIA operations
In the 1950s heyday of CIA undercover operations across the “Third World”, Dulles is depicted here manipulating political events in Indonesia, whether spreading disinformation, concealing information from governments, even setting up mysterious, destabilising armed skirmishes.

The objective given is always the same, to secure ownership of resources and a free hand for American commercial interests. At one point covert government help would be provided through some disingenuous work by Henry Kissinger as Secretary of State to Richard Nixon, and the always interventionist US Ambassador Marshall Green.

For people of West New Guinea the intriguing saga has been a catastrophe, seeing their rights, interests, existence and even human identity denied and ignored in the struggles over wealth and power.

The story is in two phases:

In wartime the occupying Japanese encouraged the Indonesian independence movement, as a block against any return to influence by European colonial powers, and naturally wanted Papuan resources themselves.

A Japanese intelligence operative, Nishijima Shigetada, familiar with the region, is given a key role. He had found out about the gold, and persuaded the Indonesian nationalists to include West New Guinea in their demands for a republic — the better to get the trove out of the hands of “colonial monopolies”.

The second phase of developments saw an ugly turn of events with the 1965 military coup in Indonesia, marked by large scale massacre across the country and coming to power of Suharto as President in 1967.

The new regime determined to build on the campaign by its predecessor, President Sukarno, to take over West New Guinea. In the calculus of Cold War rivalries, President John Kennedy had sought to keep him “on side” and the Russians provided guns and aid, in part to best their Chinese rivals.

Dutch gave in
The outcome was that the Dutch who had stayed on in the territory gave in to pressure and pulled out by the end of 1963. It was nominally then put under United Nations trusteeship until an “act of free choice” on independence.

But Indonesian forces moved in, violently put down any Papuan resistance, promulgated theories of an Indonesia Raya, a lost island empire to which all of New Guinea had belonged, and declared the decision on independence would be an issue of “staying” with Indonesia. Neither Kennedy nor Sukarno, who had planned to meet in 1964, is believed to have known about the gold in Papua.

Dr Poulgrain recounts the narrative of bullying and deception, including the sidelining of senior UN representatives, whereby the “act of free choice” became notoriously a series of managed gatherings, no plebiscite of the people ever countenanced. He argues that the “Third Party”, having helped to remove the Dutch, then moved in favour of its own preferred candidate, Suharto, no nationalist from the independence movement, a self-declared friend of US commerce and advocate for untrammelled investment:

“It could be argued that the fiery nationalism so characteristic of Sukarno, the tool that won him the right to enter the harbour of Soekarnopura (Jayapura) on board the Soviet warship renamed Irian, proved to be his own undoing. Under the mantle of Sukarno’s presidency, Indonesia ousted the Dutch from New Guinea, the goal of both Nishijima and the ‘Third Party’, finally bringing an end to the European colonial presence there.

“Only 30 months later, Sukarno was facing his own political demise …”

In case the reader considers this might all be a well-worn path, it should be emphasised there is new material and insight into the origins and enactment of cruelty, appropriation and dishonesty that became the pattern in Suharto’s New Order Indonesia and its captive provinces in West New Guinea.

It is a work of thoroughness and industry, especially where covert activity and actual conspiracy appears; extensive documentation has been provided making the case strong. Much of it is original material, such as diplomatic messaging obtained through libraries, and records of interviews or correspondence with leading figures, viz Nishijima or the former US Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

Well defended
The thesis of the book is consistently propounded and well defended:

“This book is about the ownership of the immense wealth of natural resources in Western New Guinea”.

The colonised inhabitants did not get that ownership or any just share of it, with bad consequences for their culture and welfare. It was a bad beginning in 1963 with Indonesia in a dominating frame of mind:

“Papuan culture is the antithesis of life in Java.”

Where the Dutch colonisers are characterised as a very small population hardly penetrating the hinterland, the Indonesians who took over from them have been aggressive with their industry building, immigration and military occupation.

Papuans today make up barely half the population of 5.4-million, steadily outstripped by arrivals. Population growth in the comparable country, Papua New Guinea, since independence in 1975 has been much stronger, now pushing towards 11-million.

  • Curse of Gold, by Greg Poulgrain (Jakarta, Kompas, 2026). ISBN 978, ISBN 978 (PDF)

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/10/taking-the-wealth-the-plunder-and-impoverishment-of-west-papua/

View from The Hill: David Littleproud quits as Nationals leader, declaring ‘I’m buggered’

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

Nationals leader David Littleproud has unexpectedly quit his post, declaring he is “buggered” and “out on my feet”.

His announcement came as a shock to colleagues and follows a period of extreme turbulence for his party and the Coalition, which split twice during this term.

Littleproud has been a controversial and, in terms of Coalition relations, provocative, leader. Although the Nationals held their lower house seats at the election, since then two of their high profile MPs have defected. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price went to the Liberals immediately after the election, and former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce jumped to One Nation.

Littleproud had a bad relationship with former Liberal leader Sussan Ley and triggered both fractures between the two parties.

He has been much closer to the new Liberal leader, Angus Taylor, under whom relations between the parties have so far been smooth.

The Nationals will meet at 10am Wednesday to replace Littleproud. They need to do so quickly, as they have a candidate running in the May 9 byelection in Ley’s former seat of Farrer. On early indications, the Nationals have almost no chance of winning the seat, which former deputy prime minister Tim Fischer held for them before Ley.

Nationals senator Ross Cadell told Sky News the leadership contenders could be deputy leader Kevin Hogan, former leader Michael McCormack, who served as deputy prime minister, outspoken backbencher Matt Canavan and Senate leader Bridget McKenzie. Littleproud did not endorse a successor.

Sources confirmed McKenzie was likely to stand.

Canavan said he would run. “I believe I have the best chance to help win the battle for an Australia first plan that can deliver a better life for all Australians.”

Littleproud, who did not announce his plan at the Nationals’ regular party meeting on Tuesday, held a news conference after question time with his wife Amelia at his side.

He said he would stay on in his regional Queensland seat of Maranoa, including re-contesting it at the next election. He left open the possibility of serving on the shadow frontbench.

Despite internal and external criticism of his performance, Littleproud’s leadership position did not appear to be under any threat. One of his techniques for retaining support was to take every decision, however small, to the party room.

At his news conference, he defended his record saying, “I am proud of us recapturing our identity, for who we are and what we stand for. For that 30% of Australians who live outside a capital city.”

He said he had done this with the Voice (when the Nationals preempted the Liberals with their opposition) and on other policy areas, including net zero. “It’s not probably since John McEwen has the National Party leader had to stand up and show the courage of their character and […] stand for what their party room wants them to stand for. So I’m proud but I’m tired.”

“It is time for me to feel normal again, it has been a pretty rough road since the election.”

Littleproud was highly critical when asked about working with Ley. He said it was a mistake after the election to “wipe all our policies because all we did was leave a vacuum for someone to walk into.

“I stood and fought for those four policies that meant so much for our party room. […] I wasn’t going to let them go.

“And then [after the Nationals defied shadow cabinet solidarity] I was not going to stand by while my mates got punted for not doing anything wrong.

“Where I come from, if one of your mob gets knocked over and it is not for the right reason, you come swinging back. That is how we operate. The culture of National Party has always been like that. I am proud of that.”

Littleproud said to go on as leader “would be the wrong thing for me to do. I love the National Party. I grew up in it, I’ll bleed, to the day I die, green and gold, I love it, and it’d be wrong for me to say that I’m the right person to continue to lead. That’s tough for me to say, [that] I think someone better can do it, because I don’t have the energy. I’m out of my feet. I’m done.”

Barnaby Joyce, who said Littlepround’s ostracising of him was one reason for defecting, blasted Littleproud. He told The Australian: “Mr Littleproud has to accept responsibility for the existential crisis he left the National Party in.

“When I heard he said he was proud of what he achieved and compared himself to Black Jack [John] McEwen, I didn’t know whether that was pathos or AI interfering with my news.

“We had senior people leave such as David Gillespie, Keith Pitt, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price. We had a [Senate] seat that was lost, which was Perin Davey. Two people who basically walked out in myself and Andrew Gee, and Jacinta.”

Taylor described Littleproud as a “committed Coalitionist”.

Nationals federal president Andrew Fraser said: “I congratulate David on his personal strength and conviction that saw The Nationals lead the debate on the Voice and on the development and adoption of an energy and climate policy that will meet our future energy needs and allow Australian businesses to thrive.

“We are not a faction of the Liberal Party; we have a partnership, and David’s leadership never let them forget it.”

ref. View from The Hill: David Littleproud quits as Nationals leader, declaring ‘I’m buggered’ – https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-david-littleproud-quits-as-nationals-leader-declaring-im-buggered-277970

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/10/view-from-the-hill-david-littleproud-quits-as-nationals-leader-declaring-im-buggered-277970/

Too valuable to burn? Chemical and plastic industries will rely on oil far longer than motorists

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian, Professor of Electrical Engineering, School of Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology

Every year, the world uses roughly 37 billion barrels of oil. Most is burned to power cars, trucks, planes, ships and other types of transport. For more than a century, this energy-dense hydrocarbon has shaped the modern world, from geopolitics to electricity systems.

But this dependence on oil for transport comes with clear vulnerabilities. Combustion engines burning petrol, diesel or gas worsen climate change. Oil accounts for a third of all greenhouse gas emissions from fuel. Many countries rely on oil imports, which means oil has to be extracted and shipped long distances. Right now, oil prices are soaring after Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil and gas is shipped. In response, governments may have to release strategic reserves, while stock markets have fallen and analysts are warning of sudden inflation.

As electric vehicles rise to 25% of new car sales globally, demand for oil as a fuel is expected to plateau and eventually decline. We can already see this in China’s very rapid shift to electric vehicles, trucks and bullet trains, which has slowed its oil demand growth.

This doesn’t mean an end to oil. We will likely need it as a raw material for useful products for decades yet. The International Energy Agency predicts petrochemicals will become the main driver of demand this year. Researchers have argued oil is likely to become increasingly important as a feedstock – and could become too valuable to burn.

Oil is far more than a fuel

Crude oil is an extremely versatile substance, able to be refined and separated into many different products. Two of these products – naptha and ethane – are the main feedstock for huge petrochemical industries manufacturing plastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene, synthetic fibres such as polyester, industrial solvents and cosmetics.

Oil is also essential for advanced materials such as carbon fibre, synthetic graphite and plastics embedded in electric vehicles, wind turbines, power electronics, insulation systems and grid infrastructure.

You might have seen this fact pointed out on social media to score points against environmentalists. But there are clear differences between burning oil for fuel – which can only be done once – and using it for materials that will stay in use for years or decades. Some of these materials can be recycled.

Oil used in this way is more like a mined product than a fuel. It is stored in products rather than immediately released as emissions.

[embedded content]
The main way we make plastics requires oil as a feedstock.

Electrification is changing demand for oil

Electric vehicles charge their batteries with electricity, which is typically produced domestically. Electricity production, too, is shifting to clean sources – renewables, grid-scale batteries and digital energy management. These two trends should reduce demand for oil as fuel.

This isn’t a given. It relies on networks of EV chargers and new charging hubs for electric trucks and buses. The power grid has to be expanded and strengthened. Microgrids and community energy systems can boost resilience and cut demand for diesel generators in remote areas.

Other sectors will remain dependent on oil as a fuel for longer. While pure electric planes and ships are emerging, range limitations mean hybrid electric-fuel models are more likely to succeed until technologies improve.

Petrochemicals still cost the environment

While manufacturing plastics from oil does less damage to the atmosphere than burning it for fuel, it still comes at an environmental cost. Refining oil to make plastics accounts for 3.4% of the world’s carbon emissions as of 2019, and this is likely to rise significantly.

If petrochemical industries such as plastics expand as dramatically as predicted, it will intensify existing problems with plastic pollution, marine plastic and microplastics. Strong recycling and waste management can counter this, but only to a degree.

Oil has become ubiquitous in modern life – not just as an energy dense fuel, but as a feedstock for thousands of petrochemical products. Tom Fisk/Pexels, CC BY-NC-ND

If oil shifts from fuel to feedstock, governments will have to amp up circular economy efforts to ensure products can be reused or recycled, boost recycling rates and avoid waste entering the environment.

In the longer term, we will need to look for alternatives to oil across its many uses. These could involve using pyrolysis to turn plastics back into oil so they can be used again, or looking to green chemistry approaches to convert biomass into feedstock.

What should we do?

Shifting away from using oil as fuel won’t happen overnight.

To soak up more renewables, power grid operators are adding energy storage and using digital tools and advanced control to maintain reliability and quality. This will be essential if transport is to go electric and petrol and diesel use is to fall.

The public EV charger network has to be widespread and reliable. Emerging very fast charge technologies could slash charging times. Allowing EVs to feed power back to the grid can help keep the grid stable and power prices reasonable – while rewarding owners.

Oil is not going to disappear any time soon. But over time, it’s likely to shift from a ubiquitous commodity sold at every service station to a more specialised role as a feedstock.

It will count as real progress on climate change if oil is no longer routinely burned as fuel. But if the oil industry simply shifts to petrochemicals, there will still be a significant environmental cost to pay.

ref. Too valuable to burn? Chemical and plastic industries will rely on oil far longer than motorists – https://theconversation.com/too-valuable-to-burn-chemical-and-plastic-industries-will-rely-on-oil-far-longer-than-motorists-276275

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/03/10/too-valuable-to-burn-chemical-and-plastic-industries-will-rely-on-oil-far-longer-than-motorists-276275/