Category: MIL-OSI

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janine Dixon, Director, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University

Australia has a problem. Across the economy, business investment has been sluggish for the past decade, leaving policymakers reaching for solutions.

Weak business investment can leave the economy stuck in low gear, operating without enough equipment or technology and failing to meet its potential. It’s tempting to think that if investment could be revived, higher living standards would follow. But it is not that simple.

In a recent report on creating a more dynamic and resilient economy, Australia’s Productivity Commission proposed some big changes to the way businesses are taxed in Australia, including lowering the corporate tax rate for most businesses and introducing a unique new cash flow tax.

So, what exactly is the Productivity Commission proposing – and would it help boost business investment? And crucially, would it improve living standards for Australian people?

Lower tax rates – with a catch

Right now, there are two rates of company tax. Businesses with turnover of less than A$50 million a year are taxed at 25%. Larger businesses, with turnover of more than $50 million, face a 30% tax rate.

The proposed reform of the corporate tax system has two key elements. First, almost all businesses would be taxed at 20%. Very large corporations, with turnover above $1 billion, would face a rate of 28%.

Second, all businesses would pay a new 5% tax on their “net cash flow”. The government would collect less revenue through company tax, but it would get some of it back through the net cash flow tax. More on this later.

The profitability problem

The Productivity Commission is concerned about potentially profitable business ideas that become unprofitable when company taxes are taken into account.

For example, $1 million invested in building a restaurant might generate profits of $1.3 million over its lifetime, making it a profitable activity. But after paying 25% in corporate tax, or $325,000, the restaurant only generates $975,000 for the investor.

Knowing she will make a loss, the investor will decide not to make the investment.

Now, suppose the corporate tax rate was cut to 20%. Corporate tax paid by the restaurant would be $260,000, leaving $1.04 million for the investor. The investor sees she will make a positive return and decides to finance the restaurant. This argument is at the heart of the Productivity Commission’s recommendation to cut the rate of company tax.

In reality, the picture isn’t quite this simple. The investor must also account for the time value of money, various risks and opportunity cost, and the returns she could be making if she invested the money in other ways.

When calculating profits, the tax office includes depreciation as a cost. This deduction reduces the corporate tax bill significantly compared to our hypothetical example. Depreciation deductions are spread over many years so they are worth less than if the deduction on the whole investment was allowed up front. This is important when we talk about a cash flow tax later.

Foreign and domestic investors

Another complication is Australia’s unique dividend imputation system. If the investor lives in Australia, the tax the company has already paid on its profits is treated as if she paid it herself.

When she does her tax return, that company tax counts as a franking credit towards the income tax she owes on all her income. This means the investor is indifferent to the company tax rate because it works like an advance payment towards the personal tax she has to pay anyway.

If dividend imputation was available to everybody, the corporate tax system would be a very leaky bucket indeed – all the revenue it collected would be lost again when credited to the personal income tax paid by investors.

But a lot of the money invested in Australia comes from foreign investors. They don’t pay personal income taxes to the Australian government, so the company tax we collect from them stays in the bucket.

This is the key to making corporate income tax cuts have an impact. But it is also the reason we need to be careful about how we assess the success of the proposed policy.

With lower corporate taxes, foreign investors will likely invest more in Australia, leading to a larger economy. Our economic modelling at the Centre of Policy Studies, published in the Productivity Commission’s interim report, finds the economy (or GDP) will be larger by 0.2% in the long run. This sounds good – but there’s a catch.

When the Australian government collects less tax from foreign investors, Australia’s income falls. Our modelling finds gross national income will be smaller by 0.3% in the long run. The economy will be larger, but less of it will belong to us.

A new tax on cash flow

Alongside recommendations to cut the corporate tax rate, the Productivity Commission has proposed introducing a cash flow tax.

This is a relatively rare form of taxation used in only a few countries. Like corporate tax, a cash flow tax is levied on profits.

But the big difference is that a cash flow tax treats investment costs as an immediate tax deduction, rather than gradually depreciating the investment.

This is attractive because it does not change the incentive to invest. By treating the investment as one big tax deduction at the beginning of its life, an investment that is profitable in a tax-free world will also be profitable under a cash flow tax.

This means the government can collect tax revenue from companies without having a negative impact on investment.

Under a cash flow tax, highly profitable businesses will pay a relatively large amount of tax, while businesses that are just breaking even will pay very little. Unsurprisingly, lobbyists for big business have urged Treasurer Jim Chalmers to ignore the recommendation.

A company tax cut results in lower income for Australians, but adding a cash flow tax reverses these losses by collecting more revenue from foreign investors and multinational corporations. Our modelling finds this package would lead to gains in Australia’s gross national income of 0.4% in the long run. The Productivity Commission’s report now rests with the treasurer for consideration.

The Centre of Policy Studies at Victoria University was commissioned to conduct some of the economic modelling which is quoted in the Productivity Commission’s interim and final reports mentioned in this article.

– ref. A new company tax mix has been proposed. We need to be careful how we assess it – https://theconversation.com/a-new-company-tax-mix-has-been-proposed-we-need-to-be-careful-how-we-assess-it-273892

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/28/a-new-company-tax-mix-has-been-proposed-we-need-to-be-careful-how-we-assess-it-273892/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Neha Lalchandani, Research Fellow, Global Centre for Preventive Health and Nutrition, Deakin University, Deakin University

If you pack school lunchboxes for your children, you’ll know it can sometimes feel like a real slog.

It needs to be easy to prepare, nutritious and something children will actually eat. On top of this, there is increasing awareness it should be friendly for the environment and not generate food and plastic waste.

As a 2021 OzHarvest report noted, Australian students throw away an estimated 5 million uneaten sandwiches, 3 million pieces of whole fruit and 3 million items of packaged foods each year.

As students return to school, here’s what schools and families can do to pack lower-waste lunches.

Our research

My colleagues and I have been researching what South Australian families put in lunchboxes and why.

In our 2025 study of 673 preschool and primary school lunchboxes, we found 53% of all packaged items in lunchboxes were single-use plastics, mostly from snacks. The most common packaged snack types were chips and muesli bars.

We found families tend to let children’s preferences drive what they pack – because if food comes home untouched, kids can go hungry or food may end up in the bin.

Parents also told us they tend to rely on packaged foods because they are busy and have little time to prepare school lunches.

It’s not that they don’t care about sustainability, but choosing familiar packaged items they know their children will definitely eat take priority.

How schools can make eating easier

Our research also found primary school eating times can be short – only around ten minutes at lunch – as children are keen to get out and play.

So schools should consider extending eating time to allow children to be more settled and eat more of what’s packed. This can mean less waste and fewer hungry moments later in the day. Other research shows longer seated time for eating means children are more likely to eat fruits and vegetables.

Schools could also consider scheduling eating times after play. While teachers and parents may worry children will get too hungry, research suggests scheduling play before lunch can help children eat more of their meal, and more nutritious items too. This is because they arrive at lunch with a healthy appetite and less urgency to rush through eating.

Schools can also incorporate food and sustainability literacy into the curriculum, to help kids embrace healthier and less-packaged foods. Schools can also encourage more “nude food” (packaging-free) days, provide families with healthy, low-waste lunchbox suggestions and have recycling and compost bins handy in the playground.

How can you pack a low-waste lunchbox?

1. Talk to your child about what they like to eat at school and how much

This allows them to tell you what works for them at school – which may be different from at home. Invite them to pack the lunchboxes with you the night before school when there is more time.

This can build independence and encourages children to take more responsibility for what they eat at school. Perhaps if they have packed it and understand the work involved, they are more likely to eat it.

2. Substitute packaged snacks for alternatives

Try packing fruits that need no preparation. Also consider vegetable sticks and boiled eggs (you can prep them in a batch and store in the fridge).

You can make a batch of savoury muffins, home-made popcorn (chuck kernels in a brown paper bag and microwave) or your own portions of low-sugar yoghurt in reusable containers.

3. Stock up on reusable containers

There are lots of options to consider, including:

• bento-style, compartmentalised lunchboxes are great for packing a variety of items and they can keep foods separate, preventing soggy snacks

• small stackable tubs can be used for yoghurt, fruit chunks, boiled eggs and veggie sticks. Look for clear containers (so kids know what’s inside) with leak-resistant lids

• reusable and washable fabric or silicone snack bags for sandwiches, crackers and other dry snacks like popcorn and mini muffins.

4. Avoid these items

Avoid cling film, plastic bags and foil. Also avoid supermarket snacks in individual plastic wrappers – such as popcorn or bars.

5. Make it manageable

We know preparing school lunchboxes can be demanding for families. So if you are going to make some changes, it’s OK to start small. You don’t need to prepare everything from scratch everyday. A starting point could be using more reusable containers and portioning bulk-bought foods.

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

– ref. Swap muesli bars for homemade popcorn: 5 ways to pack a lower-waste lunch box – https://theconversation.com/swap-muesli-bars-for-homemade-popcorn-5-ways-to-pack-a-lower-waste-lunch-box-273808

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/28/swap-muesli-bars-for-homemade-popcorn-5-ways-to-pack-a-lower-waste-lunch-box-273808/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mary Bushell, Clinical Associate Professor in Pharmacy, University of Canberra

Fish oil, also known as omega-3, is one of the most popular dietary supplements. It’s often promoted to protect the heart, boost mood, reduce inflammation and support overall health.

But how much of this is backed by science, and when might fish oil supplements actually be worth taking?

A long history

People have been taking oils from fish for centuries.

Modern interest surged in the 1970s when scientists studying Inuit diets discovered omega-3 fatty acids and their heart-protective effects.

By the 1980s, fish oil capsules were being marketed as an easy way to get these healthy fats.

What’s in fish oil?

Fish oil comes from oily fish such as salmon, sardines, tuna, herring and mackerel. It’s rich in a special type of fat called omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs), mainly EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid) and DHA (docosahexaenoic acid).

These omega-3s play an important role in how our cells function. Every cell in the body is surrounded by a thin, flexible layer called a cell membrane. This membrane works like a protective skin: it keeps the cell’s contents safe, controls what moves in and out, and helps cells communicate with one another.

Omega-3s don’t build the membrane itself, but they slot into it, becoming part of its structure. This helps the membrane stay fluid and flexible, allowing it to work more efficiently, especially in tissue that relies on fast, precise signalling, such as in the brain and eyes.

Because we can’t make enough omega-3s on our own, we need to get them from food or, sometimes, supplements.

How are fish oil supplements made?

After fish are caught, their tissues are cooked and pressed to release oil. This crude oil is purified and refined to remove impurities including heavy metals such as copper, iron and mercury.

During processing, the oil may be concentrated to boost its EPA and DHA content.

The purified oil is then encapsulated in soft gels or bottled as liquid oil.

Some supplements are further treated to reduce odour or the familiar “fishy” aftertaste.

Fish oil and heart health

Omega-3 fatty acids are best known for their role in heart health, particularly for lowering triglycerides, a type of fat in the blood that, when elevated, can increase the risk of heart disease.

A 2023 paper pooled 90 clinical trials with more than 72,000 participants and found a near linear relationship between dose and effect. That doesn’t mean “more is always better”, but higher doses tended to produce bigger improvements in heart-related risk factors.

It found you need more than 2 grams per day of EPA and DHA combined to meaningfully lower triglycerides (by 15 to 30%). This is most relevant for people with existing heart disease, high triglycerides, or obesity.

But it’s important to read the label. A “1,000 mg” fish oil capsule usually refers to the total oil weight of the oil, not the active omega-3 content. Most standard capsules contain only about 300 mg of combined EPA and DHA the rest is other fats.

At lower doses, changes in blood fats were modest. The same analysis suggested low-dose fish oil may even nudge LDL or “bad” cholesterol up slightly, while having only a small effect on triglycerides.

A 2018 trial tested a high-strength purified EPA product (4 grams per day) in people already taking statins to lower their cholesterol. Over five years, it prevented one major heart event (heart attack, stroke or urgent procedure) for every 21 people treated. However this was a prescription-only pharmaceutical-grade EPA, not a standard fish-oil capsule.

In Australia, fish oils are sold in pharmacies, health food stores and supermarkets. Some concentrated products are available as “practitioner-only” supplements via health professionals.

The same purified EPA used in the 2018 trial is now available in Australia as Vazkepa, a prescription-only medicine. It was added to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) in October 2024, making it more accessible for high-risk patients.

For otherwise healthy people, the evidence that standard fish oil supplements prevent heart attacks or strokes is much less convincing.

What about arthritis and joint pain?

Fish oil has mild anti-inflammatory effects.

In people with inflammatory arthritis (such as rheumatoid arthritis), omega-3s can reduce joint tenderness and morning stiffness.

These benefits, however, require higher consistent doses, usually around 2.7g of EPA and DHA per day. This is the equivalent of around nine standard 1,000mg fish oil capsules (containing 300 mg of EPA and DHA) daily for at least eight to 12 weeks.

Can fish oil improve mood?

Some studies suggest omega-3s, particularly those higher in EPA, can modestly reduce symptoms of clinical depression when taken alongside antidepressants.

A 2019 review of 26 trials (involving more than 2,000 people) found a small overall benefit, mainly for EPA-rich formulations at doses up to about 1 gram per day. DHA-only products didn’t show clear effects.

That doesn’t mean fish oil is a mood booster for everyone. For people without diagnosed depression, omega-3 supplements haven’t been shown to reliably lift mood or prevent depression.

How much can you take?

For most people, fish oil is safe.

Common side effects include a fishy aftertaste, mild nausea and diarrhoea. Taking capsules with food or choosing odourless or “de-fishified” products can help.

Prescription strength products such as Vazkepa (high-dose EPA) are also well tolerated, but they can slightly increase the risk of irregular heartbeat (atrial fibrillation) and bleeding.

Up to 3 grams per day of combined EPA and DHA from supplements is generally considered safe for most adults.

Higher doses for specific medical conditions should be taken under medical supervision.

So, should you take it?

The Heart Foundation recommends Australians eat two to three serves of oily fish a week. This would provide 250–500 mg of EPA and DHA per day.

If you don’t eat fish, a fish oil supplement (or algal oil if you’re vegetarian or vegan) can help you meet your omega-3 needs.

If you have heart disease (with high triglycerides) or inflammatory arthritis, fish oil may offer extra benefits. But dose and product type matter, so speak with a health professional.

For most people, though, two or three serves of oily fish each week remain the simplest, safest and most nutritious way to get omega-3s.

Read more:
Should I take a magnesium supplement? Will it help me sleep or prevent muscle cramps?

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

– ref. Should I take a fish oil supplement for my heart, joints or mood? – https://theconversation.com/should-i-take-a-fish-oil-supplement-for-my-heart-joints-or-mood-267976

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/28/should-i-take-a-fish-oil-supplement-for-my-heart-joints-or-mood-267976/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matt Absalom, Senior Lecturer in Italian Studies, The University of Melbourne

If you watch American cooking shows, you’ve likely experienced “salad confusion”. You see a chef preparing what looks like rocket, but they call it arugula.

It’s the same plant (Eruca sativa). It has the same peppery bite. So why do English speakers use two completely different names?

The answer isn’t just a quirk of translation. It is a linguistic fossil record revealing the history of Italian migration.

The name you use tells us less about the vegetable and more about who introduced you to it.

A Latin word with a double life

It all starts with the Latin word eruca.

Crucially, this term had a dual meaning. It referred to the vegetable, but also meant “caterpillar” – maybe because the plant’s hairy stems resembled the pests often found on brassicas.

As the Roman Empire faded and Vulgar Latin (the language of the vulgus, or the common people) evolved into the Romance languages, this single word split along two paths.

The Northern route: aristocratic ‘rocket’

As the word travelled north through Italy, it morphed from eruca into the Northern Italian diminutive ruchetta.

From there, it crossed the Alps into France, becoming roquette.

By the 16th century, French culinary influence was dominant in England. The first written record appears in 1530, in John Palsgrave’s text L’esclarcissement de la langue francoyse (Clarification of the French Language – said to be the first grammar of French for English speakers), translating roquette to “rocket”.

By 1597, English botanist John Gerard was describing “garden rocket” in his large illustrated Herball, or Generall Historie of Plantes, cementing it in the British lexicon.

This terminology travelled with the First Fleet. In Australia, “rocket” was a colonial staple, not a modern discovery. Planting guides in the Hobart Town Courier from 1836 list rocket alongside other brassicas, such as cress and mustard, as essential kitchen garden crops.

This is why people in Australia, the United Kingdom and New Zealand say “rocket”. For these speakers, the word followed an aristocratic, pre-industrial path.

The Southern route: migrant ‘arugula’

In the United States, the word “arugula” didn’t arrive in books; it arrived in pockets.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, millions of Italians emigrated to the US. This was a mass migration of the working class, predominantly from Southern regions like Calabria and Sicily.

These migrants spoke regional languages, erroneously called dialects, rather than Standard Italian.

In the South, eruca had evolved differently. We can trace this in historical dictionaries: Gerhard Rohlfs’ monumental Dictionary of the Three Calabrias (1932–39) records the local word as arùculu.

Similarly, Antonino Traina’s Sicilian-Italian dictionary (1868) lists the variant aruca.

When Italian immigrants established market gardens in New York, they sold the produce using their dialect forms. They weren’t selling the French roquette; they were selling the Calabrian arùculu.

Over many years, this solidified into the American English “arugula”.

For decades, arugula was an “ethnic” ingredient in the US, underscoring its origins as “an unruly weed that was foraged from the fields by the poor”. It wasn’t until a New York Times article on May 24 1960 that food editor Craig Claiborne introduced it to a wider audience.

Noting it “has more names than Joseph’s coat had colors”, he used the New York market term “arugula” alongside rocket in his recipes, inadvertently codifying it as the standard American name.

There is perhaps a sense that “arugula” might come from Spanish, given the influence of words like cilantro in American culinary terminology.

In Spanish, Latin eruca evolved into oruga which is uncannily similar to “arugula”. But, linguistically things are a little more complex.

While the Spanish word maintains the reference to the plant it also retains the Latin term’s double meaning: a salad vegetable and a caterpillar.

According to Bréal’s Law of Differentiation, named for the linguist Michel Bréal, languages detest absolute synonyms. If a word has two meanings, the language will intervene somehow. Indeed, today’s Spanish speakers prefer to call the plant rúcula. If you were to ask for an ensalada de oruga in Spain today, you’d probably get odd looks and, maybe, a caterpillar salad.

What about ‘rucola’?

So where does the word rucola – seen on menus in Rome today – fit in?

While the Anglosphere was splitting into rocket and arugula, Italy was undergoing its own linguistic unification. Standard Italian rucola is another diminutive which gradually won out over other regional variants.

Philologically, rucola represents a middle ground. Its rise in usage in Italy in the second half of the 20th Century eclipsed competing terms like rughetta, ruchetta or ruca.

Rucola now has international reverberations. The preferred term in Spanish is modelled on it, it appears in many other European languages and it is making inroads in the English lexicon.

From peasant weed to political symbol

By the 1990s in the US, the “peasant weed” had completed a remarkable social climb. It became a political shibboleth for the American “liberal elite” (most famously during Obama’s Arugula-gate in the 2008 presidential election campaign).

Meanwhile, in Australia, rocket popped up as the ubiquitous garnish of the cafe culture boom found on everything from pizza to smashed avo.

The divide is a reminder that language is rarely accidental. When an Australian orders “rocket,” they echo a 16th-century exchange with France. When an American orders “arugula”, they echo the voices of Southern Italian migrants in 1920s New York. And when someone uses “rucola” perhaps it’s a way of evoking Italy’s mythical, UNESCO-awarded gastronomy.

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

– ref. Rocket or arugula? How a salad vegetable mapped the Italian diaspora – https://theconversation.com/rocket-or-arugula-how-a-salad-vegetable-mapped-the-italian-diaspora-272059

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/28/rocket-or-arugula-how-a-salad-vegetable-mapped-the-italian-diaspora-272059/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Renwick, Professor of Physical Geography (Climate Science), Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington

It has been a month of umbrellas rather than sunscreen across much of New Zealand, with persistent rain, low sunshine and deadly storms dominating headlines and daily life.

For many people, it has felt like midsummer never really arrived. Is it simply bad luck, or is there something more going on?

As with most aspects of our climate and weather, the answer isn’t straightforward. It reflects the interplay between New Zealand’s geography, warmer-than-average ocean temperatures, large-scale regional climate patterns and long-term global warming.

What the data shows – and why it’s been so wet

Climate observations back up what many New Zealanders have been feeling this month. Across northern regions in particular, sunshine hours have been well below average, while rainfall totals have been far above normal.

In central Auckland, a weather station in Albert Park had recorded around 244mm by January 27 – nearly three times the (1981–2010) average for the month. At Mount Maunganui, the month-to-date total had climbed to roughly 385mm, more than four times the norm.

Similar patterns have been seen in many parts of the upper North Island, with repeated heavy rain events, high humidity and prolonged cloudy spells. The result has often been soggy soils, swollen rivers and increased risks of flooding and landslides.

While each storm that affects New Zealand is different, many of the systems visiting the country this summer share some common features. Several have originated in the tropics, subtropics or the north Tasman Sea before drifting south toward New Zealand. These systems typically carry warm, moisture-laden air – and the potential for intense rainfall.

When these moist air masses interact with cooler air from the south, or encounter New Zealand’s rugged topography, conditions become ripe for heavy rain.

As air is forced upwards over hills and mountain ranges – particularly along the Coromandel Peninsula, Bay of Plenty, East Cape and Gisborne regions – moisture condenses rapidly, producing very high rainfall totals. This is why northern and eastern parts of the country so often bear the brunt of these subtropical events.

The regional patterns loading the dice

One background factor this summer has been the lingering influence of La Niña, part of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) system that dominates climate variability across the Pacific.

During La Niña, atmospheric pressure tends to be lower than normal over Australia and the north Tasman Sea, and higher than normal to the south and east of New Zealand. This effectively flips our usual weather pattern on its head, reducing westerly winds and increasing the frequency of easterly and northeasterly flows.

Those northeasterly winds draw warm, humid air from the subtropics toward New Zealand. Because our temperatures are highly sensitive to wind direction, even small shifts can have large effects.

La Niña also tends to be associated with warmer-than-average sea surface temperatures, which have again been observed around New Zealand. So, when northeasterly winds blow across these warmer waters, they pick up additional heat and moisture, further fuelling heavy rainfall potential.

Another background driver that constantly shapes New Zealand’s weather and climate is the Southern Annular Mode (SAM), which describes the north–south movement of the westerly wind belt that circles Antarctica.

A positive SAM phase, which has dominated much of this summer, tends to bring higher pressures over the South Island and southern New Zealand. This allows storms from the subtropics more room to drift south and linger near the North Island.

Climate change as an intensifier

Overlaying these regional drivers is the broader influence of climate change, which is steadily warming both the atmosphere and the oceans surrounding New Zealand.

As the planet heats, the atmosphere can hold more moisture – about 7% more water vapour for every 1°C of warming. This means that when storms do develop, they have more fuel available, increasing the potential for heavier rainfall and stronger winds.

Climate change does not cause individual weather systems, nor does it directly control large-scale climate patterns like ENSO or the SAM. But it acts as a powerful intensifier.

Event-attribution studies in New Zealand to date have shown climate change can increase the total rainfall from intense storms by around 10–20%.

But for the most intense downpours – when the atmospheric “sponge” is wrung out most vigorously – rainfall intensities can increase by as much as 30%, depending on the frame of time being looked at. These short, extreme bursts of rain are often what cause the greatest damage.

There are still important uncertainties. Scientists are actively researching whether climate change will alter the frequency or strength of La Niña and El Niño events, but so far there is no clear answer. The same is true for long-term trends in the Southern Annular Mode.

What we can say with confidence is that background warming is shifting the risk profile.

As global temperatures continue to rise, the kinds of extremes we’ve experienced this season are likely to become more common. The biggest unanswered question is how quickly we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit how severe these impacts ultimately become.

James Renwick receives funding from MBIE and the Marsden Fund for climate research.

– ref. NZ’s sodden January explained: what’s driven this month’s big wet? – https://theconversation.com/nzs-sodden-january-explained-whats-driven-this-months-big-wet-274416

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/01/28/nzs-sodden-january-explained-whats-driven-this-months-big-wet-274416/