MIL-OSI Export

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sam Power, Lecturer in Politics, University of Bristol

Peter Mandelson was released on bail this week after being arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. Coming just days after the arrest of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the images of the former US ambassador being led away by police will likely stick with viewers for some time.

The political ramifications of Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the US continue to reflect badly on Keir Starmer’s political judgment. While this is a story that will likely run and run, it is worth taking stock of how we got here.

December 19 2024: Mandelson appointed US ambassador

When Starmer chose Mandelson as ambassador, the general reaction was that it was a risk. The BBC pointed to his friendship with the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, and described him as “not a baggage-free choice”. This baggage, if being friends with a known paedophile was not enough, included having to resign from government twice during the New Labour years.

Matthew Lynn, in the Telegraph, went further, arguing that he would make a “terrible” ambassador because he was both “damaged goods” and “put politely … accident prone”. For balance, Tom Harris (also in the Telegraph) described Mandelson as a “political genius” and “the right man to deal with Trump”.

This was, ultimately, the gamble taken by Starmer and his team. They appointed a known associate of Epstein with a dubious ethical track record, but who was – as a Downing Street source told the BBC in February 2025 – “supremely political” and a “brilliant operator”.

May 8 2025: Front and centre of UK-US trade deal

“Cometh the hour, cometh the Mandelson”, read the Guardian headline the day after the UK and the US agreed to a trade deal. A deal which, not for nothing, may well have been unpicked by Trump’s response to the Supreme Court ruling his tariffs unconstitutional. The Times said that Mandelson had “proven the doubters wrong”, and called him the “Trump whisperer”.

This was the moment, as I previously outlined in the Conversation, of supreme triumph. And it was widely seen, across the political spectrum, as vindication of the risk Starmer took.

September 8 2025: Birthday messages to Epstein released, Mandelson fired

The wheels came off with the release, by a US congressional panel, of a 238-page scrapbook given to Epstein for his 50th birthday. In it, Mandelson’s multi-page message to Epstein described him as his “best pal”. Mandelson said that he regretted “very, very deeply indeed, carrying on that association with him for far longer than I should have done”.

Starmer was initially supportive of Mandelson in the Commons, but sacked him after newly surfaced emails showed that he had sent supportive messages to Epstein when he faced charges of soliciting a minor in 2008. The BBC later reported that Number 10 and Foreign Office officials were aware of these emails prior to Starmer’s defence of Mandelson at prime minister’s questions, but that Starmer himself was not aware of the contents.

January 30 2026: Further Epstein files released

The release of further information about the close relationship between Mandelson and Epstein pointed to potential criminality. The emails, published by US officials, suggest that Mandelson passed privileged and market-sensitive information to Epstein during the fallout of the financial crisis. This led to the police investigation for misconduct in public office. Mandelson’s position, according to the BBC, is that he has not acted in any way criminally and that he was not motivated by financial gain.

Read more: Mandelson and the financial crash: why the Epstein allegations are so shocking

February 4 2026: MPs approve the release of documents

A House of Commons debate was held surrounding the release of files related to the appointment of Mandelson as US ambassador. Starmer initially suggested that files which could damage diplomatic relations or national security would be exempt from release. However, after an intervention from Angela Rayner, the government agreed to include a cross-party parliamentary committee in the process. The BBC has subsequently reported that these documents could number over 100,000.

February 23 2026: Mandelson arrested

Mandelson was arrested Monday night on suspicion of misconduct in public office, and released on bail Tuesday morning. Mandelson has claimed that his arrest was based on the “complete fiction” that he was a flight risk and planning to flee to the British Virgin Islands (which have an extradition agreement with the UK). It has now emerged that Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle passed information to the police ahead of the arrest.

What happens now?

Misconduct in public office is notoriously difficult to prosecute and tends to rely on a three stage test: that the accused must have been acting in an official capacity at the time of the alleged offence, that they wilfully misconducted themselves and that that conduct falls “so far below acceptable standards that it amounts to an abuse of the public’s trust”.

Legal experts suggest that the latter is an incredibly high bar. In this instance it might well be the case that simply leaking information does not meet that bar, and that the police will need to show some kind of material gain or beneficial exchange. Either way, Mandelson will ultimately be required to return to a police station when he will either be charged, have his bail extended or face no further action.

Further questions, naturally, will also be asked of Starmer’s judgement. A Cabinet Office due diligence report into Mandelson’s appointment is reportedly expected as early as next week. The document is said to have warned of the “reputational risk” of making him ambassador.

If this is the case, it could reignite conversations about Starmer’s leadership and a potentially bruising night in the Gorton and Denton byelection on Thursday won’t help. Though Starmer’s replacement in most circles is now being discussed as a matter of when, not if.

In the end, Starmer is learning the hard way – just as Boris Johnson did before him – that standards matter in British politics. It is not enough, as Starmer did when he updated the ministerial code, to just talk a big game. One cannot say that “restoring trust in politics is the great test of our era” and then do very little to actually address the root cause of that trust.

– ref. How Peter Mandelson went from US ambassador to arrested over misconduct claims – https://theconversation.com/how-peter-mandelson-went-from-us-ambassador-to-arrested-over-misconduct-claims-276787

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/26/how-peter-mandelson-went-from-us-ambassador-to-arrested-over-misconduct-claims-276787/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Zsuzsanna Dancso, Associate Professor of Mathematics, University of Sydney

We all know we live in three-dimensional space. But what does it mean when people talk about four dimensions?

Is it just a bigger kind of space? Is it “space-time”, the popular idea which emerged from Einstein’s theory of relativity?

If you have wondered what four dimensions really look like, you may have have come across drawings of a “four-dimensional cube”. But our brains are wired to interpret drawings on flat paper as two- or at most three-dimensional, not four-dimensional.

The almost insurmountable difficulty of visualising the fourth dimension has inspired mathematicians, physicists, writers and even some artists for centuries. But even if we can’t quite imagine it, we can understand it.

What is dimension?

The dimension of a space captures the number of independent directions in it.

A line is one-dimensional. We can move along it forwards and backwards, but these are opposite, not independent, directions. You can also think of a string or piece of rope as practically one-dimensional, as the thickness is negligible compared with the length.

A surface, such as a soccer field or the skin of a balloon, is two-dimensional. There are independent directions forwards and sideways.

You can move diagonally on a surface, but this is not an independent direction because you can get to the same place by moving forwards, then sideways. The space we live in is three-dimensional: in addition to moving forwards and sideways, we can also jump up and down.

Four-dimensional space has yet another independent direction. This is why space-time is considered four-dimensional: you have the three dimensions of space, but moving forward or backward in time counts as a new direction.

One way to imagine four-dimensional space is as an immersive three-dimensional movie, where each “frame” is three-dimensional and you can also fast-forward and rewind in time.

Consider the cube

A powerful tool for understanding higher dimensions is through analogies in lower dimensions. An example of this technique is drawing cubes in more dimensions.

A “two-dimensional cube” is just a square. To draw a three-dimensional cube, we draw two squares, then connect them corner to corner to make a cube.

So, to draw a four-dimensional cube, start by drawing two three-dimensional cubes, then connect them corner to corner. You can even continue doing this to draw cubes in five or more dimensions. (You will need a large piece of paper and need to keep your lines neat!)

This experiment can help accurately determine how many corners and edges a higher-dimensional cube has. But for most of us, it will not help us “see” one. Our brains will only interpret the images as complex webs of lines in two or at most three dimensions.

Knots

We can tie knots in three dimensions because one-dimensional ropes “catch on each other”. This is why a long rope wound around itself, if done right, won’t come apart. We trust knots with our lives when we’re sailing or climbing.

But in four dimensions, knots would instantly come apart. We can understand why by using an example in fewer dimensions, like we did with cubes.

Imagine a colony of two-dimensional ants living on a flat surface divided by a line. The ants can’t cross the line: it’s an impassable barrier for them, and they don’t even know the other side of the line exists.

But if one day an ant, and its world, becomes three-dimensional, that ant will step over the line with ease. To step over, it needs to move just a tiny bit in the new, vertical direction.

Now, instead of an ant and a line on a flat surface, imagine a horizontal and a vertical piece of rope in three dimensions. These will catch on each other if pulled in opposite directions.

But if the space became four-dimensional, it would be enough for the horizontal piece of rope to move just a little bit in the new, fourth direction, to avoid the other entirely.

Thinking of four dimensions as a movie, the pieces of rope live in a single, three-dimensional frame. If the horizontal piece of rope shifts just slightly into a future frame, in that frame there is no vertical piece, so it can easily move to the other side of the vertical piece before shifting back.

From our three-dimensional perspective, the ropes would appear to slide through each other like ghosts.

Knots in more dimensions

Is it impossible, then, to knot a rope in higher dimensions? Yes: any knot tied on a rope will come apart.

But not all is lost: in four-dimensional space you can knot two-dimensional surfaces, such as balloons, large picnic blankets or long tubes.

There is a mathematical formula that determines when knots can stay knotted: take the dimension of the object you want to knot, double it, and add one. According to the formula, this is the maximum dimension of a space where knotting is possible.

The formula implies, for example, that a rope (one-dimensional) can be knotted in at most three dimensions. A (two-dimensional) balloon surface can be knotted in at most five dimensions.

Studying knotted surfaces in four-dimensional space is a vibrant topic of research, which provides mathematical insight into the the still poorly understood mysteries into the intricacies of four-dimensional space.

– ref. Why you can’t tie knots in four dimensions – https://theconversation.com/why-you-cant-tie-knots-in-four-dimensions-272445

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/26/why-you-cant-tie-knots-in-four-dimensions-272445/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stacey Pizzino, Lecturer, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland

When a war ends and peace agreements are signed, most people assume the danger is over. But for many communities around the world the danger remains in the ground, waiting.

Landmines and other explosives left behind after a conflict can stay active for decades – buried in the paths to school, in the fields that feed families and in the areas where children play.

In some countries, such as Laos and the Solomon Islands, bombs from conflicts decades ago still injure and kill.

This quiet danger isn’t a distant problem. Today, at least 57 countries are contaminated by landmines and other explosive ordnance, including mortars and grenades.

At the same time, some governments are stepping back from the Landmine Ban Treaty, the first comprehensive treaty aimed at eliminating landmines in conflicts. Decisions made in parliaments today can translate into hazards underfoot for years to come.

Our new research is aimed at understanding the ongoing risk landmines pose. The study is the world’s largest analysis of landmine and explosive ordnance casualties. And the data allows us to answer critical questions: who dies from these weapons, and why?

What do the numbers tell us?

In our study, we analysed 105,913 casualties across 17 conflict-affected countries, using operational data. These are the real world operational records routinely collected by national mine action authorities, the UN and other humanitarian organisations.

These records let us see what communities are facing without adding any burden to these often stretched services.

Across all settings, the case fatality rate was 38.8%. Put simply: for every ten people injured by landmines or other explosive ordnance around the world, nearly four die. This is extraordinarily high.

For comparison, the fatality rate for blast injuries among military personnel or civilians treated in well-resourced trauma centres is around 2%.

The gap highlights the brutal disparity between those who are injured in environments with functioning surgical and trauma care and those who are not.

Not all explosive threats are equal, either.

Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were the most lethal weapon type in our analysis.

IEDs are increasingly used in many modern conflicts and are often remotely detonated to maximise casualties. Their explosive force and unpredictability cause devastating injuries that many local health systems are simply not equipped to manage.

Who is most affected?

Although most casualties from landmines and explosive ordnance are men, women had significantly higher odds of dying from their injuries. This likely reflects unequal access to health care, delayed treatment, and social barriers that limit mobility and decision making in many conflict-affected settings.

Children’s risks are different – they are both vulnerable and resilient.

Children are particularly at risk of detonating landmines when playing, when caught up in active conflict, or simply as bystanders.

The reason is often tragic. Children tend to play together in groups, meaning when one child encounters an explosive remnant, several are injured at once.

Yet, overall, children in our data were more likely to survive their injuries than adults, perhaps because they sustain different injury patterns or receive care sooner when adults rush to assist.

But survival is only the beginning. Children may need multiple surgeries, new prostheses as they grow up, long-term rehabilitation and lifelong disability support. These are needs that many health systems struggle to meet.

Age also shapes outcomes. The highest odds of death were observed in adults aged 45–64. Older people may have pre-existing health issues and face greater barriers to reaching medical care, yet their needs can often be overlooked.

The human cost of explosives

The impact of landmines and explosive ordnance extends far beyond immediate injuries. These injuries disrupt people’s daily lives in ways that can entrench communities in poverty.

For example, farmers cannot safety cultivate their land because of the threat of landmines. Women gathering water or food can trigger explosives, too.

When injuries occur, families lose breadwinners and care-giving roles change, pushing households deeper into poverty.

How can we strengthen care for survivors?

There are ways to mitigate the impacts of landmines and explosive ordnance, though. This is a preventable public health crisis.

Our findings highlight the urgent need to strengthen emergency, critical and surgical care in conflict-affected areas to reduce preventable deaths.

Reliable pre-hospital care, transport and basic surgical care saves lives. So does long-term rehabilitation and disability support, especially for children who will live with the consequences of these explosive weapons and injuries for decades.

As old conflicts continue and new ones emerge, explosive ordnance keep contaminating the places where people live, play, work and travel.

Understanding who dies, and why, is essential to preventing future deaths and ensuring that peace, when it comes, offers real safety.

– ref. New global study: long after war, nearly 4 in 10 people injured by landmines and explosives die – https://theconversation.com/new-global-study-long-after-war-nearly-4-in-10-people-injured-by-landmines-and-explosives-die-276062

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/26/new-global-study-long-after-war-nearly-4-in-10-people-injured-by-landmines-and-explosives-die-276062/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Josh Sunman, Associate lecturer, Flinders University

Since the 2025 federal election, poll after poll has shown surging support for right-wing populist party One Nation. The party, and its leader Pauline Hanson, have been on the Australian political scene for 30 years. Yet until recently, One Nation had never been more than a fringe group of the far right.

The latest polling shows One Nation not just leap-frogging the decimated Coalition parties, but also closing in on Labor. A new Guardian Essential poll also shows nearly 60% of Australians would be open to voting for the party at the next federal election.

Even five years ago, One Nation having that kind of appeal was unthinkable. So what has changed in the meantime?

Broad-scale political shifts, including a global anti-immigration push, are certainly aiding One Nation’s cause. Radical-right political actors such as US President Donald Trump, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and Italian Prime Minister Georgia Meloni are experiencing success at the ballot box and in dominating the global policy agenda.

Issues such as immigration, increased cost of living and a general distrust in political leaders and institutions are top of voters’ minds. In Australia, recent polling shows a consistent lack of faith in the major parties.

Economic strain, grievance, fear and the aftermath of the Bondi terrorist attack have created the perfect conditions for the populist party.

Is this One Nation’s breakthrough moment?

Fringe-dwellers no more

One Nation has been consistently represented in the Australian Senate since Hanson’s return to federal parliament following the 2016 double dissolution election.

However, despite intermittent surges in support, the party has never managed to win a significant number of seats in either state or federal lower houses (outside of its short-lived 1998 result in Queensland).

Read more: Can One Nation turn its polling hype into seats in parliament? History shows it will struggle

This is due to One Nation’s organisational dysfunction, as well as broader political structures, including the electoral and party system. One Nation’s organisational issues – particularly in keeping elected members inside the tent – have been well documented in research. Over the years, the party has been involved in several scandals and high-profile fallings-out between its members and its leader.

In structural terms, the position of the major parties is strengthened against challengers in Australia by our system of single member electorates paired with preferential voting. These structures reward parties with widespread, rather than concentrated, support.

The greater electoral success of many European populists such as Meloni and far-right Dutch MP Geert Wilders is in large part due to proportional electoral systems. This enables populist actors to gain consistent representation and bargaining power in coalition governments.

In Australia, declining support for the major parties is not new. At the 2025 federal election, just 66% of voters gave their first preference to Labor or the Coalition.

The 2025 Australian Election Study (AES) captures this declining attachment to the major parties. It finds only 11% and 13% of voters only ever voted for Labor or the Coalition respectively. Likewise, it reveals a record high 25% of voters do not identify as aligning with any political party.

But what is new is that One Nation is the main beneficiary of voter dissatisfaction. Alongside a growing detachment from major parties, the AES reveals only 32% of voters trust government, and only 30% report satisfaction with Australian democracy. In other words, people have deep grievances with government and democracy. This creates an opportunity for parties with anti-establishment messages.

Immigration, racism and fear

In terms of issues, immigration is consistently rated as the top concern of One Nation voters. This aligns with global far-right parties that emphasise nativist messaging, and offer simplistic explanations for economic insecurity. These messages blame an immigrant “other” and traitorous political elite for selling out a country’s “true people”.

Success for the radical right is not limited to proportional systems. Farage’s Reform Party is another example of a radical right party that is surging in a majoritarian system.

Both Reform and One Nation share a common opportunity: the collapse of centre-right competitors, and voters’ disaffection with the Labo(u)r alternatives.

Both the British Tories and the Coalition in Australia have left a vacuum of policy and leadership on the right. Scandal and instability have marred successive British governments. In Australia, the Peter Dutton-led opposition suffered the worst defeat in the Liberal Party’s history after going into the 2025 election without coherent policies.

Riven by an urban/rural divide and policy disagreements, the Coalition has split twice in the past year. Sussan Ley – its first female leader – lasted a mere nine months in the role before being replaced by Angus Taylor. Early indications suggest Taylor may try to shift the Liberals to the right to counter One Nation, especially on immigration.

Grievance and economic hardship

Like many radical right parties, One Nation has capitalised on economic grievances. Research shows economic issues are a key driver in shifting voters from the centre-right towards radical right parties.

Hanson’s frequent stunts in parliament and love of courting outrage have enabled her to remain in the spotlight through the years.

Effective social and digital media use has been core to One Nation’s issue salience. It is also a key tool for communication for populist radical right actors worldwide. What differentiates One Nation’s social media use from that of other parties is its often low-brow nature.

While social media posts heavily feature the Australian flag, the party’s lineup of “please explain” cartoons soften and make acceptable racist, misogynistic and anti-queer messaging. Recent international research suggests social media algorithms play a key role in displaying content to users and reinforcing radical right messages and attitudes.

The fragmentation of the Coalition has created fertile ground for One Nation’s surging popularity. But whether this surge is a temporary protest vote or represents a far more serious and lasting realignment of the Australian right, will depend on how effectively the major parties can rebuild their credibility. It will also depend how well they can address the economic and cultural anxieties driving voters towards radical right parties.

– ref. One Nation has been on the fringes of Australian politics for 30 years. Why is its popularity soaring now? – https://theconversation.com/one-nation-has-been-on-the-fringes-of-australian-politics-for-30-years-why-is-its-popularity-soaring-now-276763

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/26/one-nation-has-been-on-the-fringes-of-australian-politics-for-30-years-why-is-its-popularity-soaring-now-276763/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Alexandra James, Research Fellow, Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University

Among the corsets and chemistry, the latest season of Bridgerton gets one thing right: the taboos around talking about sex and sexual pleasure.

Newlywed Francesca asks in hushed confusion what it means to reach “the pinnacle” (orgasm). As she cannot reach one, she is concerned this may be linked to her inability to fall pregnant.

When Francesca seeks advice from her mother Violet, she’s told:

A pinnacle, it is pleasant … It is a delightful um, closeness, that is um, it’s nearly impossible to describe. It’s like a shared language. And when you speak the same language you are able to feel um [a] magical, special feeling inside.

Confused, Francesca turns to her more experienced sister-in-law Penelope for clearer answers. But she still can’t find what she’s looking for.

Bridgerton may be a Regency-era historical fantasy. But this dynamic mirrors what we see today – young people want information about sex and sexual pleasure, yet parents often feel awkward and ill-equipped to provide it.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Some things don’t change

Young people today consistently say they want information about sex and relationships that emphasises emotions and pleasure. But they often learn about it from peers or online.

Meanwhile, many parents share their discomfort when discussing the more intimate dimensions of sexuality.

In our 2025 study of Australian parents and carers, many said they were uncertain about how to initiate or sustain meaningful conversations about sex and relationships. They were unsure what information was age-appropriate, especially where children may already find sexual content online.

Parents and carers were more confident talking about body image, consent and safety, puberty and periods. But they were particularly uncomfortable talking about sexual pleasure, satisfaction and masturbation.

Parents frequently connected their unease to their own upbringing, describing childhood homes where sex was rarely discussed openly. (In Bridgerton, when Francesca’s mother later admits she struggles to talk about sex even with her lover, the parallel is hard to miss.)

Parents who felt more comfortable discussing sex with partners, friends or health professionals were more likely to feel confident talking about it with their children.

Mothers still take the lead

While Francesca searches for information about her own pleasure, a female housekeeper cautions her brother Benedict about power and responsibility when she notices his attraction to Sophie, a housemaid.

This echoes contemporary differences in how sons and daughters are prepared for intimate relationships. Boys are positioned to manage power and consent, often with less space to explore ideas of love and romance.

Significantly, it is also women who most often take on this preparatory work.

In Bridgerton, the roles of Francesca’s mother, her sister-in-law Penelope and the housekeeper reflect a broader pattern of gendered labour in sex education: women continue to be positioned as the default parent responsible for navigating these conversations.

In our study, mothers reported significantly higher confidence than fathers in discussing consent and safety with both daughters and sons, compared with fathers, particularly fathers of sons.

What about pleasure?

When we talk about sex only in terms of risk, focusing on pregnancy, infection and harm, we also narrow the story young people can tell about intimacy.

It can reinforce a familiar binary: boys as potential perpetrators, girls as potential victims, and sex itself as something that “happens” rather than something negotiated.

Leaving pleasure out of conversations between parents and their children doesn’t make conversations safer; it makes them incomplete. Without a language for desire, boundaries and dissatisfaction, young people have fewer tools to recognise coercion, communicate their needs, or imagine sex that is mutual and wanted.

We also cannot expect young people, especially young women, to advocate for their own pleasure if they have never been given the vocabulary to understand what it is and what to expect.

We also know young people ask for clarity about the “mechanics” of sex; how it works, what it feels like, and how to do it.

Parents play an important role in supporting this learning, particularly as sexual pleasure and wellbeing are among the topics less likely to be covered in school-based education, which has tended to focus on reducing harm.

Read more: 6 ways to talk to your teens about sex without the cringe

But some things have changed

If parents are reluctant to talk to their children about sex and relationships, it’s rarely because they don’t want to. Our study shows they’re not certain what to say, when to say it, and how much detail to provide.

Many parents worried their child would feel uncomfortable, or feared saying the wrong thing. One in three said they had not had any conversations about sex or relationships with their children in the past 12 months.

But unlike in Bridgerton, today’s parents are not confined to metaphor. Resources exist to support more open, direct conversations about bodies, relationships and pleasure, which young people want.

Talking about sex, especially pleasure, can feel uncomfortable. But this is not a reason to stay silent. It is often a sign the conversation matters.

Talk soon. Talk often: a guide for parents talking to their kids about sex helps parents judge age-appropriate information and how to talk about it.

– ref. What Bridgerton’s ‘pinnacle’ tells us about sex talk today – https://theconversation.com/what-bridgertons-pinnacle-tells-us-about-sex-talk-today-276504

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/26/what-bridgertons-pinnacle-tells-us-about-sex-talk-today-276504/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hussein Dia, Professor of Transport Technology and Sustainability, Swinburne University of Technology

Australia’s new fuel efficiency scheme has been in place for just seven months.

But the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard has already created a new, tradeable carbon currency applying just to cars and light commercial vehicles (utes and vans) market. In just months, the scheme has created a surplus of roughly 16 million “NVES unit” credits.

When manufacturers sell efficient cars, they earn credits. When they sell high-emitting ones, they rack up a debt. Any debts will have to be settled either by buying credits from car companies in surplus or by paying financial penalties.

As a result, brands such as BYD, Toyota and Tesla are already banking millions of credits, while others such as Mazda, Nissan and Subaru are building up debts which will get harder to ignore. We don’t know how much credits are worth yet as the market is too new and carmakers haven’t started trading them yet.

The architects of the scheme deliberately designed credit trading into the laws. But the speed and scale of these market dynamics has been surprising. From next year on, the legally binding targets will progressively tighten – and the average new car on the road will get cleaner and cleaner.

Promising signs

For decades, Australia was one of the few developed nations with no limit on how much carbon dioxide cars could belch out in their exhaust.

That changed on July 1 2025 when the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard came into effect. It sets a limit on total emissions a manufacturer’s range of models can produce (141 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre for cars, 210g/km for utes and vans in 2025) and then lowers the limit every year.

The first results from the new fuel efficiency scheme tell an encouraging story: almost 70% of carmakers beat their fleet emissions targets.

The results come from the six months between July 1 and December 31 2025, when almost 621,000 new vehicles were registered. Around 71% were cars and 29% were light commercial vehicles.

The scheme likely contributed to the first fall in transport emissions since COVID.

The credit kings

At present, Australia has 59 brands active in the market. Of these, 40 beat their targets and 19 didn’t.

Many of these leaders should be no surprise. BYD stood out, earning a combined 6.3 million credits across its two registered entities from sales of battery-electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. Tesla is a major credit generator too, banking 2.2 million credits.

But the real surprise is Toyota, which earned nearly 2.9 million. The Japanese carmaker has not been enthusiastic about EVs. Instead, it has flooded the market with hybrids, giving it a fleet emitting well under the current limit. But this advantage will be short-lived as limits tighten year on year. Eventually, even Toyota will have to shift to plug-in hybrids and battery-electric vehicles.

The scheme is not a zero-sum game – it can run in surplus. In 2025, credits generated outstripped liabilities by more than 15 to 1, reflecting deliberately easy first-year targets to ease industry into the system. But as targets tighten sharply from 2026, carmakers now in surplus will likely need those banked credits for their own future compliance – meaning the market is less unbalanced than the current numbers suggest. Unused credits expire after three years.

Who’s feeling the heat?

On the other side of the ledger, name brands are starting to sweat. Mazda has the largest debt at present, owing more than 500,000 units. Nissan has around 215,000, and Subaru is close behind.

These carmakers are facing a tough choice. Do they radically change the types of cars they ship and sell in Australia? Do they pay financial penalties to the government? Or do they buy credits from rivals? In practice, most will use a combination, gradually greening their fleet while buying credits to bridge the gap.

Cleaner models are a better business decision

Most likely, carmakers accruing debts under the scheme will pass the cost on to consumers, making cars from higher-polluting brands more expensive. Companies in surplus can sell credits, using the proceeds to lower prices and attract more customers.

Think of it as a stealth subsidy. Every time someone buys a less efficient car from a struggling brand, they could be making someone else’s new electric vehicle cheaper.

For the first time in Australia, fuel efficiency is rewarded and waste penalised. This means cleaner models are now a better business decision for carmakers. Volume of sales alone now isn’t enough for success in Australia’s highly competitive market. Model range and choice of technologies have become increasingly important.

Clearer air

Overall, new cars sold from July to December beat their emissions targets by 21%, emitting 114g of CO₂ per km on average against a target of 144g/km.

Light commercial vehicles also cleared the bar – though only just – averaging 199g/km against a target of 214g/km. Without a rapid influx of hybrid or electric utes, the sector could hit a compliance wall as early as next year, when targets tighten sharply.

In total, I estimate the new cleaner vehicles will stop between 190,000 and 220,000 tonnes of CO₂ entering the atmosphere every year they remain on the road. That’s the equivalent of taking 100,000 older, dirtier cars off the roads.

Impressive start, job far from done

This early good news doesn’t mean the job is done. The 2025 targets were set to be achievable to ease industry into the system, meaning credit kings could coast until 2027, delaying the launch of even cleaner models.

But the reprieve won’t last long. Targets will get harder and harder to meet. A car emitting just over the limit today will be significantly over it by 2028. Because penalties scale with emissions, highly polluting cars will cost makers more and more. A huge credit surplus could be wiped out surprisingly quickly if a manufacturer is slow to modernise.

What’s next?

Australian consumers can expect to see more fuel-efficient cars, more affordable EVs and fiercer competition as carmakers clean up their range.

Australia’s carbon market for cars has officially opened. In this game, standing still is the most expensive move any company can make.

– ref. How Australia’s new fuel efficiency scheme quietly created a carbon currency for cars – and it’s working – https://theconversation.com/how-australias-new-fuel-efficiency-scheme-quietly-created-a-carbon-currency-for-cars-and-its-working-276379

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/26/how-australias-new-fuel-efficiency-scheme-quietly-created-a-carbon-currency-for-cars-and-its-working-276379/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian R. Camilleri, Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Technology Sydney

You’re scrolling through an online retailer, like Amazon, Shein or eBay, and spot a shirt on sale for $40. You add it to your cart, but at checkout, a $10 shipping fee suddenly appears. Frustrated, you close the tab.

But what if that same shirt was priced at $50 with “free” shipping? The likelihood that you would have bought it without a second thought is much higher.

COVID changed the way we shop and accelerated our reliance on e-commerce. But as online sales have grown, so has the expectation of free delivery.

The reality, however, is that shipping physical goods is never actually free. Retailers use subtle marketing strategies and psychological hacks to mask these costs. As a result, consumers are often the ones footing the bill.

The magic of zero

There is something uniquely attractive about the concept “free”. In behavioural economics, zero is not just a lower price; it flips a psychological switch.

When a transaction involves a cost, we instinctively weigh the downside. But when something is entirely free, we experience a positive emotion and perceive the offer as more valuable than it is mathematically.

Retailers no doubt realise that offering free delivery is one of the most effective ways to stop a consumer from abandoning a digital shopping cart.

The minimum spend trap

Perhaps the most common marketing tactic is the free shipping threshold. Sometimes this is phrased as: “Spend $55 to qualify for free shipping.”

If your shopping cart is sitting at $40, you face a dilemma. You can pay $10 for postage, or you can find a $15 item to reach the threshold. Many of us choose the latter, reasoning it is better to get a tangible product, such as a pair of socks, than to “waste” money on shipping.

This tactic uses the “goal gradient effect”, which describes the tendency to put in more effort the closer we get to a goal. It also works incredibly well for the retailer.

Research shows that free shipping increases both purchase frequency and overall order size. Policies with a threshold for free shipping often prompt this exact “topping up” behaviour. The consumer ends up buying things they did not initially want, thus boosting the retailer’s sales.

Baked-in costs and the reality of ‘free’ returns

Another strategy is unconditional free shipping, where the delivery cost is simply baked into the product’s base price. This allows consumers to avoid the “pain of paying” a separate fee at checkout. However, we are still paying for the postage through higher item costs.

For retailers, offering unconditional free shipping without a markup can be difficult to sustain profitably. The bump in sales usually does not offset the lost fee revenue and the costs of fulfilment.

A major reason for this lack of profitability is that free shipping leads to significantly higher product return rates.

Consumers tend to make riskier purchases if the appearance of waived fees lowers the perceived financial risk of the transaction.

For example, you might order the same shirt in two different sizes, knowing you can just send one back for free. Who pays for that added convenience? The retailer, who now has to cover the courier fees twice.

The retailer usually won’t simply absorb this cost, but will have to pass it on in other ways.

The subscription illusion

To combat these unpredictable costs, many businesses are turning to membership, loyalty, or subscription models such as Amazon Prime. Consumers pay an upfront annual fee in exchange for “free” expedited shipping year-round.

Membership-based programs successfully increase customer loyalty and purchase frequency, and allow for better customer segmentation.

But in the long run, they may actually hurt a retailer’s profit margins. While loyalty rises, the operational costs of fulfilling many smaller, free-shipped orders can potentially outweigh the benefits if not strictly managed.

For the consumer, this model manipulates our “mental accounting”. Because we view the upfront fee as money already spent, every additional purchase feels like it comes with a free perk. We end up shopping more frequently on that specific platform just to “get our money’s worth”.

Don’t buy the illusion

The age of limitless free shipping may be coming to an end.

As global supply chain costs remain volatile, we are likely to see retailers raising their minimum spend thresholds, removing offers, or increasing base product prices to compensate.

The next time you are shopping online, resist the urge for instant gratification.

If you are about to add a $15 pair of novelty avocado socks to your cart, just to save $10 on shipping, take a step back. Ask yourself if you truly need that purchase to arrive this week.

Instead of rushing to checkout, let your digital basket fill up naturally over time with items you actually need. You will eventually hit the threshold, but on your own terms.

“Free” delivery is just a clever psychological illusion. The cost is rarely eliminated; it is simply redistributed into higher product prices or reframed as a loyalty perk.

Don’t let the allure of “free” shipping trick you into paying for more than you intended.

– ref. Does ‘free’ shipping really exist? An expert shares the marketing tricks you need to know – https://theconversation.com/does-free-shipping-really-exist-an-expert-shares-the-marketing-tricks-you-need-to-know-276397

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/26/does-free-shipping-really-exist-an-expert-shares-the-marketing-tricks-you-need-to-know-276397/

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Justine Poplin, Teaching Associate, Faculty of Education, Southern Cross University

“Drink hot water” has become an unlikely life philosophy on TikTok, as countless users track their journey towards “being” or “becoming Chinese”.

All of this is part of a broader social media trend dubbed “Chinamaxxing”.

Out of context it may seem strange: thousands of Chinamaxxing videos – often with the caption “you’ve met me at a very Chinese time in my life” – show users of various backgrounds partaking in traditional Chinese practices and wellness rituals. This may look like going to bed early, wearing slippers indoors, eating congee, or doing traditional stretches to improve energy flow.

The Chinamaxxing trend is a unique example of digitally mediated cross-cultural admiration. It reflects the West’s general growing interest in traditional Chinese medicine and culture – and more broadly shows us how social media can reshape the way we think about and engage with other cultures.

Ideas of wellbeing in China

Digital spaces are increasingly shaping how cultures are understood and shared.

Recent articles have documented this shift. Journalist Zoey Zhang’s reporting on the “becoming Chinese” TikTok trend describes how non-Chinese are experimenting with wellness habits rooted in traditional Chinese medicine. This holistic framework, developed over centuries, is grounded in theories of qi (vital energy), yin and yang (complementary forces), and the five elements.

Some videos are tongue–in-cheek – akin to parody. But as Zhang and others note, many represent a genuine attempt to engage thoughtfully with Chinese culture. And in most cases, even the humorous videos aren’t making fun at the expense of Chinese people or culture.

Global Times reporter Xu Liuliu suggests the trend signals a move from a surface-level fascination to a more reflective form of engagement with Chinese culture. For instance, many users point out how Chinese practices associated with moderation, balance and longevity can function as antidotes to burnout culture.

Viral trends as soft power

Viral memes such as “you’ve met me at a very Chinese time in my life” aren’t just trivial; they can be viewed as cultural vehicles. Memes help condense complex cultural narratives and practices into an engaging and shareable format.

For example, a short TikTok video about refusing iced water stands in for a centuries-old medical philosophy tied to concepts of bodily balance and internal heat.

Through repetition, these kinds of visual narratives can become familiar, or even desirable, to audiences far removed from their original context.

It’s an example of “soft power”, which refers to a country’s ability to shape global perceptions of it through its portrayal of culture and values.

In the age of TikTok, Xiaohongsu (RedNote) and Instagram, soft power no longer flows only through film studios or state-sponsored media. It also moves through influencers’ kitchens, aesthetic vlogs and comment sections.

This latest wave of content promoting Chinese culture feels intimate, domestic and desirable.

Is it appropriation?

The Chinamaxxing trend has led many to ask an important question: are we seeing cultural appreciation, appropriation, or something in between?

Many users adapt and remix the practices to fit their own lives, and may lose important context or histories in doing so. On TikTok and Instagram, traditional Chinese medicine may be reduced to a checklist of habits: avoid cold drinks, boil ginger, prioritise rest. These kinds of oversimplifications risk detaching practices from the important philosophies underpinning them.

At the same time, it would be reductive to dismiss the entire trend as mere appropriation. Many creators credit their sources, share family stories and collaborate across cultures. And many are themselves members of the Chinese diaspora living in the West.

Rather, we might view the trend as a kind of trans-cultural renaissance, mediated by algorithms.

Why this moment matters

The Chinamaxxing trend has largely been driven by Gen Z users based in the United States. Although it’s hard to know for sure, some commentators think it may stem from this group’s growing disenchantment towards its own government.

The popularity of this content speaks to several contemporary Western anxieties. Burnout culture, climate uncertainty and economic precarity have made the West’s hyper-optimised self-care culture feel hollow.

This trend of celebrating Chinese culture comes at a time when some Western ideological structures are coming under intense scrutiny. Perhaps this is making Western audiences question whether the anti-Chinese sentiment they’ve been exposed to through their own institutions ought to be questioned.

The challenge is to remain reflective. Engagement can deepen cross-cultural understanding – but only if curiosity extends beyond memes. Drinking hot water may be simple, but understanding the worldview behind it requires more sustained inquiry.

As digital user-generated content continues to dissolve distances between cultures, it is in our collective interest to connect with one another beyond the algorithm.

Read more: Will drinking hot water help me lose weight, clear my skin or treat cramps?

– ref. TikTokers are ‘becoming Chinese’ in a new trend that’s part parody and part politics – https://theconversation.com/tiktokers-are-becoming-chinese-in-a-new-trend-thats-part-parody-and-part-politics-276279

Evening Report: https://eveningreport.nz/2026/02/26/tiktokers-are-becoming-chinese-in-a-new-trend-thats-part-parody-and-part-politics-276279/