Search

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

The best 100 cities on the planet have been revealed, with three Aussie cities making the final list. The list was compiled by as part of an annual report by <a href="https://www.worldsbestcities.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Resonance Consultancy</a>, who rated major capital cities on three main factors: liveability, lovability and prosperity, with dozens of factors taken into account. These include educational attainment, GDP per capita, poverty rate, the number of quality restaurants, shops and nightclubs, walkability, the number of mapped bike routes, quality parks and museums, as well as ratings from TripAdvisor and Google. The top ten chart features four cities on the Asian continent, four in Europe and two in the U.S. Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane were all featured in the list, coming in at numbers 31, 35 and 57 respectively. Taking out the number one spot this year is London, dubbed the "capital of capitals" that "reigns over all global cities" as the best metropolis in the world. The study proclaims it as the most liveable and the most lovable mecca, solidified by its winning culture and education attainment. The report concludes, "Despite crippling Covid lockdowns and economic devastation. Despite Brexit. Despite a war in Europe. The city is more indomitable and part of the global discourse than ever. From the Queen's death, to last autumn's chaotic drama at 10 Downing Street that finally calmed down with Rishi Sunak becoming prime minister, only to take heavy local election losses this spring, London is rarely quiet these days." Here's the full list of top 100 cities in the world. 1 - London, England 2 - Paris, France 3 - New York, USA 4 - Tokyo, Japan 5 - Singapore 6 - Dubai, United Arab Emirates 7 - San Francisco, USA 8 - Barcelona, Spain 9 - Amsterdam, Netherlands 10 - Seoul, South Korea 11 - Rome, Italy 12 - Prague, Czechia 13 - Madrid, Spain 14 - Berlin, Germany 15 - Los Angeles, USA 16 - Chicago, USA 17 - Washington, D.C., USA 18 - Beijing, China 19 - Istanbul, Turkey 20 - Dublin, Ireland 21 - Vienna, Austria 22 - Milan, Italy 23 - Toronto, Canada 24 - Boston, USA 25 - Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates 26 - Budapest, Hungary 27 - São Paulo, Brazil 28 - Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 29 - Stockholm, Sweden 30 - Munich, Germany 31 - Melbourne, Australia 32 - Lisbon, Portugal 33 - Zürich, Switzerland 34 - Seattle, USA 35 - Sydney, Australia 36 - Doha, Qatar 37 - Brussels, Belgium 38 - San Jose, USA 39 - Bangkok, Thailand 40 - Warsaw, Poland 41 - Copenhagen, Denmark 42 - Taipei, Taiwan 43 - Austin, USA 44 - Oslo, Norway 45 - Osaka, Japan 46 - Hong Kong, China 47 - Tel Aviv, Israel 48 - Athens, Greece 49 - Frankfurt, Germany 50 - Vancouver, Canada 51 - San Diego, USA 52 - Orlando, USA 53 - Helsinki, Finland 54 - Miami, USA 55 - Buenos Aires, Argentina 56 - Hamburg, Germany 57 - Brisbane, Australia 58 - Kuwait, Kuwait 59 - Las Vegas, USA 60 - Montreal, Canada 61 - Glasgow, Scotland 62 - Shanghai, China 63 - Rio de Janeiro, USA 64 - Auckland, New Zealand 65 - Atlanta, USA 66 - Houston, USA 67 - Busan, South Korea 68 - Philadelphia, USA 69 - Naples, Italy 70 - Denver, USA 71 - Nashville, USA 72 - Manchester, England 73 - Dallas, USA 74 - Liverpool, England 75 - Minneapolis, USA 76 - Mexico City, Mexico 77 - Minsk, Belarus 78 - Lyon, France 79 - Portland, USA 80 - Rotterdam, Netherlands 81 - Bogotá, Colombia 82 - Kraków, Poland 83 - Valencia, Spain 84 - Santiago, Chile 85 - Birmingham, England 86 - New Orleans, USA 87 - Bucharest, Romania 88 - Leeds, England 89 - Muscat, Oman 90 - Ottawa, Canada 91 - Cologne, Germany 92 - Charlotte, USA 93 - Calgary, Canada 94 - Nagoya, Japan 95 - Düsseldorf, Germany 96 - Hanoi, Vietnam 97 - Gothenburg, Sweden 98 - Sapporo, Japan 99 - Bilbao, Spain 100 - Baltimore, USA Image credits: Getty Images

International Travel

Handkerchief or tissue? Which one’s better for our health and the planet?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-patrick-taylor-11394">Mark Patrick Taylor</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hester-joyce-122106">Hester Joyce</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a> Maybe you have hay fever, COVID, a cold or the flu, and are reaching for a tissue or handkerchief. But which one’s better at stopping infections spreading? Which has a smaller environmental impact? Is it the hanky, which has been with us since at least Roman times? Or the more recent and widely-used paper tissue? You might be surprised at the results. <h2>A short history of the handkerchief and tissue</h2> Today, we think of hankies as something to wipe noses, and catch coughs and sneezes. But such a simple square of cloth has a complex history. In the first century, the Romans <a href="http://margaretroedesigns.com/wp-content/uploads/HandkerchiefHist.pdf">used</a> a sudarium (Latin for sweat cloth) to wipe off sweat, or to mask the mouth and face. Over time, people have used what we now call a handkerchief or hanky, as a head covering, as a veil and for disguise, to clean hands, for wounds and to staunch blood. Wealthy people have used them to signify class and manners, and for discretely wiping away phlegm rather than smearing snot on sleeves or down skirts. Royalty have used them to indicate wealth and power through their gifts of fine linen and silk handkerchiefs to favoured subjects. Henry VIII owned an extensive collection, some embossed with gold and silver. Handkerchiefs have also been <a href="https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/italian-handkerchief">markers of</a> love, fidelity and sexual preferences. In the late 19th century the “handkerchief code” was a system of colour coding and handkerchief placement used to indicate sexual preferences, <a href="https://www.refinery29.com/en-au/lgbtq-secret-handkerchief-code-language">which is still active</a> in LGBTQ+ communities today. We can <a href="https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/epub/10.3366/cult.2020.0214">trace the origins</a> of paper tissue to China in the 2nd century BC. But it wasn’t until the 1920s that tissue as we know it today <a href="https://www.kleenex.co.uk/kleenex-history">was developed</a> to remove make-up and wipe runny noses from hay fever. <h2>So, which one is better for our health?</h2> More than 100 years ago, a cloth hanky was considered a “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5248216/pdf/hosplond73063-0008b.pdf">little flag of Death</a>” because of the germs it carried and how it contaminated pockets it was left in. Later, we were urged to use a hanky <a href="http://resource.nlm.nih.gov/101449736">as</a> “coughs and sneezes spread diseases”. <figure class="align-right zoomable"><figcaption></figcaption></figure> Today, we know nasal secretions harbour cold-type viruses that can be <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jmv.22027">transferred</a> to a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2011/06/02/3231404.htm">range of surfaces</a> – hands, handkerchiefs, tissues, door knobs, keyboards – sometimes surviving <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a113473">long after</a> the initial exposure. So blowing your nose into a reusable cotton hanky, then touching another object, means these viruses can spread. Even if you put your cotton hanky in the wash immediately, you’d likely contaminate surfaces on the way, such as doorknobs, and use your infected hands to operate the washing machine. Viruses don’t tend to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/146.1.47">survive so long</a> on tissues. As long as you throw tissues away after using them, and don’t leave them lying around for others to pick up, the chance of passing germs to others from a used tissue is far lower. Then there’s the question of whether hankies or tissues are effective barriers to coughing and respiratory spray. Basic cloth coverings, such as handkerchiefs or bandannas, can catch sputum, as can tissues. But several studies have shown they do not effectively <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.0c02211">filter</a> <a href="https://aaqr.org/articles/aaqr-13-06-oa-0201.pdf">respiratory aerosols</a>, or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/153567601001500204">stop you inhaling</a> pollutants, pathogens or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.03.012">small airborne particles</a>. <h2>Which one is better for the planet?</h2> If you want to look at environmental considerations, US company Ecosystem Analytics <a href="https://ecosystem-analytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Complete-LCA-Facial-Tissue-Handkerchief.pdf">compared</a> resusable cotton hankies to disposable paper tissues using a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02978505">lifecycle analysis</a>. It considered four measures of environmental impacts associated with production, transport, use and disposal: <ul> <li> climate change (sum of greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, water vapour, nitrous oxide and CFCs) </li> <li> ecosystem quality (chemical pollution of land and water) </li> <li> human health (carcinogenic and non‐carcinogenic toxicity to humans) </li> <li> resources (total energy requirements of non‐renewable energy and mineral extraction). </li> </ul> The verdict? Across the four measures, a cotton hanky had five to seven times greater impact than an equivalent tissue. And, by far, the greatest impacts were related to the production of each of these products, rather than using or disposing of them. If you’re still keen to use a cotton hanky, you could opt for organic cotton, which has a <a href="https://www.sei.org/publications/ecological-footprint-water-analysis-cotton-hemp-polyester/">lower ecological footprint</a> compared to standard cotton produced in the same location. But organic cotton production has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/is-organic-cotton-better-for-the-environment/">lower yields</a> than its conventional equivalent, meaning more land is needed to produce an equivalent amount, compounding the total environmental impact. If you want to feel better about using tissues, ones made from recycled material may be a better option. Their manufacture leads to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-013-0597-x">fewer</a> greenhouse gas emissions compared with making regular tissues. <h2>The verdict</h2> Wiping our noses with paper tissues we dispose of properly after use (and don’t store in our pocket), made from recycled material, is preferable from both a health and environmental perspective. But tissues don’t quite have the same panache as the historic and versatile cloth hanky.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213065/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-patrick-taylor-11394">Mark Patrick Taylor</a>, Chief Environmental Scientist, EPA Victoria; Honorary Professor, School of Natural Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/macquarie-university-1174">Macquarie University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hester-joyce-122106">Hester Joyce</a>, Adjunct Associate Professor, Creative Arts, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/la-trobe-university-842">La Trobe University</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/handkerchief-or-tissue-which-ones-better-for-our-health-and-the-planet-213065">original article</a>.

Caring

Our planet is burning in unexpected ways - here’s how we can protect people and nature

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-kelly-159658">Luke Kelly</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-bowman-4397">David Bowman</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ella-plumanns-pouton-1470045">Ella Plumanns Pouton</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/grant-williamson-109967">Grant Williamson</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-shawn-fletcher-99786">Michael-Shawn Fletcher</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> People have been using fire for millennia. It is a vital part of many ecosystems and cultures. Yet human activities in the current era, sometimes called the “<a href="https://theconversation.com/did-the-anthropocene-start-in-1950-or-much-earlier-heres-why-debate-over-our-world-changing-impact-matters-209869">Anthropocene</a>”, are reshaping patterns of fire across the planet. <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357">In our new research</a>, published in the Annual Review of Environment and Resources, we used satellite data to create global maps of where and how fires are burning. We calculated about 3.98 million square kilometres of Earth’s land surface burns each year. We also examined research spanning archaeology, climatology, ecology, Indigenous knowledge and paleoecology, to better understand the causes and consequences of fires. Our international team found strong evidence fires are burning in unexpected places, at unusual times and in rarely observed ways. These changes in fire patterns are threatening human lives and modifying ecosystems. But the future does not have to be bleak. There are many opportunities to apply knowledge and practice of fire to benefit people and nature. <h2>Here’s how fire patterns are changing</h2> Exploring multiple approaches and scales enables a deeper understanding of where, when and how fires burn. Satellite data provide evidence of changes in fire patterns at a global scale. <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2020RG000726">Annual fire season length</a> increased by 14 days from 1979 to 2020 and <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04325-1">night fires</a>, which indicate fires that cannot be quickly controlled, increased in intensity by 7.2% from 2003 to 2020. Other changes are apparent only when we look at data from particular regions. An increase in fire size and the frequency of large fires has recently been observed in <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2103135118">forests and woodlands of the western United States</a>. Meanwhile fire-dependent grasslands and savannahs across <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14711">Africa</a> and <a href="https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL082327">Brazil</a> have experienced reductions in fire frequency. It’s also important to consider the timescale and type of fire when interpreting changes. In Australia, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27225-4">satellite records show</a> the frequency of very large forest fires has increased over the past four decades. At longer time scales, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13280-020-01339-3">charcoal and pollen records</a> indicate the frequency of low-intensity fires <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.2395">decreased in parts of southeastern Australia</a> following British colonisation in 1788. <h2>Changes in fire affect air, land and water</h2> Many animals and plants have evolved strategies that enable them to thrive under particular fire patterns. This means changes to fire characteristics can <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abb0355">harm populations and ecosystems</a>. <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12905">Large and intense fires</a> are reducing the available forest habitat preferred by the greater glider. But a <a href="https://theconversation.com/research-reveals-fire-is-pushing-88-of-australias-threatened-land-mammals-closer-to-extinction-185965">lack of fire can be problematic too</a>. Threatened species of native rodents can benefit from food resources and habitats that flourish shortly after fire. There is evidence that emissions from recent fires are already modifying the atmosphere. The historically exceptional 2019–20 Australian wildfires produced <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe1415#:%7E:text=Intense%2C%20widespread%20bushfires%20in%20Australia,from%20a%20moderate%20volcanic%20eruption.">record-breaking levels of aerosols</a> over the Southern Hemisphere, as well as substantial carbon emissions. The <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00610-5">wildfire smoke-related health costs</a> of the 2019–20 wildfires in Australia included an estimated 429 smoke-related premature deaths as well as 3,230 hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory disorders. Changes in fire patterns are modifying water cycles, too. In the western United States, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2009717118">fires are reaching higher elevations</a> and having strong impacts on <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2200333119">snow</a> and water availability. New studies are revealing how the air, land and water that support life on Earth are connected by fires. Smoke plumes from the 2019–20 Australian wildfires transported nutrients to the Southern Ocean, resulting in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03805-8">widespread phytoplankton blooms</a>. <h2>Humans are responsible for the changes</h2> Human drivers such as climate change, land use, fire use and suppression, and transportation and extinction of species <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357">are causing shifts in fire patterns</a>. Increasing global temperatures and more frequent heatwaves and droughts increase the likelihood of fire by promoting hot, dry and windy conditions. A pattern of extreme fire weather outside of natural climate variation is already emerging in <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.15388">North America</a>, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1183-3">southern Europe</a> and <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1e3a/meta">the Amazon basin</a>. Humans modify fire regimes by changing land use for agricultural, forestry and urban purposes. Until recent decades, large fires in tropical forests were uncommon. But <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03876-7">deforestation fires</a> used to clear primary forest for agriculture often promotes more frequent and intense uncontrolled fires. Humans have transported plants and animals across the globe, resulting in novel mixes of species that modify fuels and fire regimes. In many parts of the world, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1908253116">invasive grasses</a> have increased flammability and fire activity. Social and economic changes propel these drivers. Colonisation by Europeans and the displacement of Indigenous peoples and their skilful use of fire has been linked with fire changes in <a href="https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/fee.2395">Australia</a>, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116264119">North America</a> and <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0174">South America</a>. <h2>Using knowledge and practice of fire to achieve sustainability goals</h2> <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357">The pace and scale of these changes</a> represent challenges to humanity, but knowledge and practice of fire can help to achieve sustainability goals. This includes: <ul> <li><a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0174">good health and wellbeing</a>, by supporting community-owned solutions and fire practices that increase social cohesion and health</li> <li><a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479718314658">sustainable cities and communities</a>, by designing green firebreaks and mixed-use areas with low fuels, strategically located in the landscape</li> <li><a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aam7672">life on land</a>, by tailoring use of fire to promote and restore species and ecosystems</li> <li><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00867-1">climate action</a>, by applying low-intensity fire to promote the stability of soil organic matter and increase carbon storage</li> <li><a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/8/3921">reduced inequalities</a>, by allocating resources before, during, and after wildfires to at-risk communities and residents.</li> </ul> As the world changes, society as a whole needs to keep learning about the interplay between people and fire. A deep understanding of fire is essential for achieving a sustainable future – in other words, <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-environ-120220-055357">a better Anthropocene</a>.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/213215/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-kelly-159658">Luke Kelly</a>, Associate Professor in Quantitative Ecology, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/david-bowman-4397">David Bowman</a>, Professor of Pyrogeography and Fire Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ella-plumanns-pouton-1470045">Ella Plumanns Pouton</a>, PhD candidate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/grant-williamson-109967">Grant Williamson</a>, Research Fellow in Environmental Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michael-shawn-fletcher-99786">Michael-Shawn Fletcher</a>, Professor in Biogeography, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-melbourne-722">The University of Melbourne</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-planet-is-burning-in-unexpected-ways-heres-how-we-can-protect-people-and-nature-213215">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

If the world were coming to an end, what would be the most ethical way to rebuild humanity ‘off planet’?

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/evie-kendal-734653">Evie Kendal</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Last week, scientists announced that for the first time on record, Antarctic ice has failed to “substantially recover” over winter, in a “once in 7.5-million-year event”. Climate change is the <a href="https://theconversation.com/antarctica-is-missing-a-chunk-of-sea-ice-bigger-than-greenland-whats-going-on-210665">most likely culprit</a>. Petra Heil, a sea ice physicist from the Australian Antarctic Division, <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-24/antarctic-sea-ice-levels-nosedive-five-sigma-event/102635204">told the ABC</a> it could tip the world into a new state. “That would be quite concerning to the sustainability of human conditions on Earth, I suspect.” And in March, a senior United Nations disarmament official <a href="https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15250.doc.htm">told the Security Council</a> the risk of nuclear weapons being used today is higher than at any time since the end of the Cold War. Both warnings speak to concerns about Earth’s security. Will our planet be able to support human life in the future? And if not, will humanity have another chance at survival in space? <h2>‘Billionauts’ and how to choose who goes</h2> Over the past few years, we’ve witnessed the rise of the “billionaut”. The ultra-wealthy are engaged in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/billionaire-space-race-the-ultimate-symbol-of-capitalisms-flawed-obsession-with-growth-164511">private space race</a> costing billions of dollars, while <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverwilliams1/2021/12/21/billionaire-space-race-turns-into-a-publicity-disaster/?sh=79056f7e5e4d">regular citizens often condemn</a> the wasted resources and contribution to global carbon emissions. Space – described in the <a href="https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html">Outer Space Treaty</a> as being the “province of all mankind” – risks instead becoming the playground of the elite few, as they try to escape the consequences of environmental destruction. But if we have to select humans to send into space for a species survival mission, how do we choose who gets to go? In Montreal last month, the <a href="https://irg.space/irg-2023/">Interstellar Research Group</a> explored the question: how would you select a crew for the first interstellar mission? A panel led by <a href="https://www.erikanesvold.com/">Erika Nesvold</a>, a co-editor of the new book <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reclaiming-space-9780197604793?cc=au&lang=en&">Reclaiming Space</a>, discussed the perspectives of gender minorities, people with disabilities and First Nations groups regarding the ideal composition for an off-world crew. I was on the panel to discuss my contribution to the book, which explores how we can promote procreation in our new off-world society, without diminishing the reproductive liberty of survivors. <h2>The ultra-wealthy and reproductive slavery</h2> The first step in deciding how to allocate limited spaces on our “lifeboat” is identifying and rejecting options that are practically or ethically unacceptable. The first option I rejected was a user-pay system, whereby the wealthy can purchase a seat on the lifeboat. A 2022 Oxfam report showed the investments of just 125 billionaires collectively contribute 393 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year: <a href="https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-emits-million-times-more-greenhouse-gases-average-person#:%7E:text=Recent%20data%20from%20Oxfam's%20research,%C2%B0C%20goal%20of%20the">a million times more</a> than the average for most global citizens. If the ultra-wealthy are the only ones to survive an environmental apocalypse, there’s a risk they would just create another one, on another planet. This would undermine the species survival project. The second option I rejected was allowing a reproductive slave class to develop, with some survivors compelled to populate the new community. This would disproportionately impact cis-gender women of reproductive capacity, demanding their gestational labour in exchange for a chance at survival. Neither a user-pay system nor reproductive slave labour would achieve the goal of “saving humanity” in any meaningful way. Many would argue preserving human values - including equality, reproductive liberty, and respect for diversity - is more important than saving human biology. If we lose what makes us unique as a species, that would be a kind of extinction anyway. But if we want humanity to survive, we still need to build our population in our new home. So what other options do we have? <h2>Reproduction and diversity</h2> How can we avoid discrimination on the basis of reproductive capacity – including age, sexuality, <a href="https://theconversation.com/infertility-through-the-ages-and-how-ivf-changed-the-way-we-think-about-it-87128">fertility status</a> or personal preference? We could avoid any questions about family planning when selecting our crew. This would align with <a href="https://www.seek.com.au/career-advice/article/illegal-interview-questions-what-employers-have-no-right-to-ask">equal opportunity policies</a> in other areas, like employment. But we would then have to hope enough candidates selected on other merits happen to be willing and able to procreate. Alternatively, we could reserve a certain number of places for those who agree to contribute to population growth. Fertility would then become an inherent job requirement. This might be similar to taking on a role as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/surrogacy-laws-why-a-global-approach-is-needed-to-stop-exploitation-of-women-98966">surrogate</a>, in which reproductive capacity is essential. But what if, after accepting such a position on the mission, someone changed their mind about wanting children? Would they be expected to provide some sort of compensation? Would they be vulnerable to retaliation? The more we focus on procreation, the less diversity we will preserve in the species as a whole – especially if we deliberately select against diverse sexualities, disabilities and older people. A lack of diversity would also threaten the long-term viability of the new society. For example, even if we exclude all physiologically or socially infertile people from the initial crew, these traits will reappear in future generations. The difference is: these children would be born into a less accepting community. Cooperation will be essential for the new human society – so promoting hostility would be counterproductive. So, what options are left? Using a random global sample to select travellers might alleviate concerns about equity and fairness. But the ability of a random sample to maximise our survival as a species would depend on how large the sample can be. A global sample would minimise bias. But there’s a risk it might yield a crew without doctors, engineers, farmers or other essential personnel. <h2>Random selection versus a points-based system</h2> The best balance between competing needs might be a stratified random sampling method, involving randomly selecting survivors from predetermined categories. Reproductive potential might be one category. Others might focus on other elements of practical usefulness or contribution to human diversity. Another option is a points-based system, whereby different skills and characteristics are ranked in terms of their desirability. In this system, an elderly person who speaks multiple languages may score higher than a physiologically fertile young person, due to their ability to substantially contribute to language preservation and education. This does not entirely eliminate the potential for discrimination, of course. Someone would need to decide which traits are most desirable and valuable to the new human society. However we determine our lifeboat candidates, it should be carefully considered. In our attempt to “save humanity”, we must avoid sacrificing the very things that make us human. <hr /> Evie Kendal is a contributor to <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/reclaiming-space-9780197604793?cc=au&lang=en&">Reclaiming Space: Progressive and Multicultural Visions of Space Exploration</a> (Oxford University Press)<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/210647/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/evie-kendal-734653">Evie Kendal</a>, Senior lecturer of health promotion, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a> Image credits: Getty Images This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-the-world-were-coming-to-an-end-what-would-be-the-most-ethical-way-to-rebuild-humanity-off-planet-210647">original article</a>.

Travel Trouble

The 7 most addictive (and delicious) foods on the planet

Why we can't get enough What is it about the three Cs: Chocolate, cheese and chips? For some reason, we can never get enough of them. But wanting to chow on a particular food is one thing, being addicted to it is another. Fact is, you can become addicted to a certain food, and you can blame your brain’s response to it. That’s because certain foods elicit a release of dopamine in the brain, which can lead to more cravings for that particular treat, especially when it comes to foods that are high in sugar, salt and/or fat. Addictive foods are ones that hit your brain right in its pleasure centre, ostensibly telling you that you need more, more, more. “When this pleasure/reward centre is stimulated, the brain starts secreting dopamine and other chemicals that make us enjoy the experience even more,” says registered dietitian Ashvini Mashru. “Because your brain loves the sensation caused by that dopamine release, it seeks more of it by creating cravings, that if listened to can cause a vicious cycle of addiction.” Chocoholics take note That bowl of Smarties sitting on your colleague’s desk is a delicious temptation, a crunchy chocolatey treat that’s hard to resist. What we know is that chocolate is one of the most addictive foods around because it binds to the same pleasure centres in the brain as alcohol and certain drugs, according to a 2011 study conducted by Drexel University. It also boasts a nice ‘mouth feel’, which stimulates oxytocin production, another feel-good hormone, according to Dan DeFigio, author of Beating Sugar Addiction for Dummies. “Over time, our brains start looking for that dopamine hit, and every time we eat chocolate, it reinforces that ‘wiring,’” he says. More cheese please If you’ve hovered over a cheese platter and piled up the cubes, you’ll be relieved to know that it’s not just you. Cheese, which is generally high in fat and cholesterol, also contains a substance called casomorphin that binds to the opioid or feel-good receptors in the brain. “Casomorphins attach to neurotransmitters in our brains and release dopamine, feel-good chemicals, that often lead us to wanting more,” says Dr Neal Barnard, author of The Cheese Trap. “While cheese does have its health benefits, it also can be seriously addictive.” Carb fix Reach into that bowl of potato chips, tortilla chips or pretzels over and over again, and you’ll know something is happening on the addiction front. And, while there’s no particular compound in these foods that bind to specific brain receptors to cause a euphoric, stimulating, or addictive behaviour, there’s something else at play. “Simple carbohydrates are seen as ‘addictive’ because they cause a quick glucose release, and this quickly increases a person’s energy, says nutritionist Celina Jean. “This energy will quickly be used up, and then you’ll be forced to eat more simple carbohydrates to keep your blood sugar raised.” Oh, sweet sips Not only do sugary soft drinks (including sweet tea) provide us with very little nutrients, but one 375mL can contain a staggering 43 grams of sugar. Like sugary treats, fizzy drinks can stimulate the release of dopamine. Add caffeine and you’re getting a double-energy hit. “Once you’re hooked on caffeine, you can suffer symptoms of withdrawal if you try to stop, including sluggishness, headaches and emotional distress,” says Mashru. Pass the fries Hot chips or French fries are typically crisp, hot and salty. This is a triple-threat that signals the tongue and the brain to eat more, Mashru says. The fat content in fries triggers receptors in our mouths that send a signal to our brain and gut reinforcing the desire to eat more. “These little potato sticks are also a comfort food,” Mashru says. “Therefore, every time you go through the line in a restaurant and see them on the menu, you may find the urge to order them as a side to your entrée irresistible.” Ice cream, you scream Cravings for ice cream can be insatiable – it’s all about the sugar content and creamy texture, and researchers agree that foods like ice cream, which is basically cream and milk, stimulate the brain in the same way drugs do, inducing behaviours that resemble addiction, says dietitian Keri Glassman. “The sugar ‘highs’ and ‘lows’ you experience are consistent with sugar ‘dependency’,” she says. “When your body gets used to sugar, you feel out of sorts when you consume less, which causes you to eat more.” Pizza Whether it’s the stringy salty mozzarella cheese, the fluffy dough or the sugar in the tomato sauce, pizza ranks first in food addiction, according to a recent University of Michigan study. That’s because when you eat it, your blood sugar zips up quickly and then when it drops, you feel hungry again and want more. Image credits: Getty Images This article originally appeared on <a href="https://www.readersdigest.com.au/food-home-garden/the-most-addicting-foods-on-the-planet" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Reader's Digest</a>.

Food & Wine

Billionaire throws star-studded party for most famous names on the planet

The most famous names on the planet have all gathered for an exclusive party with billionaire Michael Rubin to celebrate the American independence day weekend. Congregating at a luxurious mansion in the Hamptons, the businessman and philanthropist hosted his annual white party, sharing a highlights reel of the star-studded day on Twitter. Among the famous faces were Leo DiCaprio, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck, Beyonce and Jay-Z, Tom Brady, Kevin Hart and a plethora of Kardashians. The 350 A-listers in attendance were treated to musical performances by Usher and Ne-Yo, and $700 bottles of champagne and tequila as they partied from the 5pm kick-off all the way through until 4am. <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"> A literal movie - white party 2023 recap <a href="https://t.co/1D3vlpCNBq">pic.twitter.com/1D3vlpCNBq</a> — Michael Rubin (@michaelrubin) <a href="https://twitter.com/michaelrubin/status/1676363041288462338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 4, 2023</a></blockquote> The famous guests were spotted pulling up in style in their parade of expensive cars and helicopters, and being escorted into the party by armies of valets and security guards. Among them was Affleck and Lopez, who brought along the actor’s 17-year-old daughter, Violet, whom he shares with ex-wife Jennifer Garner. Kevin Hart and his wife, Eniko Parrish, were spotted among the many celebrity couples drinking and dancing the night away, along with Justin Bieber and his model wife, Hailey. Rubin, 49, and his girlfriend, Camille Fishel, 32, hosted the star-studded event, sparing no expense when it came to looking after their guests, as they do each year. Rubin has an estimated fortune of more than $16 billion, making him one of the richest men in America. Image credits: Twitter

Beauty & Style

All-electric homes are better for your hip pocket and the planet. Here’s how governments can help us get off gas

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/esther-suckling-1220357">Esther Suckling</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> If every Australian household that uses gas went all-electric today, we would “save” more than 30 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions over the next ten years. That’s because there are more than <a href="https://www.energynetworks.com.au/resources/fact-sheets/reliable-and-clean-gas-for-australian-homes-2/">5 million households</a> on the gas network, and the <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/getting-off-gas">avoided emissions per home</a> ranges from 5-25 tonnes over the coming decade, depending on the location. Most people would spend less money on energy too. Electric appliances use less energy than gas appliances to do the same job, making them cheaper to run. Our <a href="https://grattan.edu.au/report/getting-off-gas">new report</a> shows how much most households can save by switching from gas to electricity for heating, hot water and cooking. The extra cash couldn’t come at a better time: about <a href="https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/all-news/2023/may/hidden-energy-poverty">a quarter of Australian households</a> say they found it difficult to pay their energy bills this year. But many households face hurdles that stop them, or make it hard for them, to go all-electric. Governments could make it easier for people and bring emissions-reduction targets closer to reality. <h2>Most households save by upgrading to electric</h2> <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532139/original/file-20230615-29-h20bv5.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=493&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="A chart showing estimated savings for each household switching from gas to electricity, over 10 years, in each capital city" /></a><figcaption>Over 10 years, the estimated savings for each household switching from gas to electricity range up to $13,900 in Melbourne. It’s a flat $3,890 figure for Brisbane, rather than a range, because there’s no gas heating. Grattan Institute, Author provided</figcaption></figure> Households in Melbourne tend to use more gas than those in other mainland capitals, mainly because the winter is so cold. Our report found Melburnians who replace broken gas appliances with electric ones, or move into an all-electric home, could save up to A$13,900 over ten years. Households with rooftop solar will save even more. It’s a similar story in most parts of Australia except the west, where gas is relatively cheap. This mainly reflects differences in the historical development of the gas markets between the west and east coasts. Getting off gas could also be <a href="https://www1.racgp.org.au/ajgp/2022/december/health-risks-from-indoor-gas-appliances">good for your health</a>. Several studies link cooking with gas to <a href="https://www.nationalasthma.org.au/living-with-asthma/resources/patients-carers/factsheets/gas-stoves-and-asthma-in-children">childhood asthma</a>. <h2>Households face a series of hurdles</h2> Renters make up nearly a third of all households, and they have little or no control over the appliances that are installed. As most electric appliances cost more to buy than gas ones – and the subsequent bill savings flow to tenants – landlords have little incentive to upgrade their properties from gas to all-electric. Apartment living can increase the level of complexity. Multi-unit dwellings often bundle gas bills into body-corporate fees, limiting the occupants’ incentive to go all-electric. There can also be space constraints in these buildings. Centralised electric heat pumps, for example, take up more space than centralised gas water heaters. Then there are households that simply can’t afford the upgrade. Induction stoves and heat pumps are more expensive than their gas equivalents, by up to a combined $2,000. This initial outlay will soon be recovered by cheaper energy bills, but that doesn’t help households that don’t have the cash up front. The <a href="https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/data/taking-the-pulse-of-the-nation-2022/2023/energy-poverty">12% of households that skipped meals</a> to pay their energy bills in the past year are the most likely to remain locked into high gas bills. Some people also simply prefer cooking with gas. Some think induction cooktops will be no better than the poor-performing electric cooktops they may have used in the distant past. Others haven’t ever heard of a heat pump for hot water. <h2>Here’s how governments can help</h2> Governments, both state and federal, should lower the hurdles on the path to all-electric homes -– to reduce people’s cost of living and to cut carbon emissions. As a first step, state governments should ban new gas connections to homes. In 2021, more than 70,000 households joined the gas network. Trying to shift households off gas while allowing new connections is like pouring water into a bucket with a hole. Then, governments should provide landlords with tax write-offs on new induction stoves and heat pumps for hot water, for a limited time. After that, they should require every rental property to be all-electric. Governments should pay to upgrade public housing to all-electric, where they are the landlords. And they should pay not-for-profits managing community housing to do the same. The federal government should help all households to spread the cost of electric appliances over time. It should subsidise banks to offer low-interest loans for home electrification, via the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. And governments should set out to change people’s preferences, from gas to electric. They should embark on a multi-decade communication campaign, not unlike the campaign to upgrade from analogue to digital television in the early 2000s. A key challenge will be shifting people’s ideas about the best way to cook. There are precedents. In Gininderry, a new all-electric suburb of Canberra, one developer recruited chefs to run demonstrations on induction cooktops at the display village. The proportion of potential homebuyers <a href="https://ginninderry.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Ginninderry-2017-Householder-Attitudes-to-Residential-Renewable-Energy-Futures.pdf">willing to consider buying an all-electric home</a> rose from 67% to 88%. <figure><iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/K9ytSh5TM9M?wmode=transparent&start=0" width="440" height="260" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe><figcaption>Induction cooking with Chef David Wei at Ginninderry.</figcaption></figure> <h2>‘Green gas’ is no panacea: electricity is cheaper</h2> <figure class="align-center zoomable"><a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=572&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=719&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=719&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/532117/original/file-20230615-23-n0wdqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=719&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="Chart comparing the cost of hydrogen to electricity over time, showing hydrogen is more expensive and will remain so for decades" /></a><figcaption>Hydrogen is more expensive than electricity and will remain so for decades. Grattan Institute, Author provided</figcaption></figure> The gas industry has another solution in mind: instead of switching from gas to electricity, it suggests using “green gas” -– biomethane or “green” hydrogen. Biomethane is chemically identical to natural gas, but is derived from biological materials such as food waste, sewage or agricultural waste. Green hydrogen is made by using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. But both options are <a href="https://theconversation.com/hydrogen-where-is-low-carbon-fuel-most-useful-for-decarbonisation-147696">too expensive and too far away</a>. Under the most generous of assumptions, green hydrogen will only become cost-competitive with electricity after 2045. And there is not enough biomethane commercially available to replace gas in households. Meanwhile, more than three million Australian homes already run on electricity alone. Getting the five million homes that use gas to the same point won’t be easy. But with good policy, it is doable. For households, and the climate, there is much to be gained.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/207409/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/esther-suckling-1220357">Esther Suckling</a>, Research Associate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/grattan-institute-1168">Grattan Institute</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-electric-homes-are-better-for-your-hip-pocket-and-the-planet-heres-how-governments-can-help-us-get-off-gas-207409">original article</a>. Images: Getty

Real Estate

Who wants to be a billionaire? Thankfully for the planet, most people don’t

Reality check: most people don’t actually want to be billionaires. A <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00902-y" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">new study</a> is challenging the long-held economic belief that it’s in human nature to have unlimited wants, finding this widely held assumption only applies to a minority of people. In a survey of nearly 8,000 people from 33 countries across six continents, social psychologists asked people how much money they wanted to accrue in their “absolutely ideal life”. They found that in 86% of countries most people thought they could achieve the ideal life with US$10 million (AUD$14.3 million) or less, and in some countries the ideal was as little as US$1 million (AUD$1.4 million), across their entire lives. To put that into context, the current richest person in the world, Elon Musk, has a net worth of more than US$200 billion – that’s enough for 200,000 people to achieve their perceived ideal lives. The push to continually increase individual wealth and pursue unending economic growth has had dire environmental consequences for the planet, with resource use and <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/earth/earth-sciences/global-pollution-mapped-for-good-and-bad/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">pollution</a> increasing alongside wealth. But these findings, published in Nature Sustainability, challenge the idea that approaches relying on limiting wealth and growth to achieve sustainability are against human ideals and aspirations. “The findings are a stark reminder that the majority view is not necessarily reflected in policies that allow the accumulation of excessive amounts of wealth by a small number of individuals,” explains co-author Dr Renata Bongiorno, a social psychologist at the University of Exeter and Bath Spa University in the UK. “If most people are striving for wealth that is limited, policies that support people’s more limited wants, such as a wealth tax to fund sustainability initiatives, might be more popular than is often portrayed.” <h2>Would you want to win a billion in the lottery?</h2> The researchers specifically asked people to imagine their absolutely ideal life, and then consider how much money would want in that life. Participants made a choice of their preferred prize in a hypothetical lottery, choosing from US$10,000, US$100,000, US$1 million, US$10 million, US$100 million, US$1 billion, US$10 billion or US$100 billion. It was emphasised that the odds of winning each lottery were identical. The researchers hypothesised that people with insatiable wants – those who cannot conceive of a point where their wants would be fully satiated, so they will always aspire to accumulate more/better goods – would choose the maximum of US$100 billion over all the lesser (limited) amounts. But while people with unlimited wants were identified in every country surveyed, they were always in the minority. They tended to be younger people and city-dwellers, who placed more value on success, power and independence. They were also more common in countries with greater acceptance of inequality, and in countries that are more collectivistic – that focus more on group than individual responsibilities and outcomes. “The ideology of unlimited wants, when portrayed as human nature, can create social pressure for people to buy more than they actually want,” says lead researcher Dr Paul Bain, from the Department of Psychology at the University of Bath, UK. “Discovering that most people’s ideal lives are actually quite moderate could make it socially easier for people to behave in ways that are more aligned with what makes them genuinely happy and to support stronger policies to help safeguard the planet.” Image credits: Getty Images  <img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="opacity: 0; height: 1px!important; width: 1px!important; border: 0!important; position: absolute!important; z-index: -1!important;" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=195370&title=Who+wants+to+be+a+billionaire%3F+Thankfully+for+the+planet%2C+most+people+don%E2%80%99t" width="1" height="1" />  <div id="contributors"> This article was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/news/who-wants-to-be-a-billionaire/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cosmosmagazine.com</a> and was written by Imma Perfetto. </div>

Retirement Income

Astronomers have detected another ‘planet killer’ asteroid. Could we miss one coming our way?

If you surfed the web this morning, you may have seen news of the latest existential threat to humanity: a “planet killer” asteroid named 2022 AP7. Luckily for us 2022 AP7 “has no chance to hit the Earth currently”, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/nov/01/huge-planet-killer-asteroid-discovered-and-its-heading-our-way">according</a> to Scott Sheppard at the Carnegie Institution for Science. He and his international team of colleagues <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/ac8cff/pdf">observed 2022 AP7</a> in a trio of “rather large” asteroids obscured by the Sun’s glare (the other two don’t pose a risk). 2022 AP7 orbits the Sun every five years, and currently crosses Earth’s orbit when Earth is on the other side of the Sun to it. Eventually its movement will sync with Earth’s and it will cross much closer by, but this will be centuries into the future. We simply don’t know enough about 2022 AP7 to precisely predict the danger it may pose centuries from now. At the same time, we suspect there could be other “planet killers” out there yet to be discovered. But how many? And what’s being done to find them? What makes a planet killer? Asteroid 2022 AP7 is the largest potentially hazardous asteroid (PHA) found in eight years, with a diameter between 1.1km and 2.3km. For context, an asteroid with a diameter more than 1km is enough to trigger a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event">mass extinction event</a> on Earth. As well as having a diameter greater than 1km, an asteroid also needs to have an orbit that crosses Earth’s to be considered potentially dangerous. In the case of 2022 AP7, any threat is centuries down the track. The important point is it has been detected and can now be tracked. This is the best possible outcome. It is estimated we’ve already <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-a-world-first-nasas-dart-mission-is-about-to-smash-into-an-asteroid-what-will-we-learn-189391">discovered</a> about 95% of potentially hazardous asteroids, and that there are fewer than 1,000 of these. The work of Sheppard and colleagues highlights that hunting down the remaining 5% – some 50 asteroids – will be a massive effort. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492923/original/file-20221102-25180-74aqvo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492923/original/file-20221102-25180-74aqvo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=304&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492923/original/file-20221102-25180-74aqvo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=304&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492923/original/file-20221102-25180-74aqvo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=304&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492923/original/file-20221102-25180-74aqvo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492923/original/file-20221102-25180-74aqvo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492923/original/file-20221102-25180-74aqvo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>Statistically, there’s less of a chance of a larger asteroid colliding with Earth compared to a smaller one. NASA</figcaption></figure> What constitutes a near miss? NASA <a href="https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroid-watch">closely tracks</a> all known objects in the Solar System. But every now and again an object will catch us off guard. In 2021, we had a close call with an asteroid called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_UA1">2021 UA1</a>. It came only a few thousand kilometres from Earth, over the Antarctic. In cosmic terms, this is uncomfortably close. However, 2021 UA1 was only two metres across, and therefore posed no substantial risk. There are likely hundreds of millions of objects of this size in our Solar System, and it’s not uncommon for them to impact Earth. In these cases, most of the object burns up in the atmosphere and creates a spectacular light show, with little risk to life. In 2019 another <a href="https://theconversation.com/an-asteroid-just-buzzed-past-earth-and-we-barely-noticed-in-time-120972">asteroid</a> with a 100m diameter passed Earth some 70,000km away. It was publicly announced mere hours before it flew past. While it wasn’t as close, it was of a much more concerning size. These near misses reiterate how important it is for us to speed up the search for near-Earth objects. Blind spots The reason we haven’t already found every object that could one day pass nearby Earth is largely because of observational blind spots, and the fact we can’t observe all parts of the sky all the time. To find 2022 AP7, Sheppard and colleagues used a telescope at twilight soon after the Sun had set. They had to do this because they were looking for asteroids in the vicinity of Venus and Earth. Venus is currently on the <a href="https://theskylive.com/where-is-venus">other side of the Sun</a> to Earth. Making observations close to the Sun is difficult. The Sun’s glare overwhelms the weak light reflected off small asteroids – presenting a blind spot. But just before and after sunset, there’s a small window in which the Sun’s glare no longer blocks the view. Right now there are only about 25 asteroids known to have well-determined orbits that lie entirely within Earth’s orbit. More are likely to be discovered, and these may contribute significantly to the missing 5% of potentially hazardous asteroids. The Near-Earth Object Surveyor A recent NASA mission spectacularly demonstrated that humans can purposefully change the trajectory of an asteroid. NASA’s DART (<a href="https://www.nasa.gov/planetarydefense/dart/dart-news">Double Asteroid Redirection Test</a>) mission collided a vending-machine-sized spacecraft into a 160m diameter minor-planet moon called Dimorphos. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492925/original/file-20221102-28436-f16d5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492925/original/file-20221102-28436-f16d5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492925/original/file-20221102-28436-f16d5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492925/original/file-20221102-28436-f16d5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492925/original/file-20221102-28436-f16d5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492925/original/file-20221102-28436-f16d5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492925/original/file-20221102-28436-f16d5x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>The DART spacecraft successfully collided with Dimorphos, which itself was orbiting a larger asteroid named Didymos. NASA/Johns Hopkins APL/Steve Gribben</figcaption></figure> The collision altered Dimorphos’s 12-hour orbital period by more than 30 minutes, and was declared a resounding success. So it’s plausible for humans to redirect a hazardous asteroid if we find one. That said, we’d have to find it well in advance. Potentially hazardous asteroids are much larger than Dimorphos, so a bigger collision would be required with plenty of lead time. To do this, NASA has plans to survey for potentially hazardous objects using a telescope in space. Its <a href="https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/near-earth-object-surveyor">Near-Earth Object (NEO) Surveyor</a>, scheduled to launch in 2026, will be able to survey the Solar System very efficiently – including within blind spots caused by the Sun. That’s because the glare we see while observing from Earth is caused by Earth’s atmosphere. But in space there’s no atmosphere to look through. <figure class="align-center "><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492932/original/file-20221102-26-zoxo13.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/492932/original/file-20221102-26-zoxo13.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492932/original/file-20221102-26-zoxo13.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492932/original/file-20221102-26-zoxo13.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=363&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492932/original/file-20221102-26-zoxo13.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492932/original/file-20221102-26-zoxo13.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/492932/original/file-20221102-26-zoxo13.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" alt="" /><figcaption>The NEO Surveyor spacecraft won’t have the issue of observational blind spots when hunting for asteroids. NASA/JPL/University of Arizona</figcaption></figure> It’s very likely the Near-Earth Object Surveyor will reveal new objects, and help us characterise a large number of objects to greatly improve our understanding of threats. The key is to find as many objects as possible, categorise them, track the risks, and plan a redirection mission as much in advance as possible. The fact that all of these elements of planetary defence are now a reality is an amazing feat of science and engineering. It is the first time in human history we have these capabilities.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/193709/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> Writen by Steven Tingay. Republished with permission from <a href="https://theconversation.com/astronomers-have-detected-another-planet-killer-asteroid-could-we-miss-one-coming-our-way-193709" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Conversation</a>. Image: DOE/FNAL/DECam/CTIO/NOIRLab/NSF/AURA/J. da Silva/Spaceengine

Technology

Cadbury's huge change in a bid to save the planet

In a “world first” from Cadbury, the iconic chocolate block is about to change, in efforts to save the environment. Looking to curb their contribution of single-use plastic to landfill, Mondelez International, the company that owns the confectionary giant have unveiled a new and sustainable version of the signature purple packaging that is now 100% recyclable. The chocolate-maker said it used “emerging advanced recycling technology” to create soft plastic packaging that contains up to 30% recycled content, saving 120 tonnes of packaging waste from going to landfill. “Until recently, soft plastic packaging has been considered a single-use material,” Mondelēz International chief executive Dirk Van de Put said. “The development of advanced recycling technology and our significant investment in recycled soft plastic means it’s now possible for Cadbury fans to enjoy their favourite treats more sustainably here in Australia.” Australia is the first country to experience the new sustainable wrappers, which are initially launching on Cadbury Dairy Milk, Caramilk and Old Gold family blocks. The brand said it was “committed” to rolling out the eco-friendly packaging across the entire Cadbury range in the coming years, however in order to create the new eco-friendly packaging Cadbury sourced 120 tonnes of recycled content from overseas. Australia doesn't yet have the ability to recycle soft plastic into food-friendly packaging. The first Cadbury family blocks in their new packaging are being delivered to major retailers and supermarkets across Australia this week. Image: Woolworths

Food & Wine

Why ‘best before’ food labelling is not best for the planet or your budget

UK supermarkets have <a href="https://metro.co.uk/2022/08/03/which-supermarkets-are-scrapping-best-before-dates-and-why-17117556/">removed “best before” dates</a> on thousands of fresh food products in an effort to reduce food waste. One of the major supermarket chains, Sainsbury’s, is replacing these labels with product messaging that says “<a href="https://www.fruitnet.com/fresh-produce-journal/sainsburys-axes-best-before-dates-on-more-fruit-and-veg/247057.article">no date helps reduce waste</a>”. Apples, bananas, potatoes, cucumbers and broccoli are among the most wasted foods. Removing “best before” labels from these foods alone will reduce waste by an estimated <a href="https://wrap.org.uk/taking-action/food-drink/initiatives/food-waste-reduction-roadmap">50,000 tonnes a year</a>. In Australia we produce <a href="https://www.fial.com.au/sharing-knowledge/food-waste">7.6 million tonnes of food waste every year</a> – about 300kg per person. <a href="https://workdrive.zohopublic.com.au/external/ba011474a921ef40d77287a482fc9b257083a646708e3b38b6debeea81cdf81b">About 70%</a> of what we throw out is still edible. Why aren’t we following the UK’s example? Some might worry about food safety. But two types of date labels – “best before” and “use by” – are used in Australia. “Use by” labels would still alert us to when food can no longer be regarded as safe to eat. And consumers will still be able to assess the state of fresh produce for themselves. <h2>Food waste has huge impacts</h2> Food waste costs Australia <a href="https://workdrive.zohopublic.com.au/external/ba011474a921ef40d77287a482fc9b257083a646708e3b38b6debeea81cdf81b">A$36.6 billion a year</a>. This waste occurs right across the supply chain, including primary production, manufacturing, distribution, retail and hospitality. However, households produce more than half of the waste, at an average cost per household of A$2,000 to $2,500 a year. In 2017, the Australian government <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/food-waste?state=tas#national-food-waste-strategy">pledged to halve food waste</a> by 2030 when it launched the <a href="https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/protection/waste/publications/national-food-waste-strategy">National Food Waste Strategy</a>. This is a complex issue, but one simple solution could be to follow the UK and remove “best before” dates. <h2>How will you know if food is still safe?</h2> Our labelling system is fairly straightforward, but many consumers don’t understand the difference between “best before” and “use by”. This confusion leads them to throw away tonnes of food that’s still suitable for eating. In Australia, the regulatory authority <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/labelling/dates/Pages/default.aspx">Food Standards</a> provides guidance for manufacturers, retailers and consumers on using dates on product labels. These dates indicate how long food products can be sold, and kept, before they deteriorate or become unsafe to eat. Food with a “best before” date can be legally sold and consumed after that date. These products should be safe, but may have lost some of their quality. Products past their “use by date” are considered not safe. The food supplier is responsible for placing date labels on the product. Differences in packaging and date labelling can be subtle. For example, lettuce sold loose or in an open plastic sleeve does not have a “best before” date. The same lettuce packaged in a sealed bag does. Bread is the only fresh food that uses a different system with “baked on” or “baked for” date labels. Some foods, such as canned goods and food with a shelf life of two years or more, don’t have to be labelled with “best before” dates because they usually retain their quality for many years. They are typically eaten well before they deteriorate. Food producers and retailers are keen to keep the labelling status quo, because it makes it easier to <a href="https://www.vox.com/22559293/food-waste-expiration-label-best-before">manage stock</a> and <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1509/jppm.14.095">encourages turnover</a>. <h2>The case for packaging</h2> Some packaging is used to separate branded products such as fruit varieties protected by <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-case-of-the-pirated-blueberries-courts-flex-new-muscle-to-protect-plant-breeders-intellectual-property-126763">plant breeders’ rights</a>, organic products and imperfect vegetable ranges. Once packaged, these products require a “best before” date. Plastic packaging can greatly increase the shelf life of some vegetables. In these cases, it effectively reduces food waste. A striking example is cucumbers. Plastic wrap can extend their shelf life from a <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-plastic-packaging-is-necessary-to-prevent-food-waste-and-protect-the-environment-117479">few days to two weeks</a>. Vegetables such as broccoli and cauliflower contain beneficial anti-cancer compounds called <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut.2016.00024/full">glucosinolates</a>. Plastic packaging that seals in <a href="https://www.food-safety.com/articles/1324-naturally-preserving-food-with-gases">specialty gas</a> preserves these longer. However, overcooking quickly erases this packaging benefit. <figure class="align-center "></figure> <h2>Dead or alive?</h2> The chemistry of a fruit or vegetable starts changing the moment it is picked. Some types of produce, such as bananas and pears, are picked early so they ripen in the shop and at home. Other produce, such as sweet corn and peas, rapidly decline in the quality and quantity of flavours and nutrients once they’re picked. Snap freezing is an excellent way to preserve this produce. Fresh fruits and vegetables are still alive. Their cells remain full of chemical reactions and enzymatic activity. This is why a cut apple turns brown. It’s also why ethylene gas released from bananas and other fruits can shorten the life of their neighbours in the fruit bowl. Potatoes, one of the most wasted products, are sold with “best before” dates when packaged in plastic bags. But if stored correctly in low light and in a “breathable” bag (paper or hessian), potatoes stay “alive” and edible for months. Just make sure you cut away any green parts, which <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-you-really-be-poisoned-by-green-or-sprouting-potatoes-63437">contain toxic solanine</a>. As well as fresh produce’s own cellular activity, there is microbial activity in the form of bacteria and fungi. Fortunately, we come equipped with a number of evolved chemical sensors. We can <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-avoid-food-borne-illness-a-nutritionist-explains-153185">feel, see, sniff and taste</a> the state of fruits, vegetables and other products. Trust (and train) your instincts. <h2>Questions to ask yourself</h2> To reduce food waste, we need a combination of approaches, including appropriate packaging, sensible labelling and consumer awareness. Ideally, the <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/pages/default.aspx">Australian and New Zealand Food Standards Code</a> would be updated to reflect a more nuanced view of packaged fresh foods. In the short term, consumer awareness and buying power are the best drivers of change. Ask yourself questions like: <ul> <li> Do I need a packaged product? </li> <li> Does the packaging enhance shelf life? </li> <li> Would I buy less if it wasn’t packaged? </li> </ul> Thinking about these questions will help us reduce the impacts of food waste.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/189686/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/louise-grimmer-212082">Louise Grimmer</a>, Senior Lecturer in Retail Marketing, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nathan-kilah-599082">Nathan Kilah</a>, Senior Lecturer in Chemistry, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-tasmania-888">University of Tasmania</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation.</a> Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-best-before-food-labelling-is-not-best-for-the-planet-or-your-budget-189686">original article</a>. Images: Getty

Food & Wine

The planets are aligning and here’s how to see it

For the first time in 18 years, five celestial bodies will be aligned in an event you’ll be able to see with your naked eye. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn will be visible for most of June, with the <a href="https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2022/05/get-ready-to-see-the-planets-align-in-australian-skies-this-june/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Australian Geographic</a> reporting that 6am each morning (or 30 minutes before sunrise for <a href="https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2022/06/planetary-alignment-to-dazzle-new-zealand-skies-this-month.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Zealanders</a>) is the prime time to see them all aligned. “If you get up before sunrise, you will be able to spot Mercury closest to the eastern horizon followed by the bright Venus,” Auckland’s Stardome Observatory said in a statement. “Mars and Jupiter will be close together and high in the sky, while Saturn will be in the northern part of the sky. “The positions of each planet will slightly change every morning but they will all remain in the sky for the month.” <blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/CehKH8bB788/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14"> <div style="padding: 16px;"> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="padding: 19% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"> </div> <div style="padding-top: 8px;"> <div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div> </div> <div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;"> <div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: 8px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"> </div> </div> <div style="margin-left: auto;"> <div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"> </div> <div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"> </div> </div> </div> <div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;"> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"> </div> <div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"> </div> </div> <p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/CehKH8bB788/?utm_source=ig_embed&utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by Stardome (@stardome_nz)</a> </div> </blockquote> Between June 9-27, the Moon will also be passing near each of the planets, making it easier to see each planet on these dates: <ul> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> June 9 - Saturn </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> June 22 - Jupiter </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> June 23 - Mars </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> June 26 - Venus </li> <li dir="ltr" aria-level="1"> June 27 - Mercury </li> </ul> If the conditions are just right, we might also get the chance to spot Uranus on June 25 - though you’ll need a pair of binoculars to catch the distinctly green-coloured dot to the right of the crescent Moon. Image: NASA / JPL-Caltech

Domestic Travel

Electric cars alone won’t save the planet. We’ll need to design cities so people can walk and cycle safely

At the COP26 climate summit, world politicians patted themselves on their backs for <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/world/455658/cop26-agrees-new-global-climate-deal-with-last-minute-change-on-coal">coming to a last-minute agreement</a>. Humanity now waits with bated breath to see if countries implement the commitments they made, and if those commitments help the planet. If the rest of our climate progress mirrors the policies around transportation, we’re in for a difficult future. COP26 may have been one of the last chances to head off devastating climate change, and yet, the best and boldest action our leaders could envision for transportation was the universal adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) — with a vague nod to <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2021/11/10/electric-cars-wont-save-the-planet-say-transport-experts-at-cop26/?sh=15ebb8967978">active and public transport</a>. EVs are exciting for politicians, many businesses and a few drivers. They give us the illusion we are dramatically reducing our environmental impact while changing virtually nothing about our lifestyles. But EVs do what cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) have always done to our urban areas. They make it possible to put greater distances between the places we live, work and shop. But ever expanding cities are unsustainable. Building endlessly into greenfield areas and swapping forests or agricultural land for low-density housing uses exorbitant amounts of limited resources. The further out our cities grow, the less interest there is in building up to achieve the scale our urban areas need for the efficient use of infrastructures like water, sewerage, electricity and public transport. <h2>Electric cars are still cars</h2> Electric cars make our cities less attractive and less efficient for more sustainable modes of transport. No matter the type of propulsion, people driving cars kill 1.35 million people globally, including more than 300 in New Zealand, every year. More cars in cities mean more space taken for parking, less room and more danger for active modes and less efficient public transport. Plugging in a car doesn’t stop it from being a lethal machine or causing congestion. There is still no clear and sustainable pathway to manage the e-waste generated by EVs. Electric cars are not “green”. They still use tyres which create massive waste streams. Tyre wear produces microplastics that <a href="https://www.iucn.org/news/secretariat/201702/invisible-plastic-particles-textiles-and-tyres-major-source-ocean-pollution-%E2%80%93-iucn-study">end up in our waterways and oceans</a>. Although EVs use regenerative braking, which is better than traditional internal-combustion cars, they still use brake pads when the brakes are applied. Braking generates <a href="https://www.ecan.govt.nz/get-involved/news-and-events/2018/the-hidden-pollutant-in-our-brake-pads/">toxic dust composed of heavy metals</a> like mercury, lead, cadmium and chromium. These heavy metals make their way to our streams and rivers, embedding themselves in these waterways forever. <h2>Driving less, switching to active transport</h2> Even if EVs were great for the planet, we may not get to a level of use in New Zealand to meaningfully reduce transport emissions to merit our climate goals. New Zealand introduced subsidies in July this year, but at this point <a href="https://www.transport.govt.nz//assets/Uploads/Report/AnnualFleetStatistics.pdf">less than 0.5% of the vehicle fleet is fully electric</a>. At the current rate of EV adoption, it will take many decades before enough electric motors propel our vehicle fleet to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. According to the Climate Change Commission’s <a href="https://www.climatecommission.govt.nz/our-work/advice-to-government-topic/inaia-tonu-nei-a-low-emissions-future-for-aotearoa/">advice to the government</a>, to achieve New Zealand’s 2050 net zero target, at least 50% of imported light vehicles would need to be fully electric by 2029, with no light internal-combustion vehicle imports from the early 2030s. The report goes on to concede that: <blockquote> Even with the rapid switch to EVs, roughly 80% of the vehicles entering the fleet this decade would still be ICE vehicles. </blockquote> The current rates of EV adoption reflect uptake by the <a href="https://sciencepolicyreview.org/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2021/08/A_perspective_on_equity_in_the_transition_to_electric_vehicles.pdf">wealthiest in our society</a>. Once those with the greatest disposable income purchase electric cars, we can expect the adoption curve to flatten. It is unfair to expect middle and lower-income people to replace their current vehicles with more expensive electric cars. Mitigating emissions through consumerism is highly inequitable. We are placing the most significant burden on the most vulnerable groups. Those who push technology like EVs make big promises that lull us into a false sense that we can live our lives in virtually the same way we do now and not worry about the planet. In reality, our lifestyles need to undergo significant changes to make a meaningful impact. Despite all this, there is good news. The changes needed to move us closer to a sustainable future are many of the things a lot of us love about living in a community. It’s about bringing different land uses closer together to make it possible to live, work and shop in your neighbourhood. It’s about connecting communities with cycling and public transport infrastructure for longer trips. Life as we know it will have to change, but that change could be for the better. We don’t need to ditch the more than three million fossil fuel cars we already have, but we should drive them a lot less. Though it sounds nice, buying a new electric car won’t save the planet.<img style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171818/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/timothy-welch-1252494">Timothy Welch</a>, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-auckland-1305">University of Auckland</a> This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/electric-cars-alone-wont-save-the-planet-well-need-to-design-cities-so-people-can-walk-and-cycle-safely-171818">original article</a>. Image: Shutterstock

Domestic Travel

Teacher kills 9-year-old handing out “Save The Planet” flyers

While handing out homemade 'Save the Planet' flyers on the street, a nine-year-old girl was kidnapped, tortured and stabbed to death by a teacher, according to Russian police. Sofia Zhavoronkova’s head was “smashed” and her face and body “disfigured” after she was lured home by Ulyana Lanskaya, 40, an English language tutor. Hundreds attended the girl’s funeral, many in tears, said local reports in Vologda. Sofia hand wrote the flyers in a notebook with 'save the planet 'announcements', which she handed out to strangers with her friend Alla. One read: “Do not throw rubbish on the ground, because you are polluting nature.” Lanskaya - now remanded in custody - had seen the girls distributing the messages to passers-by and praised them for their green initiative. “Well done, girls, come on, I'll buy you something tasty,” she told them, according to the mother of the other girl. Alla was told by the teacher to go home - unharmed - before she is alleged to have attacked and killed Sofia. The woman took the girls to a cafe for cake, and bought sweets and ice cream for them before allegedly luring them to her home. “Sofia came up with the idea of handing out flyers. She herself wrote them on sheets from her notebook,” said Alla's unnamed mother. Lanskaya is reported to have been distraught after the authorities barred her from raising her own son and daughter, and said Sofia looked like her own child. The teacher had repeatedly claimed her healthy daughter suffered from cancer and needed urgent medical treatment, and had reportedly threatened her child with a knife. After Sofia’s death, police detained Lanskaya on a train heading towards Arctic port Murmansk. She confessed to carrying out the murder, said Russian law enforcement. Later in court, wearing military garments, she said, “I confessed because I'm very ill. I feel unwell, I don't have so long to live.” Despite her claim, investigators say there is no evidence she is terminally ill. During the court proceedings, Lanskaya admitted to inviting the girls to her flat “for tea”. She was covered in slash wounds and her head was “a broken, bloody mess”, reported Vologda-Poisk media. Sofia was reported missing and a huge police search started with 272 volunteers in Vologda city, with the girl’s mother Anna Zhavoronkova, 32, making an emotional appeal on social media. Police eventually located her friend after volunteers scanned CCTV footage and saw the girls together. The friend told them the address where she last saw Sofia, as police went to Lanskaya's house. Lanskaya was absent but police broke in and found Sofia’s body. Her throat had been slit and head battered with a blunt object, say police. A local said Lanskaya "is an intelligent woman, with an education" and “she used to be a tutor in several foreign languages." She was remanded in custody for two months pending the murder investigation. At the funeral, hundreds of mourners carried flowers in the tragic girl's memory. A local report said, “People are silent, do not talk at all. Everyone is crying." “Even men, leaving the church, step aside, light a cigarette and wipe away their tears.” One weeping woman said she came because “my granddaughter is the same age”. Image credits: East2West/Australscope

Legal

The Ocean Decade: how the next ten years can chart a new course for the blue planet

When birdsong was filling the muted days of the first lockdown, marine scientists were noticing something similar in the world’s oceans. Container vessels, cruise ships and drilling platforms had fallen silent, and so the oceans grew quieter than at any other time in recent memory. Researchers are trying to understand how the lull affected ocean life, but there are already stories of whales seizing the chance to sing and dolphins venturing into coastal areas they’d avoided for decades. The year of the quiet ocean is over, and noise pollution is roaring back to pre-pandemic levels, drowning out the sounds that marine species depend on to communicate and make sense of their surroundings. Sadly, that’s just one problem among many. The UN has declared that the next ten years will be <a href="https://www.oceandecade.org/">the Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development</a>, recognising the enormous challenges facing our blue planet. The Conversation has been keeping an eye on some of these as part of our <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/oceans-21-96784">Oceans 21 series</a>. Already, we’ve heard from experts about how chemical pollution in the ocean <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-ocean-pollution-is-a-clear-danger-to-human-health-152641">threatens human health</a>, how the ocean economy is dominated by <a href="https://theconversation.com/blue-economy-how-a-handful-of-companies-reap-most-of-the-benefits-in-multi-billion-ocean-industries-153165">a handful of mega-rich corporations</a> and why global warming is <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-ocean-is-becoming-more-stable-heres-why-that-might-not-be-a-good-thing-157911">making the ocean more stable</a> – with surprisingly worrying results. But we’ve also heard informed reasons for hope. From the geographer studying <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-hopeful-return-of-polar-whales-151487">the recovery of polar whale populations</a> and the team of physicists learning how to track the journey of <a href="https://theconversation.com/where-does-plastic-pollution-go-when-it-enters-the-ocean-155182">each plastic particle</a> when it reaches the shoreline, to the anthropologist documenting the role that <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-scottish-gaelic-is-helping-protect-scotlands-seas-155660">Scottish Gaelic plays in conservation</a> in Outer Hebridean fisheries.

Cruising

Is the dress green or red? Planet-friendly couture won’t be for everyone but it can lead the way

Hollywood legend Jane Fonda hit the 92nd Academy Awards ceremony stage this week in a beaded red dress by Elie Saab – a gown she had <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/jane-fonda-wore-the-same-oscar-dress-she-wore-7-ye">previously worn at Cannes in 2014</a>. <a href="http://www.bafta.org/film/news/ee-rising-star-award-in-2020">Rising star</a> Kaitlyn Dever walked the Oscars red carpet in a deep scarlet Louis Vuitton dress she told reporters was “<a href="https://www.teenvogue.com/story/kaitlyn-dever-oscars-2020">completely sustainable</a>” thanks to fibre technology. Two very different fashion approaches towards saving the planet – but how effective are they at mitigating the environmental impact of fashion? The first comes from an activist trying to be more sustainable, the second from a designer label making production changes. Size of the problem The fashion industry creates in <a href="https://truecostmovie.com/learn-more/environmental-impact">excess of 80 billion pieces</a> of clothing a year and is responsible for <a href="https://www.unece.org/info/media/presscurrent-press-h/forestry-and-timber/2018/un-alliance-aims-to-put-fashion-on-path-to-sustainability/doc.html">10% of global carbon emissions</a>. Chemical dyes in fashion create <a href="https://www.unece.org/info/media/presscurrent-press-h/forestry-and-timber/2018/un-alliance-aims-to-put-fashion-on-path-to-sustainability/doc.html">20% of global waste water</a> and crops such as cotton use <a href="https://www.unece.org/info/media/news/forestry-and-timber/2018/fashion-is-an-environmental-and-social-emergency-but-can-also-drive-progress-towards-the-sustainable-development-goals/doc.html">24% of global insecticides</a>. Microfibers and micro plastics from laundered garments have contaminated our <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es201811s">beaches</a>, <a href="https://orbmedia.org/stories/Invisibles_plastics">bottled drinking water</a>, and <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Microplastics-in-aquatic-food-chain-%3A-sources%2C-and-Hollman-Bouwmeester/e4eb91427fafd7953d17ad6fca9352ae362039f1">aquatic food chain</a>. Fast fashion promotes the reckless over-production and over-consumption of cheaply made clothing, and is reliant on <a href="https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/un-alliance-sustainable-fashion-addresses-damage-fast-fashion">exploiting inexpensive labour</a>. Less than 1% of fabrics can be <a href="https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/A-New-Textiles-Economy.pdf">recycled</a> and fibre-to-fibre recycling technology is still in its infancy, without the infrastructure to address the vast amount of garments produced. A ‘completely sustainable’ dress? Dever’s dress was made from a material called “Tencel Luxe”, with lyocell fibre created from sustainably-grown trees. The wood is cut into tiny pieces, dissolved in a solvent and extruded into a soft cellulose fibre. This process was first developed in 1972 to create a cheap cotton substitute, often blended into cotton and polyester in inexpensive fabrics. Over time, lyocell improved to make a fabric more appropriate for luxury products. The sustainability of the fabric has also improved significantly. Today, 99% of the solvent used in the manufacturing process is recyclable. The fabric itself has the same challenges as cotton when <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978008102041800007X">it comes to recycling</a>. The length of the fibres break down and shortens over time, lowering the quality when recycled into new fabrics – unless virgin material is added. Indeed, lyocell fabric is far from perfect, and requires a large amount of energy in its production. Just substituting one material for another does not solve sustainability problems. Dever’s dress was made over <a href="https://www.latimes.com/lifestyle/story/2020-02-09/oscars-2020-red-carpet-green-dress?_amp=true">1,900 hours</a> by a team of artisans with 14,400 Swarovski crystals and glass beads. A gown this opulent uses so much material, energy and labour that its carbon footprint becomes excessive. The sustainability measure of a garment must include how it is recycled after its life. At present, some cutting edge <a href="https://www.blocktexx.com/News/Recycling-International">fibre-to-fibre recycling</a> technologies exist but Louis Vuitton is yet to offer recycling services. The Louis Vuitton group hosts the <a href="https://vivatechnology.com/partners/lvmh/">Viva Tech Conference</a> for exhibitors working on sustainable concepts to showcase their developments. It is encouraging that the company’s chairman and chief executive Bernard Arnault <a href="https://r.lvmh-static.com/uploads/2019/09/lvmh__ra_environnement_2018_gb-1.pdf">believes</a>“sustainable, globalised growth is possible” and a priority for the company. A second outing With her commitment to climate change activism, Fonda has said she will <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-jane-fonda-keeps-wearing-red-coat-getting-arrested-1252315">no longer buy new clothing</a>. In a world that demands novelty, Fonda’s bold act of choosing an old gown that tastefully fits into today’s trends truly brings “vintage” clothing to the red carpet. Fonda used her celebrity influence to turn a dress on the red carpet into a political symbol. Her <a href="https://www.marieclaire.com.au/jane-fonda-fire-drill-fridays-explained">vow</a> not to buy new clothing was <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/dec/06/jane-fonda-joining-climate-fight-greta-thunberg-trump">inspired</a> by teenage activist Greta Thunberg, who Fonda said showed that we can’t just “go about our business” in the face of a climate emergency. No stranger to being <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/dec/06/jane-fonda-joining-climate-fight-greta-thunberg-trump">arrested</a>, Fonda’s real world activism is the type needed to change government policies in ways that reign in the fashion industry. Activists can petition governments, watch over corporations and form grassroots community groups to organise change. Celebrities who straddle the red carpet and the picket line such as Jane Fonda (or Emma Thompson for Extinction Rebellion) are key to a sustainable fashion industry. Think before you shop It is inspiring to see these two stars’ dresses become talking points. It shows the public’s growing awareness of climate change and their willingness to change their behaviour to make a difference. The fashion industry will determine significant aspects of the future of our environment and the lives of over 40 million workers around the world. From developing new green technology to changing consumer consumption behaviour and outlawing exploitative labour practices that make fast fashion possible, we are still a long way from a “completely sustainable” industry. Corporations will need to evolve and adapt to customers who demand sustainability. They will have to offer services that recycle garments after they have been used, and embrace recycled materials. Celebrities bring these issues to the public and give them steps they can take right now. When asked by a reporter about what people could do right now to be more sustainable, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W70vbDdC2cc">Dever said</a>, “it’s just a matter of letting it be a part of your lifestyle”. With fashion, I think you can think a little before you buy something brand new, and I think can also support vintage – I think that’s really, really important. And also look into the brands you’re supporting. This is a great starting point which hopefully continues into a deeper conversation about how far we yet have to go. Written by Mark Liu. Republished with permission of <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-the-dress-green-or-red-planet-friendly-couture-wont-be-for-everyone-but-it-can-lead-the-way-131469">The Conversation</a>.

Beauty & Style

What does a healthy diet look like for us and the planet?

I want people to think about the food that they eat not just from “field to fork” but from “seed to soul”. I’ve studied how to make the world’s food supply sustainable for more than 30 years, so people often ask me what’s the best diet for the planet. The problem is, most people want easy answers to that question. Sadly, there are none. For example, I’ve often thought about becoming vegetarian for ethical and environmental reasons. But I wouldn’t want to eat soya or other foodstuffs imported from the other side of the world because of the carbon emissions involved in transporting them. And if we’re going to acknowledge the ethical quandary of eating animals, what about the animals in the soil? Why is crushing, slicing, and dicing mini beasts in agricultural operations alright, but not for the big beasts? When I follow these arguments through to their full conclusions, I end up as an organic, temperate, fruitarian – only eating fruit grown close to home, without the use of pesticides. When it comes to finding a sustainable diet, there are many contradictions. A concept such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/food-miles-6475">food miles</a> can be helpful for figuring out the carbon emissions involved in bringing particular food items to your plate. It’s simple to understand – but it’s also likely to be meaningless. After all, it’s not just about how far something has travelled, but the environmental cost of that journey and how it was originally produced. It can be argued that New Zealand lamb consumed in the UK has less of an environmental impact than locally produced lamb. New Zealand lamb production involves <a href="https://www.nzagrc.org.nz/beef-sheep-sector,listing,390,what-options-are-available-to-limit-emissions-growth.html">fewer carbon “rich” inputs</a> such as fertilisers. There is also a highly efficient transport system in New Zealand that is based on bigger farms and bigger lorries – producing and transporting more meat with less land and fewer emissions. This results in less greenhouse gas <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1553456/Greener-by-miles.html">per kilogram of meat</a>. But just because things are complicated, it doesn’t mean that we should give up. It’s clear that our health and the planet would benefit if people ate more fruit and vegetables and less meat. Eating seasonal produce, or food fresh from the fields, is a good idea too, particularly as it reconnects people with food and the land in which it’s produced. It forces us to engage with the reality that different crops are produced at different times of the year. Strawberries are a celebration of summer, spring greens of the spring. But what does a seasonal diet look like for someone living in a temperate climate such as the UK’s? With the help of technology, we can grow many exotic crops in the UK which would otherwise perish in the climate. The problem is that much of this involves carbon-hungry technology, such as glasshouses heated by burning gas or vast fields of plastic polytunnels. What would our diet look like if we grew all our food within the natural seasons and climate of our local area? <h2>Dinner dates</h2> Summer is great as we can feast on a wide range of fruits and vegetables. It’s easier during this season to follow the health advice to eat the rainbow. That is, to eat as broad a spectrum of colourful fruit and vegetables as possible. British summer affords strawberries, radishes, tomatoes and blueberries. There are salads and summer puddings to enjoy for an injection of other colours, particularly green. If people are clever, many crops can be preserved for the coming winter. Ironically, during summer when much of our natural produce is plentiful, the UK still imports much of its food. As we move into autumn, unless crops are protected by growing them inside a glasshouse or polytunnel, many of the more delicate foodstuffs start to wither away. We become increasingly dependent on roots such as beetroot, carrots, potatoes, swede and parsnips, and the leafy brassicas such as Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower and kale. Of course there are other ingredients – let’s not forget leeks and swiss chard – but this is a time to hunker down and embrace what the Scandinavians call “hygge”. Getting cosy and comfortable with stews, soups and broths. Things get more austere as winter progresses. This is one reason why our ancestors had midwinter feasts around Christmas and the winter solstice. Nights were long, they needed to have a party to forget the winter and look forward to spring. Even in late February and March, when we start thinking of spring, there’s a hidden problem – the hunger gap. This is when the autumn crops that have survived through winter start to die off and the spring crops are yet to come. Little things such as purple sprouting broccoli – also known as poor people’s asparagus – can offer some solace as they are ready to eat in winter. Of course, we can also preserve food from one season to another, but this requires energy. There are traditional skills that require less energy, but at the same time demand increasingly rare knowledge and time. For example, how many people bottle their surplus fruit and vegetables or pickle eggs? Consuming local seasonal food in large amounts throughout the year will mean restructuring traditional food production systems and supply chains. These have been decimated by the concentration of food supply in the hands of fewer and fewer retailers and contract caterers. Winter would test our ability to preserve the bounty of summer and autumn, but spring would relieve us with artichokes, beetroot, new potatoes, rhubarb, rocket, sorrel and spinach. After that, the cycle begins again. As I say, a truly sustainable food supply isn’t going to be simple. Much of it involves reviving cultural knowledge and processes that commercial supermarket chains have replaced. But the rewards of a local and seasonal food supply are great for nature and your health. Reconnecting with the land and its seasonal rhythms could do us all a great amount of good. Written by Sean Beer, Senior Lecturer in Agriculture, Bournemouth University. Republished with permission of <a rel="noopener" href="https://theconversation.com/what-does-a-healthy-diet-look-like-for-me-and-the-planet-it-depends-where-you-live-123470" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.

Food & Wine

How streaming music could be harming the planet

Two professors at the University of Oslo have concluded that music streaming has had more of a negative impact on the environment than purchasing a physical product (such as a C.D). The study was on the economic and environmental costs of the music industry since the 1970s “Intuitively you might think that less physical product means far lower carbon emissions. Unfortunately, this is not the case,” Kyle Devine, an associate at the University of Oslo says. Despite the decline in CDs, which has fallen 18.5 per cent since last year, the decline doesn’t offset the environmental cost of maintaining streaming services, such as YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music and Pandora. As streaming services utilise large amounts of computing power, servers, storage and cloud capabilities, the increased power usage means more greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Devine calculated that 140 million kilograms of GHGs were emitted in 1977, which was calculated by converting past plastic production to emissions. Using the same formula, it was discovered that the recorded music industry emitted between 200 million and 350 million kg of GHGs in 2016. Devine revealed to <a href="https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1120086/Climate-change-plastic-CD-listen-music-global-warming-study-Spotify-Apple-Amazon">Express</a> that he was surprised by the results. “I am a bit surprised. The hidden environmental cost of music consumption is enormous.” He reveals more in his book Decomposed: The Political Ecology of Music. A brief summary of the book reads: “Today, recordings exist as data-based audio files. Devine describes the people who harvest and process these materials, from women and children in the Global South to scientists and industrialists in the Global North. “He reminds us that vinyl records are oil products, and that the so-called vinyl revival is part of petrocapitalism. “The supposed immateriality of music as data is belied by the energy required to power the internet and the devices required to access music online. “We tend to think of the recordings we buy as finished products. Devine offers an essential backstory.”

Music

Why Netflix is under fire for this tragic walrus scene in David Attenborough’s Our Planet

Netflix has come under fire after their controversial decision to air a mass walrus suicide in a David Attenborough documentary. The new nature series Our Planet left viewers covering their eyes as the disturbing scene played out on their screens. The scene features a group of walruses falling to their death from a steep cliff in the Bering Strait, resulting in a bloody death on the jagged rocks below. The film crew became the centre of an outcry after people said that footage of that nature should not have been shown in the episode. The documentary claimed that the confronting scene was the result of climate change, with Attenborough revealing that melting sea ice was what drove the animals off the cliff. “Walruses’ eyesight out of the water is poor, but they can sense the others down below; as they get hungry, they need to return to the sea,” he said. “In their desperation to do so, hundreds fall from heights they should never have scaled.” But many people accused drones and the crew for the tragic events that unfolded. Zoologist Susan Crockford put forth the theory that the walruses dying could be due to polar bears, as climate change causing the demise is an unlikely phenomenon. “The lie being told by Attenborough and the film crew is that 200-300 walruses fell during the time they were filming, while in fact they filmed only a few: polar bears were responsible for the majority of the carcasses shown on the beach below the cliff,” Ms Crockford wrote on her website. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/qVJzQc9ELTE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen=""></iframe> “This is, of course, in addition to the bigger lie that lack of sea ice is to blame for walrus herds being onshore in the first place.” She slammed film crew for deceptive tactics, saying that they possibly edited out footage of polar bears chasing the walruses off the cliff. “The film crew have steadfastly refused to reveal precisely where and when they filmed the walrus deaths shown in this film in relation to the walrus deaths initiated by polar bears reported by The Siberian Times in the fall of 2017,” she said. But the producer of the show, Sophie Lanfear shut down claims on Twitter, saying “bears were not driving them off the cliffs” while filming. The shows crew has also been accused of scaring the animals with their filming equipment, but Ms Lanfear also refuted that claim. “When approaching the walruses, we made sure we were downwind of them and that we could not be seen,” she said. “We only stood up when it was safe to do so and when we weren’t at risk of scaring any walruses

Movies

Lonely Planet founder names 10 best cities for 2018

When the co-founder of one of the world’s most-popular travel guides is offering holiday advice, generally it’s in your best interest to listen. Tony Wheeler, who famously helped bring the Lonely Planet book series to life, has named what he thinks are the 10 best cities for tourists to visit in 2018. And a few of the inclusions are quite interesting. If you’re itching for a holiday this year, but not quite sure where to go, this guide will provide you with a compass of the destinations that are really coming into their own in 2018. To see the 10 best cities to visit in 2018, scroll through the gallery above. Have you been to any of these cities?

International Travel

Our Partners

Over 60

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

Handkerchief or tissue? Which one’s better for our health and the planet?

Our planet is burning in unexpected ways - here’s how we can protect people and nature

If the world were coming to an end, what would be the most ethical way to rebuild humanity ‘off planet’?

The 7 most addictive (and delicious) foods on the planet

Billionaire throws star-studded party for most famous names on the planet

All-electric homes are better for your hip pocket and the planet. Here’s how governments can help us get off gas

Who wants to be a billionaire? Thankfully for the planet, most people don’t

Astronomers have detected another ‘planet killer’ asteroid. Could we miss one coming our way?

Cadbury's huge change in a bid to save the planet

Why ‘best before’ food labelling is not best for the planet or your budget

The planets are aligning and here’s how to see it

Electric cars alone won’t save the planet. We’ll need to design cities so people can walk and cycle safely

Teacher kills 9-year-old handing out “Save The Planet” flyers

The Ocean Decade: how the next ten years can chart a new course for the blue planet

Is the dress green or red? Planet-friendly couture won’t be for everyone but it can lead the way

What does a healthy diet look like for us and the planet?

How streaming music could be harming the planet

Why Netflix is under fire for this tragic walrus scene in David Attenborough’s Our Planet

Lonely Planet founder names 10 best cities for 2018

Our Partners

News

Shop

Catalogues

Newspaper

Contests

Entertainment

Travel

Health

Lifestyle

Finance

Property

Compare

Games

Information

Keep up to date

Search

Debate sparked over list of top 100 cities on the planet

Handkerchief or tissue? Which one’s better for our health and the planet?

Our planet is burning in unexpected ways - here’s how we can protect people and nature

If the world were coming to an end, what would be the most ethical way to rebuild humanity ‘off planet’?

The 7 most addictive (and delicious) foods on the planet

Billionaire throws star-studded party for most famous names on the planet

All-electric homes are better for your hip pocket and the planet. Here’s how governments can help us get off gas

Who wants to be a billionaire? Thankfully for the planet, most people don’t

Astronomers have detected another ‘planet killer’ asteroid. Could we miss one coming our way?

Cadbury's huge change in a bid to save the planet

Why ‘best before’ food labelling is not best for the planet or your budget

The planets are aligning and here’s how to see it

Electric cars alone won’t save the planet. We’ll need to design cities so people can walk and cycle safely

Teacher kills 9-year-old handing out “Save The Planet” flyers

The Ocean Decade: how the next ten years can chart a new course for the blue planet

Is the dress green or red? Planet-friendly couture won’t be for everyone but it can lead the way

What does a healthy diet look like for us and the planet?

How streaming music could be harming the planet

Why Netflix is under fire for this tragic walrus scene in David Attenborough’s Our Planet

Lonely Planet founder names 10 best cities for 2018

Our Partners

Join Over60